Initial commit of ebook 77777 filesHEAD main

author: www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org> 2026-01-25 11:32:41 -0800
committer: www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org> 2026-01-25 11:32:41 -0800
commit: 6123683c0297ab7d7ceb4f99f072ff9eb8e97686 (patch)
tree: 6f0b5e22386a0a01f083ed885194e354686496c2
7 files changed, 39687 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/77777-h/77777-h.htm b/77777-h/77777-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..54ccf77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/77777-h/77777-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,18584 @@
+<!DOCTYPE HTML>
+<!-- This HTML file has been automatically generated from an XML source on 2026-01-24T16:29:23Z using SAXON HE 9.9.1.8 . -->
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+<title>The Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics | Project Gutenberg</title>
+<meta charset="utf-8">
+<meta name="generator" content="tei2html.xsl, see https://github.com/jhellingman/tei2html">
+<meta name="author" content="Eduard Zeller (1814–1908)">
+<link rel="coverpage" href="images/new-cover.jpg">
+<link rel="icon" href="images/new-cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover">
+<meta name="DC.Title" content="The Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics">
+<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Eduard Zeller (1814–1908)">
+<meta name="DC.Contributor" content="Oswald Joseph Reichel (1840–1923)">
+<meta name="DC.Language" content="en">
+<meta name="DC.Format" content="text/html">
+<meta name="DC.Publisher" content="Project Gutenberg">
+<style> /* <![CDATA[ */
+html {
+line-height: 1.3;
+}
+body {
+margin: 0;
+}
+main {
+display: block;
+}
+h1 {
+font-size: 2em;
+margin: 0.67em 0;
+}
+hr {
+height: 0;
+overflow: visible;
+}
+pre {
+font-family: monospace;
+font-size: 1em;
+}
+a {
+background-color: transparent;
+}
+abbr[title] {
+border-bottom: none;
+text-decoration: underline;
+}
+b, strong {
+font-weight: bolder;
+}
+code, kbd, samp {
+font-family: monospace;
+font-size: 1em;
+}
+small {
+font-size: 80%;
+}
+sub, sup {
+font-size: 67%;
+line-height: 0;
+position: relative;
+vertical-align: baseline;
+}
+sub {
+bottom: -0.25em;
+}
+sup {
+top: -0.5em;
+}
+img {
+border-style: none;
+}
+body {
+font-family: serif;
+font-size: 100%;
+text-align: left;
+margin-top: 2.4em;
+}
+div.front, div.body {
+margin-bottom: 7.2em;
+}
+div.back {
+margin-bottom: 2.4em;
+}
+.div0 {
+margin-top: 7.2em;
+margin-bottom: 7.2em;
+}
+.div1 {
+margin-top: 5.6em;
+margin-bottom: 5.6em;
+}
+.div2 {
+margin-top: 4.8em;
+margin-bottom: 4.8em;
+}
+.div3 {
+margin-top: 3.6em;
+margin-bottom: 3.6em;
+}
+.div4 {
+margin-top: 2.4em;
+margin-bottom: 2.4em;
+}
+.div5, .div6, .div7 {
+margin-top: 1.44em;
+margin-bottom: 1.44em;
+}
+.div0:last-child, .div1:last-child, .div2:last-child, .div3:last-child,
+.div4:last-child, .div5:last-child, .div6:last-child, .div7:last-child {
+margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+blockquote div.front, blockquote div.body, blockquote div.back {
+margin-top: 0;
+margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+.divBody .div1:first-child, .divBody .div2:first-child, .divBody .div3:first-child, .divBody .div4:first-child,
+.divBody .div5:first-child, .divBody .div6:first-child, .divBody .div7:first-child {
+margin-top: 0;
+}
+h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, .h1, .h2, .h3, .h4, .h5, .h6 {
+clear: both;
+font-style: normal;
+text-transform: none;
+}
+h3, .h3 {
+font-size: 1.2em;
+}
+h3.label {
+font-size: 1em;
+margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+h4, .h4 {
+font-size: 1em;
+}
+.alignleft {
+text-align: left;
+}
+.alignright {
+text-align: right;
+}
+.alignblock {
+text-align: justify;
+}
+p.tb, hr.tb, .par.tb, li.tb {
+margin: 1.6em auto;
+text-align: center;
+}
+p.argument, p.note, p.tocArgument, .par.argument, .par.note, .par.tocArgument {
+font-size: 0.9em;
+text-indent: 0;
+}
+p.argument, p.tocArgument, .par.argument, .par.tocArgument {
+margin: 1.58em 10%;
+}
+.opener, .address {
+margin-top: 1.6em;
+margin-bottom: 1.6em;
+}
+.addrline {
+margin-top: 0;
+margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+.dateline {
+margin-top: 1.6em;
+margin-bottom: 1.6em;
+text-align: right;
+}
+.salute {
+margin-top: 1.6em;
+margin-left: 3.58em;
+text-indent: -2em;
+}
+.signed {
+margin-top: 1.6em;
+margin-left: 3.58em;
+text-indent: -2em;
+}
+.epigraph {
+font-size: 0.9em;
+width: 60%;
+margin-left: auto;
+}
+.epigraph span.bibl {
+display: block;
+text-align: right;
+}
+.trailer {
+clear: both;
+margin-top: 3.6em;
+}
+span.abbr, abbr {
+white-space: nowrap;
+}
+span.parNum {
+font-weight: bold;
+}
+span.corr, span.gap {
+border-bottom: 1px dotted red;
+}
+span.num, span.trans {
+border-bottom: 1px dotted gray;
+}
+span.measure {
+border-bottom: 1px dotted green;
+}
+.ex {
+letter-spacing: 0.2em;
+}
+.sc {
+font-variant: small-caps;
+}
+.asc {
+font-variant: small-caps;
+text-transform: lowercase;
+}
+.uc {
+text-transform: uppercase;
+}
+.tt {
+font-family: monospace;
+}
+.underline {
+text-decoration: underline;
+}
+.overline, .overtilde {
+text-decoration: overline;
+}
+.rm {
+font-style: normal;
+}
+.red {
+color: red;
+}
+hr {
+clear: both;
+border: none;
+border-bottom: 1px solid black;
+width: 45%;
+margin-left: auto;
+margin-right: auto;
+margin-top: 1em;
+text-align: center;
+}
+hr.dotted {
+border-bottom: 2px dotted black;
+}
+hr.dashed {
+border-bottom: 2px dashed black;
+}
+.aligncenter {
+text-align: center;
+}
+h1, h2, .h1, .h2 {
+font-size: 1.44em;
+line-height: 1.5;
+}
+h1.label, h2.label {
+font-size: 1.2em;
+margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+h5, h6 {
+font-size: 1em;
+font-style: italic;
+}
+p, .par {
+text-indent: 0;
+}
+p.firstlinecaps:first-line, .par.firstlinecaps:first-line {
+text-transform: uppercase;
+}
+.hangq {
+text-indent: -0.32em;
+}
+.hangqq {
+text-indent: -0.42em;
+}
+.hangqqq {
+text-indent: -0.84em;
+}
+p.dropcap:first-letter, .par.dropcap:first-letter {
+float: left;
+clear: left;
+margin: 0 0.05em 0 0;
+padding: 0;
+line-height: 0.8;
+font-size: 420%;
+vertical-align: super;
+}
+blockquote, p.quote, div.blockquote, div.argument, .par.quote {
+font-size: 0.9em;
+margin: 1.58em 5%;
+}
+.pageNum a, a.noteRef:hover, a.pseudoNoteRef:hover, a.hidden:hover, a.hidden {
+text-decoration: none;
+}
+.advertisement, .advertisements {
+background-color: #FFFEE0;
+border: black 1px dotted;
+color: #000;
+margin: 2em 5%;
+padding: 1em;
+}
+span.accent {
+display: inline-block;
+text-align: center;
+}
+span.accent, span.accent span.top, span.accent span.base {
+line-height: 0.40em;
+}
+span.accent span.top {
+font-weight: bold;
+font-size: 5pt;
+}
+span.accent span.base {
+display: block;
+}
+.footnotes .body, .footnotes .div1 {
+padding: 0;
+}
+.fnarrow {
+color: #AAAAAA;
+font-weight: bold;
+text-decoration: none;
+}
+.fnarrow:hover, .fnreturn:hover {
+color: #660000;
+}
+.fnreturn {
+color: #AAAAAA;
+font-size: 80%;
+font-weight: bold;
+text-decoration: none;
+vertical-align: 0.25em;
+}
+a {
+text-decoration: none;
+}
+a:hover {
+text-decoration: underline;
+background-color: #e9f5ff;
+}
+a.noteRef, a.pseudoNoteRef {
+font-size: 67%;
+vertical-align: super;
+text-decoration: none;
+margin-left: 0.1em;
+}
+.externalUrl {
+font-size: small;
+font-family: monospace;
+color: gray;
+}
+.displayfootnote {
+display: none;
+}
+div.footnotes {
+font-size: 80%;
+margin-top: 1em;
+padding: 0;
+}
+hr.fnsep {
+margin-left: 0;
+margin-right: 0;
+text-align: left;
+width: 25%;
+}
+p.footnote, .par.footnote {
+margin-bottom: 0.5em;
+margin-top: 0.5em;
+}
+p.footnote .fnlabel, .par.footnote .fnlabel {
+float: left;
+margin-left: -0.1em;
+min-width: 1.0em;
+padding-right: 0.4em;
+height: 1ex;
+}
+.apparatusnote {
+text-decoration: none;
+}
+.apparatusnote:target, .fndiv:target {
+background-color: #eaf3ff;
+}
+table.tocList {
+width: 100%;
+margin-left: auto;
+margin-right: auto;
+border-width: 0;
+border-collapse: collapse;
+}
+td.tocText {
+padding-top: 2em;
+padding-bottom: 1em;
+}
+td.tocPageNum, td.tocDivNum {
+text-align: right;
+min-width: 10%;
+border-width: 0;
+white-space: nowrap;
+}
+td.tocDivNum {
+padding-left: 0;
+padding-right: 0.5em;
+vertical-align: top;
+}
+td.tocPageNum {
+padding-left: 0.5em;
+padding-right: 0;
+vertical-align: bottom;
+}
+td.tocDivTitle {
+width: auto;
+}
+p.tocPart, .par.tocPart {
+margin: 1.58em 0;
+font-variant: small-caps;
+}
+p.tocChapter, .par.tocChapter {
+margin: 1.58em 0;
+}
+p.tocSection, .par.tocSection {
+margin: 0.7em 5%;
+}
+table.tocList td {
+vertical-align: top;
+}
+table.tocList td.tocPageNum {
+vertical-align: bottom;
+}
+table.inner {
+display: inline-table;
+border-collapse: collapse;
+width: 100%;
+}
+td.itemNum {
+text-align: right;
+min-width: 5%;
+padding-right: 0.8em;
+}
+td.innerContainer {
+padding: 0;
+margin: 0;
+}
+.index {
+font-size: 80%;
+}
+.index p {
+text-indent: -1em;
+margin-left: 1em;
+}
+.indexToc {
+text-align: center;
+}
+.transcriberNote {
+background-color: #DDE;
+border: black 1px dotted;
+color: #000;
+font-family: sans-serif;
+font-size: 80%;
+margin: 2em 5%;
+padding: 1em;
+}
+.missingTarget {
+text-decoration: line-through;
+color: red;
+}
+.correctionTable {
+width: 75%;
+}
+.width20 {
+width: 20%;
+}
+.width40 {
+width: 40%;
+}
+p.smallprint, li.smallprint, .par.smallprint {
+color: #666666;
+font-size: 80%;
+}
+span.musictime {
+vertical-align: middle;
+display: inline-block;
+text-align: center;
+}
+span.musictime, span.musictime span.top, span.musictime span.bottom {
+padding: 1px 0.5px;
+font-size: xx-small;
+font-weight: bold;
+line-height: 0.7em;
+}
+span.musictime span.bottom {
+display: block;
+}
+audio {
+height: 20px;
+margin-left: 0.5em;
+margin-right: 0.5em;
+}
+ul {
+list-style-type: none;
+}
+.splitListTable {
+margin-left: 0;
+}
+.splitListTable td {
+vertical-align: top;
+}
+.numberedItem {
+text-indent: -3em;
+margin-left: 3em;
+}
+.numberedItem .itemNumber {
+float: left;
+position: relative;
+left: -3.5em;
+width: 3em;
+display: inline-block;
+text-align: right;
+}
+.itemGroupTable {
+border-collapse: collapse;
+margin-left: 0;
+}
+.itemGroupTable td {
+padding: 0;
+margin: 0;
+vertical-align: middle;
+}
+.itemGroupBrace {
+padding: 0 0.5em !important;
+}
+.titlePage {
+border: #DDDDDD 2px solid;
+margin: 3em 0 7em;
+padding: 5em 10% 6em;
+text-align: center;
+}
+.titlePage .docTitle {
+line-height: 1.7;
+margin: 2em 0;
+font-weight: bold;
+}
+.titlePage .docTitle .mainTitle {
+font-size: 1.8em;
+font-weight: inherit;
+font-variant: inherit;
+line-height: inherit;
+}
+.titlePage .docTitle .subTitle,
+.titlePage .docTitle .seriesTitle,
+.titlePage .docTitle .volumeTitle {
+font-size: 1.44em;
+font-weight: inherit;
+font-variant: inherit;
+line-height: inherit;
+}
+.titlePage .byline {
+margin: 2em 0;
+font-size: 1.2em;
+line-height: 1.5;
+}
+.titlePage .byline .docAuthor {
+font-size: 1.2em;
+font-weight: bold;
+}
+.titlePage .figure {
+margin: 2em auto;
+}
+.titlePage .docImprint {
+margin: 4em 0 0;
+font-size: 1.2em;
+line-height: 1.5;
+}
+.titlePage .docImprint .docDate {
+font-size: 1.2em;
+font-weight: bold;
+}
+div.figure, div.figureGroup {
+text-align: center;
+}
+table.figureGroupTable {
+width: 80%;
+border-collapse: collapse;
+}
+.figure, .figureGroup {
+margin-left: auto;
+margin-right: auto;
+}
+.floatLeft {
+float: left;
+margin: 10px 10px 10px 0;
+}
+.floatRight {
+float: right;
+margin: 10px 0 10px 10px;
+}
+p.figureHead, .par.figureHead {
+font-size: 100%;
+text-align: center;
+}
+.figAnnotation {
+font-size: 80%;
+position: relative;
+margin: 0 auto;
+}
+.figTopLeft, .figBottomLeft {
+float: left;
+}
+.figTopRight, .figBottomRight {
+float: right;
+}
+.figure p, .figure .par, .figureGroup p, .figureGroup .par {
+font-size: 80%;
+margin-top: 0;
+text-align: center;
+}
+img {
+border-width: 0;
+}
+td.galleryFigure {
+text-align: center;
+vertical-align: middle;
+}
+td.galleryCaption {
+text-align: center;
+vertical-align: top;
+}
+.lgouter {
+margin-left: auto;
+margin-right: auto;
+display: table;
+}
+.lg {
+text-align: left;
+padding: .5em 0;
+}
+.lg h4, .lgouter h4 {
+font-weight: normal;
+}
+.lg .lineNum, .sp .lineNum, .lgouter .lineNum {
+color: #777;
+font-size: 90%;
+left: 16%;
+margin: 0;
+position: absolute;
+text-align: center;
+text-indent: 0;
+top: auto;
+width: 1.75em;
+}
+p.line, .par.line {
+margin: 0;
+}
+span.hemistich {
+visibility: hidden;
+}
+.verseNum {
+font-weight: bold;
+}
+div.i1 { padding-left: 0.5em; }
+div.i2 { padding-left: 1em; }
+div.i3 { padding-left: 1.5em; }
+div.i4 { padding-left: 2em; }
+div.i5 { padding-left: 2.5em; }
+div.i6 { padding-left: 3em; }
+div.i7 { padding-left: 3.5em; }
+div.i8 { padding-left: 4em; }
+div.i9 { padding-left: 4.5em; }
+div.i10 { padding-left: 5em; }
+div.i11 { padding-left: 5.5em; }
+div.i12 { padding-left: 6em; }
+div.i13 { padding-left: 6.5em; }
+div.i14 { padding-left: 7em; }
+div.i15 { padding-left: 7.5em; }
+div.i16 { padding-left: 8em; }
+p.i1 {text-indent: 0.5em; }
+p.i2 {text-indent: 1em; }
+p.i3 {text-indent: 1.5em; }
+p.i4 {text-indent: 2em; }
+p.i5 {text-indent: 2.5em; }
+p.i6 {text-indent: 3em; }
+p.i7 {text-indent: 3.5em; }
+p.i8 {text-indent: 4em; }
+p.i9 {text-indent: 4.5em; }
+p.i10 {text-indent: 5em; }
+p.i11 {text-indent: 5.5em; }
+p.i12 {text-indent: 6em; }
+p.i13 {text-indent: 6.5em; }
+p.i14 {text-indent: 7em; }
+p.i15 {text-indent: 7.5em; }
+p.i16 {text-indent: 8em; }
+.speaker {
+font-weight: bold;
+margin-bottom: 0.4em;
+}
+.sp .line {
+margin: 0 10%;
+text-align: left;
+}
+.castlist, .castitem {
+list-style-type: none;
+}
+.castGroupTable {
+border-collapse: collapse;
+margin-left: 0;
+}
+.castGroupTable td {
+padding: 0;
+margin: 0;
+vertical-align: middle;
+}
+.castGroupBrace {
+padding: 0 0.5em !important;
+}
+body {
+padding: 1.58em 16%;
+}
+.pageNum {
+display: inline;
+font-size: 8.4pt;
+font-style: normal;
+margin: 0;
+padding: 0;
+position: absolute;
+right: 1%;
+text-align: right;
+letter-spacing: normal;
+}
+.marginnote {
+font-size: 0.8em;
+height: 0;
+left: 1%;
+position: absolute;
+text-indent: 0;
+width: 14%;
+text-align: left;
+}
+.right-marginnote {
+font-size: 0.8em;
+height: 0;
+right: 3%;
+position: absolute;
+text-indent: 0;
+text-align: right;
+width: 11%
+}
+.cut-in-left-note {
+font-size: 0.8em;
+left: 1%;
+float: left;
+text-indent: 0;
+width: 14%;
+text-align: left;
+padding: 0.8em 0.8em 0.8em 0;
+}
+.cut-in-right-note {
+font-size: 0.8em;
+left: 1%;
+float: right;
+text-indent: 0;
+width: 14%;
+text-align: right;
+padding: 0.8em 0 0.8em 0.8em;
+}
+span.tocPageNum, span.flushright {
+position: absolute;
+right: 16%;
+top: auto;
+text-indent: 0;
+}
+.pglink::after {
+content: "\0000A0\01F4D8";
+font-size: 80%;
+font-style: normal;
+font-weight: normal;
+}
+.catlink::after {
+content: "\0000A0\01F4C7";
+font-size: 80%;
+font-style: normal;
+font-weight: normal;
+}
+.exlink::after, .wplink::after, .biblink::after, .qurlink::after, .seclink::after {
+content: "\0000A0\002197\00FE0F";
+color: blue;
+font-size: 80%;
+font-style: normal;
+font-weight: normal;
+}
+.pglink:hover {
+background-color: #DCFFDC;
+}
+.catlink:hover {
+background-color: #FFFFDC;
+}
+.exlink:hover, .wplink:hover, .biblink:hover, .qurlink:hover, .seclin:hover {
+background-color: #FFDCDC;
+}
+body {
+background: #FFFFFF;
+font-family: serif;
+}
+body, a.hidden {
+color: black;
+}
+h1, h2, .h1, .h2 {
+text-align: center;
+font-variant: small-caps;
+font-weight: normal;
+}
+p.byline {
+text-align: center;
+font-style: italic;
+margin-bottom: 2em;
+}
+.div2 p.byline, .div3 p.byline, .div4 p.byline, .div5 p.byline, .div6 p.byline, .div7 p.byline {
+text-align: left;
+}
+.figureHead, .noteRef, .pseudoNoteRef, .marginnote, .right-marginnote, p.legend, .verseNum {
+color: #660000;
+}
+.rightnote, .pageNum, .lineNum, .pageNum a {
+color: #AAAAAA;
+}
+a.hidden:hover, a.noteRef:hover, a.pseudoNoteRef:hover {
+color: red;
+}
+h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
+font-weight: normal;
+}
+table {
+margin-left: auto;
+margin-right: auto;
+}
+td.tocText {
+text-align: center;
+font-variant: small-caps;
+font-size: 1.2em;
+line-height: 1.5;
+}
+.tableCaption {
+text-align: center;
+}
+.arab { font-family: Scheherazade, serif; }
+.aran { font-family: 'Awami Nastaliq', serif; }
+.grek { font-family: 'Charis SIL', serif; }
+.hebr { font-family: 'SBL Hebrew', Shlomo, 'Ezra SIL', serif; }
+.syrc { font-family: 'Serto Jerusalem', serif; }
+body {
+font-family: 'Brill', serif;
+line-height: 1.4;
+}
+h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, .h1, .h2, .h3, .h4, .titlePage {
+font-family: 'Brill', serif;
+}
+h1, h2, h3, h4, .h1, .h2, .h3, .titlePage {
+text-transform: uppercase;
+}
+h5, h6 {
+font-style: italic;
+}
+.transcriberNote {
+font-family: 'Brill', serif;
+font-size: 100%;
+}
+.hangq { text-indent: -0.24em; }
+.hangqq { text-indent: -0.42em; }
+.hangqqq { text-indent: -0.68em; }
+.grek, .cyrl { font-family: 'Brill', serif; }
+/* CSS rules generated from rendition elements in TEI file */
+.xs {
+font-size: x-small;
+}
+.small {
+font-size: small;
+}
+.large {
+font-size: large;
+}
+.vam {
+vertical-align: middle;
+}
+.center {
+text-align: center;
+}
+/* CSS rules generated from @rend attributes in TEI file */
+.cover-imagewidth {
+width:480px;
+}
+.titlepage-imagewidth {
+width:467px;
+}
+.xd33e44775 {
+text-indent:4em;
+}
+.xd33e44936 {
+text-indent:2em;
+}
+/* ]]> */ </style>
+</head>
+<body>
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77777 ***</div>
+<div class="front">
+<div class="div1 cover"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#toc">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"></p>
+<div class="figure cover-imagewidth"><img src="images/new-cover.jpg" alt="Newly Designed Front Cover." width="480" height="720"></div><p>
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div class="div1 titlepage"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#toc">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"></p>
+<div class="figure titlepage-imagewidth"><img src="images/titlepage.png" alt="Original Title Page." width="467" height="720"></div><p>
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div class="titlePage">
+<div class="docTitle">
+<h1 class="mainTitle">THE <br>STOICS, EPICUREANS <br>AND <br>SCEPTICS</h1>
+</div>
+<div class="byline">TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
+<br><span class="docAuthor"><span class="sc">Dr</span> E. ZELLER</span>
+<br>Professor of the University of Heidelberg
+<br>BY
+<br><span class="docAuthor">REV. OSWALD J. REICHEL, B.C.L., M.A.</span>
+<br>sometime Vice-Principal of Cuddesden College </div>
+<div class="docImprint"><i>NEW AND REVISED EDITION</i>
+<br>LONDON <br>LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. <br>AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16<sup>th</sup> STREET <br><span class="docDate">1892</span>
+<br><i>All rights reserved</i> </div>
+</div>
+<p></p>
+<div class="div1 imprint"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#toc">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divBody">
+<p class="first center small">PRINTED BY <br>SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE <br>LONDON
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb.v">[<a href="#pb.v">v</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div class="div1 preface"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#toc">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="main">PREFACE.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">The present translation aims at supplying an introductory volume to a later period
+of the history of mind in Greece, which may be collectively described as the <i>post-Aristotelian</i>. To the moralist and theologian no less than to the student of philosophy this period
+is one of peculiar interest; for it supplied the scientific mould into which Christianity
+in the early years of its growth was cast, and bearing the shape of which it has come
+down to us.
+</p>
+<p>The translation has been carefully revised for the present edition, with the view
+of rendering more clear any passages which seemed obscure.
+</p>
+<p class="dateline"><span class="sc">À la Ronde, near Lympstone, Devon</span>: <br><i>August 1891</i>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb.vii">[<a href="#pb.vii">vii</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="toc" class="div1 last-child contents"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#toc">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="main">CONTENTS.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">PART I.
+</p>
+<p><i><a href="#pt1">STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.</a></i>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER I.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch1" id="xd33e200">THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL STATE OF GREECE AT THE CLOSE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY
+B.C.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum"></td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum xs">PAGE</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch1.a">Merits and defects of the systems of Plato and Aristotle</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch1.b">Connection between the theories of Aristotle and the Greek character</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">6</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch1.c">Greece after the battle of Chæronea</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">12</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER II.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch2" id="xd33e242">CHARACTER AND CHIEF FEATURES OF THE POST-ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch2.a">Causes forming the post-Aristotelian philosophy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">15</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.a.1">Political causes</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">15</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.a.2">Intellectual causes</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">17</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch2.b">Common characteristics of the post-Aristotelian philosophy</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb.viii">[<a href="#pb.viii">viii</a>]</span> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">19</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.b.1">Theory subordinated to practice</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">19</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.b.2">Peculiar mode of treating the practical problem</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">21</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.b.3">These peculiarities illustrated by subsequent philosophy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">22</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch2.c">Development of the post-Aristotelian philosophy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">25</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.c.1">Dogmatic Schools—Stoics and Epicureans, Dogmatic Scepticism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">25</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.c.2">Sceptical Schools—influences producing—Scepticism and Eclecticism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">26</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch2.c.3">Religious School of Neoplatonists</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">31</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>PART II.
+</p>
+<p><i><a href="#pt2">THE STOICS.</a></i>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER III.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch3" id="xd33e373">HISTORY OF THE STOICS UNTIL THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch3.a">Zeno</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">36</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch3.b">Pupils of Zeno</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">40</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch3.b.1">Cleanthes</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">40</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch3.b.2">Aristo and Herillus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">41</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch3.b.3">Other pupils</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">43</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch3.c">Chrysippus and the later Stoics</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">45</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch3.c.1">Chrysippus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">45</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch3.c.2">Later Stoics</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">48</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER IV.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch4" id="xd33e465">AUTHORITIES FOR THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY; ITS PROBLEM AND DIVISIONS.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch4.a">Authorities</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb.ix">[<a href="#pb.ix">ix</a>]</span> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">53</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.a.1">Review of authorities</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">53</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.a.2">Use to be made of authorities</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">55</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch4.b">Problem proposed to the Stoic philosophy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">56</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.b.1">Its practical character</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">56</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.b.2">Necessity for intellectual knowledge</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">58</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.b.3">Attitude towards logic and natural science of Aristo—of Zeno and Cleanthes</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">59</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch4.c">Divisions of philosophy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">66</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.c.1">Threefold division</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">67</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.c.2">Relative importance of each part</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">68</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER V.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch5" id="xd33e580">LOGIC OF THE STOICS.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch5.a">General remarks</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">70</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.a.1">Field of Logic</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">70</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch4.a.2">Words and thoughts</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">73</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch5.b">Theory of knowledge</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">75</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.b.1">General character of this theory</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">75</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.b.2">Prominent points in the theory—perceptions—conceptions—standards of truth</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">77</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch5.c">Formal logic</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">92</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.c.1">Utterance in general</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">92</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.c.2">Incomplete expression—words—the categories</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">94</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.c.3">Complete utterance—judgment—inference—fallacies</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">110</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">D.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch5.d">Estimate of Stoic logic</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">123</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.d.1">Its shortcomings</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">123</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch5.d.2">Its value</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">123</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER VI.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch6" id="xd33e725">THE STUDY OF NATURE: 1. FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONS.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch6.a">Materialism</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb.x">[<a href="#pb.x">x</a>]</span> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">126</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.a.1">Meaning of the Stoic Materialism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">126</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.a.2">Causes which led to Stoic Materialism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">132</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.a.3">Consequences of Stoic Materialism—individual perceptions—theory of universal mingling</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">135</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch6.b">Dynamical theory of Nature</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">139</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.b.1">Matter and force</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">139</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.b.2">Nature of force</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">141</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.b.3">Deity—God as force—God as matter</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">148</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch6.c">Pantheism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">156</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.c.1">God identical with the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">156</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.c.2">Relative difference between God and the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">158</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch6.c.3">Views of Boëthus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">159</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER VII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch7" id="xd33e860">THE STUDY OF NATURE: 2. COURSE, CHARACTER, AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSE.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch7.a">The General Course of the Universe</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">161</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.a.1">Origin of the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">161</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.a.2">End of the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">163</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.a.3">Cycles in the world’s course</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">165</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch7.b">Government of the World</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">170</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.b.1">Nature of Destiny—as Providence—as Generative Reason</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">170</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.b.2">Arguments in favour of Providence</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">173</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.b.3">The idea of Providence determined</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">175</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch7.c">Nature of the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">182</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.c.1">Its unity and perfection</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">183</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch7.c.2">Moral theory of the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">187</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER VIII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch8" id="xd33e983">THE STUDY OF NATURE: 3. IRRATIONAL NATURE. THE ELEMENTS.—THE UNIVERSE.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch8.a">The most general ideas on Nature</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">194</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch8.b">The Elements</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">197</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch8.c">The Universe</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">202</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch8.c.1">The stars</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">204</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch8.c.2">Meteorology</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">206</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch8.c.3">Plants and animals</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">208</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb.xi">[<a href="#pb.xi">xi</a>]</span></p>
+<p>CHAPTER IX.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch9" id="xd33e1054">THE STUDY OF NATURE: 4. MAN.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch9.a">The Soul</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">210</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch9.a.1">Materialistic nature of the soul</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">210</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch9.a.2">Divisions of the soul</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">213</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch9.b">The Individual Soul and the Soul of the Universe</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">216</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch9.c">Freedom and Immortality</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">219</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER X.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch10" id="xd33e1113">ETHICS: 1. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE STOIC ETHICS. ABSTRACT THEORY OF MORALITY.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch10.a">The Highest Good</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">225</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.a.1">Nature of the Highest Good</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">225</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.a.2">The Good and Evil</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">230</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.a.3">Pleasure and the Good</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">235</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.a.4">Negative character of Happiness</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">239</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">5.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.a.5">The Highest Good as Law</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">240</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch10.b">Emotions and Virtue</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">243</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.b.1">The Emotions—their nature—varieties of</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">243</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.b.2">Idea of Virtue—positive and negative aspects of—the virtues severally—their mutual
+relations—unity of virtue</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">254</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch10.c">The Wise Man</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">268</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.c.1">Wisdom and Folly</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">268</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.c.2">Universal Depravity</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">272</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch10.c.3">Conversion</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">275</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XI.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch11" id="xd33e1256">ETHICS: 2. THE STOIC THEORY OF MORALS AS MODIFIED IN PRACTICE.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch11.a">Things to be preferred and eschewed</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb.xii">[<a href="#pb.xii">xii</a>]</span> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">278</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch11.a.1">Secondary goods</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">280</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch11.a.2">Classes of things indifferent</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">281</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch11.a.3">Collision of modified and abstract theory</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">284</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch11.b">Perfect and intermediate duties</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">287</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch11.c">Emotions</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">290</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch11.c.1">Permitted affections</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">290</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch11.c.2">Modification of apathy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">292</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch11.c.3">The state of progress</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">293</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch12" id="xd33e1359">ETHICS: 3. APPLIED MORAL SCIENCE.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch12.a">The Individual</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">301</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.a.1">Importance attaching to the individual</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">301</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.a.2">Cynicism of the Stoics</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">305</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch12.b">Social Relations</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">311</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.b.1">Origin and use of society</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">311</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.b.2">Justice and mercy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">315</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.b.3">Friendship</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">317</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.b.4">The family and civil life—aversion to political life—citizenship of the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">320</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch12.c">Man and the Course of the World</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">332</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.c.1">Submission to the course of nature</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">332</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch12.c.2">Suicide</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">335</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XIII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch13" id="xd33e1482">THE RELATION OF THE STOICS TO RELIGION.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch13.a">General connection of Stoicism and Religion</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">341</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.a.1">Connection of Stoicism with popular faith</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">343</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.a.2">Free criticism of popular belief</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">344</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.a.3">The truth in Polytheism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">348</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.a.4">Doctrine of Demons</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">351</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch13.b">The Allegorising spirit</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">354</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.b.1">Allegorical interpretation of myths</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">354</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.b.2">Interpretation of myths respecting the Gods</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">357</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.b.3">Allegory applied to heroic myths</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">367</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch13.c">Prophetic powers</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">369</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.c.1">Divination</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">370</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.c.2">Prophecy explained by natural causes</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">374</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch13.c.3">Causes of divination</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">377</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb.xiii">[<a href="#pb.xiii">xiii</a>]</span></p>
+<p>CHAPTER XIV.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch14" id="xd33e1626">THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY AS A WHOLE AND ITS HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch14.a">Inner connection of the system</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">381</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.a.1">Ethical side of Stoicism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">382</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.a.2">Scientific side of the Stoic system</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">383</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.a.3">Connection of the moral and scientific elements</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">385</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch14.b">Relation of Stoicism to previous systems</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">387</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.b.1">Its relation to Socrates and the Cynics</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">387</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.b.2">Relation to Megarians and Heraclitus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">392</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.b.3">Relation to Aristotle</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">396</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.b.4">Relation to Plato</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">399</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch14.c">The Stoic philosophy as a whole</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">400</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.c.1">Its place in history</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">400</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch14.c.2">Its onesidedness</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">402</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>PART III.
+</p>
+<p><i><a href="#pt3">THE EPICUREANS.</a></i>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XV.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch15" id="xd33e1766">EPICUREANS AND THE EPICUREAN SCHOOL.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch15.a">Epicurus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">404</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch15.b">Scholars of Epicurus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">408</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch15.c">Epicureans of the Roman period</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">411</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XVI.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch16" id="xd33e1803">CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THE EPICUREAN TEACHING. THE TEST-SCIENCE OF TRUTH.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch16.a">Character of Epicurean system</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">418</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch16.a.1">Its power of self-preservation</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb.xiv">[<a href="#pb.xiv">xiv</a>]</span></td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">418</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch16.a.2">Aim of philosophy according to the Epicureans</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">420</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch16.a.3">Divisions of philosophy</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">424</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch16.b">Canonic or the Test-Science of Truth</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">425</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch16.b.1">Sensation and perception</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">425</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch16.b.2">Notions</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">428</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch16.b.3">Opinions</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">429</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch16.b.4">Standard of truth subjective</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">431</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XVII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch17" id="xd33e1905">THE EPICUREAN VIEWS OF NATURE.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch17.a">General Views on Nature</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">434</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.a.1">Object, value, and method of the study of nature</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">434</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.a.2">Mechanical explanation of nature</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">437</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.a.3">Atoms and empty space</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">439</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch17.b">The World</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">444</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.b.1">The swerving aside of atoms</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">444</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.b.2">Origin of the world</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">447</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.b.3">Arrangement of the universe</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">449</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.b.4">Plants and animals</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">451</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch17.c">Mankind</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">451</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.c.1">Origin of the human race</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">451</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.c.2">The soul</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">453</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.c.3">Sensation</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">457</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch17.c.4">Will</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">459</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XVIII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch18" id="xd33e2058">VIEWS OF EPICURUS ON RELIGION.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch18.a">Criticism of the Gods and the popular faith</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">462</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch18.b">The Gods according to Epicurus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">464</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch18.b.1">Reasons for his belief</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">464</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch18.b.2">Nature of the Epicurean Gods</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">467</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb.xv">[<a href="#pb.xv">xv</a>]</span></p>
+<p>CHAPTER XIX.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch19" id="xd33e2109">THE MORAL SCIENCE OF THE EPICUREANS: 1. GENERAL VIEWS.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch19.a">Pleasure</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">472</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch19.a.1">Pleasure the Highest Good</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">472</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch19.a.2">Freedom from pain</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">474</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch19.b">Intellectual Happiness</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">476</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch19.b.1">Intelligence</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">476</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch19.b.2">Reasons for rising superior to the senses</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">478</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch19.b.3">Virtue</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">480</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch19.c">The Wise Man</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">483</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XX.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch20" id="xd33e2200">THE EPICUREAN ETHICS CONTINUED: 2. SPECIAL POINTS.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch20.a">The Individual</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">485</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch20.b">Civil Society and the Family</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">490</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch20.b.1">Civil society</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">490</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch20.b.2">Family life</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">492</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch20.c">Friendship</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">493</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XXI.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch21" id="xd33e2259">THE EPICUREAN SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. ITS POSITION IN HISTORY.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch21.a">Coherence of the Epicurean teaching</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">499</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch21.b">Historical position of Epicureanism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">503</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch21.b.1">Relation to Stoicism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">503</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch21.b.2">Relation to Aristippus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">508</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch21.b.3">Relation to Democritus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">510</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">4.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch21.b.4">Relation to Aristotle and Plato</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">511</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb.xvi">[<a href="#pb.xvi">xvi</a>]</span></p>
+<p>PART IV.
+</p>
+<p><i><a href="#pt4">THE SCEPTICS: PYRRHO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.</a></i>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XXII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch22" id="xd33e2335">PYRRHO.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch22.a">Historical position of Scepticism</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">514</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch22.a.1">Relation to cotemporary dogmatic systems</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">514</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch22.a.2">Causes producing it</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">515</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch22.a.3">Pyrrho and his followers</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">517</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch22.b">Teaching of Pyrrho</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">521</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch22.b.1">Impossibility of knowledge</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">521</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch22.b.2">Withholding of judgment</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">523</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">3.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch22.b.3">Mental imperturbability</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">525</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p>CHAPTER XXIII.
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ch23" id="xd33e2426">THE NEW ACADEMY.</a>
+</p>
+<table class="tocList">
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">A.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch23.a">Arcesilaus</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">528</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch23.a.1">Denial of knowledge</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">528</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch23.a.2">Probability</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">534</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">B.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch23.b">Carneades</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">535</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">1.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch23.b.1">Negative views of</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">538</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td class="tocDivNum">2.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle"> <a href="#ch23.b.2">Positive views of</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">553</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="tocDivNum">C.</td>
+<td class="tocDivTitle" colspan="2"> <a href="#ch23.c">School of Carneades</a> </td>
+<td class="tocPageNum">563</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p>
+</p>
+<p><a href="#ix" id="xd33e2507">GENERAL INDEX</a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <span class="tocPageNum">567</span>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb1">[<a href="#pb1">1</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div class="body">
+<div id="pt1" class="div0 part">
+<h2 class="label">PART I.</h2>
+<h2 class="main"><i>STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.</i></h2>
+<div id="ch1" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e200">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER I.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL STATE OF GREECE AT THE CLOSE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch1.a">A. <i>Merits and defects of the systems of Plato and Aristotle.</i></span>
+In Plato and Aristotle Greek Philosophy reached its greatest perfection. In their
+hands the Socratic philosophy of conceptions grew into elaborate systems, which embraced
+the whole range of contemporary knowledge, and grouped it from definite points of
+view so as to afford a connected view of the universe. The study of nature was by
+them supplemented by careful enquiries into the subject of morals. It was, moreover,
+transformed, enlarged, and enriched by Aristotle. In metaphysics, the foundations
+for a philosophical structure were deeply laid, everything being referred to first
+principles, in a way which no previous philosopher had before attempted. A multitude
+of phenomena which earlier thinkers had carelessly passed over, more particularly
+the phenomena of mental life, were pressed into the service of research; new questions
+were raised; new answers <span class="pageNum" id="pb2">[<a href="#pb2">2</a>]</span>given. New ideas had penetrated every branch of knowledge. That idealism in which
+the Greek mind so beautifully and lucidly found expression had been set forth by Plato
+in brilliant purity, and had been by Aristotle combined with careful observation.
+Practice and theory had brought the dialectical method to the position of an art.
+A valuable instrument of thought had been gained in the scientific use of terms of
+which Aristotle was the real originator. Within a few generations the intellectual
+treasures of Greece had been manifoldly increased, both in extent and value. The heritage
+received by Socrates from his predecessors could hardly be recognised as the same
+in that which Aristotle left to his successors.
+</p>
+<p>Great as was the progress made by Greek philosophy in the fourth century before Christ,
+quite as great were the difficulties with which it had perpetually to contend; quite
+as difficult the problems on the solution of which it had to labour. Aristotle had
+already pointed out the weak points in the system of Plato, which rendered it impossible
+for him to accept that system as satisfactory. From the platform of later knowledge
+still further objections might be raised to it. Even in Aristotle’s own system inconsistencies
+on some of the most important points might be found, concealed under a certain indefiniteness
+of expression, but fatal if once brought to light to the soundness of the whole. For
+with all his ingenuity, Aristotle never succeeded in harmoniously blending all the
+elements out of which his <span class="pageNum" id="pb3">[<a href="#pb3">3</a>]</span>system was composed. Thus the divergencies of his immediate followers from the original
+Aristotelian teaching may be accounted for.
+</p>
+<p>Nor were these defects of a kind that could be easily disposed of. The deeper the
+enquiry is carried, the clearer it becomes that they were defects embedded in the
+foundations of the systems both of Plato and Aristotle, and underlying the whole previous
+range of philosophic thought. Omitting details and minor points, they may all be ultimately
+referred to two: either to an imperfect knowledge and experience of the world, or
+to the overhaste of idealistic philosophy to draw conclusions. To the former defect
+may be attributed the mistakes in natural science into which Plato and Aristotle fell,
+and the limited character of their view of history; to the latter, the Platonic theory
+of ideas with all that it involves—the antithesis of ideas and appearances, of reason
+and the senses, of knowledge and ignorance, of the present world and the world to
+come—and likewise the corresponding points in the system of Aristotle; such, for instance
+(to name some of the principal ones only), as the relation of the particular and the
+general, of form and matter, of God and the world, of the theory of final causes and
+natural explanations, of the rational and the irrational parts of the soul, of speculative
+theory and practice.
+</p>
+<p>Both defects are closely connected. The Greek philosophers were content with an uncertain
+and imperfect knowledge of facts, because they trusted conceptions too implicitly,
+and were ignorant of their <span class="pageNum" id="pb4">[<a href="#pb4">4</a>]</span>origin and worth; and they had this unconditional trust in the truth of conceptions
+because the study of nature was yet in its infancy. Their knowledge of history was
+too limited for them to see the difference between the results of careful observation
+and those of ordinary unmethodical experience, to realise the uncertainty of most
+of the traditional principles and the necessity for a stricter method of induction.
+The fault common to both Plato and Aristotle lay in attaching undue prominence to
+the dialectical method inherited from Socrates to the neglect of observation, and
+in assuming that conceptions expressing the very essence of things can be deduced
+in a purely logical way from current beliefs and the use of language. In Plato this
+dialectical exclusiveness appears most strongly, and finds striking expression in
+his theory of recollection. If all conceptions are inherent from the moment of birth
+and need only the agency of sensible things to produce a consciousness of their existence,
+it is only legitimate to infer that, to know the essence of things, we must look within
+and not without, and obtain ideas by abstraction from the mind rather than by induction
+from experience. It is equally legitimate to infer that the ideas derived from the
+mind are the true standard by which experience must be judged. Whenever ideas and
+experience disagree, instead of regarding ideas as at fault, we ought to look upon
+the data of experience as imperfect, and as inadequately expressing the ideas which
+constitute the thing as it really exists. Thus the whole theory of ideas, and all
+that <span class="pageNum" id="pb5">[<a href="#pb5">5</a>]</span>it implies, is seen to be a natural corollary from the Socratic theory of conceptions.
+Even those parts of this theory which seem most incongruous are best explained by
+being referred to the principles of the Socratic process.
+</p>
+<p>From this defective assumption Aristotle is only partially free. He attempted, it
+is true, to supply the defects in the Socratic and Platonic theory of conceptions
+by observation of a kind with which Plato’s experimental knowledge cannot be compared
+either for accuracy or extent. With that attempt he also combined a complete transformation
+of the Platonic metaphysics, whereby he secured the same position for particulars
+in relation to the universal that his predecessor had secured for observation in relation
+to conceptional knowledge. But Aristotle did not go far enough. In his theory of knowledge
+he cannot wholly discard the assumption that the soul has its knowledge by a process
+of development from within, and is not only endowed with the capacity of thinking,
+but possesses also from its birth the substance of ideas. In his scientific method
+a critical investigation of common notions and of idiom—that in fact which he himself
+calls proof by probabilities—is constantly taking the place of strict induction. His
+endeavours to harmonise the two antagonistic currents in Plato’s teaching may have
+been undertaken in all sincerity, but the antagonism was too deeply seated to yield
+to his efforts. It not only reappears in the fundamental ideas of his system, but
+it colours all its general results. Beginning with <span class="pageNum" id="pb6">[<a href="#pb6">6</a>]</span>the antithesis between <i>form</i> and <i>matter</i>, it ends in the contrast between the <i>world</i> and a <i>soul</i> independent of the world, in the conception of reason as something above man, never
+combining with the lower parts of his nature to form one complete living unity.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch1.b">B. <i>Connection between the theories of Aristotle and Greek character.</i></span>
+Granting that the Socratic philosophy of conceptions is the source from which these
+peculiarities are derived, still that philosophy is itself only the expression of
+the character of the nation which produced it. In an earlier work it has been shown<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2560src" href="#xd33e2560" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> that the most distinctive feature of Greek life lay in confounding the outer and
+the inner worlds, in ingenuously assuming that the two originally corresponded, and
+are still in perfect harmony with one another. When the whole mental life of a people
+bears this impress, it is sure to be reflected in its philosophy also. Together with
+the advantages which accrue from the confusion of the two, philosophy shares also
+the disadvantages which unavoidably attend any theory which ignores the real distinction
+between them. The mind only gradually and imperfectly becomes aware of the distinctive
+peculiarity of mental life, of the notion of personality, of the fact that moral rights
+and duties are independent of external circumstances, of the share of the individual
+will in creating ideas. It has also less hesitation in transferring phases of consciousness
+directly to things themselves, in regarding the world from ideal points of view borrowed
+from the sphere of mind, in accepting its own notions of things as realities without
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb7">[<a href="#pb7">7</a>]</span>testing their actual truth, and even treating them as more real than the reality of
+the senses, and in confounding the critical analysis of a notion with the experimental
+investigation of a thing. If the philosophy of Greece in the time of its greatest
+perfection was not free from these defects; if, further, these defects were the cause
+of all the important faults in the systems of Plato and Aristotle; the creators of
+these systems and their immediate successors are not the only ones to blame; but the
+whole mental peculiarity of the people is at fault of which within the province of
+science these men were the greatest representatives.
+</p>
+<p>As the faults of the Platonic and Aristotelian systems are seen to be connected with
+the general character of Greek life, it becomes obvious how difficult it must have
+been for Greeks to emancipate themselves from them. To overcome the difficulty nothing
+short of a radical breaking away from old lines of thought would avail. The origin
+of ideas, the primary meaning of conceptions, must be enquired into with searching
+thoroughness; a sharper distinction must be drawn between what is supplied from without
+and what is supplied from within; the truth of axioms hitherto received in metaphysics
+must be more carefully investigated than had ever been done as yet. The intellect
+must accustom itself to an accuracy of observation, and to a strictness of inductive
+process, never before reached in Greece. Experimental sciences must attain a degree
+of completeness which it was vain to hope to reach by the <span class="pageNum" id="pb8">[<a href="#pb8">8</a>]</span>methods and means then in vogue. The fashion of regarding nature as though it were
+a living being which allowed questions as to facts to be answered by speculations
+as to final causes or by the desire of nature to realise beauty, must be abandoned.
+Enquiries into a man’s moral nature and duties must be kept apart from the simple
+study of his conduct in relation to natural surroundings, the disastrous effects which
+flow from the confusion of the two being only too apparent in the national type of
+the Greeks, in the exclusively political character of their morality, and in their
+adherence to slavery.
+</p>
+<p>Before this pass could be reached how much was there not to alter in the condition
+and mental habit of Greece! Could it indeed be expected that a more vigorous and more
+scientific method would gain foothold so long as the tendency to look upon the life
+of nature as analogous to the life of man was kept alive by a religion such as that
+of Hellas? Or that moral science would liberate itself from the trammels of Greek
+propriety of conduct, whilst in all practical matters those trammels were in full
+force? Or that a clearer distinction would be drawn between what comes from without
+and what from within in ideas—a distinction which we vainly look for in Aristotle—until
+a depth and an intensity had been given to the inner life, and until the rights and
+value of the individual as such had obtained a recognition which it required the combined
+influence of Christianity and the peculiar Germanic character to bring about? The
+more vividly the national type and the <span class="pageNum" id="pb9">[<a href="#pb9">9</a>]</span>national conditions surrounding Greek philosophy are realised, the firmer becomes
+the conviction, that to heal its defects—which are apparent even in its greatest and
+most brilliant achievements—nothing short of a revolution in the whole mental tone
+of Greece would avail—such as history has seen accomplished, but not till after many
+shifts and many centuries.
+</p>
+<p>On the platform of the ancient life of Greece such a change could not possibly have
+come about. It may be that under more favourable circumstances Greek philosophy might
+have further developed along the same course of purely intellectual enquiry which
+it had previously so successfully followed in the hands of its earlier representatives,
+more particularly of Aristotle. What results might in this way have been attained,
+we cannot exactly determine. Speculation is, however, useless. In point of fact, the
+historical circumstances under which philosophy had to grow cannot be ignored. Philosophy
+had become what it was under the influence of those circumstances. The Socratic theory
+of conceptions, and Plato’s theory of ideas, presuppose on the one hand the high culture
+of the age of Pericles, and the brilliant career of Athens and Greece following on
+the Persian war. They also presuppose the political degradation and the moral exhaustion
+of Greece during and after the Peloponnesian war. Aristotle, with his high intellectual
+culture, despairing of everything direct and practical, with his wide view of things,
+his knowledge of every kind, his system matured and elaborate, <span class="pageNum" id="pb10">[<a href="#pb10">10</a>]</span>and embracing all the results of previous enquiry—appears as the child of an age which
+was bearing to the grave a great historical epoch, in which intellectual labour had
+begun to take the place of vigorous political action.
+</p>
+<p>The bloom of Greek philosophy was short-lived, but not more short-lived than the bloom
+of national life. The one was dependent on the other, and both were due to the action
+of the same causes. The Greeks, with a high appreciation of freedom, a ready aptitude
+for politics, and a genius for artistic creations, produced within the sphere of politics
+one result of its kind unrivalled and unique. They neglected, however, to lay the
+foundations wide and deep. Their political endurance was not equal to their versatility
+and restlessness. Communities limited in extent and simple in arrangement sufficed
+for them. But how could such communities include all branches of the Greek family,
+and satisfy at once all legitimate aspirations? It is the same within the department
+of science. Prematurely concluding and rashly advancing from isolated experiences
+without mediating links to the most general conceptions, they constructed theories
+upon a foundation of limited and imperfect experience, which it was wholly inadequate
+to bear. Whether, and in how far, the intellect of Greece, if left to itself, might
+have remedied these defects in a longer protracted calm of development, is a question
+which it is impossible to answer. As a fact, that intellect was far too intimately
+bound up with the political, the moral, and the religious life—in short, <span class="pageNum" id="pb11">[<a href="#pb11">11</a>]</span>with the whole mental tone and culture of the people—not to be seriously affected
+by a change in any one of them. It lay, too, in the character and historical progress
+of that people to have only a brief period of splendour, and that soon over. At the
+time that the philosophy of Greece reached its highest point in Plato and Aristotle,
+Greece was in all other respects in a hopeless state of decline. Notwithstanding individual
+attempts to revive it, the old morality and propriety of conduct had disappeared since
+the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. The old belief in the gods was likewise gone.
+To the bulk of the people the rising philosophy with its ethics afforded no substitute.
+Art, although carefully cultivated, failed to come up to the excellence of the strictly
+classic period. Political relations became daily more unsatisfactory. In the fifth
+century before Christ the rivalry of Athens and Sparta had ranged the states of Greece
+into two groups. In the succeeding century disunion spread further. The effort made
+by Thebes under Epaminondas to found a new leadership only multiplied parties. Destitute
+of a political centre of gravity, the Greeks, of their own choice, drifted into a
+disgraceful dependence on the conquered and now declining Persian empire. Persian
+gold wielded an influence which Persian arms had been unable to exercise. The petty
+jealousies of tiny states and tribes frittered away in endless local feuds resources
+which with unity and leadership might have accomplished wonders. Civil order declined,
+and with it the well-being and martial prowess of the nation <span class="pageNum" id="pb12">[<a href="#pb12">12</a>]</span>declined also. The growing pursuit of the art of war as a profession took the decision
+of battle more and more out of the hands of free citizens, and placed it in those
+of the numerous bands of mercenaries which are one of the most baneful phenomena of
+that age, a sure sign of the decline of freedom, and of the approach of a military
+despotism. When by the rise of the Macedonian power the danger of a military despotism
+loomed nearer, patriots in Greece continued to deceive themselves with the hope that
+their self-devotion would avert the danger, but any unbiassed reader of history sees
+in the failure of their attempts to avert it the natural and inevitable result of
+causes so deeply rooted in the Greek character and the course of Greek history, that
+neither the most heroic exertions of individuals, nor the united resistance of the
+divided states, which came too late, could for one moment have rendered the final
+issue doubtful.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch1.c">C. <i>Greece after the battle of Chæronea.</i></span>
+By the battle of Chæronea the doom of Greece was sealed. Never since then has Greece
+attained to real political freedom. All attempts to shake off the Macedonian supremacy
+ended in humiliating disasters. In the subsequent struggles Hellas, and Athens in
+particular, were the play-ball of changing rulers, the continual arena of their warfare.
+The second half of the third century was reached before a purely Grecian power—the
+Achæan League—was formed, round which the hopes of the nation rallied, but the attempt
+was wholly inadequate to meet the real requirements of the times. Soon it became apparent
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb13">[<a href="#pb13">13</a>]</span>that no remedies were forthcoming to heal the ills from which the country was suffering.
+Discord, their old hereditary failing, rendered it impossible for Greeks to be independent
+in foreign relations, or to be united and settled at home. Their best resources were
+wasted in perpetual struggles between Achæans, Ætolians, and Spartans. The very individual
+who led the Achæans against the Macedonians in the cause of independence, called the
+Macedonians back to the Peloponnesus to gain their support against Sparta. When the
+supremacy of Macedonia was broken by the arms of Rome, a more avowed dependence on
+Italian allies succeeded. And when, in the year 146 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, the province of Achaia was incorporated into the Roman empire, even the shadow of
+freedom which up to that time had been assured departed for ever.
+</p>
+<p>Sad as were the external affairs of Greece at this period, and marked as was the decline
+of its intellectual power, its mental horizon, nevertheless, extended and its culture
+became more generally diffused. The Macedonian ascendency, which gave the death-blow
+to the independence of Greece, also broke down the barriers which had hitherto separated
+Greeks from foreigners. A new world was opened out before them, and a vast territory
+offered for their energies to explore. Greece was brought into manifold contact with
+the Eastern nations belonging to the Macedonian monarchy, whereby it secured for its
+culture the place of honour among them, but at the same time became subject to a slow,
+but, in the long <span class="pageNum" id="pb14">[<a href="#pb14">14</a>]</span>run, important back-current of Oriental thought, traces of which appear in its philosophy
+a few centuries later. By the side of the old famed centres of learning in the mother
+country of Hellas, new centres arose, suited by position, inhabitants, and peculiar
+circumstances to unite the culture of East and West, and to fuse into one homogeneous
+mass the intellectual forces of different races. Whilst Hellas, by the number of emigrants
+who left her shores to settle in Asia and Egypt, was losing her population and the
+Greeks in their ancestral homes were being ousted by foreigners, they were gaining
+the most extensive intellectual conquests at the time over the very nations by and
+through whom they had been oppressed.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb15">[<a href="#pb15">15</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2560">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2560src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Zeller’s <i lang="de">Philosophie der Griechen</i>. Part I. 96.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2560src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch2" class="div1 last-child chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e242">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER II.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">CHARACTER AND CHIEF FEATURES OF THE POST-ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.a">A. <i>Causes producing the post-Aristotelian philosophy.</i></span>
+The circumstances which have been briefly sketched in the preceding chapter are of
+the greatest importance in their bearing on the character of the post-Aristotelian
+philosophy. Greek philosophy, like Greek art, is the offspring of Greek political
+independence. In the whirl of public life every one is thrown on himself and his own
+resources. Thereby, and by the emulation begotten of unlimited competition for all
+the good things of life, the Greek had learned to make full use of his intellect.
+Consciousness of his dignity—which a Greek associated far more closely than we do
+with the privilege of citizenship—and independence of the necessity of struggling
+for daily food, had taught him independence of mind, and enabled him to devote himself
+to the pursuit of knowledge without any ulterior aim.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2612src" href="#xd33e2612" title="Go to note 1.">1</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.a.1">(1) <i>Political causes.</i></span>
+With the decline of political independence the mental powers of the nation were broken
+past remedy. No longer borne up by a powerful <i lang="fr">esprit <span class="pageNum" id="pb16">[<a href="#pb16">16</a>]</span>de corps</i>, weaned from the habit of working for the common weal, the majority gave themselves
+up to the petty interests of private life and personal affairs. Even the better disposed
+were too much occupied in contending against the low tone and corruption of their
+times, to be able to devote themselves in moments of relaxation to independent speculation.
+What could be expected in such an age as that which preceded the rise of the Stoic
+and Epicurean systems, but that philosophy would become practical itself, if indeed
+it were studied at all?
+</p>
+<p>An age like that did not require theoretical knowledge, but it did require moral bracing
+and strengthening. If these were not to be had from popular religion in its then state,
+was it matter for wonder that philosophy should be looked to to supply the deficiency,
+seeing that in all cultivated circles philosophy had already taken the place of religion?
+If we ask in what form, and in what form only, philosophy could supply the deficiency
+under the then circumstances, the answer is not far to seek. There was little room
+for creative effort, plenty for sustained endurance; little for activity without,
+plenty for activity within; little room for public life, plenty of room for private
+life. So utterly hopeless had the public state of Greece become, that even the few
+who made it their business to provide a remedy could only gain for themselves the
+honour of martyrdom. As matters stood, the only course open for the best-intentioned
+was to withdraw entirely within themselves, <span class="pageNum" id="pb17">[<a href="#pb17">17</a>]</span>to entrench themselves within the safe barriers of their inner life against outward
+misfortunes, and to make happiness dependent entirely on their own inward state.
+</p>
+<p>Stoic apathy, Epicurean self-contentment, and Sceptic imperturbability, were the doctrines
+which suited the political helplessness of the age, and they were therefore the doctrines
+which met with the most general acceptance. There was yet another which suited it—viz.,
+the sinking of national distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, the severance
+of morals from politics which characterises the philosophy of the Alexandrian and
+Roman period. The barriers which kept nations apart had been swept away, together
+with their national independence: East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united
+in large empires, brought into communication and forced into comparison with one another
+in matters the most important. Philosophy declared that all men are of one blood and
+are equally privileged citizens of one empire, that morality rests on the relation
+of man to man, and is independent of nationality and position in the state; but in
+so doing it only explicitly stated a truth which was partly realised and partly implied
+in actual life.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.a.2">(2) <i>Intellectual causes.</i></span>
+The very course which philosophy itself had taken during the previous century and
+a half had prepared the way for the turn which now set in. Socrates and the Sophists,
+in different ways no doubt, had each devoted themselves to the practical side of life;
+and thus the Cynic School was the precursor <span class="pageNum" id="pb18">[<a href="#pb18">18</a>]</span>of Stoicism, the Cyrenaic of Epicureanism. These two Schools are, however, only of
+minor importance in the general progress of philosophy in the fourth century, and
+sophistry by the close of the same century was already a thing of the past. Socrates,
+it is true, would have nothing to do with physical enquiries; yet he felt the desire
+for knowledge far too keenly to bear comparison with the post-Aristotelian philosophers.
+Proposing to concern himself only with subjects which were of practical use in life,
+he yet put forth a theory of knowledge which involved a reform quite as much of speculative
+as of practical philosophy, and that reform was accomplished on a grand scale by Plato
+and Aristotle.
+</p>
+<p>However little Greek philosophy as a whole developed during the fourth century along
+the lines of its subsequent expansion, still the speculations of Plato and Aristotle
+necessarily helped to prepare for the coming charge. The antagonism between the ideal
+and phenomenal worlds which Plato set up, and Aristotle vainly attempted to bridge
+over, leads ultimately to a contrast between the outer and the inner life, between
+thought and the object of thought. The generic conceptions or forms, which Plato and
+Aristotle regard as most truly real, are, after all, fabrications of the human mind.
+The conception of reason, even in its expanded form as the divine Reason, or reason
+of the world, is an idea formed by abstraction from the inner life. And what is really
+meant by identifying form in itself with what is, and matter with what is <i>possible</i>, or even (as Plato does) <span class="pageNum" id="pb19">[<a href="#pb19">19</a>]</span>with what <i>is not</i>, or by placing God outside of and in contrast to the world, but the admission that
+man finds in his own mind a higher and more real existence than any which he finds
+outside of it, and that what is truly divine and unlimited must be <i>in</i> the mind as an idea, apart from and independent of all impressions from without?
+Plato and Aristotle in fact declared that reason constitutes the real essence of man—reason
+coming from above and uniting itself with the body, but in itself superior to the
+world of sense and life in time—and that man’s highest activity is thought, turned
+away from all external things, and meditating only on the inner world of ideas. It
+was only one step further in the same direction for the post-Aristotelian philosophy
+to contemplate man in complete severance from the outer world, and to refer him to
+himself for that satisfaction which he can find nowhere else in life.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.b">B. <i>Common characteristics of the post-Aristotelian philosophy.</i></span>
+This step was taken by the Schools of the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics which appeared
+in the first half of the third century before Christ, superseded the influence of
+the older Schools, and asserted their supremacy without great variation in their teaching
+until the beginning of the first century. In whatever else these three Schools may
+differ, at least they agree in two fundamental points, (1) in subordinating theory
+to practice, and (2) in the peculiar character of their practical philosophy.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.b.1">(1) <i>Theory subordinated to practice.</i></span>
+The subordination of theory to practice is most apparent in the School of Epicurus.
+It is nearly as <span class="pageNum" id="pb20">[<a href="#pb20">20</a>]</span>clear in the case of the Sceptics, who, denying all possibility of knowledge, left
+as the only ground of action conviction based on probabilities. Both Schools also
+agree in considering philosophy as only a means for securing happiness. By the Stoics,
+on the other hand, the need of philosophic speculation was felt more strongly; but
+even in their case it may be seen that speculation was not pursued simply for its
+own sake, but for practical purposes, by which it was also determined. Thus the Stoics,
+like the Epicureans, in the speculative part of their system confined themselves to
+current views—thereby showing that the source of their philosophical peculiarities
+lay elsewhere than in speculation, and that other studies had greater value in their
+eyes, in which also they considered themselves more proficient. They even expressly
+stated that the study of nature is only necessary as a help to the study of virtue.
+It is beyond question, that their chief peculiarities, and those which give them an
+importance in history, are ethical. The other parts of their system, more particularly
+those in which their distinctive tenets appear, are likewise regulated by practical
+considerations. This statement will hereafter be shown in detail. It may suffice to
+observe now, that the most important point in the logic of the Stoics—the question
+as to the standard of truth—was decided by a practical postulate; that the fundamental
+principles of the Stoic metaphysics are only intelligible from the ground of their
+ethics; that for natural science the Stoics did very little; that in their theory
+of <span class="pageNum" id="pb21">[<a href="#pb21">21</a>]</span>final causes on which they lay so much stress nature is explained by moral considerations;
+and that their natural as well as their positive theology bears ample testimony to
+the practical tone of their system. Standing in advance of the Epicureans by their
+higher intellectual training and their learned energy, and in opposition to the Sceptics
+by their dogmatism, the Stoics nevertheless agree with both these Schools in the essentially
+practical character of their teaching.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.b.2">(2) <i>Peculiar mode of dealing with the practical problem.</i></span>
+This relationship is more strikingly seen in the <i>way</i> in which they deal with the practical problem. The Epicurean imperturbability is
+akin to that of the Sceptics; both resemble the Stoic apathy. All three Schools are
+agreed that the only way to happiness consists in peace of mind, and in avoiding all
+those disturbances which sometimes arise from external influences, at other times
+from internal emotions; they are only divided as to the means by which peace of mind
+may be secured. They are also agreed in making moral activity independent of external
+circumstances, and in separating morals from politics, although only the Stoics set
+up the doctrine of the original unity of the whole human family, and insist on being
+citizens of the world. Through all the Schools runs the common trait of referring
+everything to the subject, and constantly falling back on man and his own inner life,
+one consequence of which is the prominence given to action in preference to speculation,
+and another that action is determined by personal certainty, and a mental equilibrium
+which <span class="pageNum" id="pb22">[<a href="#pb22">22</a>]</span>must be attained by the exercise of will and the cultivation of the intellect.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.b.3">(3) <i>Their peculiarities illustrated by subsequent philosophy.</i></span>
+The same character belongs to philosophy in the centuries succeeding the rise of these
+three Schools; during which the circumstances which produced that character were not
+materially altered. In addition to the followers of the old Schools, Eclectics are
+now met with, who gather from every system what seems true and probable. In this process
+of selection their guiding principle is regard for the practical wants of man. Hence
+the ultimate standard of truth is placed in personal consciousness. Everything is
+referred to the subject as its centre. In ethics and natural theology the Eclectics
+were mainly indebted to the Stoics. A new School of Sceptics also arose, not differing
+in its tendencies from the older one. Neopythagoreans and Platonists appeared, not
+satisfied with human knowledge, but aspiring to higher revelations. Professing to
+appeal to the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle, these philosophers betray their
+connection with the later post-Aristotelian Schools, not only by borrowing largely
+from the Stoics for the material for their theology and ethics, but also by their
+general tone; knowledge is for them less even than for the Stoics an end in itself,
+and they are further from natural science. With them philosophy is subservient to
+the interests of religion; its aim is to bring men into proper relation with God;
+and the religious needs of mankind are the highest authority for science.
+</p>
+<p>The same observations apply also to Plotinus and <span class="pageNum" id="pb23">[<a href="#pb23">23</a>]</span>his successors. These philosophers are not lacking in an elaborate science of metaphysics.
+The care which they devoted to this science leaves no doubt as to their lively interest
+in scientific completeness and systematic arrangement. For all that their speculative
+efforts bear the same relation to the practical aim of philosophy as those of the
+Stoics, who in point of learning and logical elaboration of a system are quite their
+equals. A real interest in knowledge was no doubt one of the elements which brought
+Neoplatonism into being; but it was not strong enough to counterbalance another, the
+practical and religious sentiment. The mind was not sufficiently independent to be
+able to get on without appealing to intellectual and theological authorities; the
+scientific procedure was too mixed to lead to a simple study of things as they are.
+As in the case of the Neopythagoreans, the ultimate ground of the system is a religious
+want. The divine world is only a portion of human thought projected out of the mind,
+and incapable of being fully grasped by the understanding. The highest business of
+philosophy is to reunite man with the divine world external to himself. To attain
+this end, all the means which science supplies are employed. Philosophy endeavours
+to explain the steps by which the finite gradually came to be separated from the original
+infinite being; it seeks to bring about a return by a regular and systematic course;
+and in this attempt the philosophic spirit of Greece, by no means extinct, proved
+its powers by a result of its kind unrivalled. <span class="pageNum" id="pb24">[<a href="#pb24">24</a>]</span>In the first instance, no doubt, the problem was so raised as to press philosophy
+into the service of religion; but, in the long run, it became apparent that, with
+the premises assumed, a scientific solution of the religious question was impossible.
+The idea of an original being with which the system started was a reflex of the religious
+sentiment, and not the result of scientific research, and the doctrine of a mystical
+union with a transcendental being was a religious postulate, the gratuitous assumption
+of which betrays an origin in the mind of the thinker. The platform of Neoplatonism
+is the same, therefore, as that of the other post-Aristotelian systems; and it is
+hardly necessary in proof of this position to point to the agreement of Neoplatonism
+in other respects with Stoicism, and especially in ethics. Far as the two systems
+lie asunder, the one standing at the beginning the other at the end of the post-Aristotelian
+philosophy, nevertheless both display one and the same attitude of thought; and we
+pass from one to the other by a continuous series of intermediate links.
+</p>
+<p>In passing from School to School the post-Aristotelian philosophy assumed, as might
+be expected, various modifications of character in course of time; nevertheless, it
+retained a certain mental habit and certain common elements. Such was the neglect
+of intellectual originality, which drove some thinkers to a sceptical denial of all
+knowledge, and induced others to take their knowledge at second hand from older authorities.
+Such was the prominence given <span class="pageNum" id="pb25">[<a href="#pb25">25</a>]</span>to practical over speculative questions. Such was the disregard for natural science,
+and, in comparison with former times, the greater importance attached to theology,
+apparent not only in the controversy between the Epicureans and Stoics, but also in
+the apologetic writings of the Stoics and Platonists. Such, too, was the negative
+morality which aimed at independence of the outer world, at mental composure, and
+philosophic contentment; the separation of morals from politics; the moral universalism
+and citizenship of the world; the going within self into the depths of the soul, the
+will, and the thinking powers; the deepening of the consciousness accompanied at the
+same time by a narrowing and isolation of it, and the loss of a lively interest in
+the outer world, and in the simple scientific study thereof.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.c">C. <i>Development of post-Aristotelian philosophy.</i><br id="ch2.c.1">(1) <i>Dogmatic Schools.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Stoics and Epicureans.</i></span>
+This mental habit, first of all, found simple dogmatic expression in philosophical
+systems. Not only moral science, but also logic and natural science, were treated
+in a way consonant with it, although they were partially built upon older views. In
+dealing with the moral problem, two Schools come to view, markedly different and decided
+in their peculiarities. The Stoics regard almost exclusively the universal element
+in man who seeks contentment within, the Epicureans catch at the individual side of
+his being. The Stoics regard man exclusively as a thinking being, the Epicureans as
+a creature of feeling. The Stoics make happiness to consist in subordination to the
+law of the whole, in the suppression of personal feelings and inclinations, in <span class="pageNum" id="pb26">[<a href="#pb26">26</a>]</span>virtue; the Epicureans in individual independence of everything external, in the unruffled
+serenity of the inner life, in painlessness. The theoretical bases of their teaching
+correspond with these fundamental ethical positions.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Dogmatic scepticism.</i></span>
+Although the rivalry between these two Schools was great, both, nevertheless, stand
+on the same platform. Absolute composure of mind, freedom of the inner life from all
+disturbance from without, is the goal at which both aim, although they follow different
+methods. Hence it becomes necessary to insist on the common element as the essential
+aim and matter of philosophy. If the philosophic axioms of the two systems contradict
+one another, it may be thence inferred that the aim of both may be attained independently
+of any definite dogmatic view; in short, knowledge may be despaired of in order to
+pass from a recognition of ignorance to a general indifference to everything and to
+an unconditional repose of mind. Thus Scepticism is connected with Stoicism and Epicureanism,
+as the third chief form of the philosophy of that age. Apart from Pyrrho’s School,
+it is most effectually represented in the New Academy.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.c.2">(2) <i>Sceptical Schools.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Influences producing Scepticism.</i><br>(α) <i>Political influence of Rome.</i></span>
+The rise, the growth, and the conflict of these three Schools, by the side of which
+the older Schools have only a subordinate value, occupies the first portion of the
+period of post-Aristotelian philosophy, and extends from the end of the fourth to
+the beginning of the first century before Christ. The distinctive features of this
+epoch consist partly in the <span class="pageNum" id="pb27">[<a href="#pb27">27</a>]</span>predominance of the above tendencies, and partly in their separate existence, without
+modification by intermixture. After the middle of the second century a gradual change
+may be observed. Greece had then become a Roman province, and the intellectual intercourse
+between Greece and Rome was continually on the increase. Many learned Greeks resided
+at Rome, frequently as the companions of families of high birth; others living in
+their own country, were visited by Roman pupils. Was it possible that in the face
+of the clearly-defined and sharply-expressed Roman character, the power and independence
+of the Greek intellect, already unquestionably on the decline, would assert its ancient
+supremacy? Or that Greeks could become the teachers of Romans without accommodating
+themselves to their demands, and experiencing in turn a reflex influence? Even Greek
+philosophy could not withdraw itself from this influence. Its creative power was long
+since in abeyance, and in Scepticism it had openly avowed that it could place no trust
+in itself. To the practical sense of a Roman no philosophical system commended itself
+which did not make for practical results by the shortest possible route. To him practical
+needs were the ultimate standard of truth. Little did he care for strict logic and
+argumentative accuracy in scientific procedure. Differences of schools, so long as
+they had no practical bearing, were for him of no importance. No wonder that Greek
+philosophy, touched by the breath of Rome, lent itself to Eclecticism!
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb28">[<a href="#pb28">28</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Intellectual influence of Alexandria.</i></span>
+Whilst on the one side of the world the Greeks were falling under the influence of
+the nation that had subdued them, on the other they were assimilating the views of
+the Oriental nations whom they had subdued by martial as well as by mental superiority.
+For two centuries, in philosophy at least, Greece had held her own against Oriental
+modes of thought. Now that her intellectual incapacity continually increased, those
+modes of thought gained for themselves a foothold in her philosophy. Alexandria was
+the place where the connection of Greece with the East was first and most completely
+brought about. In that centre of commerce for all parts of the globe, East and West
+entered into a connection more intimate and more lasting than in any other centre.
+Nor was this connection a mere accident of circumstances; it was also a work of political
+forecast. From its founder, Ptolemy Soter, the Ptolemæan dynasty inherited as the
+principle of government the rule always to combine what is native with what is foreign,
+and to clothe new things in the old and venerable forms of Egyptian custom and religious
+ceremony. At Alexandria, accordingly, there arose, towards the beginning of the first
+century before Christ, a School calling itself at first Platonic, afterwards Pythagorean,
+which later still, in the shape of Neoplatonism, gained the ascendency over the whole
+domain of philosophy. The very fact, however, that such a change in philosophic views
+did not appear sooner, is sufficient to show that it was produced by external circumstances.
+But notwithstanding external circumstances <span class="pageNum" id="pb29">[<a href="#pb29">29</a>]</span>it would never have come about had not the intellect of Greece in the course of its
+own development been ripe for it.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Scepticism and Eclecticism.</i></span>
+The same remark holds good of the rise of that practical Eclecticism which we have
+before traced to the influence of Rome. Even in the period of intellectual exhaustion,
+Greek philosophy was not simply the resultant of its outward surroundings, but, under
+the influence of outward surroundings, took shape in a way indicated by its previous
+progress. If the lingering remains of a few small Schools, which soon expired, are
+excepted, there existed, after the beginning of the third century before Christ, only
+four great philosophic Schools—the Peripatetic, the Stoic, the Epicurean, and the
+School of Platonists. The last-named of these was converted to Scepticism by Arcesilaus.
+These four Schools were all permanently established at Athens, where a lively interchange
+of thought took place between them, which renders a thorough comparison of their several
+teachings comparatively easy. It was only natural that they would not long exist side
+by side without making overtures towards union and agreement. These overtures were
+favoured by Scepticism, which, denying the possibility of knowledge, only allowed
+a choice between probabilities, and decided that choice by the standard of practical
+needs. Hence, towards the close of the second century before Christ, these philosophic
+Schools may be observed to emerge more or less from their exclusiveness. An eclectic
+tendency steals over philosophy, aiming not so much at <span class="pageNum" id="pb30">[<a href="#pb30">30</a>]</span>scientific knowledge as at attaining certain results for practical use. The distinctive
+doctrines of each School drop into the background; and in the belief that infallibility
+resides solely in the mind itself, such portions are selected from each system as
+seem most in harmony with the selecting mind. The germ of this eclectic mode of thought
+lay in Scepticism. On the other hand, Eclecticism involves doubt. Hence, soon after
+the Christian era, a new school of doubt developed, which continued until the third
+century. There was thus, on the one hand, a lively interest in knowledge, which was
+desired in the practical interest of religion and morals; and, on the other hand,
+a disbelief in the truths of existing knowledge, and, indeed, of knowledge generally,
+openly avowed by some as Sceptics, secretly betrayed by others in the unsettledness
+of their Eclecticism. These two currents coalescing, led to the thought that truth,
+which cannot be found in knowledge, exists somewhere outside of it, and must be looked
+for partly in the religious traditions of the early days of Greece and the East, partly
+in direct divine revelation. Then came in such a notion of God, and of His relations
+to the world, as accords with this belief in revelation. Man knowing that truth lies
+outside himself, and doubting his own capacities to attain it, removes deity, as the
+absolute source of truth, into another world; and because the need of a revelation
+of truth still exists, the interval between God and the world is peopled with intermediate
+beings, who are sometimes <span class="pageNum" id="pb31">[<a href="#pb31">31</a>]</span>conceived of as metaphysical entities, and at other times appear as the demons of
+popular belief. This mental habit, which is connected with Plato and Pythagoras, among
+the older systems, forms the transition to Neoplatonism. The appearance of Neoplatonism
+introduces the last stage in the development of Greek philosophy.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch2.c.3">(3) <i>Religious School of Neoplatonists.</i></span>
+Yet even this turn in Greek philosophy was not uninfluenced by the circumstances of
+the times. Since the end of the second century after Christ, the decline of the Roman
+Empire progressed apace. Dread of the dangers which threatened it on all sides, the
+pressure of the times and distress made startling progress. All means of defence hitherto
+employed had proved unavailing to stem destruction. With ruin everywhere impending,
+the desire and longing for higher assistance increased. No such assistance was forthcoming
+from the old gods of Rome or the religious faith of the day; despite which circumstances
+were daily becoming more hopeless. Then it was that the desire for foreign forms of
+worship which had been gradually spreading over the Roman world since the last days
+of the Republic, and which the circumstances of the Empire had stimulated, gained
+ground. That desire was favoured by the highest power in the state, under the Oriental
+and half Oriental emperors who for nearly half a century after Septimius Severus occupied
+the imperial throne. The state and the gods of the state were continually losing their
+hold on the respect of men. Meanwhile, on the <span class="pageNum" id="pb32">[<a href="#pb32">32</a>]</span>one hand, Oriental worships, mysteries old and new, and foreign heathen religions
+of the most varying kinds, were ever gaining fresh adherents. On the other, Christianity
+was rapidly acquiring a power which enabled it openly to enter the lists for supremacy
+among the recognised religions of the state. The powerful monarchs who about the middle
+of the third century attempted to refound the Empire, had not for their object to
+restore a specifically Roman form of government, but to bring the various elements
+which composed the Empire under one sovereign will by fixed forms of administration.
+In this attempt Diocletian and Constantine succeeded. The Roman character asserted
+itself, as a ruling and regulating power, but it did so under the influence of another
+originally foreign character. The Empire was a congeries of nations artificially held
+together, and arranged on a carefully-designed plan; its centre of gravity lay not
+within the nation, but in the simple will of the prince, himself exalted above all
+rules and laws of state, and deciding everything without appeal and without responsibility.
+</p>
+<p>In like manner Neoplatonism united all the elements of previous philosophical Schools
+into one comprehensive and well-arranged system, in which each class of existences
+had its definite place assigned to it. The initial point in this system, the all-embracing
+unity, was a being lying beyond the world, high above every notion that experience
+and conception can supply, unmixed with the process of <span class="pageNum" id="pb33">[<a href="#pb33">33</a>]</span>life going on in the world, and from his unattainable height causing all things, but
+himself subject to no conditions of causality. Neoplatonism is the intellectual reproduction
+of Byzantine Imperialism. As Byzantine Imperialism combines Oriental despotism with
+the Roman idea of the state, so Neoplatonism supplements the scientific forms of Greek
+philosophy with Oriental mysticism.
+</p>
+<p>In Neoplatonism the post-Aristotelian philosophy had manifestly veered round into
+its opposite. Self-dependence and the self-sufficingness of thought made way for implicit
+resignation to higher powers, for a craving for revelation, for an ecstatic departure
+from the sphere of conscious mental activity. Man has abandoned the idea of truth
+within for truth to be found only in God. God stands there as abstract spirituality
+removed into another world in contrast to man and the world of appearances. Speculation
+has but one aim—to explain the procession of the finite from the infinite, and the
+conditions of its return into the absolute; but neither of these problems can meet
+with a satisfactory intellectual solution. Even this form of thought betrays undeniably
+the personal character of the post-Aristotelian philosophy, and is the natural outcome
+of previous teaching, as will be more fully seen in the sequel. With it the creative
+powers of the Greek mind were exhausted. After being driven step by step during centuries
+from the platform of their own national philosophy, the Greeks were eventually <span class="pageNum" id="pb34">[<a href="#pb34">34</a>]</span>entirely dislodged therefrom by the victory of Christianity. Neoplatonism made one
+more futile attempt to rescue the forms of Greek culture from its mighty rival, but
+when that attempt failed Greek religion and Greek philosophy went down together.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb35">[<a href="#pb35">35</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2612">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2612src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Conf<span>.</span> <i>Arist.</i> Metaph. I. 2, 282 b, 19.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2612src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="pt2" class="div0 part">
+<h2 class="label">PART II.</h2>
+<h2 class="main"><i>THE STOICS.</i></h2>
+<div id="ch3" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e373">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER III.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">HISTORY OF THE STOICS UNTIL THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">A striking feature in the history of the post-Aristotelian philosophy, and one which
+at the same time brings forcibly home the thorough change in its surroundings, is
+the fact that so many of its representatives come from eastern countries in which
+Greek and Oriental modes of thought met and mingled. Although for centuries Athens
+still continued to have the reputation of being the chief seat of Greek philosophy,
+and did not cease to be one of the most important seminaries of philosophy, even when
+it had to share that reputation with other cities, such as Alexandria, Rome, Rhodes,
+and Tarsus, yet at Athens itself there were teachers not a few whose foreign extraction
+indicates the age of Hellenism. This remark applies primarily to the later Neoplatonic
+School: next to it it is of none more true than of the Stoic. With this fact may be
+also associated the world-citizenship of this School, though it would be unfair to
+attribute a general <span class="pageNum" id="pb36">[<a href="#pb36">36</a>]</span>characteristic of the then state of the world to purely external circumstances. Nearly
+all the most important Stoics before the Christian era belong by birth to Asia Minor,
+to Syria, and to the islands of the Eastern Archipelago. Then follow a series of Roman
+Stoics, by the side of whom the Phrygian Epictetus occupies a prominent place; but
+Greece proper is represented only by men of third or fourth rate capacity.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch3.a">A. <i>Zeno.</i></span>
+The founder of the Stoic School, Zeno<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2781src" href="#xd33e2781" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> by name, was the son of Mnaseas,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2793src" href="#xd33e2793" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> and a native of Citium<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2811src" href="#xd33e2811" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> in Cyprus. Leaving his home, he repaired to Athens,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2859src" href="#xd33e2859" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb37">[<a href="#pb37">37</a>]</span>about the year 320 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2879src" href="#xd33e2879" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> where he at first joined the Cynic Crates.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2932src" href="#xd33e2932" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> He appears to have soon become disgusted with the extravagances of the Cynics’ mode
+of life,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2936src" href="#xd33e2936" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> and his keen desire for knowledge could find no satisfaction in a teaching so meagre
+as theirs.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2948src" href="#xd33e2948" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> To supply their defects he had recourse to Stilpo, who united to the moral teaching
+of the Cynics the logical acumen of the Megarians. He also studied under Polemo, and
+it is said under Xenocrates and <span class="pageNum" id="pb38">[<a href="#pb38">38</a>]</span>Diodorus the logician, with whose pupil Philo<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2964src" href="#xd33e2964" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> he was on terms of intimacy. After a long course of intellectual preparation, he
+at last appeared as a teacher, soon after the beginning of the third, or perhaps during
+the last years of the fourth century <span class="asc">B.C.</span> From the Stoa <span class="trans" title="poikilē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποικιλὴ</span></span>, the place which he selected for delivering his lectures, his followers derived their
+name of Stoics, having first been called after their master Zenonians.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2989src" href="#xd33e2989" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> Such was the universal respect inspired by his earnestness, moral strictness,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e2995src" href="#xd33e2995" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> and simplicity of life,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3002src" href="#xd33e3002" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> and the dignity, modesty, and affability of his conduct,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3029src" href="#xd33e3029" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> that Antigonus Gonatas vied with the city of Athens in showing <span class="pageNum" id="pb39">[<a href="#pb39">39</a>]</span>appreciation of him.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3068src" href="#xd33e3068" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Although lacking smoothness of style and using a language far from pure,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3090src" href="#xd33e3090" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> Zeno had nevertheless an extensive following. Leading a life of singular moderation,
+he reached an advanced <span class="pageNum" id="pb40">[<a href="#pb40">40</a>]</span>age untouched by disease, although he naturally enjoyed neither robust health nor
+an attractive person.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3147src" href="#xd33e3147" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> A slight injury having at length befallen him, which he regarded as a hint of destiny,
+he put an end to his own life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3164src" href="#xd33e3164" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> His not very numerous writings<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3175src" href="#xd33e3175" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> have been lost, with the exception of a few fragments, some no doubt dating from
+the time when, as a pupil of Crates, he adhered more strictly to Cynic ideas than
+was afterwards the case.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3256src" href="#xd33e3256" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> This point ought not to be forgotten in sketching his teaching.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch3.b">B. <i>Pupils of Zeno.</i><br id="ch3.b.1">(1) <i>Cleanthes.</i></span>
+The successor to the chair of Zeno was Cleanthes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3277src" href="#xd33e3277" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> a native of Assos in the Troad,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3285src" href="#xd33e3285" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> a man of strong and firm character, of unusual endurance, energy, and contentment,
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb41">[<a href="#pb41">41</a>]</span>but also slow of apprehension, and somewhat heavy in intellect. Resembling Xenocrates
+in mind, Cleanthes was in every way adapted to uphold his master’s teaching, and to
+recommend it by the moral weight of his own character, but he was incapable of expanding
+it more completely, or of establishing it on a wider basis.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3339src" href="#xd33e3339" title="Go to note 22.">22</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch3.b.2">(2) <i>Aristo and Herillus.</i></span>
+Besides Cleanthes, the best known among the pupils of Zeno are Aristo of Chios,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3416src" href="#xd33e3416" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> and Herillus of <span class="pageNum" id="pb42">[<a href="#pb42">42</a>]</span>Carthage,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3517src" href="#xd33e3517" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> who diverged from his teaching in the most opposite directions, Aristo confining
+himself <span class="pageNum" id="pb43">[<a href="#pb43">43</a>]</span>rigidly to Cynicism, Herillus approximating to the leading positions held by the Peripatetic
+School.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch3.b.3">(3) <i>Other pupils.</i></span>
+Other pupils of Zeno were Persæus, a countryman and companion of Zeno;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3583src" href="#xd33e3583" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> Aratus, the well-known poet of Soli;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3709src" href="#xd33e3709" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> Dionysius of Heraclea in Pontus, <span class="pageNum" id="pb44">[<a href="#pb44">44</a>]</span>who afterwards joined the Cyrenaic or Epicurean School;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3725src" href="#xd33e3725" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> and Sphærus from the Bosporus, who studied first in the School of Zeno, and afterwards
+in that of Cleanthes, and was the friend and adviser of Cleomenes, the unfortunate
+Spartan reformer.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3750src" href="#xd33e3750" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> Of a few other pupils of Zeno the names are also known;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3786src" href="#xd33e3786" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> but nothing beyond their names. No appreciable <span class="pageNum" id="pb45">[<a href="#pb45">45</a>]</span>addition was made to the Stoic doctrine by any one of them.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch3.c">C. <i>Chrysippus and the later Stoics.</i><br id="ch3.c.1">(1) <i>Chrysippus.</i></span>
+It was therefore fortunate for Stoicism that Cleanthes was followed in the presidency
+of the School by a man of learning and argumentative power like Chrysippus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3812src" href="#xd33e3812" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> In the opinion of the ancients, Chrysippus was the second founder of Stoicism.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3816src" href="#xd33e3816" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> Born<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3846src" href="#xd33e3846" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> in the year 280 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3871src" href="#xd33e3871" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> at Soli in Cilicia,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3884src" href="#xd33e3884" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> after being a pupil of Cleanthes<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3908src" href="#xd33e3908" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> and it is said even of Zeno<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3913src" href="#xd33e3913" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> himself, he succeeded, on the death of Cleanthes, to the conduct of his School.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3917src" href="#xd33e3917" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> He is also <span class="pageNum" id="pb46">[<a href="#pb46">46</a>]</span>said to have attended the lectures of Arcesilaus and Lacydes, philosophers of the
+Middle Academy;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3925src" href="#xd33e3925" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> whose critical methods he so thoroughly appropriated, that later Stoics accused him
+of furnishing Carneades with the necessary weapons for attacking them,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3942src" href="#xd33e3942" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> by the masterly manner in which he raised philosophical doubts without being able
+to answer them satisfactorily. This critical acuteness and skill, more than anything
+else, entitle him to be regarded as the second founder of Stoicism.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3971src" href="#xd33e3971" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> In learning, too, he was far in advance of his predecessors, and passed for the most
+industrious and learned man of antiquity.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e3994src" href="#xd33e3994" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> Independent in tone, as his general conduct and intellectual self-reliance<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4004src" href="#xd33e4004" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> often <span class="pageNum" id="pb47">[<a href="#pb47">47</a>]</span>proved,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4010src" href="#xd33e4010" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> he deviated from the teaching of Zeno and Cleanthes, as might be expected, in many
+respects.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4015src" href="#xd33e4015" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> Still, the fundamental principles of the system were not altered by him; only their
+intellectual treatment was perfected and deepened. In fact, the Stoic doctrine was
+expanded by him with such completeness in details, that hardly a gleaning was left
+for his successors to gather up.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4031src" href="#xd33e4031" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> In multitude of writings<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4038src" href="#xd33e4038" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> he exceeded Epicurus;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4047src" href="#xd33e4047" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> their titles, and a comparatively small number of fragments, being all that have
+come down to us.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4054src" href="#xd33e4054" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> With such an extraordinary literary fertility, it will be easily understood that
+their artistic value is not very high. The ancients are unanimous in complaining of
+their careless and impure language, of their dry and often obscure style, of their
+prolixity, their endless repetitions, their frequent and lengthy citations, and their
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb48">[<a href="#pb48">48</a>]</span>too frequent appeals to etymologies, authorities, and other irrelevant proofs.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4076src" href="#xd33e4076" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> But by Chrysippus the Stoic teaching was brought to completeness; and when he died,
+in the year 206 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4109src" href="#xd33e4109" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> the form was in every respect fixed in which Stoicism would be handed down for the
+next following centuries.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch3.c.2">(2) <i>Later Stoics.</i></span>
+A cotemporary of Chrysippus, but probably somewhat his senior, was Teles, from whose
+writings a few extracts<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4132src" href="#xd33e4132" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> have been preserved by Stobæus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4157src" href="#xd33e4157" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> in the shape of popular moral considerations written from a Cynic or Stoical point
+of view. The same age also produced the Cyrenaic Eratosthenes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4160src" href="#xd33e4160" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> a man distinguished in every branch of knowledge, but particularly celebrated for
+his mathematical attainments, <span class="pageNum" id="pb49">[<a href="#pb49">49</a>]</span>who was gained for Stoicism by Aristo.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4170src" href="#xd33e4170" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> Another cotemporary of Chrysippus, and perhaps his fellow-student,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4174src" href="#xd33e4174" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> who in many respects approximated to the teaching of the Peripatetics,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4189src" href="#xd33e4189" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> was the Stoic Boëthus. The proper scholars of Chrysippus were without doubt numerous;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4205src" href="#xd33e4205" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> but few of their names are known to us.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4224src" href="#xd33e4224" title="Go to note 58.">58</a> The most important among them appear to have been Zeno of Tarsus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4231src" href="#xd33e4231" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> and Diogenes of Seleucia,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4261src" href="#xd33e4261" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> who <span class="pageNum" id="pb50">[<a href="#pb50">50</a>]</span>succeeded Chrysippus in the presidency of the School.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4356src" href="#xd33e4356" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> The pupil and successor of Diogenes, in his turn, was Antipater of Tarsus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4363src" href="#xd33e4363" title="Go to note 62.">62</a> in connection with whom Archedemus his countryman is frequently mentioned.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4423src" href="#xd33e4423" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb51">[<a href="#pb51">51</a>]</span>Under Panætius, Antipater’s scholar, Stoicism entered the Roman world, and there underwent
+internal changes, to which attention will be drawn in the sequel.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4446src" href="#xd33e4446" title="Go to note 64.">64</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb53">[<a href="#pb53">53</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2781">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2781src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> For the life of Zeno, Diogenes is the chief authority, who appears to be indebted
+for his information chiefly to Antigonus of Carystus, who lived about 250 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> In proof of this, compare the account of Diogenes with the extracts given by Athenæus
+(viii. 345, d; xiii. 563, e; 565, d; 603, e; 607, e; and, in particular, ii. 55, f)
+from Antigonus’ life of Zeno. Of modern authorities, consult <i>Wagenmann</i>, in <i>Pauly’s</i> <span lang="de">Realencyclop.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2781src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2793">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2793src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 1. <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Zēnōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνων</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 3, 29. <i>Pausan.</i> ii. 8, 4. He is called by others Demeas.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2793src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2811">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2811src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> Citium, which the ancients unanimously call the native city of Zeno, was, according
+to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 1, a <span class="trans" title="polisma Hellēnikon Phoinikas epoikous eschēkos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πόλισμα Ἑλληνικὸν Φοίνικας ἐποίκους ἐσχηκὸς</span></span>, i.e. Phœnician immigrants had settled there by the side of the old Greek population,
+whence its inhabitants are sometimes called ‘<span lang="la">e Phœnicia profecti</span>’ (<i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 20, 56), and Zeno is himself called a Phœnician (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 3; 15; 25; 30; ii. 114. <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήν</span></span>. <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 563, e. <i>Cic.</i> l.c<span>.</span>). A continuous connection between Citium and Phœnicia is implied in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 6; <span class="trans" title="hoi en Sidōni Kitieis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ ἐν Σιδῶνι Κιτιεῖς</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2811src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2859">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2859src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> The details are differently given by <i>Diog.</i> 2–5; 31; <i>Plut.</i> Inimic. Util. 2, p. 87; and <i>Sen.</i> Tranq. An. 14, 3. Most accounts say that he came to Athens for trading purposes,
+and accidentally became acquainted with Crates and philosophy after being shipwrecked.
+According to other accounts, he remained at Athens, after disposing of his merchandise,
+and devoted himself to philosophy. Demetrius of Magnesia (<i>Themist.</i> Or. xxiii. 295, <span class="asc">D</span>) further relates that he had already occupied himself with philosophy at home, and
+repaired to Athens to study it more fully—a view which seems most likely, because
+the least sensational.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2859src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2879">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2879src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> The dates in Zeno’s life are very uncertain. He is said to have been thirty when he
+first came to Athens (<i>Diog.</i> 2). Persæus, however (<i>Ibid.</i> 28), his pupil and countryman, says twenty-two. These statements are of little use,
+since the date of his coming to Athens is unknown. If it is true that after reading
+with Crates he was for ten years a pupil of Xenocrates, who died 314 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> (<i>Timocrates</i> in <i>Diog.</i> 2), he must have come to Athens not later than 328 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> But this fact may be doubted. For his whole line of thought resembles that of Crates
+and Stilpo. How then can he have been for ten years a pupil in the Academy, and in
+addition have enjoyed Polemo’s teaching? Altogether he is said to have frequented
+the schools of different philosophers for twenty years before opening his own (<i>Diog.</i> 4). According to Apollon. in <i>Diog.</i> 28, he presided over his own school for fifty-eight years, which is hardly reconcileable
+with the above data, even if he attained the age of ninety-eight (<i>Diog.</i> 28; <i>Lucian<span>,</span></i> Macrob<span id="xd33e2907">.</span> 19). According to Persæus (<i>Diog.</i> 28), he only attained the age of seventy-two (<i>Clinton</i><span id="xd33e2914">,</span> Fast. Hell. II. 368 capriciously suggests 92), and was altogether only fifty years
+in Athens. On the other hand, in his own letter to Antigonus (<i>Diog.</i> 9), he distinctly calls himself an octogenarian, but the genuineness of this letter,
+borrowed by Diogenes from Apollonius the Tyrian about 50 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, may perhaps be doubted. The year of Zeno’s death is likewise unknown. His relations
+to Antigonus Gonatas prove at least that he was not dead before the beginning of his
+reign in 278 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, and probably not till long afterwards. It would appear from the calculation of his
+age, that his death did not take place till 260 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> He may, then, have lived circa 350 to 260 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>; but these dates are quite uncertain.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2879src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2932">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2932src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 2; vi. 105.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2932src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2936">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2936src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 3: <span class="trans" title="enteuthen ēkouse tou Kratētos, allōs men eutonos pros philosophian, aidēmōn de hōs pros tēn kynikēn anaischyntian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐντεῦθεν ἤκουσε τοῦ Κράτητος, ἄλλως μὲν εὔτονος πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν, αἰδήμων δὲ ὡς πρὸς
+τὴν κυνικὴν ἀναισχυντίαν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2936src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2948">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2948src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> Conf., besides what immediately follows, <i>Diog.</i> 25 and 15: <span class="trans" title="ēn de zētētikos kai peri pantōn akribologoumenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἦν δὲ ζητητικὸς καὶ περὶ πάντων ἀκριβολογούμενος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2948src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2964">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2964src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 2; 4; 16; 20; 24; ii. 114; 120. Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 9; 6, 6. Polemo is called his teacher by <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 16, 45; Acad. i. 9, 35. <i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1. 67, p. 614. On Xenocrates compare p. 37, 1. How ready he was to learn from
+others is proved by the saying in <i>Diog.</i> 25; <i>Plut.</i> Fragm. in Hesiod. ix. T.&nbsp;V. 511. W.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2964src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2989">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2989src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 5, according to whom he gave instruction walking to and fro, like Aristotle, but
+never to more than two or three at a time (<i>Diog.</i> 14). It is not probable that he gave any formal lectures.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2989src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e2995">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e2995src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> Which, however, must be judged by the standard of that time and of Greek customs.
+Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 13; and the quotations in <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 607, e; 563, e, from Antigonus of Carystus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e2995src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3002">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3002src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> See Musonius in <i>Stob.</i> Serm. 17, 43. His outward circumstances also appear to have been very simple. According
+to one account (<i>Diog.</i> 13), he brought to Athens the fabulous sum of 1000 talents, and put it out to interest.
+<i>Themist.</i> Or. xxi., p. 252, says that he forgave a debtor his debt. He is said to have paid
+a logician 200 drachmas, instead of the 100 which he asked for (<i>Diog.</i> 25). Nor is there any mention of a Cynical life or of poverty. But, according to
+<i>Diog.</i> 5, <i>Plut.</i> and <i>Sen.</i>, he had lost his property almost entirely. According to <i>Sen.</i> Consol. ad Helv. 12, 5 (contradicted by <i>Diog.</i> 23), he owned no slave<span>.</span> Had he been well to do, he would hardly have accepted the presents of Antigonus.
+That Zeno was unmarried appears from <i>Diog.</i> 13.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3002src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3029">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3029src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 13; 16; 24; 26; <i>Athen.</i> in the passage quoted p. 36, 2; <i>Suid.</i>; <i>Clem.</i> Strom<span id="xd33e3039">.</span> 413, <span class="asc">A</span>. It is mentioned as a peculiarity of Zeno, that he avoided all noise and popular
+display (<i>Diog.</i> 14); that, though generally <span class="pageNum" id="pb39n">[<a href="#pb39n">39</a>]</span>grave, he relaxed over his wine, and that too much; that he could not tolerate many
+words, and was very fond of epigrams. See <i>Diog.</i> 16; 20; 24; <i>Athen.</i> l.c. <i>Stob.</i> Serm. 34; 10; 36; 19; 23. He is said to have carried his parsimoniousness too far.
+In this respect he was a thorough Phœnician (<i>Diog.</i> 16). The presents of Antigonus he never sought, and broke with an acquaintance who
+asked for his interest with the king. Still he did not despise them, without abating
+from his dignity. The loss of his property he bore with the greatest composure (<i>Diog.</i> 3; <i>Plut.</i> and <i>Sen.</i>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3029src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3068">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3068src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> Antigonus (conf. <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 603, e; <i>Arrian</i>, Diss. Epict. ii. 13, 14; <i>Simpl.</i> in Epict. Enchir. 283, c; <i>Æl.</i> V.&nbsp;H. ix. 26) was fond of his society, attended his lectures, and wished to have
+him at court—but Zeno declined the offer, sending two of his pupils instead. The Athenians,
+to whom, according to Ælian’s untrustworthy account V.&nbsp;H. vii. 14, he had rendered
+political services, honoured him with a public panegyric, a golden crown, a statue,
+and burial in the Ceramicus. That the keys of the city were left in his keeping is
+not probable. The offer of Athenian citizenship he declined (<i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 4, 1, p. 1034). Nor did his countrymen in Citium fail to show their appreciation
+(<i>Diog.</i> 6; <i>Plin.</i> H.&nbsp;N. xxxiv. 19, 32) of him, and Zeno always insisted on being a Citian (<i>Diog.</i> 12; <i>Plut.</i> l.c.).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3068src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3090">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3090src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> He himself (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 18) compares the <span class="trans" title="logoi apērtismenoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι ἀπηρτισμένοι</span></span> of the <span class="trans" title="asoloikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀσόλοικοι</span></span> to the elegant Alexandrian coins, which, instead of being better, were often lighter
+than those of Athens. He is charged in particular with using words in a wrong sense,
+and with inventing new words, whence <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 11, 34, calls him ‘<span lang="la">ignobilis verborum opifex</span>,’ and Chrysippus, in a treatise <span class="trans" title="peri tou kyriōs kechrēsthai Zēnōna tois onomasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τοῦ κυρίως κεχρῆσθαι Ζήνωνα τοῖς ὀνόμασιν</span></span>, disparages this <span class="trans" title="kainotomein en tois onomasi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καινοτομεῖν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι</span></span> (<i>Galen.</i> Diff. Puls. III. 1., vol. viii. 642, K.). He is also charged with maintaining that
+nothing ought to be concealed, but that even the most indelicate things should be
+called by their proper names. He is further charged with having propounded no new
+system, but with having appropriated the thoughts of his predecessors, and having
+concealed his plagiarism by the use of new terms. In <i>Diog.</i> vii. 25, Polemo says: <span class="trans" title="kleptōn ta dogmata Phoinikōs metamphiennys"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κλέπτων τὰ δόγματα Φοινικῶς μεταμφιεννύς</span></span>; and Cicero frequently repeats the charge (Fin. v. 25, 74; iii. 2, 5; iv. 2, 3; 3,
+7; 26; 72; v. 8, 22; 29, 88. Acad. ii. 5, 15. Legg. 1, 13, 38; 20; 53. Tusc. ii. 12,
+29).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3090src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3147">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3147src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 28, 1. The statement that he was <span class="trans" title="anosos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνοσος</span></span> must be taken with some limitation, according to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 162; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 17, 43.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3147src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3164">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3164src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 28; 31. <i>Lucian</i>, Macrob. 19. <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. iii. 18. <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 7, 45. <i>Suid.</i>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3164src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3175">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3175src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> The list of them in <i>Diog.</i> 4, to which additions are made <i>Diog.</i> 34; 39; 134. The <span class="trans" title="Diatribai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διατριβαὶ</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 34; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 205; 245; Math. xi. 90) may perhaps be identical with the <span class="trans" title="Apomnēmoneumata Kratētos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 4), the <span class="trans" title="Technē erōtikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Τέχνη ἐρωτικὴ</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 34) with <span class="trans" title="Technē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Τέχνη</span></span> (<i>Diog<span>.</span></i> 4). An exposition of Hesiod, which had been inferred to exist, from <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 36, <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 367, rightly identifies with the treatise <span class="trans" title="peri tou holou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τοῦ ὅλου</span></span>, and this with the treatise <span class="trans" title="peri tēs physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῆς φύσεως</span></span> (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 178). Other authorities are given by <i>Fabric.</i> Bibl. Gr. iii. 580.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3175src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3256">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3256src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> This appears at least probable from <i>Diog.</i> 4: <span class="trans" title="heōs men oun tinos ēkouse tou Kratētos; hote kai tēn politeian autou grapsantos, tines elegon paizontes epi tēs tou kynos ouras autēn gegraphenai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕως μὲν οὖν τινὸς ἤκουσε τοῦ Κράτητος· ὅτε καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτοῦ γράψαντος, τινὲς
+ἔλεγον παίζοντες ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ κυνὸς οὐρᾶς αὐτὴν γεγραφέναι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3256src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3277">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3277src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Mohnike</i>, Cleanthes d. Sto.: Greifsw. 1814. Cleanthis Hymn. in Jovem, ed. <i>Sturz</i>, ed. nov. cur. <i>Merzdorf.</i>: Lips. 1835.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3277src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3285">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3285src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1, 57, p. 610. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 168. <i>Ælian</i>, Hist. Anim. vi. 50. How <i>Clemens</i>, Protrept. 47, <span class="asc">A</span>, comes to call him <span class="trans" title="Pisadeus"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πισαδεὺς</span></span>, it is hard to say, nor is it of any moment. <i>Mohnike</i>, p. 67, offers conjectures. Mohnike also rightly maintains, p. 77, that Cleanthes
+<span class="trans" title="ho Pontikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Ποντικὸς</span></span> in <i>Diog.</i> ix. 15 must be the same as this Cleanthes, and <i>Cobet</i> strikes out the words <span class="trans" title="ho Pontikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Ποντικὸς</span></span> after <span class="trans" title="Kleanthēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κλεάνθης</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3285src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3339">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3339src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> According to Antisthenes (the Rhodian), in <i>Diog.</i> l.c., Cleanthes was a pugilist, who came to Athens with four <span class="corr" id="xd33e3343" title="Source: drachmae">drachmæ</span>, and entered the school of Zeno (according to <i>Hesych.</i> v. <i>Suid.</i>, that of Crates, which is impossible for chronological reasons. Conversely, <i>Valer. Max.</i> viii. 7, ext. 11, makes him a pupil of Chrysippus, confounding the relations of pupil
+and teacher, as we have met with elsewhere), in which he studied for nineteen years
+(<i>Diog.</i> 176), gaining a maintenance by working as a labourer (<i>Diog.</i> 168; 174; <i>Plut.</i> Vit. Ær. Al. 7, 5, p. 830; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 44, 3; <i>Krische</i><span id="xd33e3362">,</span> <span lang="de">Forsch.</span>). A public maintenance, which was offered him, Zeno induced him to refuse, and, in
+other ways, tried his power of will by the severest tests. It is, therefore, all the
+more improbable that Antigonus gave him 3000 <span lang="la">minæ</span> (<i>Diog.</i> 169). On the simplicity of his life, his constant application, his adherence to Zeno,
+&amp;c., see <i>Diog.</i> 168; 170; 37; <i>Plut.</i> De Audi. 18, p. 47; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. ii. 25, 60. He also refused to become an Athenian citizen (<i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 4, p. 1034). He died of self-imposed starvation (<i>Diog.</i> 176; <i>Lucian</i>, Macrob. 19; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 7, 54). His age is stated by <i>Diog.</i> 176, at eighty; by <i>Lucian</i> and <i>Valer. Max.</i> viii. 7, ext. 11, at ninety-nine. <i>Diog.</i> 174, gives a list of his somewhat numerous writings, mostly on moral subjects, which
+is supplemented by <i>Fabric.</i> Bibl. iii. 551, Harl. and <i>Mohnike</i>, p. 90. Cleanthes was held in great esteem in the Stoic School, even in the time
+of Chrysippus (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 179; 182; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 41, 126). At a later time, the Roman Senate erected a statue to him at
+Assos (<i>Simpl.</i> in <i>Epict.</i> Enchir. c. 53, 329, b).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3339src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3416">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3416src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> Aristo, son of Miltiades, a Chian, discussed most fully by <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 405, known as the Siren, because of his persuasive powers, and also as the Baldhead,
+was a pupil of Zeno (<i>Diog.</i> 37; 160; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 37; Acad. ii. 42, 130; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 94, 2), but is said, during Zeno’s illness, to have joined Polemo (Diocl. in
+<i>Diog.</i> 162). Although it may be objected that his teaching does not diverge in the direction
+of Platonism, <span class="pageNum" id="pb42n">[<a href="#pb42n">42</a>]</span>but rather in the opposite direction, still Polemo’s contempt (<i>Diog.</i> iv. 18) for dialectic may at one time have had its attractions for him. It is a better
+established fact that his attitude towards pleasure was less indifferent than it ought
+to have been, according to his principles (Eratos and Apollophanes in <i>Athen.</i> vii. 281, c); but the charge of flattery towards his fellow-pupil Persæus appears
+not to be substantiated (<i>Athen.</i> vi. 251, c). His letters show that he was on intimate terms with Cleanthes (<i>Themist.</i> Or. xxi. p. 255, b). His loquacity is said to have been displeasing to Zeno (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 18). He appeared as a teacher in the Cynosarges, Antisthenes’ old locality (<i>Diog.</i> 161), thus claiming descent from Cynicism. Of his numerous pupils (<i>Diog.</i> 182; <i>Plut.</i> C. Princ. Philos. i. 4. p. 776), two are mentioned by Diogenes, 161; Miltiades and
+Diphilus. Athenæus names two more: Apollophanes, and the celebrated Alexandrian sage,
+Eratosthenes, both of whom wrote an ‘Aristo.’ The latter is also named by <i>Strabo</i>, i. 2, 2, p. 15, <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Eratosth"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐρατοσθ</span></span>. Apollophanes, whilst adopting Aristo’s views of virtue in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 92, did not otherwise adopt his ethics. His natural science is mentioned by
+<i>Diog.</i> vii. 140, his psychology by <i><span class="corr" id="xd33e3469" title="Source: Tertul.">Tertull.</span></i> De An. 14. Since Eratosthenes was born 276 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, Aristo must have been alive in 250 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, which agrees with his being called a cotemporary and opponent of Arcesilaus (<i>Strabo</i>, l.c.; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 162; iv. 40, and 33). According to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 164, he died of sunstroke. Not only had his School disappeared in the time of
+Strabo and Cicero (<i>Cic.</i> Legg. i. 13, 38; Fin. ii. 11, 35; v. 8, 23; Tusc. v. 30, 85; Off. i. 2, 6; <i>Strabo</i>, l.c.), but no traces of it are found beyond the first generation. The writings enumerated
+by <i>Diog.</i> vii. 163, with the single exception of the letter to Cleanthes, are said to have
+been attributed by Panætius and Sosicrates to the Peripatetic; but Krische’s remarks,
+p. 408, particularly after <i>Sauppe’s</i> demurrer (Philodemi de Vit. Lib. X. Weimar, 1853, p. 7), raise a partial doubt as
+to the accuracy of this statement. The fragments, at least, of <span class="trans" title="Homoiōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὁμοιώματα</span></span> preserved by Stobæus seem to belong to a Stoic. Perhaps from the <span class="trans" title="Homoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὅμοια</span></span> come the statements in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 36, 3; 115, 8; <i>Plut.</i> De Aud. 8, p. 42; De Sanit. 20, p. 133; De Exil. 5, p. 600; Præc. Ger. Reip. 9, 4,
+p. 804; Aqua an Ign. Util. 12, 2, p. 958.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3416src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3517">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3517src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> Herillus’s native place was Carthage (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 37; 165). If <span class="trans" title="Chalchēdonios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χαλχηδόνιος</span></span> is read by <i>Cobet</i> in the last passage, we have again the same confusion between <span class="trans" title="Kalchēdōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Καλχηδὼν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="Karchēdōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Καρχηδὼν</span></span>, which made Xenocrates a <span class="trans" title="Karchēdonios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Καρχηδόνιος</span></span>. He came as a boy under Zeno (<i>Diog.</i> 166; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 42, 129). <i>Diog.</i> l.c. enumerates the writings of Herillus, calling <span class="pageNum" id="pb43n">[<a href="#pb43n">43</a>]</span>them, however, <span class="trans" title="oligosticha men dynameōs de mesta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀλιγόστιχα μὲν δυνάμεως δὲ μεστά</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. iii. 17. 62, speaks of a School bearing his name, but no pupil belonging
+to it is known.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3517src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3583">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3583src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> Citium was his birthplace. His father’s name was Demetrius (<i>Diog.</i> 6; 36), and his own nickname Dorotheus (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Pers"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Περσ</span></span>.). According to <i>Diog.</i> 36; Sotion and Nicias in <i>Athen.</i> iv. 162, d; <i>Gell.</i> ii. 18, 8; <i>Orig.</i> C. Cels. iii. 483, d; he was first a slave of Zeno’s, which agrees with his being
+a pupil and inmate of his house (<i>Diog.</i> 36; 13; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 38; <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 607, e; <i>Pausan.</i> ii. 8, 4). It is less probable that he was presented by Antigonus to Zeno as a copyist
+(<i>Diog.</i> 36). He subsequently lived at the court of Antigonus (<i>Athen.</i> vi. 251, c; xiii. 607, a; <i>Themist.</i> Or. xxxii., p. 358), whose son Halcyoneus (<i>Ælian</i>, V.&nbsp;H. iii. 17, says falsely himself) he is said to have instructed (<i>Diog.</i> 36), and with whom he stood in high favour (<i>Plut.</i> Arat. 18; <i>Athen.</i> vi. 251, c). He, however, allowed the Macedonian garrison in Corinth to be surprised
+by Aratus, in 243 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, and, according to <i>Pausan.</i> ii. 8, 4; vii. 8, 1, perished on that occasion. The contrary is asserted by <i>Plut.</i> Arat. 23, and <i>Athen.</i> iv. 162, c. In his teaching and manner of life, he appears to have taken a very easy
+view of the Stoic principles (<i>Diog.</i> 13; 36; <i>Athen.</i> iv. 162, b; xiii. 607, a). It is therefore probable that he did not agree with Aristo’s
+Cynicism (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 162), and his pupil Hermagoras wrote against the Cynics (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Hermag"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἑρμαγ</span></span>.). Political reasons were at the bottom of Menedemus’ hatred for him (<i>Diog.</i> ii. 143). Otherwise, he appears as a genuine Stoic (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 120; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 38; <i>Minuc. Felix</i> Octav. 21, 3; <i>Philodem.</i> De Mus., Vol. Herc. i. col. 14). Compare p. 39, 2. The treatises mentioned by <i>Diog.</i> 36 are chiefly ethical and political. In addition to these, there was a treatise
+on Ethics (<i>Diog.</i> 28); the <span class="trans" title="sympotika hypomnēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμποτικὰ ὑπομνήματα</span></span>, or <span class="trans" title="sympotikoi dialogoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμποτικοὶ διάλογοι</span></span>, from which <i>Athen.</i> (iv. 162, b; xiii. 607, a) gives some extracts; and the <span class="trans" title="Historia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἱστορία</span></span> (in <i>Suid.</i>). Whether Cicero’s statement is taken from a treatise omitted by Diogenes, or from
+that <span class="trans" title="peri asebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ἀσεβείας</span></span>, it is hard to say.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3583src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3709">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3709src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> According to the sketch of his life in <i>Buhle</i> (Arat. Opp. i. 3), Aratus was a pupil of Persæus at Athens, in company with whom
+he repaired to Antigonus in Macedonia, which can only mean that he was, together with
+Persæus, a pupil of Zeno. Another writer in <i>Buhle</i> (ii. 445) calls him so, mentioning <span class="pageNum" id="pb44n">[<a href="#pb44n">44</a>]</span>one of his letters addressed to Zeno. Other accounts (<i>Ibid.</i> ii. 431; 442; 446) describe him as a pupil of Dionysius of Heraclea, or of Timon
+and Menedemus. A memorial of his Stoicism is the introduction to his ‘Phænomena,’
+a poem resembling the hymn of Cleanthes. Asclepiades (Vita in <i>Buhle</i><span id="xd33e3720">,</span> ii. 429), in calling him a native of Tarsus, is only preferring a better-known Cilician
+town to one less known.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3709src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3725">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3725src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> Hence his name <span class="trans" title="ho Metathemenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Μεταθέμενος</span></span>. On his writings, consult <i>Diog.</i> vii. 166; 37; 23; v. 92; <i>Athen.</i> vii. 281, d; x. 437, e; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 22, 71; Tusc. ii. 25, 60; Fin. v. 31, 94. Previously to Zeno, he is said
+to have studied under Heraclides <span class="trans" title="ho Pontikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Ποντικὸς</span></span>, Alexinus, and Menedemus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3725src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3750">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3750src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 177; <i>Plut.</i> Cleomen. 2; 11; <i>Athen.</i> viii. 354, e. Sphærus’ presence in Egypt seems to belong to the time before he became
+connected with Cleomenes. He was a pupil of Cleanthes (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 185; <i>Athen.</i> l.c.) when he went to Egypt, and resided there at the court of Ptolemy for several
+years. He had left Egypt by 221 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, but was then himself no longer a member of the Stoic School at Athens. It is possible
+that Sphærus may first have come to Cleomenes on a commission from the Egyptian king.
+In that case, the Ptolemy referred to must have been either Ptolemy Euergetes or Ptolemy
+Philadelphus—certainly not Philopator, as <i>Diog.</i> 177 says. If, however, the view is taken that it was Ptolemy Philopator, it may be
+supposed that Sphærus repaired to Egypt with Cleomenes in 221 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> Sphærus’ numerous writings (<i>Diog.</i> 178: <span class="trans" title="Lakōnikē politeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λακωνικὴ πολιτεία</span></span> also in <i>Athen.</i> iv. 141, 6) refer to all parts of philosophy, and to some of the older philosophers.
+According to <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 24, 53, his definitions were in great esteem in the Stoic School.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3750src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3786">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3786src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> Athenodorus, a native of Soli (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 38; 100); Callippus of Corinth (<i>Diog.</i> 38); Philonides of Thebes, who went with Persæus to Antigonus (<i>Diog.</i> 9; 38); Posidonius of Alexandria (<i>Diog.</i> 38); Zeno of Sidon, a pupil of Diodorus Cronus, who joined Zeno (<i>Diog.</i> 38; 16; <i>Suid.</i>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3786src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3812">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3812src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Baguet</i>, De Chrysippo. Annal. Lovan. vol. iv. Lovan. 1822.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3812src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3816">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3816src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <span class="trans" title="Ei mē gar ēn Chrysippos ouk an ēn stoa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος οὐκ ἂν ἦν στοά</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 183). <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 24, 75: <span lang="la">Chrysippum, qui fulcire putatur porticum Stoicorum</span>, <i>Athen.</i> viii. 335, b.: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippon ton tēs stoas hēgemona"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππον τὸν τῆς στοᾶς ἡγεμόνα</span></span>. See <i>Baguet</i>, p. 16.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3816src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3846">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3846src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> It is recorded (<i>Diog.</i> 179) that he was brought up in early life as a racer, which is an exceedingly suspicious
+statement, (<i>confer</i> D, 168); and that his paternal property was confiscated (Hecato in <i>Diog.</i> 181). Subsequently, his domestic establishment was scanty, consisting of one old
+servant (<i>Diog.</i> 185; 181; 183); but whether this was the result of Stoicism or of poverty is not
+known. The Floril. Monac. (in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 289) 262 calls him <span class="trans" title="litos, echōn chrēmata polla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λιτὸς, ἔχων χρήματα πολλά</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3846src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3871">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3871src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> According to Apollodorus in <i>Diog.</i> 184, he died c. 205 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, in his 73rd year, which would make 281 to 276 the year of his birth. According to
+<i>Lucian</i>, Macrob. 20, he attained the age of 81, and, according to <i>Valer. Max.</i> viii. 7 ext. 10, completed the 39th book of his logic in his eightieth year.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3871src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3884">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3884src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> This is the view of <i>Diog.</i> 179; <i>Plut.</i> De Exil. 14, p. 605; <i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1. 57, p. 610; xiv. 4, 8, p. 671, and most writers. Alexander Polyhistor,
+however, in <i>Diog.</i> and <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήν</span></span>. call him a native of Tarsus; and since his father Apollonius migrated from Tarsus
+to Soli (<i>Strabo</i>, p. 671), it is possible that Chrysippus may have been born in Tarsus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3884src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3908">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3908src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> On this point all authorities are agreed. When and how he came to Athens is not recorded.
+He subsequently obtained the rights of citizenship there (<i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 4, 2, p. 1034).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3908src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3913">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3913src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 179. This statement cannot be tested by chronology. Authorities, however, do not
+look promising.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3913src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3917">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3917src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> Pro. 15. <i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1, 57, 610.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3917src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3925">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3925src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 183. It is possible, as <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 524, supposes, that he was for some time doubtful about Stoicism, whilst he
+was under the influence of the Academic Scepticism, and that during this time he wrote
+the treatise against <span class="trans" title="synētheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνήθεια</span></span>. This is possible, but not probable. But that he should have separated from Cleanthes,
+and have set up a school in the Lyceum in opposition to him, is unlikely, and does
+not follow from the words of <i>Diog.</i> 179; 185.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3925src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3942">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3942src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 184; iv. 62. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 27, 87. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. p. 10, 3, 1036. These passages refer particularly to Chrysippus’ six books
+<span class="trans" title="kata tēs synētheias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ τῆς συνηθείας</span></span>. On the other hand, his pupil Aristocreon, in <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 2, 5, commends him as being <span class="trans" title="tōn Akadēmiakōn strangalidōn kopida"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν Ἀκαδημιακῶν στραγγαλίδων κοπίδα</span></span>. (Conf. <i>Plut.</i> Comm. Not. i. 4, p. 1059).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3942src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3971">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3971src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> When a learner, he is said to have used these words to Cleanthes: ‘Give me the principles;
+the proofs I can find myself.’ Subsequently it was said of him: ‘If the Gods have
+any logic, it is that of Chrysippus’ (<i>Diog.</i> 179). See <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 30, where the Epicurean calls him <span lang="la">Stoicorum somniorum vaferrimus interpres:</span> ii. 6, 16; iii. 10, 25: Divin. i. 3, 6: Chrysippus <span lang="la">acerrimo vir ingenio.</span> <i>Senec.</i> Benefic. i. 3, 8; 4, 1, complains of his captiousness. <i>Dionys. Hal.</i> Comp. Verb. 68, calls him the most practical logician, but the most careless writer.
+<i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> i. 445.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3971src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e3994">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e3994src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 180. <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 565, a. <i>Damasc.</i> V. Isid. 36. <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. i. 45, 108.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e3994src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4004">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4004src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 179; 183.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4004src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4010">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4010src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 185, mentions it as deserving of especial notice, that he refused the invitation
+of Ptolemy to court, and dedicated none of his numerous writings to a prince.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4010src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4015">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4015src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 47, 143. <i>Diog.</i> 179. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 4, 1, p. 1034. According to the latter passage, Antipater had written a
+special treatise <span class="trans" title="peri tēs Kleanthous kai Chrysippou diaphoras"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῆς Κλεάνθους καὶ Χρυσίππου διαφορᾶς</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4015src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4031">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4031src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <span lang="la">Quid enim est a Chrysippo prætermissum in Stoicis?</span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 2, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4031src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4038">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4038src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 180, there were not fewer than 750. Conf. <i>Valer. Max.</i> viii. 7, ext. 10; <i>Lucian</i>, Hermotim. 48.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4038src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4047">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4047src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> This appeared to the Epicureans disparaging to the honour of their master. Hence the
+charge that Chrysippus had written against Epicurus in rivalry (<i>Diog.</i> x. 26, and the criticism of Apollodorus in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 181).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4047src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4054">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4054src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> <i>Baguet</i>, pp. 114–357, discusses the subject very fully, but omits several fragments. As to
+his logical treatises, of which alone there were 311 (<i>Diog.</i> 198), see <i>Nicolai</i>, <span lang="la">De logicis Chrysippi libris</span>: Quedlinb. 1859. <i>Prantl</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Log.</span> i. 404. <i>Petersen</i> (Philosoph. Chrysip. Fundamenta: Hamburg, 1827, 321) attempts a systematic arrangement
+of all the known books.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4054src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4076">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4076src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> See <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. i. 11, 50; <i>Dionys. Hal<span>.</span></i> See above 46, 3; <i>Diog.</i> vii<span>.</span> 180; x. 27. <i>Galen</i>, Differ. Puls. ii. 10; vol. viii. 631 K; Hippocr. et Plat. Plac. ii. 2; iii. 2; vol.
+v. 213, 295, 308, 312, 314, and <i>Baguet</i>, 26. See also <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 28, 2; and <i>Bergk</i>, Commentat. de Chrys. lib. <span class="trans" title="peri apophatikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ἀποφατικῶν</span></span>: Cassel, 1841.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4076src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4109">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4109src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> The circumstances of his death are related differently in <i>Diog.</i> 184; but both stories are untrustworthy. The story of the ass is also told in <i>Lucian</i>, Macrob. 25 of Philemon; the other version in <i>Diog.</i> iv. 44; 61 of Arcesilaus and Lacydes. On the statue of Chrysippus in the Ceramicus
+see <i>Diog.</i> vii. 182; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 11, 39; <i>Pausan.</i> i. 17, 2; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 2, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4109src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4132">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4132src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> In Stob. Floril. 40, 8, mention is made of the honourable position enjoyed by the
+Athenian Chremonides, who had been banished from his country. The banishment of Chremonides
+being placed in the year 263 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, Teles’ treatise <span class="trans" title="peri phygēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ φυγῆς</span></span> must have been written between 260 and 250 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> This is further proved by the fact that there is no reference in the fragments preserved
+to persons or circumstances later than this date. The philosophers to whom reference
+is made are the Cynics Diogenes, Crates, Metrocles, Stilpo, Bio the Borysthenite,
+Zeno, and Cleanthes (95, 21), the latter being called <span class="trans" title="ho Assios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Ἄσσιος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4132src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4157">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4157src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> Floril. 5, 67; 40, 8; 91, 33; 93, 31; 98, 72; 108, 82 and 83.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4157src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4160">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4160src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> According to <i>Suid.</i>, he was born c. 275 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, and died in his 80th year.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4160src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4170">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4170src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> See p. 41, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4170src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4174">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4174src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 54: <span class="trans" title="ho de Chrysippos diapheromenos pros auton ... kritēria phēsin einai aisthēsin kai prolēpsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος διαφερόμενος πρὸς αὐτόν … κριτήριά φησιν εἶναι αἴσθησιν καὶ πρόληψιν</span></span>. That he was junior to Aratus appears by his commentary on Aratus’ poem. See Appendix
+to <i>Geminus</i>, Elem. Astron. (Petavii Doctr. Temp. III. 147). The Vita Arati (Von Buhle’s Aratus,
+vol. ii. 443), probably confounding him with the Peripatetic Boëthus, calls him a
+native of Sidon.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4174src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4189">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4189src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> We shall have occasion to prove this in speaking of his views of a criterion, and
+of his denial of a conflagration and destruction of the world. Nevertheless, he is
+frequently appealed to as an authority among the Stoics. <i>Philo</i>, Incorruptib. M. 947, <span class="asc">C</span>, classes him among <span class="trans" title="andres en tois Stōïkois dogmasin ischykotes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνδρες ἐν τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς δόγμασιν ἰσχυκότες</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4189src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4205">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4205src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> This follows from the great importance of Chrysippus, and the esteem in which he was
+held from the very first, and is confirmed by the number of persons to whom he wrote
+treatises. See the list from <i>Diog.</i> 189 in <i>Fabric.</i> Bibl. iii. 549. It is, however, ambiguous whether <span class="trans" title="pros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς</span></span> means <i>to</i> or <i>against</i>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4205src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4224">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4224src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> Aristocreon, the nephew of Chrysippus, is the only pupil who can be definitely mentioned
+by name. See <i>Diog.</i> vii. 185; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 2, 5, p. 1033.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4224src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4231">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4231src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> What is known of this philosopher is limited to the statements in <i>Diog.</i> 35; <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Zēn. Diosk"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήν. Διοσκ</span></span>.; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 13, 7; Arius Didymus, <i>Ibid.</i> xv. 17, 2; that he was a native of Tarsus (in <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="tines"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τινὲς</span></span> say of Sidon, evidently confounding him with the Zeno mentioned p. 44, 3); that he
+was the son of Dioscorides, the pupil and follower of Chrysippus; that he left many
+pupils, but few writings; and that he doubted a conflagration of the world.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4231src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4261">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4261src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> vi. 81; <i>Lucian</i>, Macrob. 20, he was a native of Seleucia on the Tigris; but he is sometimes called
+a native of Babylon (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 39; 55; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 41; Divin. i. 3, 6; <i>Plut.</i> De Exil. 14, p. 605). <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 3, 6, calls him a pupil of Chrysippus; and Acad. ii. 30, 98, the instructor
+of Carneades in dialectic. <i>Plut.</i> Alex. Virt. 5, p<span>.</span> 328, calls him a pupil of <span class="pageNum" id="pb50n">[<a href="#pb50n">50</a>]</span>Zeno (of Tarsus). Zeno, he says, <span class="trans" title="Diogenē ton Babylōnion epeise philosophein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διογένη τὸν Βαβυλώνιον ἔπεισε φιλοσοφεῖν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 71, mentions a <span class="trans" title="dialektikē technē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη</span></span> of his; and, vii. 55 and 57, a <span class="trans" title="technē peri phōnēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέχνη περὶ φωνῆς</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 3, 6, speaks of a treatise on divination. <i>Athen.</i> iv. 168, e, of a treatise <span class="trans" title="peri eugeneias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐγενείας</span></span>, xii. 526. d, of a work <span class="trans" title="peri nomōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ νόμων</span></span>—the same work probably which, according to <i>Cic.</i> Legg. iii. 5, 14, was written ‘<span lang="la">a Dione Stoico</span>.’ <i>Cic.</i> Off. iii. 12, 51, calls him ‘<span lang="la">magnus et gravis Stoicus</span>;’ <i>Seneca</i>, De Ira, iii. 38, 1, mentions a trait showing great presence of mind. Diogenes was,
+without doubt, aged in 156 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> (<i>Cic.</i> De Senec. 7, 23). According to <i>Lucian</i>, he attained the age of 88, and may therefore have died 150 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4261src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4356">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4356src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> It was often supposed, on the strength of <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 41, Divin. i. 3, 6, that Diogenes was the <i>immediate</i> successor of Chrysippus. The words, however, consequens or subsequens, by no means
+necessarily imply it. On the authority of Arius, Eusebius, and Suidas, it would seem
+that Zeno was the successor of Chrysippus, and that Diogenes followed Zeno.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4356src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4363">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4363src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Off. iii. 12, 51, only calls him his pupil; but it is clear that he taught in Athens
+from <i>Plut.</i> Ti. Gracch. c. 8, as <i>Zumpt</i><span>,</span> <span lang="de">Ueber die philos. Schulen in Athen. Abh. d. Berl. Acad. 1842</span>, Hist. phil. kl. p. 103, already remarks; and <i>Plut.</i> Tranq. An. 9, p. 469, seems to imply that he continued to live at Athens after leaving
+Cilicia. The same fact is conveyed by the mention of Diogenists and Panætiasts at
+Athens (<i>Athen.</i> v. c. 2, p. 186, a); by the charge brought against Antipater (<i>Plut.</i> Garrul. c<span id="xd33e4382">.</span> 23, p. 514; Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 6; <i>Cic.</i> Acad ii. 6, 17, and the fragment from Acad. Post. I. in <i>Non.</i> p. 65), that he never ventured to dispute with Carneades; and by <i>Diog.</i> iv. 65; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 119, 19. According to these two authorities, he voluntarily put an end to
+his own life. In Acad. ii. 47, 143, Cicero calls him and Archedemus ‘<span lang="la">duo vel principes dialecticorum, opiniosissimi homines.</span>’ It appears from Off. iii. 12, 51, where he is also called ‘<span lang="la">homo acutissimus</span>,’ that he pronounced a severer judgment on several moral questions than Diogenes.
+<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 92, 5, reckons him among the <span lang="la">magnos Stoicæ sectæ auctores.</span> <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. iii. 21, 7, speaks of the <span class="trans" title="phora Antipatrou kai Archedēmou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φορὰ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Ἀρχεδήμου</span></span>. See <i>Van Lynden</i>, De Panætio, 33; and <i>Fabric.</i> Biblioth. iii. 538 for his numerous lost treatises.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4363src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4423">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4423src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c.; <i>Strabo</i> xiv. 4, 14, p. 674, <i>Epictet.</i> l.c.; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 55. It does not follow that they were cotemporaries, but only <span class="pageNum" id="pb51n">[<a href="#pb51n">51</a>]</span>that their writings and philosophy were the same. We have otherwise no accurate information
+as to the date of Archedemus. Passages where he is mentioned may be found in <i>Fabric.</i> Bibl. III. 540. He also appears to be meant in <i>Simpl.</i> De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 505, a, 45. In <i>Diog.</i> 134, he appears to be placed between Chrysippus and Posidonius. In <i>Plut.</i> De Exil. 14, 605, he follows Antipater. According to this authority he established
+a school in Babylon, and because he came there from Athens, Plutarch appears to have
+considered him an Athenian.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4423src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4446">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4446src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> Apollodorus of Athens, the compiler of the <span class="trans" title="Bibliothēkē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Βιβλιοθήκη</span></span>, a well-known grammarian, is also mentioned as a pupil of Diogenes (<i>Scymnus</i>, Chius Perieges. v. 20). His chronicle, dedicated to Attalus II., Philadelphus of
+Pergamum (158–138 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>), and probably drawn up 144 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, would seem to corroborate this assertion. Panætius, whose pupil he is elsewhere
+called (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Apollod"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀπολλόδ</span></span>.), was himself a pupil of Diogenes’ successor, Antipater (<i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 3, 6), and can hardly have been older than Apollodorus.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Another grammarian belonging to the School of Diogenes is Zenodotus (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 30), supposing him to be identical with the Alexandrian Zenodotus (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Zēnod"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζηνόδ</span></span><span>.</span>). A third is perhaps the celebrated Aristarchus, whom Scymnus calls a fellow-disciple
+of Apollodorus. A fourth, Crates of Mallos, called by <i>Strabo</i>, xiv. 5, 16, p. 676, the instructor of Panætius, by <i>Suid.</i> a Stoic philosopher, who in <i>Varro</i>, Lat. ix. 1, appeals to Chrysippus against Aristarchus.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Antipater’s pupils are Heraclides of Tarsus (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 121); Sosigenes (<i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De Mixt. 142); C. Blossius of Cumæ (<i>Plut.</i> Ti. Gracch. 8, 17 and 20; <i>Val. Max.</i> iv. 7, 1; <i>Cic.</i> Læl. 11, 37). Eudromus, mentioned by <i>Diog.</i> vii. 39, appears to belong to the time between Chrysippus and Panætius. Between Zeno
+of Tarsus and Diogenes, <i>Diog.</i> vii. 84, names a certain Apollodorus, the author, probably, of the fragments in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 408 and 520. Possibly, however, he may be identical with the Apollodorus
+mentioned by <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 34, 93, and consequently a cotemporary of Zeno. In <i>Diog.</i> vii. 39, he is called <span class="trans" title="Apollodōros ho Ephillos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Ἔφιλλος</span></span>, instead of which Cobet reads <span class="trans" title="Apollodōros kai Syllos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀπολλόδωρος καὶ Σύλλος</span></span>. Apollodorus the Athenian, mentioned by <i>Diog.</i> vii. 181, is without doubt the Epicurean, known to us also from <i>Diog.</i> x. 2 and 25. <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 26, thinks even that the passages in Cicero refer to him.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb52n">[<a href="#pb52n">52</a>]</span></p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The age of Diogenes of Ptolemais (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 41), of Œnopides mentioned by <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 58; <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 17, together with Diogenes and Cleanthes, and of Nicostratus, mentioned by
+Philodemus <span class="trans" title="peri theōn diagōgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς</span></span> 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 <i>Simpl.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4446src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch4" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e465">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER IV.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">AUTHORITIES FOR THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY: ITS PROBLEM AND DIVISIONS.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch4.a">A. <i>Authorities for the Stoic philosophy.</i><br id="ch4.a.1">(1) <i>Review of authorities.</i></span>
+To give a faithful exposition of the Stoic philosophy is a work of more than ordinary
+difficulty, owing to the circumstance that all the writings of the earlier Stoics,
+with the exception of a few fragments, have been lost.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4584src" href="#xd33e4584" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> Those Stoics whose complete works are still extant—Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius,
+Heraclitus, Cornutus—lived under the Roman Empire, and therefore belong to a time
+in which all Schools alike exposed to foreign influences had surrendered or lost sight
+of many of their original peculiarities, and had substituted new elements in their
+place. The same remark applies to writers like Cicero, Plutarch, Diogenes, Sextus
+Empiricus, and the commentators on Aristotle, who may be considered as authorities
+at second hand for the teaching of the Stoics; but it is more than doubtful whether
+everything which they mention as Stoic teaching really belongs to the older members
+of that School. <span class="pageNum" id="pb54">[<a href="#pb54">54</a>]</span>That teaching can, however, be ascertained with sufficient certainty on most of the
+more important points, partly by comparing accounts when they vary, partly by looking
+to definite statements on which authorities agree for the teaching and points of difference
+between individual philosophers, such as Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus; partly too by
+consulting such fragments of their writings as are still extant. Yet, when the chief
+points have been settled in this way, many difficulties still remain. In the first
+place, it will be found that only isolated points of their teaching, with at most
+a few arguments on which to base them, are recorded; but the real connection of their
+tenets, and the motives which gave rise to them, can only be known by conjecture.
+Had the writings of Zeno and Chrysippus come down to us in their entirety, we should
+have had a much surer foundation on which to build, and far less would have been left
+to conjecture. An opportunity, too, would then have been afforded of tracing the inward
+growth of the Stoic teaching, and of deciding how much of that teaching was due to
+Zeno, and how much to Chrysippus. That this work of discrimination can now only be
+done very imperfectly, is the second difficulty, and it arises from the nature of
+the authorities. It may be ascertained without difficulty what the teaching of the
+Stoics was since the time of Chrysippus, but only on a few points are the differences
+between Chrysippus and his predecessors known. For the most part, the authorities
+do not hesitate to attribute to the founder of the School all that was known to <span class="pageNum" id="pb55">[<a href="#pb55">55</a>]</span>them as belonging to its later members, just as everything Pythagorean was directly
+attributed to Pythagoras, and everything Platonic to Plato. Still, there can be no
+doubt that the Stoic teaching was very considerably expanded by Chrysippus, and altered
+in many ways. But how considerable the alterations were, and in what they consisted,
+are questions upon which there is little direct evidence.
+</p>
+<p class="tb"></p><p>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch4.a.2">(2) <i>Use to be made of authorities.</i></span>
+The path is thus marked out, which must be followed in giving an exposition of the
+Stoic philosophy. If full information were forthcoming respecting the rise of the
+Stoic system and the form it assumed under each one of its representatives, it would
+be most natural to begin by reviewing the motives which led Zeno to his peculiar teaching,
+and by describing the system as it grew up. Next it would be right to trace step by
+step the changes and expansions which it received at the hands of each succeeding
+teacher. In default of the necessary information for such a treatment of the subject,
+it will be better to pursue another course. The Stoic teaching will have to be treated
+as a whole, in which the contributions of individuals can no longer be distinguished.
+It will have to be set forth in the form which it assumed after the time of Chrysippus.
+The share of individuals in constructing the system, and their deviations from the
+general type, cannot be considered, except in cases where they are placed beyond doubt
+by the statements of the ancients, or by well-founded historical surmises. Stoicism
+will have to be described <span class="pageNum" id="pb56">[<a href="#pb56">56</a>]</span>in the first place as it is traditionally known, without having its principles explained
+or resolved into their component factors; without even considering how they grew out
+of previous systems. Not till this has been done will it be possible to analyse the
+purport and structure of the system, so as to fathom its leading motives, to understand
+the connection of its various parts, and thus to ascertain its true position in history.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch4.b">B. <i>Problem proposed to the Stoic philosophy.</i></span>
+Proceeding next to ask in what form the problem of philosophy presented itself to
+the Stoics, three points deserve to be specially noticed. 1. In the first place, philosophy
+was determined practically by an end in view. 2. The character of this end was decided
+by the idea of conformity with reason; and 3, this view was substantiated by intellectual
+proof.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch4.b.1">(1) <i>Its practical character.</i></span>
+The real business of all philosophy, according to the Stoics, is the moral conduct
+of man. Philosophy is the exercise of an art, and more particularly of the highest
+art—virtue:<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4620src" href="#xd33e4620" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> it is therefore the learning of virtue. Now virtue can only be learnt by exercise,
+and therefore philosophy is at the same time virtue,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4634src" href="#xd33e4634" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb57">[<a href="#pb57">57</a>]</span>and the several parts of philosophy are so many distinct virtues.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4662src" href="#xd33e4662" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> Morality is the central point towards which all other enquiries converge. Even natural
+science, although lauded as the inmost shrine of philosophy, is, according to Chrysippus,
+only necessary for the philosopher to enable him to distinguish between things good
+and evil, between what should be done and what should be left undone.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4674src" href="#xd33e4674" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> So far from approving pure speculation, which Plato and Aristotle had commended as
+the height of human happiness, Chrysippus plainly asserted that to live for speculation
+is equivalent to living only for pleasure.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4705src" href="#xd33e4705" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> With this view of Chrysippus most of the statements of the Stoics as to the relation
+of various branches of philosophy to each other agree, although there is a certain
+amount of vagueness about them, owing to reasons which will shortly be mentioned;
+and on no other hypothesis can the internal structure and foundation of their system
+be satisfactorily explained. <span class="pageNum" id="pb58">[<a href="#pb58">58</a>]</span>It is enough to remark here, as has been done before,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4737src" href="#xd33e4737" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> that the most important and most distinctive points established by the Stoic School
+belong to the sphere of ethics. In logic and natural science the School displays far
+less independence, for the most part following older teachers; and it is expressly
+noted, as a deviation from the ordinary teaching of the School, that Herillus, the
+pupil of Zeno, declared knowledge to be the highest good, thus making it the chief
+end in philosophy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4740src" href="#xd33e4740" title="Go to note 8.">8</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch4.b.2">(2) <i>Necessity for intellectual knowledge.</i></span>
+This view of the problem of philosophy is more precisely defined by the Stoic doctrine
+of virtue. Philosophy should lead to right action and to virtue. But right action
+is, according to the Stoics, only rational action, and rational action is action which
+is in harmony with human and inanimate nature. Virtue consists therefore in bringing
+man’s actions into harmony with the laws of the universe, and with the general order
+of the world. This is only possible when man knows that order and those laws; and
+thus the Stoics are brought back to the principles <span class="pageNum" id="pb59">[<a href="#pb59">59</a>]</span>of Socrates, that virtue may be learnt; that knowledge is indispensable for virtue,
+or rather that virtue is identical with right knowledge. They define virtue in so
+many words as knowledge, vice as ignorance. If sometimes they seem to identify virtue
+with strength of will, it is only because they consider strength of will to be inseparable
+from knowledge, so that the one cannot be conceived without the other. Hence the practical
+study of philosophy conducts with them to the intellectual; philosophy is not only
+virtue, but without philosophy no virtue is possible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4786src" href="#xd33e4786" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> Granting that the attainment of virtue, and the happiness of a moral life, are the
+chief ends which the Stoics propose to themselves, still the possession of a comprehensive
+scientific knowledge is indispensable, as the only means thereto.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch4.b.3">(3) <i>Position towards logic and natural science.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Aristo’s views.</i></span>
+These remarks prove the need for the Stoics of that kind of scientific knowledge which
+has to do with life, the morals and the actions of mankind, in short, of Ethics. Whether
+further scientific knowledge is necessary, was a question on which the earliest adherents
+of the Stoic teaching expressed different opinions. Zeno’s pupil, Aristo of Chios,
+held that the sole business of man is to pursue virtue,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4805src" href="#xd33e4805" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> and that the sole use of language is to purify <span class="pageNum" id="pb60">[<a href="#pb60">60</a>]</span>the soul.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4816src" href="#xd33e4816" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> This purifying process, however, is neither to be found in logical subtleties nor
+in natural science. Logic, as doing more harm than good, he compared to a spider’s
+web, which is as useless as it is curious;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4832src" href="#xd33e4832" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> or else to the mud on a road.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4838src" href="#xd33e4838" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> Those who studied it he likened to people eating lobsters, who take a great deal
+of trouble for the sake of a little bit of meat enveloped in much shell.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4843src" href="#xd33e4843" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Convinced, too, that the wise man is free from every deceptive infatuation,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4847src" href="#xd33e4847" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> and that doubt, for the purpose of refuting which logic has been invented, can be
+more easily overcome by a healthy tone of mind<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4859src" href="#xd33e4859" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> than by argument, he felt no particular necessity for logic. Nay, more, he considered
+that excessive subtlety transforms the healthy action of philosophy into an unhealthy
+one.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4864src" href="#xd33e4864" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> Just as little was Aristo disposed to favour the so-called <i>encyclical</i> knowledge: those who devote themselves to this knowledge instead of to philosophy
+he compared to the suitors of Penelope, who won the maids but not the mistress.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4887src" href="#xd33e4887" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> Natural science would probably have received a more favourable treatment at the hands
+of Aristo, had he not shared the opinion of Socrates, that it is a branch of knowledge
+which transcends <span class="pageNum" id="pb61">[<a href="#pb61">61</a>]</span>the capacity of the human mind;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4894src" href="#xd33e4894" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> and having once embraced this notion, he was inclined to pronounce all physical enquiries
+useless. His attitude towards other sciences has therefore been generally expressed
+by saying that he excluded from philosophy both logic and natural science, on the
+ground that both are useless; the former being irrelevant, and the latter transcending
+our powers.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4903src" href="#xd33e4903" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Even ethics was limited by Aristo to most fundamental notions—to enquiries into good
+and evil, virtue and vice, wisdom and folly. The special application of these notions
+to the moral problems suggested by particular relations in life, he declared to be
+useless and futile; proper for nursemaids and trainers of young children, but not
+becoming for philosophers;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4936src" href="#xd33e4936" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> wherever there <span class="pageNum" id="pb62">[<a href="#pb62">62</a>]</span>is a proper knowledge and a right disposition, such particular applications will come
+of themselves without teaching; but when these are wanting, all exhortations are useless.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4967src" href="#xd33e4967" title="Go to note 22.">22</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Views of Zeno and Cleanthes.</i></span>
+These views are mentioned as peculiar to Aristo, and as points in which he differed
+from the rest of his School; and, to judge from his controversial tone, the opposite
+views were those almost universally entertained by Stoics. That controversial tone,
+in fact, appears to have been directed not only against assailants from without—such
+as the Peripatetics and Platonists—but far more against those members of the Stoic
+School, who attached greater importance than he did to special ethical investigations,
+and to logical and physical enquiries. Among their number must have been Zeno and
+Cleanthes; for Zeno set the example to his School of dividing philosophy into logic,
+ethics, and natural science;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4981src" href="#xd33e4981" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> witness the titles of his logical and physical treatises<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e4985src" href="#xd33e4985" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb63">[<a href="#pb63">63</a>]</span>and also the statements in reference to theoretical knowledge and natural science
+which are expressly attributed to him. Moreover, Zeno himself recommended to others,
+and himself pursued, logical enquiries.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5025src" href="#xd33e5025" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> Indeed, his whole mental habit,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5041src" href="#xd33e5041" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> with its keen appreciation of even the subtleties of the Megarians, bears testimony
+to an intellectual type of thought which is far removed from that of Aristo.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5045src" href="#xd33e5045" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> It was, moreover, Zeno who chose that curt and unadorned logical style, which is
+found in its greatest perfection in Chrysippus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5060src" href="#xd33e5060" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> Logical and scientific treatises are also known to have been written by Cleanthes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5063src" href="#xd33e5063" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> who, in his division of philosophy, <span class="pageNum" id="pb64">[<a href="#pb64">64</a>]</span>allotted separate parts to logic, to rhetoric, and to natural science,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5172src" href="#xd33e5172" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> and the name of Cleanthes is one of frequent occurrence, not only in the natural
+science, but more particularly in the theology of the Stoics. Still more exhaustive
+enquiries into logic and natural science appear to have been set on foot by Sphærus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5176src" href="#xd33e5176" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> These prove that the energies of the Stoic School must have been directed to these
+subjects before the time of Chrysippus, although these branches of science were no
+doubt subservient to ethics, whilst ethics held the most important and highest place
+in their philosophy. At a later time, when Chrysippus had expanded the system of the
+Stoics in every direction, and especial attention had been devoted to logic, the necessity
+for these sciences came to be generally recognised. More especially was this the case
+with regard to natural science, including ‘theology.’ All ethical enquiries must start,
+according to Chrysippus, with considering the universal order and arrangement of the
+world. Only by a study of nature, and a knowledge of what God is, can anything really
+satisfactory be stated touching good and evil, and all that is therewith connected.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5242src" href="#xd33e5242" title="Go to note 32.">32</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb65">[<a href="#pb65">65</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Less obvious is the connection between logic and the ultimate aim of all philosophical
+enquiries. Logic is compared by the Stoics to the shell of an egg, or to the wall
+of a city or garden;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5288src" href="#xd33e5288" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> and is considered to be of importance, because it contributes towards the discovery
+of truth and the avoiding of error.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5294src" href="#xd33e5294" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> The value of logic in their eyes is, therefore, essentially due to its scientific
+method; its proper aim is the art of technical reasoning; and thus, following Aristotle,
+an unusually full treatment is allowed to the doctrine of the syllogism.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5421src" href="#xd33e5421" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> That the value attached to logic must have been considerable is proved by the extraordinary
+care which Chrysippus <span class="pageNum" id="pb66">[<a href="#pb66">66</a>]</span>devoted to the subject;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5430src" href="#xd33e5430" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> hence, the Stoics would never allow, in dispute with the Peripatetics, that logic
+was only an instrument, and not a part of philosophy. To later writers that stiff
+logical mode of description, regardless of all beauty of language, appeared to be
+a peculiarity of the Stoic school,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5444src" href="#xd33e5444" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> and hence that School was characteristically known as the School of the Reasoners.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5458src" href="#xd33e5458" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> Frequent instances will be found hereafter of the Stoic preference for dry argument
+and formal logic;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5473src" href="#xd33e5473" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> in Chrysippus this fondness degenerated to a dry formalism devoid of taste.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5500src" href="#xd33e5500" title="Go to note 40.">40</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch4.c">C. <i>Divisions of philosophy.</i></span>
+The foregoing remarks have already established the three main divisions of philosophy<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5508src" href="#xd33e5508" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> which were universally acknowledged by the Stoics<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5529src" href="#xd33e5529" title="Go to note 42.">42</a>—Logic, <span class="pageNum" id="pb67">[<a href="#pb67">67</a>]</span>Natural Science, and Ethics. As regards the relative worth and sequence of these divisions,
+very opposite views may be deduced from the principles of the <span class="marginnote" id="ch4.c.1">(1) <i>Threefold division.</i></span> Stoic teaching. There can be no doubt, and, indeed, all are agreed in allowing, that
+logic was subservient to the other two branches of science, being only an outpost
+of the system. If therefore in arranging the parts the advance is from the less important
+to the more important, logic will hold the first place. It will occupy the last place
+if the opposite mode of procedure is followed. But the relation existing between ethics
+and natural science is an open question. On the one hand, ethics appears to be the
+higher science, the crowning point of the system, the subject towards which the whole
+philosophical activity of the School was directed; for philosophy is practical knowledge,
+and its object is to lead to virtue and happiness. On the other hand, virtue and the
+destiny of man consist in conformity to the laws of nature, which it is the province
+of science to investigate. Therefore, natural science has the higher object. It lays
+down the universal laws which in ethics are applied to man. To it, therefore, in the
+graduated scale of sciences, belongs the higher rank.
+<span class="marginnote" id="ch4.c.2">(2) <i>Relative importance of each part.</i></span>
+In attempting to harmonise these opposite considerations, the Stoics did not always
+succeed. At one <span class="pageNum" id="pb68">[<a href="#pb68">68</a>]</span>time natural science is preferred to ethics, at another time ethics to natural science,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5564src" href="#xd33e5564" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> in the enumeration of the several branches of philosophy. In the comparisons by means
+of which their relations to each other were explained,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5577src" href="#xd33e5577" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> ethics appears at one time, at another time natural science, to be the aim and soul
+of the whole system. Different views were even entertained in reference to the order
+to be followed <span class="pageNum" id="pb69">[<a href="#pb69">69</a>]</span>in teaching these sciences.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5590src" href="#xd33e5590" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> In describing the Stoic system, preference will be here given to that arrangement
+which begins with logic and goes on to natural science, ending with ethics; not only
+because that arrangement has among its supporters the oldest and most distinguished
+adherents of the Stoic School, but also because in this way the internal relation
+of the three parts to each other can be most clearly brought out. Allowing that, in
+many essential respects, natural science is modified by ethical considerations; still,
+in the development of the system, the chief results of science are used as principles
+on which ethical doctrines are founded; and logic, although introduced later than
+the other two branches of study, is the instrument by means of which they are put
+into scientific shape. If the opportunity were afforded of tracing the rise of the
+Stoic teaching in the mind of its founder, it would probably be possible to show how
+the physical and logical parts of the system gradually gathered around the original
+kernel of ethics. But knowing Stoicism only as we do from the form which it attained
+after the time of Chrysippus, it will be enough, in analysing that form, to proceed
+from without to within, and to advance from logic through natural science to ethics.
+When this has been done it will be time to go back over the same ground, and to explain
+how from the ethical tone of Stoicism its peculiar speculative tenets may be deduced.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb70">[<a href="#pb70">70</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4584">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4584src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Already <i>Simpl.</i> in Cat. Schol. in Arist. 49, a, 16, says: <span class="trans" title="para tois Stōïkois, hōn eph’ hēmōn kai hē didaskalia kai ta pleista tōn syngrammatōn epileloipen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρὰ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς, ὧν ἐφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν συγγραμμάτων ἐπιλέλοιπεν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4584src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4620">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4620src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. Pro. 2: <span class="trans" title="hoi men oun Stōïkoi ephasan, tēn men sophian einai theiōn te kai anthrōpinōn epistēmēn; tēn de philosophian askēsin technēs epitēdeiou; epitēdeion d’ einai mian kai anōtatō tēn aretēn; aretas de tas genikōtatas treis, physikēn, ēthikēn, logikēn, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">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.</span></span> See also <i>Diog.</i> vii. 92.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4620src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4634">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4634src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> In <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 89, 4, wisdom is the highest good for the human mind, and philosophy is a striving
+after wisdom: wisdom is defined to be the knowledge of things human and divine; philosophy
+to be <i lang="la">studium virtutis</i>, or <i lang="la">studium corrigendæ mentis</i>. This striving after virtue cannot be distinguished from virtue itself: <span lang="la">Philosophia studium virtutis est, sed per ipsam virtutem.</span> <i>Seneca</i> further observes (Fr. 17, in <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. iii. 15): <span lang="la">Philosophia nihil aliud est quam <span class="pageNum" id="pb57n">[<a href="#pb57n">57</a>]</span>recta vivendi ratio, vel honeste vivendi scientia, vel ars rectæ vitæ agendæ. Non
+errabimus, si dixerimus philosophiam esse legem bene honesteque vivendi, et qui dixerit
+illam regulam vitæ, suum illi [nomen] reddidit.</span> <i>Plut.</i> see previous note.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4634src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4662">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4662src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> See <i>Diog.</i> vii. 46: <span class="trans" title="autēn de tēn dialektikēn anankaian einai kai aretēn en eidei periechousan aretas, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ἀναγκαίαν εἶναι καὶ ἀρετὴν ἐν εἴδει περιέχουσαν ἀρετὰς, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4662src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4674">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4674src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Chrys.</i> in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 9, 6: <span class="trans" title="dei gar toutois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δεῖ γὰρ τούτοις</span></span> [sc. <span class="trans" title="tois physikois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς φυσικοῖς</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="synapsai ton peri agathōn kai kakōn logon, ouk ousēs allēs archēs autōn ameinonos oud’ anaphoras, oud’ allou tinos heneken tēs physikēs theōrias paralēptēs ousēs ē pros tēn peri agathōn ē kakōn diastasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνάψαι τὸν περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν λόγον, οὐκ οὔσης ἄλλης ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν ἀμείνονος οὐδ’
+ἀναφορᾶς, οὐδ’ ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκεν τῆς φυσικῆς θεωρίας παραληπτῆς οὔσης ἢ πρὸς τὴν
+περὶ ἀγαθῶν ἢ κακῶν διάστασιν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4674src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4705">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4705src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Chrys.</i> in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 3, 2: <span class="trans" title="hosoi de hypolambanousi philosophois epiballein malista ton scholastikon bion ap’ archēs, houtoi moi dokousi diamartanein hyponoountes diagōgēs tinos heneken dein touto poiein ē allou tinos toutō paraplēsiou, kai ton holon bion houtō pōs dielkysai; touto d’ estin, an saphōs theōrēthē, hēdeōs. Diagōgē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅσοι δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσι φιλοσόφοις ἐπιβάλλειν μάλιστα τὸν σχολαστικὸν βίον ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς,
+οὗτοί μοι δοκοῦσι διαμαρτάνειν ὑπονοοῦντες διαγωγῆς τινος ἕνεκεν δεῖν τοῦτο ποιεῖν
+ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τούτῳ παραπλησίου, καὶ τὸν ὅλον βίον οὕτω πως διελκύσαι· τοῦτο δ’ ἔστιν,
+ἂν σαφῶς θεωρηθῇ, ἡδέως. Διαγωγὴ</span></span> had, it is true, been treated by Aristotle, whose school is here referred to, as
+an end in itself; but Aristotle had carefully distinguished <span class="trans" title="diagōgē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαγωγὴ</span></span> from <span class="trans" title="hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδονή</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4705src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4737">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4737src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> p. 19.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4737src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4740">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4740src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 42, 129: <span lang="la">Herillum, qui in cognitione et scientia summum bonum ponit: qui cum Zenonis auditor
+esset, vides quantum ab eo dissenserit, et quam non multum a Platone.</span> Fin. ii. 13, 43: <span lang="la">Herillus autem ad scientiam omnia revocans unum quoddam bonum vidit.</span> iv. 14, 36: In determining the highest good, the Stoics act as one-sidedly, as if
+<span lang="la">ipsius animi, ut fecit Herillus, cognitionem amplexarentur, actionem relinquerent.</span> v. 25, 73: <span lang="la">Sæpe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia.
+Hoc uno captus Herillus scientiam summum bonum esse defendit, nec rem ullam aliam
+per se expetendam.</span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 165: <span class="trans" title="Hērillos ... telos eipe tēn epistēmēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἥριλλος … τέλος εἶπε τὴν ἐπιστήμην</span></span>. Ibid. vii. 37. With less accuracy, it is asserted by <i>Iambl.</i> in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 918, that we are raised to the society of the gods, <span class="trans" title="kata Hērillon, epistēmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ Ἥριλλον, ἐπιστήμῃ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4740src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4786">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4786src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 89, 8: <span lang="la">Nam nec philosophia sine virtute est nec sine philosophia virtus.</span> Ibid. 53, 8: We all lie in the slumber of error: <span lang="la">sola autem nos philosophia excitabit … illi te totum dedica.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4786src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4805">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4805src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Lact.</i> Inst. vii. 7: <span lang="la">Ad virtutem capessendam nasci homines, Ariston disseruit.</span> See <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. 4, 111.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4805src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4816">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4816src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> De Audiendo, c. 8, p. 42: <span class="trans" title="oute gar balaneiou, phēsin ho Aristōn, oute logou mē kathairontos ophelos estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε γὰρ βαλανείου, φησὶν <span id="xd33e4823">ὁ</span> Ἀρίστων, οὔτε λόγου μὴ καθαίροντος ὄφελός ἐστιν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4816src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4832">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4832src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 82, 15. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 161.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4832src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4838">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4838src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 82, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4838src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4843">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4843src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 7.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4843src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4847">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4847src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 162: <span class="trans" title="malista de proseiche Stōïkō dogmati tō ton sophon adoxaston einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μάλιστα δὲ προσεῖχε Στωϊκῷ δόγματι τῷ τὸν σόφον ἀδόξαστον εἶναι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4847src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4859">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4859src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> See <i>Diog.</i> vii. 163.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4859src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4864">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4864src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> Aristo (in the <span class="trans" title="Homoiōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὁμοιώματα</span></span>) in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 82, 16: <span class="trans" title="ho elleboros holoscheresteros men lēphtheis kathairei, eis de pany smikra triphtheis pnigei; houtō kai hē kata philosophian leptologia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ ἐλλέβορος ὁλοσχερέστερος μὲν ληφθεὶς καθαίρει, εἰς δὲ πάνυ σμικρὰ τριφθεὶς πνίγει·
+οὕτω καὶ ἡ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λεπτολογία</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4864src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4887">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4887src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> l.c. 4, 110.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4887src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4894">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4894src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> See following note and <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 39, 123: <span lang="la">Aristo Chius, qui nihil istorum (<i>sc.</i> physicorum) sciri putat posse.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4894src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4903">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4903src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 160: <span class="trans" title="ton se physikon topon kai ton logikon anērei, legōn ton men einai hyper hēmas, ton d’ ouden pros hēmas, monon de ton ēthikon einai pros hēmas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόν σε φυσικὸν τόπον καὶ τὸν λογικὸν ἀνῄρει, λέγων τὸν μὲν εἶναι ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, τὸν δ’
+οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, μόνον δὲ τὸν ἠθικὸν εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 80, 7: <span class="trans" title="Aristōn ephē tōn zētoumenōn para tois philosophois ta men einai pros hēmas, ta de mēden pros hēmas, ta d’ hyper hēmas. pros hēmas men ta ēthika, mē pros hēmas de ta dialektika; mē gar symballesthai pros epanorthōsin biou; hyper hēmas de ta physika; adynata gar egnōsthai kai oude parechein chreian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀρίστων ἔφη τῶν ζητουμένων παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὰ μὲν εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς, τὰ δὲ μηδὲν
+πρὸς ἡμᾶς, τὰ δ’ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς. πρὸς ἡμᾶς μὲν τὰ ἠθικὰ, μὴ πρὸς ἡμᾶς δὲ τὰ διαλεκτικά·
+μὴ γὰρ συμβάλλεσθαι πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν βίου· ὑπὲρ <span id="xd33e4920">ἡμᾶς</span> δὲ τὰ φυσικά· ἀδύνατα γὰρ ἐγνῶσθαι καὶ οὐδὲ παρέχειν χρείαν</span></span>. <i>Minuc. Fel.</i> Octav. 13, and <i>Lactant.</i> Ins. iii. 20, attribute this utterance to Socrates. According to <i>Cic.</i> De Nat. De. I. 14, 37, Aristo expressed doubts about the existence of a God.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4903src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4936">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4936src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 13: <span class="trans" title="kai Aristōn de ho Chios ou monon, hōs phasi, parēteito tēn te physikēn kai logikēn theōrian dia to anōpheles kai pros kakou tois philosophousin hyparchein, alla kai tou ēthikou topou tinas symperiegrapse kathaper ton te parainetikon kai ton hypothetikon topon; toutous gar eis titthas an kai paidagōgous piptein;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ Ἀρίστων δὲ ὁ Χῖος οὐ μόνον, ὥς φασι, παρῃτεῖτο τήν τε φυσικὴν καὶ λογικὴν θεωρίαν
+διὰ τὸ ἀνωφελὲς καὶ πρὸς κακοῦ τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσιν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ τόπου
+τινὰς συμπεριέγραψε καθάπερ τόν τε παραινετικὸν καὶ τὸν ὑποθετικὸν τόπον· τούτους
+γὰρ εἰς τίτθας ἂν καὶ παιδαγωγοὺς πίπτειν·</span></span>—(almost a literal translation is given of these words by <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 89, 13)—<span class="trans" title="arkeisthai de pros to makariōs biōnai ton oikeiounta men pros aretēn logon, apallotriounta de kakias, katatrechonta de tōn metaxy toutōn, peri ha hoi polloi ptoēthentes kakodaimonousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρκεῖσθαι δὲ πρὸς τὸ μακαρίως βιῶναι τὸν οἰκειοῦντα μὲν πρὸς ἀρετὴν λόγον, ἀπαλλοτριοῦντα
+δὲ κακίας, κατατρέχοντα δὲ τῶν μεταξὺ τούτων, περὶ ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ πτοηθέντες κακοδαιμονοῦσιν</span></span>. <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 94, 1: <span lang="la">Eam partem philosophiæ, quæ dat propria cuique personæ præcepta … quidam solam receperunt
+… sed Ariston Stoicus e contrario hanc partem levem existimat <span class="pageNum" id="pb62n">[<a href="#pb62n">62</a>]</span>et quæ non descendat in pectus usque; at illam habentem præcepta [? ad vitam beatam]
+plurimum ait proficere ipsa decreta philosophiæ constitutionemque summi boni, quam
+qui bene intellexit ac didicit, quid in quaque re faciendum sit, sibi ipse præcepit.</span> This is then further expanded following Aristo.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4936src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4967">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4967src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Seneca</i>, § 12, asks for whom should such exhortations be necessary—for him who has right
+views of good and evil, or for him who has them not? <span lang="la">Qui non habet, nihil a te adjuvabitur; aures ejus contraria monitionibus tuis fama
+possedit; qui habet exactum judicium de fugiendis petendisque, scit, quid sibi faciendum
+sit, etiam te tacente; tota ergo pars ista philosophiæ submoveri potest.</span> In § 17, he continues: A madman must be cured, and not exhorted; nor is there any
+difference between general madness and the madness which is treated medically.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4967src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4981">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4981src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 39.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4981src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e4985">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e4985src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> Logical treatises, those <span class="trans" title="peri lexeōn, lyseis kai elenchoi, peri logou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ λέξεων, λύσεις καὶ ἔλεγχοι, περὶ λόγου</span></span>—and if there were a rhetoric (see p. 40, 3) the <span class="trans" title="technē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέχνη</span></span><span class="pageNum" id="pb63n">[<a href="#pb63n">63</a>]</span>—physical treatises, those <span class="trans" title="peri holou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ὅλου</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="peri ousias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ οὐσίας</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 4, 39.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e4985src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5025">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5025src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 8, 2: <span class="trans" title="elye de sophismata kai tēn dialektikēn, hōs touto poiein dynamenēn, ekeleue paralambanein tous mathētas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔλυε δὲ σοφίσματα καὶ τὴν διαλεκτικὴν, ὡς τοῦτο ποιεῖν δυναμένην, ἐκέλευε παραλαμβάνειν
+τοὺς μαθητάς</span></span>. That he occasionally not only solved but propounded sophisms is proved by the fallacy
+quoted <i>Ibid.</i> i. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 25&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5025src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5041">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5041src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> See above p. 36.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5041src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5045">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5045src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 32, he declared at the beginning of his Polity the <span class="trans" title="enkyklios paideia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία</span></span> to be useless—a testimony worth very little; for it is a moot point, in what sense
+Zeno made this statement. Perhaps he was only anxious to exclude those studies from
+the narrower sphere of philosophy (as <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 88). Perhaps his Polity was nearer Cynicism than any other of his writings.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5045src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5060">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5060src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> Proofs will be given later.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5060src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5063">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5063src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> The Catalogue in <i>Diog.</i> 174, <span class="trans" title="peri logou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ λόγου</span></span> 3<span class="corr" id="xd33e5075" title="Source: , B"> B.</span> (<i>Mohnike</i> Cleanth. 102, believes this work was a treatise on life according to reason. The
+title is against this view, and it is also improbable, inasmuch as treatises by Sphærus
+and Chrysippus bearing the same title, are exclusively logical), mentions logical
+treatises <span class="trans" title="peri logou, peri epistēmēs, peri idiōn, peri tōn aporōn, peri dialektikēs, peri katēgorēmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ λόγου, περὶ ἐπιστήμης, περὶ ἰδίων, περὶ τῶν ἀπόρων, περὶ διαλεκτικῆς, περὶ κατηγορημάτων</span></span>. To these may be added, from <i>Athen.</i> 467, d; 471, b, the rhetorical treatises <span class="trans" title="peri tropōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τρόπων</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="peri metalēpseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μεταλήψεως</span></span>. Of greater importance were the physical and theological treatises: <span class="trans" title="peri tēs tou Zēnōnos physiologias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ζήνωνος φυσιολογίας</span></span> (2<span class="corr" id="xd33e5115" title="Source: , B"> B.</span>); <span class="trans" title="tōn Hērakleitou exēgēseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν Ἡρακλείτου ἐξηγήσεις</span></span> (4<span class="corr" id="xd33e5127" title="Source: , B"> B.</span>); <span class="trans" title="pros Dēmokriton, peri theōn, peri mantikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς Δημόκριτον, περὶ θεῶν, περὶ μαντικῆς</span></span> (<i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 3, 6); <span class="trans" title="peri gigantōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ γιγάντων</span></span> (in <i>Plut.</i> De Flum. 5, 3); and the <span class="trans" title="mythika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μυθικὰ</span></span> (<i>Athen.</i> xiii. 572, e), which is probably identical with the <span class="trans" title="archaiologia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρχαιολογία</span></span> of Diogenes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5063src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5172">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5172src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 41.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5172src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5176">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5176src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 178, mentions (1) logical and rhetorical writings: <span class="trans" title="peri tōn Eretrikōn philosophōn, peri homoiōn, peri horōn, peri hexeōs, peri tōn antilegomenōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν Ἐρετρικῶν φιλοσόφων, περὶ ὁμοίων, περὶ ὅρων, περὶ ἕξεως, περὶ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων</span></span> (3<span class="corr" id="xd33e5187" title="Source: , B"> B.</span>), <span class="trans" title="peri logou, technē dialektikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ λόγου, τέχνη διαλεκτική</span></span> (2<span class="corr" id="xd33e5198" title="Source: , B"> B.</span>), <span class="trans" title="peri katēgorēmatōn, peri amphiboliōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κατηγορημάτων, περὶ ἀμφιβολιῶν</span></span>; (2) treatises on science: <span class="trans" title="peri kosmou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κόσμου</span></span> (2<span class="corr" id="xd33e5218" title="Source: , B"> B.</span>), <span class="trans" title="peri stoicheiōn, peri spermatos, peri tychēs, peri elachistōn, pros tas atomous kai ta eidōla, peri aisthētēriōn, peri Hērakleitou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ στοιχείων, περὶ σπέρματος, περὶ τύχης, περὶ ἐλαχίστων, πρὸς τὰς ἀτόμους καὶ τὰ
+εἴδωλα, περὶ αἰσθητηρίων, περὶ Ἡρακλείτου</span></span> (5<span class="corr" id="xd33e5229" title="Source: , B"> B.</span>), <span class="trans" title="peri mantikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μαντικῆς</span></span>. That Sphærus’ definitions were particularly valued, has been already seen, 44, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5176src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5242">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5242src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Chrys.</i> in the 3rd B<span>.</span>, <span class="trans" title="peri theōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν</span></span> (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 9, 4); <span class="trans" title="ou gar estin heurein tēs dikaiosynēs allēn archēn oud’ allēn genesin ē tēn ek tou Dios kai tēn ek tēs koinēs physeōs; enteuthen gar dei pan to toiouton tēn archēn echein, ei mellomen ti erein peri agathōn kai kakōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γάρ ἐστιν εὑρεῖν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄλλην ἀρχὴν οὐδ’ ἄλλην γένεσιν ἢ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ Διὸς
+καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως· ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ δεῖ <span class="pageNum" id="pb65n">[<a href="#pb65n">65</a>]</span>πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχειν, εἰ μέλλομέν τι ἐρεῖν περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν</span></span>. The same writer, in <span class="trans" title="physikai theseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικαὶ θέσεις</span></span> (Ibid. 5): <span class="trans" title="ou gar estin allōs oud’ oikeioteron epelthein epi ton tōn agathōn kai kakōn logon oud’ epi tas aretas oud’ epi eudaimonian, all’ ē apo tēs koinēs physeōs kai apo tēs tou kosmou dioikēseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλως οὐδ’ οἰκειότερον ἐπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν λόγον οὐδ’
+ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς οὐδ’ ἐπὶ εὐδαιμονίαν, ἀλλ’ ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ
+κόσμου διοικήσεως</span></span>. Further details above p. 47, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5242src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5288">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5288src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 17; <i>Diog.</i> 40.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5288src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5294">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5294src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> The chief divisions of the logic of the Stoics (<i>Diog.</i> 42, 46) are considered important for special purposes. The doctrine <span class="trans" title="peri kanonōn kai kritēriōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κανόνων καὶ κριτηρίων</span></span> is of use, helping us to truth, by making us examine our notions; <span class="trans" title="horikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρικὸν</span></span>, because it leads to the knowledge of things by means of conceptions; <span class="trans" title="dialektikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαλεκτικὴ</span></span> (which includes the whole of formal logic), because it produces <span class="trans" title="aproptōsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπροπτωσία</span></span> (= <span class="trans" title="epistēmē tou pote dei synkatatithesthai kai mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη τοῦ πότε δεῖ συγκατατίθεσθαι καὶ μὴ</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="aneikaiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνεικαιότης</span></span> (= <span class="trans" title="ischyros logos pros to eikos, hōste mē endidonai autō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰσχυρὸς λόγος πρὸς τὸ εἰκὸς, ὥστε μὴ ἐνδιδόναι αὐτῷ</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="anelenxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνελεγξία</span></span> (= <span class="trans" title="ischys en logō, hōste mē apagesthai hyp’ autou eis to antikeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰσχὺς ἐν λόγῳ, ὥστε μὴ ἀπάγεσθαι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἀντικείμενον</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="amataiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀματαιότης</span></span> (= <span class="trans" title="hexis anapherousa tas phantasias epi ton orthon logon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις ἀναφέρουσα τὰς φαντασίας ἐπὶ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον</span></span>). Its value is therefore chiefly negative, as a preservative from error. See <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 89, 9: <span lang="la">Proprietates verborum exigit et structuram et argumentationes, ne pro vero falsa subrepant.</span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 23: <span class="trans" title="ochyrōtikon de einai tēs dianoias ton dialektikon topon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀχυρωτικὸν δὲ εἶναι τῆς διανοίας τὸν διαλεκτικὸν τόπον</span></span>; Pyrrh. ii. 247: <span class="trans" title="epi tēn technēn tēn dialektikēn phasin hōrmēkenai hoi dialektikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπὶ τὴν τέχνην τὴν διαλεκτικήν φασιν ὡρμηκέναι οἱ διαλεκτικοὶ</span></span> (the Stoics), <span class="trans" title="ouch haplōs hyper tou gnōnai ti ek tinos synagetai, alla proēgoumenōs hyper tou di’ apodeiktikōn logōn ta alēthē kai ta pseudē krinein epistasthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ γνῶναί τι ἐκ τίνος συνάγεται, ἀλλὰ προηγουμένως ὑπὲρ τοῦ δι’ ἀποδεικτικῶν
+λόγων τὰ ἀληθῆ καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ κρίνειν ἐπίστασθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5294src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5421">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5421src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> This may be seen in <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 134–203, 229; Math. viii. 300; as well as from the catalogue of the writings
+of Chrysippus in <i>Diogenes</i>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5421src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5430">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5430src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> The only part which is censured by Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 10, 1) is the sceptical logic, which leaves contradictions unsolved: <span class="trans" title="tois men gar epochēn agousi peri pantōn epiballei, phēsi, touto poiein, kai synergon esti pros ho boulontai; tois d’ epistēmēn energazomenois, kath’ hēn homologoumenōs biōsometha ta enantia stoicheioun"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐποχὴν ἄγουσι περὶ πάντων ἐπιβάλλει, φησὶ, τοῦτο ποιεῖν, καὶ συνεργόν
+ἐστι πρὸς ὃ βούλονται· τοῖς δ’ ἐπιστήμην ἐνεργαζομένοις, καθ’ ἣν ὁμολογουμένως βιωσόμεθα
+τὰ ἐναντία στοιχειοῦν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5430src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5444">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5444src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Parad. Proœm.: <span lang="la">Cato autem perfectus mea sententia Stoicus … in ea est hæresi, quæ nullum sequitur
+florem orationis neque dilatat argumentum: minutis interrogatiunculis, quasi punctis,
+quod proposuit efficit.</span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 3, 7: <span lang="la">Pungunt quasi aculeis interrogatiunculis angustis, quibus etiam qui assentiuntur nihil
+commutantur animo.</span> See also <i>Diog.</i> vii. 18, 20.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5444src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5458">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5458src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> In Sextus Empiricus, <span class="trans" title="Dialektikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διαλεκτικοὶ</span></span> is their ordinary name. It is also found in <i>Plut.</i> Qu. Plat. x. 1, 2, p. 1008. <i>Cic.</i> Top. 2, 6; Fin. iv. 3, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5458src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5473">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5473src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> After the example of the Megarians, the Stoics were in the habit of putting their
+arguments in the form of questions. Hence the terms <span class="trans" title="logon erōtan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγον ἐρωτᾶν</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 186), <i lang="la">interrogatio</i> (<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 82, 9; 85<span>,</span> 1; 87, 11), <i lang="la">interrogatiuncula</i> (<i>Cic.</i>), which are employed even when the arguments were not in this form.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5473src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5500">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5500src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> See p. 48, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5500src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5508">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5508src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> Called <span class="trans" title="merē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέρη</span></span>, according to <i>Diog.</i> 39 also <span class="trans" title="topoi, eidē, genē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόποι, εἴδη, γένη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5508src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5529">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5529src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 39: <span class="trans" title="trimerē phasin einai ton kata philosophian logon; einai gar autou to men ti physikon, to de ēthikon, to de logikon. houtō de prōtos dieile Zēnōn ho Kitieus en tō peri logou kai Chrysippos en tō aʹ peri logou kai en tē aʹ tōn physikōn, kai Apollodōros ho Ephillos en tō prōtō tōn eis ta dogmata eisagōgōn, kai Eudromos en tē ēthikē stoicheiōsei, kai Diogenēs ho Babylōnios, kai Poseidōnios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τριμερῆ φασιν εἶναι τὸν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγον· εἶναι γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸ μέν τι φυσικὸν,
+τὸ δὲ ἠθικὸν, τὸ δὲ λογικόν. οὕτω δὲ πρῶτος διεῖλε Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ λόγου
+καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ αʹ περὶ λόγου καὶ ἐν τῇ αʹ <span class="pageNum" id="pb67n">[<a href="#pb67n">67</a>]</span>τῶν φυσικῶν, καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Ἔφιλλος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν εἰς τὰ δόγματα εἰσαγωγῶν, καὶ
+Εὔδρομος ἐν τῇ ἠθικῇ στοιχειώσει, καὶ Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος, καὶ Ποσειδώνιος</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 16. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 89, 9; 14. The six divisions enumerated by Cleanthes (<i>Diog.</i> 41)—Dialectic, Rhetoric, Ethics, Politics, Physics, Theology (<i>Diog.</i> 41) may be easily reduced to three.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5529src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5564">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5564src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 40, the first place was assigned to Logic, the second to Science, the third to Ethics,
+by Zeno, Chrysippus, Archedemus, Eudemus, and others. The same order, but inverted,
+is found in Diogenes of Ptolemais, and in <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 89, 9. The latter, however, observes (Nat. Qu. Prol. 1) that the difference
+between that part of philosophy which treats about God, and that which treats about
+man, is as great as the difference between philosophy and other departments, or even
+as between God and man. On the other hand, Apollodorus places Ethics in the middle,
+as also Cleanthes does, and likewise Panætius and Posidonius, if it is certain that
+they began with science. This appears, however, only to have reference to their order
+in discussion (see <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 22, probably on the authority of Posidonius). A few (<i>Diog.</i> 40) asserted that the parts could be so little separated, that they must be always
+treated together. The statement of Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 9, 1), that Logic must come first, and be followed by Ethics and Science,
+so that the theological part may form the conclusion, only refers to the order in
+which they ought to be taught.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5564src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5577">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5577src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> In <i>Diog.</i> 39; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 17; <i>Philo</i><span>,</span> Mut. Nom. p. 1055, E. Hösch. (589 M); De Agricul. 189, D (302), philosophy is compared
+to an orchard, Logic represents the fence, Science the trees. Ethics the fruit; so
+that Ethics are the end and object of the whole. Philosophy is also compared to a
+fortified town, in which the walls are represented by Logic, but in which the position
+of the other two is not clear; to an egg, Logic being the shell, and, according to
+Sextus, Science being the white and Ethics the yolk, but the reverse according to
+Diogenes. Dissatisfied with this comparison, Posidonius preferred to compare philosophy
+to a living creature, in which Logic constitutes the bones and muscles, Science the
+flesh and blood, and Ethics the soul. But Diogenes has another version of this simile,
+according to which Science represents the soul; and Ritter iii. 432, considers the
+version of Diogenes to be the older of the two.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5577src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5590">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5590src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> See <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 13.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5590src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch5" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e580">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER V.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">LOGIC OF THE STOICS.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.a">A. <i>General remarks.</i><br id="ch5.a.1">(1) <i>Field of logic.</i></span>
+Under the head of Logic, in the Stoic use of the term after the time of Chrysippus,
+a number of intellectual enquiries are included which would not now be considered
+to belong to philosophy at all. One common element, however, characterised them all—they
+all referred to the formal conditions of thought and expression. Logic was primarily
+divided into two parts, sharply marked off from each other, roughly described as the
+art of speaking continuously and the art of conversing. The former is known as Rhetoric,
+the latter as Dialectic.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5609src" href="#xd33e5609" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> To these two was added, as a third part, the doctrine of a standard of <span class="pageNum" id="pb71">[<a href="#pb71">71</a>]</span>truth, or the theory of knowledge; and, according to some authorities,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5667src" href="#xd33e5667" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> a fourth part, consisting of enquiries into the formation of conceptions. By others,
+these enquiries were regarded as the third main division, the theory of knowledge
+being included under dialectic.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5770src" href="#xd33e5770" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> By rhetoric, however, little <span class="pageNum" id="pb72">[<a href="#pb72">72</a>]</span>else was meant than a collection of artificial rules, of no philosophical value;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5824src" href="#xd33e5824" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> and dialectic was in great measure occupied with enquiries referring to precision
+of expression. Dialectic is defined to be the science or art of speaking well;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5920src" href="#xd33e5920" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> and since speaking well consists in saying what is becoming and true,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5933src" href="#xd33e5933" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> dialectic is used to express the knowledge of what is <span class="pageNum" id="pb73">[<a href="#pb73">73</a>]</span>true or false, or what is neither one nor the other,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5946src" href="#xd33e5946" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> correctness of expression being considered inseparable <span class="marginnote">(2) <i>Words and thoughts.</i></span> from correctness of thought. Words and thoughts are, according to this view, the
+very same things regarded under different aspects. The same idea (<span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>), which is a thought as long as it resides within the breast, is a word as soon as
+it comes forth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e5994src" href="#xd33e5994" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> Accordingly, dialectic consists of two main divisions, treating respectively of utterance
+and the thing uttered, thoughts and words.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6142src" href="#xd33e6142" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> Both divisions, <span class="pageNum" id="pb74">[<a href="#pb74">74</a>]</span>again, have several subdivisions,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6209src" href="#xd33e6209" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> which are only imperfectly known to us.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6216src" href="#xd33e6216" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> Under the science of utterance, which was generally placed before the science of
+things uttered,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6226src" href="#xd33e6226" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> are included, not only instruction as to sounds and speech, but also the theories
+of poetry and music, these arts being ranked under the head of the voice and of sound
+on purely external considerations.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6230src" href="#xd33e6230" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> What is known of the teaching of the Stoics on these subjects, consisting, as it
+does, of a mass of definitions, differences, and divisions, has so little philosophical
+value, that it need not detain attention longer.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6250src" href="#xd33e6250" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Two parts only of the Stoic logic <span class="pageNum" id="pb75">[<a href="#pb75">75</a>]</span>possess any real interest—the theory of knowledge, and that part of dialectic which
+treats of ideas, and which in the main agrees with our formal logic.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.b">B. <i>Theory of knowledge.</i><br id="ch5.b.1">(1) <i>General character of this theory.</i></span>
+The Stoic theory of knowledge turns about the enquiry for a criterion or standard
+by which what is true in notions may be distinguished from what is false. Since every
+kind of knowledge, no matter what be its object, must be tested by this standard,
+it follows that the standard cannot be sought in the <span class="pageNum" id="pb76">[<a href="#pb76">76</a>]</span>subject-matter of notions, but, on the contrary, in their form. The enquiry after
+a standard becomes therefore identical with another—the enquiry as to what <i>kind</i> of notions supply a knowledge that may be depended upon, or what activity of the
+power of forming conceptions carries with it a pledge of its own truth. It is impossible
+to answer these questions without investigating the origin, the various kinds, and
+the value and importance of notions. Hence the problem proposed to the Stoics is reduced
+to seeking by an analysis of notions to obtain a universally valid standard by which
+their truth may be tested.
+</p>
+<p>Whether this enquiry was pursued by the older Stoics in all its comprehensiveness
+is a point on which we have no information. Boëthus, whose views on this subject were
+attacked by Chrysippus, had assumed the existence of several standards, such as Reason,
+Perception, Desire, Knowledge. Others, in the vaguest manner, had spoken of Right
+Reason (<span class="trans" title="orthos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀρθὸς λόγος</span></span>) as being the standard of truth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6480src" href="#xd33e6480" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> Hence it may be inferred that before the time of Chrysippus the Stoics had no distinctly
+developed theory of knowledge. Nevertheless there are expressions of Zeno and Cleanthes
+still extant which prove that the essential parts of the later theory were already
+held by these philosophers,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6484src" href="#xd33e6484" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> although it is no doubt true <span class="pageNum" id="pb77">[<a href="#pb77">77</a>]</span>that it first received that scientific form in which alone it is known to us at the
+hands of Chrysippus.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.b.2">(2) <i>Prominent points in the theory of knowledge.</i></span>
+The character of this theory of knowledge appears mainly in three particulars:—(1)
+In the importance attached by the Stoics to the impressions of the senses. This feature
+they inherited from the Cynics and shared with the Epicureans. (2) In the exaltation
+of expression into a conception—a trait distinguishing this from either of the two
+other contemporary Schools. (3) In the practical turn given to the question of a criterion
+or standard of truth. We proceed to the expansion of this theory in detail.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>Perceptions the result of impressions from without.</i></span>
+The origin of all perceptions (<span class="trans" title="phantasiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαι</span></span>) may be referred to the action of some object (<span class="trans" title="phantaston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φανταστὸν</span></span>) on the soul,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6527src" href="#xd33e6527" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> the soul at birth resembling a blank page, and only receiving definite features by
+experience from without.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6654src" href="#xd33e6654" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> By the elder Stoics, this action of <span class="pageNum" id="pb78">[<a href="#pb78">78</a>]</span>objects on the soul was regarded as grossly material, Zeno defining a perception to
+be an <i>impression</i> (<span class="trans" title="typōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τύπωσις</span></span>) made on the soul,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6717src" href="#xd33e6717" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> and Cleanthes took this definition so literally as to compare the impression on the
+soul to the impression made by a seal on wax.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6731src" href="#xd33e6731" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Being himself a very exact pupil of Zeno, Cleanthes probably rendered the views of
+Zeno correctly in this comparison. The difficulties of this view were recognised by
+Chrysippus, who accordingly defined a perception to be the <i>change</i> (<span class="trans" title="heteroiōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑτεροίωσις</span></span>) produced in the soul by an object, or, more accurately, the change produced thereby
+in the ruling part of the soul;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6756src" href="#xd33e6756" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> and whereas his predecessors had only <span class="pageNum" id="pb79">[<a href="#pb79">79</a>]</span>considered sensible things to be objects, he included among objects conditions and
+activities of the mind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6854src" href="#xd33e6854" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> The mode, however, in which the change was produced in the soul did not further engage
+his attention.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Conceptions formed from perceptions.</i></span>
+It follows, as a necessary corollary from this view, that the Stoics regarded sensation
+as the only source of all perceptions: the soul is a blank leaf, sensation is the
+hand which fills it with writing. But this is not all. Perceptions give rise to memory,
+repeated acts of memory to experience,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6880src" href="#xd33e6880" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> and conclusions based on experience suggest conceptions which go beyond the sphere
+of direct sensation. These conclusions rest either upon the comparison, or upon the
+combination of perceptions, or else upon <span class="pageNum" id="pb80">[<a href="#pb80">80</a>]</span>analogy;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6894src" href="#xd33e6894" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> some add, upon transposition and contrast.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6965src" href="#xd33e6965" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> The formation of conceptions by means of these agencies sometimes takes place methodically
+and artificially, at other times naturally and spontaneously.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e6969src" href="#xd33e6969" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> <span class="marginnote">(α) <span class="trans" title="Koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span> <i>formed naturally.</i></span> In the latter way are formed the primary conceptions, <span class="trans" title="prolēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προλήψεις</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span>, which were regarded by the Stoics as the natural types of truth and virtue, and
+as the distinctive possession of rational beings.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7036src" href="#xd33e7036" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> To judge by many expressions, it <span class="pageNum" id="pb81">[<a href="#pb81">81</a>]</span>might seem that by primary conceptions, or <span class="trans" title="koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span>,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7089src" href="#xd33e7089" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> <i>innate ideas</i> were meant; but this view would be opposed to the whole character and connection
+of the system. In reality, these primary conceptions, or <span class="trans" title="koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span>, are only those conceptions which, by reason of the nature of thought, can be equally
+deduced by all men from experience; even the highest ideas, those of good and evil,
+having no other origin.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7140src" href="#xd33e7140" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> The artificial formation of conceptions <span class="pageNum" id="pb82">[<a href="#pb82">82</a>]</span>gives rise to knowledge, which is defined by the Stoics to be a fixed and immovable
+conception, or system of such conceptions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7179src" href="#xd33e7179" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> Persistently maintaining, <span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Knowledge formed artificially.</i></span> on the one hand, that knowledge is a system of artificial conceptions, impossible
+without a logical process, they must, on the other hand, have felt it imperative from
+this platform that knowledge should agree in its results with primary conceptions,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7241src" href="#xd33e7241" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> agreement with nature being in every department their watchword. For them it was
+as natural to derive support for their system from a supposed agreement with nature,
+as it was easy for their opponents to show that this agreement with nature was imaginary,
+and that many of their assertions were wholly opposed to general opinions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7244src" href="#xd33e7244" title="Go to note 32.">32</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Relation of perceptions and conceptions.</i></span>
+Perceptions, and the conclusions based upon them,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7267src" href="#xd33e7267" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> being thus, according to the Stoics, the two <span class="pageNum" id="pb83">[<a href="#pb83">83</a>]</span>sources of all notions, the further question arises, How are these two sources related
+to each other? It might have been expected that only perceptions would be stated to
+be originally and absolutely true, since all general conceptions are based on them.
+Nevertheless, the Stoics are far from saying so. Absolute certainty of conviction
+they allow only to knowledge, and therefore declare that the truth of the perceptions
+of the senses depends on their relation to thought.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7282src" href="#xd33e7282" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> Truth and error do not belong to disconnected notions, but to notions combined in
+the form of a judgment, and a judgment is produced by an effort of thought. Hence
+sensations, taken alone, are the source of no knowledge, knowledge first arising when
+the activity of the understanding is allied to sensation.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7294src" href="#xd33e7294" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> Or, starting from the relation <span class="pageNum" id="pb84">[<a href="#pb84">84</a>]</span>of thought to its object, since like can only be known by like according to the well-known
+adage, the rational element in the universe can only be known by the rational element
+in man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7404src" href="#xd33e7404" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> But again, the understanding has no other material to work upon but that supplied
+by sensation, and general conceptions are only obtained from sensation by conclusions.
+The mind, therefore, has the capacity of formally working up the material supplied
+by the senses, but to this material it is limited. Still, it can progress from perceptions
+to notions not immediately given in sensation, such as the conceptions of what is
+good and of God. And since, according to the Stoic teaching, material objects only
+possess reality, the same vague inconsistency may be observed in their teaching as
+has been noticed in Aristotle<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7418src" href="#xd33e7418" title="Go to note 37.">37</a>—reality attaching to individuals, truth to general notions. This inconsistency, however,
+is more marked in their case than in that of Aristotle, because the Stoics so far
+adhere to the Cynic nominalism<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7426src" href="#xd33e7426" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> as to assert that no reality attaches to thought.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7430src" href="#xd33e7430" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> Such an assertion <span class="pageNum" id="pb85">[<a href="#pb85">85</a>]</span>makes it all the more difficult to understand how greater truth can be attributed
+to thought, unreal as it is said to be, than to sensations of real and material objects.
+Do we then ask in what the peculiar character of thought consists, the Stoics, following
+Aristotle, reply that in thought the idea of universality is added to that which presents
+itself in sensation as a particular.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7565src" href="#xd33e7565" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> More importance was attached by them to another point—the greater certainty which
+belongs to thought than to sensation. All the definitions given above point to the
+immovable strength of conviction as the distinctive feature of <span class="pageNum" id="pb86">[<a href="#pb86">86</a>]</span>knowledge;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7611src" href="#xd33e7611" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> and of like import is the language attributed to Zeno,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7614src" href="#xd33e7614" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> comparing simple sensation with an extended finger, assent, as being the first activity
+of the power of judgment, with a closed hand, conception with the fist, and knowledge
+with one fist firmly grasped by the other. According to this view, the whole difference
+between the four processes is one of degree, and depends on the greater or less strength
+of conviction, on the mental exertion and tension.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7618src" href="#xd33e7618" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> It is not an absolute difference in kind, but a relative difference, a gradual shading
+off of one into the other.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>d</i>) <i>The standard of truth.</i><br>(α) <i>Practical need of such a standard.</i></span>
+From these considerations it follows that in the last resort only a relative distinction
+is left whereby the truth of notions may be tested. Even the general argument for
+the possibility of knowledge starts with the Stoics by practically taking something
+for granted. Without failing to urge intellectual objections—and often most pertinent
+ones<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7640src" href="#xd33e7640" title="Go to note 44.">44</a>—against Scepticism, as was indeed natural, particularly since the time of Chrysippus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7649src" href="#xd33e7649" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> the Stoics nevertheless <span class="pageNum" id="pb87">[<a href="#pb87">87</a>]</span>specially took up their stand on one point, which was this, that, unless the knowledge
+of truth were possible, it would be impossible to act on fixed principles and convictions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7660src" href="#xd33e7660" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> Thus, as a last bulwark against doubt, practical needs are appealed to.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Irresistible perceptions the standard of truth.</i></span>
+The same result is obtained from a special enquiry into the nature of the standard
+of truth. If the question is asked, How are true perceptions distinguished from false
+ones? the immediate reply given by the Stoics is, that a true perception is one which
+represents a real object as it really is.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7705src" href="#xd33e7705" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> You are no <span class="pageNum" id="pb88">[<a href="#pb88">88</a>]</span>further with this answer, and the question has again to be asked, How may it be known
+that a perception faithfully represents a reality? The Stoics can only reply by pointing
+to a relative, but not to an absolute, test—the degree of strength with which certain
+perceptions force themselves on our notice. By itself a perception does not necessarily
+carry conviction or assent (<span class="trans" title="synkatathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκατάθεσις</span></span>); for there can be no assent until the faculty of judgment is directed towards the
+perception, either for the purpose of allowing or of rejecting it, truth and error
+residing in judgment. Assent therefore, generally speaking, rests with us, as does
+also the power of decision; and a wise man differs from a fool quite as much by conviction
+as by action.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7800src" href="#xd33e7800" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> Some of our perceptions are, however, of <span class="pageNum" id="pb89">[<a href="#pb89">89</a>]</span>such a kind that they at once oblige us to bestow on them assent, compelling us not
+only to regard them as probable, but also as true<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7899src" href="#xd33e7899" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> and conformable to the actual nature of things. Such perceptions produce in us that
+strength of conviction which the Stoics call a conception; they are therefore termed
+conceptional perceptions. Whenever a perception forces itself upon us in this irresistible
+form, we are no longer dealing with a fiction of the imagination, but with something
+real; but whenever the strength of conviction is wanting, we cannot be sure of the
+truth of our perception. Or, expressing the same idea in the language of Stoicism,
+conceptional or irresistible perceptions, <span class="trans" title="phantasiai katalēptikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαι καταληπτικαὶ</span></span>, are the standard of truth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e7930src" href="#xd33e7930" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> The test of irresistibility <span class="marginnote">(γ) <i>Primary conceptions a standard as well as irresistible perceptions.</i></span> <span class="pageNum" id="pb90">[<a href="#pb90">90</a>]</span>(<span class="trans" title="katalēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατάληψις</span></span>) was, in the first place, understood to apply to sensations from without, such sensations,
+according to the Stoic view, alone supplying the material for knowledge. An equal
+degree of certainty was, however, attached to terms deduced from originally true data,
+either by the universal and natural exercise of thought, or by scientific processes
+of proof. Now, since among these derivative terms some—the primary conceptions (<span class="trans" title="koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span>), for instance—serve as the basis for deriving others, it may in a certain sense
+be asserted that sensation and primary conceptions are both standards of truth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8033src" href="#xd33e8033" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> In strict accuracy, neither sensation nor primary conceptions (<span class="trans" title="prolēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψεις</span></span>) can be called standards. The <span class="pageNum" id="pb91">[<a href="#pb91">91</a>]</span>real standard, whereby the truth of a perception is ascertained, consists in the power,
+inherent in certain perceptions, of carrying conviction—<span class="trans" title="to katalēptikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ καταληπτικὸν</span></span>—a power which belongs, in the first place, to sensations, whether of objects without
+or within, and, in the next place, to primary conceptions formed from them in a natural
+way—<span class="trans" title="koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="prolēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προλήψεις</span></span>. On the other hand, conceptions and terms formed artificially can only have their
+truth established by being subjected to a scientific process of proof. How, after
+these statements, the Stoics could attribute a greater strength of conviction to artificial
+than to primary conceptions;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8088src" href="#xd33e8088" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> how they could raise doubts as to the trustworthiness of simple sensations,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8091src" href="#xd33e8091" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> is one of the paradoxes of the Stoic system, which prove the existence, as in so
+many other systems, of a double current of thought. There is, on the one hand, a seeking
+for what is innate and original, a going back to nature, an aversion to everything
+artificial and of human device, inherited by Stoicism from its ancestral Cynicism.
+On the other hand, there is a desire to supplement the Cynic appeal to nature by a
+higher culture, and to assign scientific reasons for truths which the Cynics laid
+down as self-evident.
+</p>
+<p>The latter tendency will alone explain the care <span class="pageNum" id="pb92">[<a href="#pb92">92</a>]</span>and precision which the Stoics devoted to studying the forms and rules which govern
+intellectual processes. Attention to this branch of study may be noticed in Zeno and
+his immediate successors at the first separation of Stoicism from Cynicism.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8115src" href="#xd33e8115" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> Aristo is the only Stoic who is opposed to it, his whole habit of mind being purely
+that of a Cynic. In Chrysippus it attained its greatest development, and by Chrysippus
+the formal logic of the Stoics reached scientific completeness. In later times, when
+Stoicism reverted more nearly to its original Cynic type, and appealed directly to
+the immediate suggestions of the mind, it lost its interest in logic, as may be observed
+in Musonius, Epictetus, and others. For the present, however, let it suffice to consider
+the logic of Chrysippus, as far as that is known to us.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.c">C. <i>Formal logic.</i><br id="ch5.c.1">(1) <i>Utterance in general.</i></span>
+The term formal logic is here used to express those investigations which the Stoics
+included under the doctrine of utterance.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8126src" href="#xd33e8126" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> The common object of those enquiries is that which is thought, or, as the Stoics
+called it, that which is uttered (<span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτόν</span></span>), understanding thereby the substance of thought—thought regarded by itself as a
+distinct something, differing alike from the external object to which it refers, from
+the sound by which it is expressed, and from the power of mind which produces it.
+For this reason, they maintain that only utterance is not material; things are always
+material; even the process of thought consists in a material change <span class="pageNum" id="pb93">[<a href="#pb93">93</a>]</span>within the soul, and an uttered word, in a certain movement of the atmosphere.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8139src" href="#xd33e8139" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> A question is here <span class="pageNum" id="pb94">[<a href="#pb94">94</a>]</span>suggested in passing, which should not be lost sight of, viz. How far was it correct
+for the Stoics to speak of thoughts as existing, seeing they are not material, since,
+according to their teaching, reality only belongs to material things?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8338src" href="#xd33e8338" title="Go to note 57.">57</a>
+</p>
+<p>Utterance may be either perfect or imperfect. It is perfect when it contains a proposition;
+imperfect when the proposition is incomplete.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8383src" href="#xd33e8383" title="Go to note 58.">58</a> The portion of logic, therefore, which treats of utterance falls into two parts,
+devoted respectively to the consideration of complete and incomplete expression.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.c.2">(2) <i>Incomplete expression.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>The grammar of words.</i></span>
+In the section devoted to incomplete expression, much is found which we should include
+under grammar rather than under logic. Thus all incomplete expressions are divided
+into two groups—one group <span class="pageNum" id="pb95">[<a href="#pb95">95</a>]</span>includes proper names and adjectives, the other includes verbs.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8479src" href="#xd33e8479" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> These two groups are used respectively to express what is essential and what is accidental,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8641src" href="#xd33e8641" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> and are again divided into a number of subdivisions and varieties.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e8695src" href="#xd33e8695" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> To this part of logic <span class="pageNum" id="pb96">[<a href="#pb96">96</a>]</span>investigations into the formation and division of conceptions, and the doctrine of
+the categories, properly belong; but it cannot be said with certainty what place they
+occupy in the logic of the Stoics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9106src" href="#xd33e9106" title="Go to note 62.">62</a>
+</p>
+<p>Certain it is that these researches introduced little new matter. All that is known
+of the Stoic views in reference to the formation, the mutual relation and the analysis
+of conceptions, differs only from the corresponding parts in the teaching of Aristotle
+by the change of a few expressions, and a slightly altered order of treatment.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9111src" href="#xd33e9111" title="Go to note 63.">63</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb97">[<a href="#pb97">97</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>The Stoic Categories.</i></span>
+Of greater importance is the Stoic doctrine of the categories.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9407src" href="#xd33e9407" title="Go to note 64.">64</a> In this branch of logic, the Stoics again follow Aristotle, but not without deviating
+from him in three points. Aristotle referred his categories to no higher conception,
+but looked upon them severally <span class="pageNum" id="pb98">[<a href="#pb98">98</a>]</span>as the highest class-conceptions; the Stoics referred them all to one higher conception.
+Aristotle enumerated ten categories; the Stoics thought that they could do with four,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9428src" href="#xd33e9428" title="Go to note 65.">65</a> which four only partially coincide with those of Aristotle. Aristotle placed the
+categories side by side, as co-ordinate, so that no object could come under a second
+category in the same respect in which it came under the first one;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9437src" href="#xd33e9437" title="Go to note 66.">66</a> the Stoics placed them one under the other, as subordinate, so that every preceding
+category is more accurately determined by the next succeeding one.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(α) <i>Highest Conception—an indefinite Something.</i></span>
+The highest conception of all was apparently by the older Stoics declared to be the
+conception of Being. Since, however, speaking strictly, only what is material can
+be said to have any being, and many of our notions refer to incorporeal and therefore
+unreal objects, the conception of Something<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9445src" href="#xd33e9445" title="Go to note 67.">67</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb99">[<a href="#pb99">99</a>]</span>was in later times put in the place of the conception of Being. This indefinite Something
+comprehends alike what is material and what is not material—in other words, what has
+being and what has not being; and the Stoics appear to have made this contrast the
+basis of a real division of things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9593src" href="#xd33e9593" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> When it becomes a question, however, of formal elementary conceptions or categories,
+other points are emphasised which have no connection with the division into things
+material and things not material. Of this <span class="pageNum" id="pb100">[<a href="#pb100">100</a>]</span>kind are the four highest conceptions,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9598src" href="#xd33e9598" title="Go to note 69.">69</a>—all subordinate to the conception of Something, viz. <i>subject-matter</i> or <i>substance</i> (<span class="trans" title="to hypokeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὑποκείμενον</span></span>) <i>property</i> or <i>form</i> (<span class="trans" title="to poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ποιὸν</span></span>), <i>variety</i> (<span class="trans" title="to pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ πὼς ἔχον</span></span>), and <i>variety of relation</i> (<span class="trans" title="to pros ti pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ πρός τί πως ἔχον</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9684src" href="#xd33e9684" title="Go to note 70.">70</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Category of subject-matter or substance.</i></span>
+The first of these categories<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9705src" href="#xd33e9705" title="Go to note 71.">71</a> denotes the subject-matter of things in themselves (<span class="trans" title="to hypokeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὑποκείμενον</span></span>), the material of which they are made, irrespective of any and every quality,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9750src" href="#xd33e9750" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> the something which underlies all definite being, and which alone has a substantial
+value.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9788src" href="#xd33e9788" title="Go to note 73.">73</a> Following Aristotle, the Stoics <span class="pageNum" id="pb101">[<a href="#pb101">101</a>]</span>distinguish,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9844src" href="#xd33e9844" title="Go to note 74.">74</a> in this category of matter, between matter in general, or universal matter, and the
+particular matter or material out of which individual things are made. The former
+alone is incapable of being increased or diminished. Far otherwise is the material
+of which particular things are made. This can be increased and diminished, and, indeed,
+is ever undergoing change; so much so, that the only feature which continues the same
+during the whole term of its existence<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e9858src" href="#xd33e9858" title="Go to note 75.">75</a> and constitutes its identity, is its quality.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb102">[<a href="#pb102">102</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(γ) <i>The category of property<span>.</span></i></span>
+The second category, that of property<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10051src" href="#xd33e10051" title="Go to note 76.">76</a> or form, comprises all those essential attributes, by means of <span class="pageNum" id="pb103">[<a href="#pb103">103</a>]</span>which a definite character is impressed on matter otherwise indeterminate.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10167src" href="#xd33e10167" title="Go to note 77.">77</a> If the definite character <span class="pageNum" id="pb104">[<a href="#pb104">104</a>]</span>be one which belongs to a group or class, it is called a common quality—<span class="trans" title="koinōs poion;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινῶς ποιόν·</span></span>—or, if it be something peculiar and distinctive, it is called a distinctive quality—<span class="trans" title="idiōs poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδίως ποιόν</span></span>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10508src" href="#xd33e10508" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> Properties therefore combined with matter constitute the special materials out of
+which individual things are made;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10547src" href="#xd33e10547" title="Go to note 79.">79</a> and quality in this combination (<span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιόν</span></span>), corresponds, as Trendelenburg has well shown,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10673src" href="#xd33e10673" title="Go to note 80.">80</a> with the form (<span class="trans" title="eidos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶδος</span></span>) of Aristotle.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10685src" href="#xd33e10685" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> It may, in fact, like that, be described <span class="pageNum" id="pb105">[<a href="#pb105">105</a>]</span>as the active and efficient part of a thing.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10692src" href="#xd33e10692" title="Go to note 82.">82</a> Aristotle’s form, however, expresses only the non-material side of a thing, whereas
+quality is regarded by the Stoics as something material—in fact, as an air-current.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10804src" href="#xd33e10804" title="Go to note 83.">83</a> Hence the mode in which a quality is conceived to reside in matter is that of an
+intermingling of elements.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10849src" href="#xd33e10849" title="Go to note 84.">84</a> The same theory of intermingling applies of course to the union of several properties
+in one and the same matter,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10873src" href="#xd33e10873" title="Go to note 85.">85</a> and likewise to the combination of <span class="pageNum" id="pb106">[<a href="#pb106">106</a>]</span>several attributes to produce a single conception of quality.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10898src" href="#xd33e10898" title="Go to note 86.">86</a> In all cases the relation is supposed to be materialistic, and is explained by the
+doctrine of the mutual interpenetration of material things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e10991src" href="#xd33e10991" title="Go to note 87.">87</a> This explanation, indeed, could not apply to every kind of attributes. Unable to
+dispense entirely with things not material,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11038src" href="#xd33e11038" title="Go to note 88.">88</a> the Stoics were obliged to admit the existence of attributes belonging to immaterial
+things, these attributes being, of course, themselves not material.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11049src" href="#xd33e11049" title="Go to note 89.">89</a> What idea they formed to themselves <span class="pageNum" id="pb107">[<a href="#pb107">107</a>]</span>of these incorporeal attributes, when reality was considered to belong only to things
+corporeal, it is, of course, impossible for us to say.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11144src" href="#xd33e11144" title="Go to note 90.">90</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(δ) <i>The categories of variety and variety of relation.</i></span>
+The two remaining categories include everything which may be excluded from the conception
+of a thing on the ground of being either non-essential or accidental. In as far as
+such things belong to an object taken by itself alone, they come under the category
+of variety (<span class="trans" title="pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχον</span></span>); but when they belong to it, because of its relation to something else, they come
+under the category of variety of relation (<span class="trans" title="pros ti pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τί πως ἔχον</span></span>). Variety includes all accidental qualities, which can be assigned to any object
+independently of its relation to any other object.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11178src" href="#xd33e11178" title="Go to note 91.">91</a> Size, colour, place, time, action, passion, possession, motion, state, in short,
+all the Aristotelian categories, with the exception of substance, whenever they apply
+to an object independently of its relation to other objects, belong to the category
+of variety<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11206src" href="#xd33e11206" title="Go to note 92.">92</a> (<span class="trans" title="pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχον</span></span>). <span class="pageNum" id="pb108">[<a href="#pb108">108</a>]</span>On the other hand, those features and states which are purely relative—such as right
+and left, sonship and fatherhood, &amp;c.—come under the category of variety of relation
+(<span class="trans" title="pros ti pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τί πως ἔχον</span></span>); and from this category the simple notion of relation (<span class="trans" title="pros ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς τὶ</span></span>) must be distinguished. Simple relation (<span class="trans" title="pros ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς τὶ</span></span>) is not treated as a distinct category, since it includes not only accidental relations,
+but also those essential properties (<span class="trans" title="poia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὰ</span></span>) which presuppose a definite relation to something else—such as knowledge and perception.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11380src" href="#xd33e11380" title="Go to note 93.">93</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb109">[<a href="#pb109">109</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Relation of the categories to one another.</i></span>
+The relation of these four categories to one another is such, that each preceding
+category is included in the one next following, and receives from it a more definite
+character.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11552src" href="#xd33e11552" title="Go to note 94.">94</a> Substance never occurs in reality without property, but has always some definite
+quality to give it a character. On the other hand, property is never met with alone,
+but always in connection with some subject-matter.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11652src" href="#xd33e11652" title="Go to note 95.">95</a> Variety presupposes some definite substance, and variety of relation supposes the
+existence of variety.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11655src" href="#xd33e11655" title="Go to note 96.">96</a> It will hereafter be <span class="pageNum" id="pb110">[<a href="#pb110">110</a>]</span>seen how closely these deductions, and, indeed, the whole doctrine of the categories,
+depend on the metaphysical peculiarities of the Stoic system.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.c.3">(3) <i>Complete utterance.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Judgment.</i></span>
+Passing from incomplete to complete utterance, we come, in the first place, to sentences
+or propositions,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11747src" href="#xd33e11747" title="Go to note 97.">97</a> all the various kinds of which, as they may be deduced from the different forms of
+syntax, are enumerated by the Stoics with the greatest precision.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11754src" href="#xd33e11754" title="Go to note 98.">98</a> Detailed information is, however, only forthcoming in reference to the theory of
+judgment (<span class="trans" title="axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα</span></span>), which certainly occupied the chief and most important place in their speculations.
+A judgment is a perfect utterance, which is either true or false.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e11963src" href="#xd33e11963" title="Go to note 99.">99</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb111">[<a href="#pb111">111</a>]</span>Judgments are divided into two classes: <i>simple</i> judgments, and <i>composite</i> judgments.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12005src" href="#xd33e12005" title="Go to note 100.">100</a> By a simple judgment the Stoics understand a judgment which is purely categorical.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12021src" href="#xd33e12021" title="Go to note 101.">101</a> Under the head of composite judgments are comprised hypothetical, corroborative,
+copulative, disjunctive, comparative, and causal <span class="marginnote">(α) <i>Simple judgment.</i></span> judgments.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12031src" href="#xd33e12031" title="Go to note 102.">102</a> In the case of simple judgments, a greater or less definiteness of expression is
+substituted in place of the ordinary difference in respect of quantity;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12186src" href="#xd33e12186" title="Go to note 103.">103</a> and with regard to quality, they <span class="pageNum" id="pb112">[<a href="#pb112">112</a>]</span>not only make a distinction between affirmative and negative judgments,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12287src" href="#xd33e12287" title="Go to note 104.">104</a> but, following the various forms of language, they speak of judgments of general
+negation, judgments of particular negation, and judgments of double negation.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12319src" href="#xd33e12319" title="Go to note 105.">105</a> Only affirmative and negative judgments have a contradictory relation to one another;
+all other judgments stand to each other in the relation of contraries.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12363src" href="#xd33e12363" title="Go to note 106.">106</a> Of two propositions <span class="pageNum" id="pb113">[<a href="#pb113">113</a>]</span>which are related as contradictories, according to the old rule, one must be true
+and the other false.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12551src" href="#xd33e12551" title="Go to note 107.">107</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Composite judgments.</i></span>
+Among composite judgments the most important are the hypothetical and the disjunctive.
+As regards the latter, next to no information has reached us.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12562src" href="#xd33e12562" title="Go to note 108.">108</a> A hypothetical judgment (<span class="trans" title="synēmmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνημμένον</span></span>) is a judgment consisting of two clauses, connected by the conjunction ‘if,’ and
+related to one another as cause and effect; the former being called the <i>leading</i> (<span class="trans" title="hēgoumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγούμενον</span></span>), and the latter the <i>concluding</i> or <i>inferential clause</i> (<span class="trans" title="lēgon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λῆγον</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12617src" href="#xd33e12617" title="Go to note 109.">109</a> In the correctness of the inference the truth of a hypothetical judgment consists.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb114">[<a href="#pb114">114</a>]</span>As to the conditions upon which the accuracy of an inference rests, different opinions
+were entertained within the Stoic School itself.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12695src" href="#xd33e12695" title="Go to note 110.">110</a> In as far as the <span class="pageNum" id="pb115">[<a href="#pb115">115</a>]</span>leading clause states something, from the existence of which an inference may be drawn
+for the statement in the concluding clause, it is also called an <i>indication</i> or <i>suggestive sign</i>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12791src" href="#xd33e12791" title="Go to note 111.">111</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(γ) <i>Modality of judgments.</i></span>
+The modality of judgments, which engaged the attention of Aristotle and his immediate
+pupils so much, was likewise treated by the Stoics at considerable length; but of
+this branch of enquiry so much only is known to us as concerns possible and necessary
+judgments, and it is the outcome chiefly of the contest between Chrysippus and the
+Megarian Diodorus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e12852src" href="#xd33e12852" title="Go to note 112.">112</a> It is in itself of no great value. <span class="pageNum" id="pb116">[<a href="#pb116">116</a>]</span>By the Stoics, nevertheless, great value was attached to it, in the hope of escaping
+thereby the difficulties which necessarily result from their views on freedom and
+necessity.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13013src" href="#xd33e13013" title="Go to note 113.">113</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Inference.</i></span>
+In their theory of illation,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13024src" href="#xd33e13024" title="Go to note 114.">114</a> to which the Stoics attached special value, and on which they greatly prided themselves,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13028src" href="#xd33e13028" title="Go to note 115.">115</a> chief attention was paid to hypothetical and disjunctive inferences.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13034src" href="#xd33e13034" title="Go to note 116.">116</a> In regard to these forms of inference, the rules they laid down are well known:<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13045src" href="#xd33e13045" title="Go to note 117.">117</a> and from these forms they invariably take their examples, even when treating of inference
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb117">[<a href="#pb117">117</a>]</span><span class="marginnote">(α) <i>Hypothetical inference the original form.</i></span> in general.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13054src" href="#xd33e13054" title="Go to note 118.">118</a> According to Alexander,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13067src" href="#xd33e13067" title="Go to note 119.">119</a> the hypothetical and disjunctive forms are held to be the only regular forms of inference;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13132src" href="#xd33e13132" title="Go to note 120.">120</a> the categorical form is considered correct in point of fact, but defective in syllogistic
+form.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13303src" href="#xd33e13303" title="Go to note 121.">121</a> In hypothetical inferences a <span class="pageNum" id="pb118">[<a href="#pb118">118</a>]</span>distinction was also made between such as are connected and such as are disconnected.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13356src" href="#xd33e13356" title="Go to note 122.">122</a> In connected inferences the Stoics look principally at the greater or less accuracy
+of expression,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13403src" href="#xd33e13403" title="Go to note 123.">123</a> and partly at the difference between correctness of form and truth of matter.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13434src" href="#xd33e13434" title="Go to note 124.">124</a> They also remark that true conclusions do not always extend the field of knowledge;
+and that those which do frequently depend on reasons conclusive for the individual,
+but not on proofs universally acknowledged.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13465src" href="#xd33e13465" title="Go to note 125.">125</a> The main point, however, to be considered in dividing inferences is their <span class="pageNum" id="pb119">[<a href="#pb119">119</a>]</span><span class="marginnote">(β) <i>The five simple forms of hypothetical inference.</i></span> logical form. There are, according to Chrysippus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13548src" href="#xd33e13548" title="Go to note 126.">126</a> who herein adopted the division of Theophrastus, five original forms of hypothetical
+inference, the accuracy of which is beyond dispute, and to which all other forms of
+inference may be referred and by which they may be tested.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13565src" href="#xd33e13565" title="Go to note 127.">127</a> Yet even among these five, importance is attached to some in which the same sentence
+is repeated tautologically in the form of a conclusion,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13628src" href="#xd33e13628" title="Go to note 128.">128</a> which proves how mechanical and barren must have been the formalism with which the
+Stoic logic abounds.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(γ) <i>Composite forms of inference.</i></span>
+The combination of these five simple forms of inference gives rise to the composite
+forms of inference,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13658src" href="#xd33e13658" title="Go to note 129.">129</a> all of which may be again resolved into their simple forms.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13708src" href="#xd33e13708" title="Go to note 130.">130</a> Among composite forms of inference, those <span class="pageNum" id="pb120">[<a href="#pb120">120</a>]</span>composed of similar parts are distinguished from those composed of dissimilar parts;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13728src" href="#xd33e13728" title="Go to note 131.">131</a> in the treatment of the former, however, such a useless formality is displayed, that
+it is hard to say what meaning the Stoics attached to them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13736src" href="#xd33e13736" title="Go to note 132.">132</a> If two or more inferences, the conclusion of one of which is the first premiss of
+the other, are so combined that the judgment which constitutes the conclusion and
+premiss at once is omitted in each case, the result is a Sorites or Chain-inference.
+The rules prescribed by the Peripatetics for the Chain-inference are developed by
+the Stoics with a minuteness far transcending all the requirements of science.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13743src" href="#xd33e13743" title="Go to note 133.">133</a> With these <span class="pageNum" id="pb121">[<a href="#pb121">121</a>]</span><span class="marginnote">(δ) <i>Inference from a single premiss.</i></span> composite forms of inference Antipater contrasted other forms having only a single
+premiss,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13898src" href="#xd33e13898" title="Go to note 134.">134</a> but it was an addition to the field of logic of very doubtful worth. On a few other
+points connected with the Stoic theory of illation, we have very imperfect information.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e13937src" href="#xd33e13937" title="Go to note 135.">135</a> The loss, however, is not to be regretted, seeing that in what we already possess
+there is conclusive evidence that the objections brought against the Stoic logic were
+really well deserved, because of <span class="pageNum" id="pb122">[<a href="#pb122">122</a>]</span>the microscopic care expended by them on the most worthless logical forms.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14007src" href="#xd33e14007" title="Go to note 136.">136</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Refutation of fallacies.</i></span>
+Next to describing inferences which are valid, another subject engaged the close attention
+of the Stoics, and afforded opportunity for displaying their dialectical subtlety.
+This is the enumeration and refutation of false inferences,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14031src" href="#xd33e14031" title="Go to note 137.">137</a> and in particular the exposing of the many fallacies which had become current since
+the age of the Sophists and Megarians. In this department, as might be expected, Chrysippus
+led the way.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14035src" href="#xd33e14035" title="Go to note 138.">138</a> Not that Chrysippus was always able to overcome the difficulties that arose; witness
+his remarkable attitude towards the Chain-inference, from which he thought to escape
+by withholding judgment.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14046src" href="#xd33e14046" title="Go to note 139.">139</a> The fallacies, however, to which the Stoics devoted their attention, and the way
+in which they met them, need not occupy our attention further.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14099src" href="#xd33e14099" title="Go to note 140.">140</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb123">[<a href="#pb123">123</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.d">D. <i>Estimate of Stoic Logic.</i><br id="ch5.d.1">(1) <i>Its shortcomings.</i></span>
+In all these researches the Stoics were striving to find firm ground for a scientific
+process of proof. Great as was the value which they attached to such a process, they
+nevertheless admitted, as Aristotle had done before, that everything could not be
+proved. Here was their weak point. Instead, however, of strengthening this weak point
+by means of induction, and endeavouring to obtain a more complete theory of induction,
+they were content with conjectural data, sometimes self-evident, at other times depending
+for their truth on the truth of their inferences.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14112src" href="#xd33e14112" title="Go to note 141.">141</a> Thus, their theory of method, like their theory of knowledge, ended by an ultimate
+appeal to what is directly certain.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch5.d.2">(2) <i>Its value.</i></span>
+No very high estimate can therefore be formed of the formal logic of the Stoics. Incomplete
+as our knowledge of that logic may be, still what is known is enough to determine
+the judgment absolutely. We see indeed that the greatest care was expended by the
+Stoics since the time of Chrysippus in tracing the forms of intellectual procedure
+into their minutest ramifications, and referring them to fixed types. At the same
+time, we see that the real business of logic was lost sight of in the process, the
+business of portraying the operations of thought, and giving its laws, whilst <span class="pageNum" id="pb124">[<a href="#pb124">124</a>]</span>the most useless trifling with forms was recklessly indulged in. The Stoics can have
+made no discoveries of importance even as to logical forms, or they would not have
+been passed over by writers ever on the alert to note the slightest deviation from
+the Aristotelian logic. Hence the whole contribution of the Stoics to the field of
+logic consists in their having clothed the logic of the Peripatetics with a new terminology,
+and having developed certain parts of it with painful minuteness, whilst they wholly
+neglected other parts, as was the fate of the part treating of inference. Assuredly
+it was no improvement for Chrysippus to regard the hypothetical rather than the categorical
+as the original form of inference. Making every allowance for the extension of the
+field of logic, in scientific precision it lost more than it gained by the labours
+of Chrysippus. The history of philosophy cannot pass over in silence this branch of
+the Stoic system, so carefully cultivated by the Stoics themselves, and so characteristic
+of their intellectual attitude. Yet, when all has been said, the Stoic logic is only
+an outpost of their system, and the care which was lavished on it since the time of
+Chrysippus indicates the decline of intellectual originality.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb125">[<a href="#pb125">125</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5609">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5609src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 41: <span class="trans" title="to de logikon meros phasin enioi eis dyo diaireisthai epistēmas, eis rhētorikēn kai dialektikēn ... tēn te rhētorikēn epistēmēn ousan tou eu legein peri tōn en diexodō logōn kai tēn dialektikēn tou orthōs dialegesthai peri tōn en erōtēsei kai apokrisei logōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ λογικὸν μέρος φασὶν ἔνιοι εἰς δύο διαιρεῖσθαι ἐπιστήμας, εἰς ῥητορικὴν καὶ διαλεκτικήν
+… τήν τε ῥητορικὴν ἐπιστήμην οὖσαν τοῦ εὖ λέγειν περὶ τῶν ἐν διεξόδῳ λόγων καὶ τὴν
+διαλεκτικὴν τοῦ ὀρθῶς διαλέγεσθαι περὶ τῶν ἐν ἐρωτήσει καὶ ἀποκρίσει λόγων</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 89, 17: <span lang="la">Superest ut rationalem partem philosophiæ dividam: omnis oratio aut continua est aut
+inter respondentem et interrogantem discissa; hanc <span class="trans" title="dialektikēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαλεκτικὴν</span></span>, illam <span class="trans" title="rhētorikēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ῥητορικὴν</span></span> placuit vocari.</span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 6, 17; Orat. 32, 113. <i>Quintil.</i> Inst. ii. 20, 7. According to these passages, Rhetoric was by Zeno compared to the
+palm of the hand, and Dialectic to the fist: <span lang="la">quod latius loquerentur rhetores, dialectici autem compressius.</span> The Stoics agree with Aristotle in calling rhetoric <span class="trans" title="antistrophos tē dialektikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ</span></span> (<i>Sop.</i> in Hermog. v. 15, Walz.). See <i>Prantl</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. der Log.</span> i. 413.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5609src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5667">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5667src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 41: Some divide logic into rhetoric and dialectic: <span class="trans" title="tines de kai eis to horikon eidos, to peri kanonōn kai kritēriōn; enioi de to horikon periairousi"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e5673">τινὲς</span> δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ ὁρικὸν εἶδος, τὸ περὶ κανόνων καὶ κριτηρίων· ἔνιοι δὲ τὸ ὁρικὸν περιαιροῦσι</span></span>. (We have no reason to read as Ménage does <span class="trans" title="peridiairousi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περιδιαιροῦσι</span></span>, or to conjecture, as Meibom and Nicolai, De Log. Chrys., Lib. 23, do, <span class="trans" title="paradiairousi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παραδιαιροῦσι</span></span>.) According to this passage, <span class="trans" title="horikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρικὸν</span></span> must be identical with the doctrine of a criterium. In a subsequent passage, however,
+the two are distinguished; the doctrine of a criterium is said to be useful for the
+discovery of truth: <span class="trans" title="kai to horikon de homoiōs pros epignōsin tēs alētheias; dia gar tōn eunoiōn ta pragmata lambanetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὸ ὁρικὸν δὲ ὁμοίως πρὸς ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας· διὰ γὰρ τῶν εὐνοιῶν τὰ πράγματα
+λαμβάνεται</span></span>. We may therefore suppose that in the passage first quoted the words should be <span class="trans" title="to horikon eidos kai to peri kanonōn, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὁρικὸν εἶδος καὶ τὸ περὶ κανόνων, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> In this case, we may understand by <span class="trans" title="horikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρικὸν</span></span> not only the theory of definition—a theory to which Aristotle devoted a separate
+section at the end of his Analytics (Anal. Post. ii.)—but besides a theoretical disquisition
+on the formation of definitions, a collection of definitions of various objects. Such
+collections are found in the treatises of Chrysippus (<i>Diog.</i> 199, 189): <span class="trans" title="peri tōn horōn zʹ. horōn dialektikōn stʹ. horōn tōn kata genos zʹ. horōn tōn kata tas allas technas abʹ. horōn tōn tou asteiou bʹ. horōn tōn tou phaulou bʹ. horōn tōn anamesōn bʹ"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν ὅρων ζʹ. ὅρων διαλεκτικῶν στʹ. ὅρων τῶν κατὰ γένος ζʹ. ὅρων τῶν κατὰ τὰς
+ἄλλας τέχνας αβʹ. ὅρων τῶν τοῦ ἀστείου βʹ. ὅρων τῶν τοῦ φαύλου βʹ. ὅρων τῶν ἀναμέσων
+βʹ</span></span>; besides the further treatises <span class="trans" title="peri tōn ouk orthōs tois horois antilegomenōn zʹ. Pithana eis tous horous bʹ"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν οὐκ ὀρθῶς τοῖς ὅροις ἀντιλεγομένων ζʹ. Πιθανὰ εἰς τοὺς ὅρους βʹ</span></span>. The treatise <span class="trans" title="peri eidōn kai genōn bʹ"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εἰδῶν καὶ γενῶν <span class="corr" id="xd33e5752" title="Not in source">βʹ</span></span></span> may also be included here; perhaps also that <span class="trans" title="peri tōn katēgorēmatōn pros Mētrodōron iʹ. pros Pasylon peri katēgorēmatōn dʹ"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν κατηγορημάτων πρὸς Μητρόδωρον ιʹ. πρὸς Πάσυλον περὶ κατηγορημάτων δʹ</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> 191.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5667src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5770">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5770src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> No description of their system can dispense with this fundamental enquiry, which had
+been already instituted by Zeno. It appears, however, to have been treated by several
+writers as a branch of dialectic. <i>Diog.</i> 43 says that the branch of dialectic which treats of <span class="trans" title="sēmainomena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σημαινόμενα</span></span> may be divided <span class="trans" title="eis te ton peri tōn phantasiōn topon kai tōn ek toutōn hyphistamenōn lektōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἴς τε τὸν περὶ τῶν φαντασιῶν τόπον καὶ τῶν ἐκ τούτων ὑφισταμένων λεκτῶν</span></span>. (See <i>Nicolai</i> p. 23.) Compare with this the words of <i>Diocles</i>, in <span id="xd33e5795"><i>Diog.</i></span> 49: <span class="trans" title="areskei tois Stōïkois peri phantasias kai aisthēseōs protattein logon, kathoti to kritērion hō hē alētheia tōn pragmatōn ginōsketai, kata genos phantasia esti kai kathoti ho peri synkatatheseōs kai ho peri katalēpseōs kai noēseōs logos proagōn tōn allōn ouk aneu phantasias synistatai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρέσκει τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς περὶ φαντασίας καὶ αἰσθήσεως προτάττειν λόγον, καθότι τὸ κριτήριον
+ᾧ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῶν πραγμάτων γινώσκεται, κατὰ γένος φαντασία ἐστὶ καὶ καθότι ὁ περὶ συγκαταθέσεως
+καὶ ὁ περὶ καταλήψεως καὶ νοήσεως λόγος προάγων τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ἄνευ φαντασίας συνίσταται</span></span>. According to this passage, the branch of dialectic which treated of <span class="trans" title="phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία</span></span> included the theory of knowledge. <i>Diog.</i> 53, <i>Petersen’s</i> conjecture is singular <span class="pageNum" id="pb72n">[<a href="#pb72n">72</a>]</span>(Phil. Chrys. Fund. p. 25) that the theory of knowledge may have been understood by
+Chrysippus under the name rhetoric.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5770src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5824">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5824src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> Our information on this head is very small. In the words: <span lang="la"><span class="trans" title="rhētorikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ῥητορικὴ</span></span> verba curat et sensus et ordinem</span>, a division of rhetoric is implied by Seneca, which differs in little, except in
+the position of the chief parts, from that of Aristotle. A fourth part is added to
+the three others by <i>Diog.</i> 43—on Delivery—<span class="trans" title="einai d’ autēs tēn diairesin eis te tēn heuresin kai eis tēn phrasin, kai eis taxin kai eis tēn hypokrisin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι δ’ αὐτῆς τὴν διαίρεσιν εἴς τε τὴν εὕρεσιν καὶ εἰς τὴν φράσιν, καὶ εἰς τάξιν
+καὶ εἰς τὴν ὑπόκρισιν</span></span>. Diogenes also claims for the Stoics the Aristotelian distinction between three ways
+of speaking—<span class="trans" title="symbouleutikos, dikanikos, enkōmiastikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμβουλευτικὸς, δικανικὸς, ἐγκωμιαστικός</span></span>—and four parts in a speech: <span class="trans" title="prooimion, diēgēsis, ta pros tous antidikous, epilogos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προοίμιον, διήγησις, τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιδίκους, ἐπίλογος</span></span>. Definitions of <span class="trans" title="diēgēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διήγησις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="paradeigma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παράδειγμα</span></span> are given from Zeno by the anonymous author in <i>Spengel</i>, Rhet. Gr. i. 434, 23; 447, 11. The same author (<i>Ibid.</i> 454, 4) says that, according to Chrysippus, the <span class="trans" title="epilogos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπίλογος</span></span> must be <span class="trans" title="monomerēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μονομερής</span></span>. The Stoic definition of rhetoric has been already given, p. 70, 1. Another—<span class="trans" title="technē peri kosmou kai eirēmenou logou taxin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέχνη περὶ κόσμου καὶ εἰρημένου λόγου τάξιν</span></span>—is attributed to Chrysippus by <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 28, 1. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 3, 7, observes, in reference to the Stoic rhetoric, and in particular to
+that of Chrysippus, that such was its nature that <span lang="la">si quis obmutescere concupierit, nihil aliud legere debeat</span>—that it dealt in nothing but words, being withal scanty in expressions, and confined
+to subtleties. This neglect of the truly rhetorical element appears already in the
+quotations from <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 28, 2. We have not the slightest reason to complain, as <i>Prantl</i> does, p. 413, of the purely rhetorical value of dialectic with the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5824src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5920">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5920src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> See p. 70, 1, <i>Alex.</i> Aphr. Top. 3: <span class="trans" title="hoi men apo tēs Stoas horizomenoi tēn dialektikēn epistēmēn tou eu legein horizontai, to de eu legein en tō alēthē kai prosēkonta legein einai tithemenoi, touto de idion hēgoumenoi tou philosophou, kata tēs teleōtatēs philosophias pherousin auto kai dia touto monos ho philosophos kat’ autous dialektikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς ὁριζόμενοι τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ἐπιστήμην τοῦ εὖ λέγειν ὁρίζονται,
+τὸ δὲ εὖ λέγειν ἐν τῷ ἀληθῆ καὶ προσήκοντα λέγειν εἶναι τιθέμενοι, τοῦτο δὲ ἴδιον
+ἡγούμενοι τοῦ φιλοσόφου, κατὰ τῆς τελεωτάτης φιλοσοφίας φέρουσιν αὐτὸ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
+μόνος ὁ φιλόσοφος κατ’ αὐτοὺς διαλεκτικός</span></span>. Aristotle had used the term dialectic in another sense, but with Plato it expressed
+the mode of procedure peculiar to a philosopher.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5920src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5933">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5933src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> See Anon. Prolegg. ad Hermog. Rhet. Gr. vii. 8, W.: <span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi de to eu legein elegon to alēthē legein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ δὲ τὸ εὖ λέγειν ἔλεγον τὸ ἀληθῆ λέγειν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5933src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5946">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5946src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 42: <span class="trans" title="hothen kai houtōs autēn [tēn dialektikēn] horizontai, epistēmēn alēthōn kai pseudōn kai oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅθεν καὶ οὕτως αὐτὴν [τὴν διαλεκτικὴν] ὁρίζονται, ἐπιστήμην ἀληθῶν καὶ ψευδῶν καὶ
+οὐδετέρων</span></span>. (The same, p. 62, quoted from Posidonius, and in <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 187, and <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Dialektikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διαλεκτική</span></span>.) <span class="trans" title="oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδετέρων</span></span> being probably used, because dialectic deals not only with judgments, but with conceptions
+and interrogations. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 68.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5946src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e5994">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e5994src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> This is the meaning of the Stoic distinction between <span class="trans" title="logos endiathetos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος ἐνδιάθετος</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="prophorikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προφορικὸς</span></span>, a distinction subsequently employed by Philo and the Fathers, and really identical
+with that of Aristotle (Anal. Post i. 10, 76 b, 24): <span class="trans" title="ou pros ton exō logon, alla pros ton en tē psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ πρὸς τὸν ἔξω λόγον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ</span></span>. On this distinction see <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 72, p. 142: <span class="trans" title="diplous ho logos; toutōn d’ hoi philosophoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διπλοῦς ὁ λόγος· τούτων δ’ οἱ φιλόσοφοι</span></span> (the Stoics are meant) <span class="trans" title="ton men endiatheton kalousi, ton de prophorikon. ho men oun tōn endon logismōn estin exangelos, ho d’ hypo tois sternois katheirktai. phasi de toutō chrēsthai kai to theion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν μὲν ἐνδιάθετον καλοῦσι, τὸν δὲ προφορικόν. ὁ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἔνδον λογισμῶν ἐστιν
+ἐξάγγελος, ὁ δ’ ὑπὸ τοῖς στέρνοις καθεῖρκται. φασὶ δὲ τούτῳ χρῆσθαι καὶ τὸ θεῖον</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 275 (conf. Pyrrh. i. 76): <span class="trans" title="hoi de Dogmatikoi ... phasin hoti anthrōpos ouchi tō prophorikō logō diapherei tōn alogōn zōōn ... alla tō endiathetō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ Δογματικοὶ … φασὶν ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐχὶ τῷ προφορικῷ λόγῳ διαφέρει τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων
+… ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐνδιαθέτῳ</span></span>. The Stoics alone can be meant by the <span class="trans" title="neōteroi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νεώτεροι</span></span> in <i>Theo. Smyrn.</i> Mus. c. 18, who are contrasted with the Peripatetics for using the terms <span class="trans" title="logos endiathetos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος ἐνδιάθετος</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="prophorikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προφορικός</span></span>. They are also referred to by <i>Plut.</i> C. Prin. Phil. 2, 1, p. 777: <span class="trans" title="to de legein, hoti dyo logoi eisin, ho men endiathetos, hēgemonos Hermou dōron, ho d’ en prophora, diaktoros kai organikos heōlon esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ λέγειν, ὅτι δύο λόγοι εἰσὶν, ὁ μὲν <span id="xd33e6082">ἐνδιάθετος</span>, ἡγεμόνος Ἑρμοῦ δῶρον, ὁ δ’ ἐν προφορᾷ, διάκτορος καὶ ὀργανικὸς <span id="xd33e6086">ἕωλόν</span> ἐστι</span></span>. The double form of Hermes is explained by <i>Heraclitus</i> as referring to the twofold <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="Hermēs Chthonios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἑρμῆς Χθόνιος</span></span> represents <span class="trans" title="logon endiatheton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγον ἐνδιάθετον</span></span>, and the heavenly Hermes (<span class="trans" title="diaktoros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάκτορος</span></span>) represents the <span class="trans" title="prophorikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προφορικόν</span></span>. The distinction passed from the Stoics to others, like <i>Plut.</i> Solert. An. 19, 1, p. 973; <i>Galen</i>, Protrept. i. 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e5994src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6142">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6142src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 43: <span class="trans" title="tēn dialektikēn diaireisthai eis te ton peri tōn sēmainomenōn kai tēs phōnēs topon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν διαλεκτικὴν διαιρεῖσθαι εἴς τε τὸν περὶ τῶν σημαινομένων καὶ τῆς φωνῆς τόπον</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 62: <span class="trans" title="tynchanei d’ hautē, hōs ho Chrysippos phēsi, peri sēmainonta kai sēmainomena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τυγχάνει δ’ αὕτη, ὡς ὁ Χρύσιππός φησι, περὶ σημαίνοντα καὶ σημαινόμενα</span></span>. <i>Seneca</i> l.c.: <span lang="la"><span class="trans" title="dialektikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαλεκτικὴ</span></span> in duas partes dividitur, <span class="pageNum" id="pb74n">[<a href="#pb74n">74</a>]</span>in verba et significationes, i.e. in res, quæ dicuntur, et vocabula, quibus dicuntur.</span> The distinction between <span class="trans" title="to sēmainon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ σημαῖνον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="to sēmainomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ σημαινόμενον</span></span>, to which <span class="trans" title="to tynchanon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ τυγχάνον</span></span> (the real object) must be added as a third, will be hereafter discussed in another
+place. A much narrower conception of dialectic, and more nearly approaching to that
+of the Peripatetics, is to be found in the definition given by <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 213. The division there given is also found in the Platonist <i>Alcinous</i>, Isag. c. 3, as Fabricius has pointed out. It appears, therefore, not to belong to
+the Stoic School, but, at most, to a few of its later members.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6142src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6209">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6209src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Seneca</i> continues: <span lang="la">Ingens deinde sequitur utriusque divisio</span>, without, however, giving it.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6209src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6216">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6216src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> There is much which is open to doubt in <i>Petersen’s</i> attempt (Phil. Chrys. Fund. 221) to settle these divisions. At the very beginning,
+his reference of the words in <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 11 to the parts of logic is unhappy. <i>Nicolai</i> (De Logic. Chrys. Lib. 21) has acted with greater caution, but even much of what
+he says is doubtful.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6216src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6226">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6226src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 55.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6226src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6230">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6230src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 44: <span class="trans" title="einai de tēs dialektikēs idion topon kai ton proeirēmenon peri autēs tēs phōnēs, en hō deiknytai hē engrammatos phōnē kai tina ta tou logou merē, kai peri soloikismou kai barbarismou kai poiēmatōn kai amphiboliōn kai peri emmelous phōnēs kai peri mousikēs kai peri horōn kata tinas kai diaireseōn kai lexeōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι δὲ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς ἴδιον τόπον καὶ τὸν προειρημένον περὶ αὐτῆς τῆς φωνῆς, ἐν
+ᾧ δείκνυται ἡ ἐγγράμματος φωνὴ καὶ τίνα τὰ τοῦ λόγου μέρη, καὶ περὶ σολοικισμοῦ καὶ
+βαρβαρισμοῦ καὶ ποιημάτων καὶ ἀμφιβολιῶν καὶ περὶ ἐμμελοῦς φωνῆς καὶ περὶ μουσικῆς
+καὶ περὶ ὅρων κατά τινας καὶ διαιρέσεων καὶ λέξεων</span></span>. The theory of the determination and division of conceptions occupies such an important
+place in the section <span class="trans" title="peri phōnēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ φωνῆς</span></span>, that we might feel disposed to suppose some mistake in the authority. Still, from
+the later authorities, pp. 60–62, it is seen that by many it is usually so represented.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6230src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6250">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6250src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> Further particulars may be obtained in <i>Schmidt’s</i> <span lang="la">Stoicorum Grammatica</span> (Halle, 1839); <span class="pageNum" id="pb75n">[<a href="#pb75n">75</a>]</span><i>Lersch</i>, <span lang="de">Sprachphilosophie der Alten</span>; <i>Steinthal</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. der Sprachwissenschaft</span>, i. 265–363; <i>Nicolai</i>, De Log. Chrys. Lib. 31. This part of dialectic began with enquiries into the voice
+and speech. Voice is defined to be sound and speech, to be air in motion, or something
+hearable—<span class="trans" title="aēr peplēgmenos ē to idion aisthēton akoēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος ἢ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς</span></span>; the human voice as <span class="trans" title="enarthros kai apo dianoias ekpempomenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔναρθρος καὶ ἀπὸ διάνοιας ἐκπεμπομένη</span></span>, is distinguished from the sounds of other animals, which are <span class="trans" title="aēr hypo hormēs peplēgmenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀὴρ ὑπὸ ὁρμῆς πεπληγμένος</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 55; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 97; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vi. 39; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. vi. 15, 6). That the voice is something material is proved in various ways
+(<i>Diog.</i> 55; <i>Plut.</i> Plac<span>.</span> iv. 20, 2; <i>Galen</i>, Hist. Phil. 27). The voice, in as far as it is <span class="trans" title="enarthros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔναρθρος</span></span>, or composed of letters, is called <span class="trans" title="lexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέξις</span></span>; in as far as it expresses certain notions, it is <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 56; <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 155). A peculiar national mode of expression (<span class="trans" title="lexis kecharagmenē ethnikōs te kai Hellēnikōs ē lexis potapē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέξις κεχαραγμένη ἐθνικῶς τε καὶ Ἑλληνικῶς ἢ λέξις ποταπὴ</span></span>) was called <span class="trans" title="dialektos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάλεκτος</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 56). The elements of <span class="trans" title="lexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέξις</span></span> are the 24 letters, divided into 7 <span class="trans" title="phōnēenta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φωνήεντα</span></span>, 6 <span class="trans" title="aphōna"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄφωνα</span></span>, and 11 semivowels (<i>Diog.</i> 57); the <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span> has 5 parts, called <span class="trans" title="stoicheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">στοιχεῖα</span></span> by Chrysippus—<span class="trans" title="onoma, prosēgoria, rhēma, syndesmos, arthron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄνομα, προσηγορία, ῥῆμα, σύνδεσμος, ἄρθρον</span></span>—to which Antipater added the <span class="trans" title="mesotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μεσότης</span></span>, or adverb (<i>Diog.</i> 57; <i>Galen</i>, De Hippocrat. et Plat. viii. 3; <i>Lersch</i>, ii. 28; <i>Steinthal</i>, 291). Words were not formed by caprice, but certain peculiarities of things have
+been imitated in the chief sounds of which they are composed. These peculiarities
+can therefore be discovered by etymological analysis (<i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. i. 24; <i>Augustin.</i> Dialect. c. 6; Opp. T.&nbsp;I. Ap. 17, c.). (Chrysippus, however, observes (in <i>Varro</i>, L. Lat. ix. 1) that the same things bear different names, and vice versâ, and (in
+<i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xi. 12, 1) that every word has several meanings.<span class="corr" id="xd33e6437" title="Not in source">)</span> See <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 8, ζ. Five advantages and two disadvantages of speech are enumerated <i>Diog.</i> 59; <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 210; and poetry (<i>Diog.</i> 60), various kinds of <span lang="la">amphibolia</span> (<i>Diog.</i> 62; <i>Galen</i>, De Soph. P. Dict. c. 4), the formation of conceptions, and division, are treated
+of.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6250src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6480">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6480src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 54.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6480src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6484">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6484src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> The statements of Zeno and Cleanthes, for instance, in reference to <span class="trans" title="phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία</span></span>, prove that these Stoics deduced their theory of knowledge from general principles
+respecting notions. They therefore started from the data supplied by the senses. A
+passage in Zeno, explaining <span class="pageNum" id="pb77n">[<a href="#pb77n">77</a>]</span>the relations of various forms of knowledge, shows that even Zeno required progress
+to be from perception to conception and knowledge, and that he distinguished these
+states only by the varying strength of conviction which they produced.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6484src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6527">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6527src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 12. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 50. <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. 76. <span class="trans" title="Phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Φαντασία</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="pathos en tē psychē ginomenon, endeiknymenon heauto te kai to pepoiēkos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενον, ἐνδεικνύμενον ἑαυτό τε καὶ τὸ πεποιηκός</span></span>, in the same way, it is added, that light shows other things as well as itself; <span class="trans" title="phantaston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φανταστὸν</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="to poioun tēn phantasian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ποιοῦν τὴν φαντασίαν</span></span>, and therefore <span class="trans" title="pan ho ti an dynētai kinein tēn psychēn. Phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν ὅ τι ἂν δύνηται κινεῖν τὴν ψυχήν. Φαντασία</span></span> is distinguished from <span class="trans" title="phantastikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φανταστικόν</span></span>, because no <span class="trans" title="phantaston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φανταστὸν</span></span> corresponds to <span class="trans" title="phantastikon;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φανταστικόν·</span></span> it is <span class="trans" title="diakenos helkysmos, pathos en tē psychē ap’ oudenos phantastou ginomenon;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάκενος ἑλκυσμὸς, πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀπ’ οὐδενὸς φανταστοῦ γινόμενον·</span></span> and the object of such an empty perception is a <span class="trans" title="phantasma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φάντασμα</span></span>. Compare also <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 241: <span class="trans" title="diakenos helkysmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάκενος ἑλκυσμὸς</span></span> is called <span class="trans" title="phantasia tōn en hēmin pathōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν παθῶν</span></span>. Impressions wholly unfounded, which give the impression of being actual perceptions,
+are called by <i>Diog.</i> 51, <span class="trans" title="emphaseis hai hōsanei apo hyparchontōn ginomenai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐμφάσεις αἱ ὡσανεὶ ἀπὸ ὑπαρχόντων γινόμεναι</span></span>. In a wider sense, <span class="trans" title="phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία</span></span> means any kind of notion.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6527src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6654">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6654src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 11: <span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi phasin; hotan gennēthē ho anthrōpos echei to hēgemonikon meros tēs psychēs hōsper chartēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοί φασιν· ὅταν γεννηθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μέρος <span id="xd33e6661">τῆς</span> ψυχῆς <span class="pageNum" id="pb78n">[<a href="#pb78n">78</a>]</span>ὥσπερ χάρτης</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="chartēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χάρτην</span></span> as <i>Galen</i>, H. Phil. 24, vol. xix. reads), <span class="trans" title="energōn eis apographēn. eis touto mian hekastēn tōn ennoiōn enapographetai; prōtos de ho tēs apographēs tropos ho dia tōn aisthēseōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e6684">ἐνεργῶν</span> εἰς ἀπογραφήν. εἰς τοῦτο μίαν ἑκάστην τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἐναπογράφεται· πρῶτος δὲ ὁ τῆς
+ἀπογραφῆς τρόπος ὁ διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων</span></span>. See p. 79, 2. <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. vii. 37, 720, b, says that they taught <span class="trans" title="aisthēsei katalambanesthai ta katalambanomena kai pasan katalēpsin ērtēsthai tōn aisthēseōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰσθήσει καταλαμβάνεσθαι τὰ καταλαμβανόμενα καὶ πᾶσαν κατάληψιν ἠρτῆσθαι τῶν αἰσθήσεων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6654src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6717">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6717src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Comm. Not. 47: <span class="trans" title="phantasia typōsis en psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ</span></span>. The same in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 45 and 50. That this was also the view of Diogenes appears from what follows.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6717src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6731">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6731src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 228: <span class="trans" title="Kleanthēs men gar ēkouse tēn typōsin kata eisochēn te kai exochēn hōsper kai dia tōn daktyliōn ginomenēn tou kērou typōsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κλεάνθης μὲν γὰρ ἤκουσε τὴν τύπωσιν κατὰ εἰσοχήν τε καὶ ἐξοχὴν ὥσπερ καὶ διὰ τῶν δακτυλίων
+γινομένην τοῦ κηροῦ τύπωσιν</span></span>. Conf. <i>Ibid.</i> vii. 372; viii. 400.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6731src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6756">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6756src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> vii. 229, continues: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos de atopon hēgeito to toiouton;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος δὲ ἄτοπον ἡγεῖτο τὸ τοιοῦτον·</span></span>—according to this view, it would be necessary for the soul to receive at once many
+different forms, if it had to retain different notions at the same time—<span class="trans" title="autos oun tēn typōsin eirēsthai hypo tou Zēnōnos hypenoei anti tēs heteroiōseōs, hōste einai toiouton ton logon; phantasia estin heteroiōsis psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτὸς οὖν τὴν τύπωσιν εἰρῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος ὑπενόει ἀντὶ τῆς ἑτεροιώσεως, ὥστε
+εἶναι τοιοῦτον τὸν λόγον· φαντασία ἐστὶν ἑτεροίωσις ψυχῆς</span></span>. Objection had, however, been raised to this definition, on the ground that not every
+change of the soul gives rise to a perception, and therefore the Stoics had defined
+a perception more accurately: <span class="trans" title="phantasia esti typōsis en psychē hōs an en psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία ἐστὶ τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ ὡς ἂν ἐν ψυχῇ</span></span>, which was equivalent to saying <span class="trans" title="phantasia estin heteroiōsis en hēgemonikō;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία ἐστὶν ἑτεροίωσις ἐν ἡγεμονικῷ·</span></span> or else in Zeno’s definition of <span class="trans" title="phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="typōsis en psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ</span></span> they had taken <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ</span></span> in a restricted sense for <span class="trans" title="to hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν</span></span>, which really comes to the same thing. Even this definition had, however, been found
+too wide, and hence <span class="trans" title="heteroiōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑτεροίωσις</span></span> was limited to change in feeling (<span class="trans" title="heteroiōsis kata peisin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑτεροίωσις κατὰ πεῖσιν</span></span>). But the definition is still too <span class="pageNum" id="pb79n">[<a href="#pb79n">79</a>]</span>wide, as Sextus already remarked; for a perception is not the only feeling of change
+in the soul. A more accurate definition has already been quoted, 77, 1. The statements
+in <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 372; viii. 400; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 45 and 50; <i>Alex. Aphro.</i> De Anim. 135, b; <i>Boëth.</i> De Interpret, ii. 292 (Schol. in Arist. 100), are in agreement with the above remarks.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6756src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6854">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6854src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> Chrys. in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 19, 2: <span class="trans" title="hoti men gar aisthēta esti tagatha kai ta kaka, kai toutois ekpoiei legein; ou gar monon ta pathē estin aisthēta syn tois eidesin, hoion lypē kai phobos kai to paraplēsia, alla kai klopēs kai moicheias kai tōn homoiōn estin aisthesthai; kai katholou aphrosynēs kai deilias kai allōn ouk oligōn kakiōn; oude monon charas kai euergesiōn kai allōn pollōn katorthōseōn, alla kai phronēseōs kai andreias kai tōn loipōn aretōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι μὲν γὰρ αἰσθητά ἐστι τἀγαθὰ καὶ τὰ κακὰ, καὶ τούτοις ἐκποιεῖ λέγειν· οὐ γὰρ μόνον
+τὰ πάθη ἐστὶν αἰσθητὰ σὺν τοῖς εἴδεσιν, οἷον λύπη καὶ φόβος καὶ τὸ παραπλήσια, ἀλλὰ
+καὶ κλοπῆς καὶ μοιχείας καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ἔστιν αἰσθέσθαι· καὶ καθόλου ἀφροσύνης καὶ
+δειλίας καὶ ἄλλων οὐκ ὀλίγων κακιῶν· οὐδὲ μόνον χαρᾶς καὶ εὐεργεσιῶν καὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν
+κατορθώσεων, ἀλλὰ καὶ φρονήσεως καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀρετῶν</span></span>. This passage must not be understood to mean that the <i>conceptions</i> of good and evil, as such, are objects of sensation (<i>Ritter</i>, iii. 558). The only objects of that kind are <i>individual</i> moral states and activities. The general conceptions derived from them are, according
+to the Stoic theory of knowledge, only obtained by a process of abstraction.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6854src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6880">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6880src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 11, 2: <span class="trans" title="aisthanomenoi gar tinos hoion leukou apelthontos autou mnēmēn echousin, hotan de homoeideis pollai mnēmai genōnta tote phasin echein empeirian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰσθανόμενοι γάρ τινος οἷον λευκοῦ ἀπελθόντος αὐτοῦ μνήμην ἔχουσιν, ὅταν δὲ ὁμοειδεῖς
+πολλαὶ μνήμαι γένωντα τότε φασὶν ἔχειν ἐμπειρίαν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6880src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6894">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6894src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 52: <span class="trans" title="hē de katalēpsis ginetai kat’ autous aisthēsei men, hōs leukōn kai melanōn kai tracheōn kai leiōn; logō de tōn di’ apodeixeōs synagomenōn, hōsper to theous einai kai pronoein toutous; tōn gar nooumenōn ta men kata periptōsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ δὲ κατάληψις γίνεται κατ’ αὐτοὺς αἰσθήσει μὲν, ὡς λευκῶν καὶ μελάνων καὶ τραχέων
+καὶ λείων· λόγῳ δὲ τῶν δι’ ἀποδείξεως συναγομένων, ὥσπερ τὸ θεοὺς εἶναι καὶ προνοεῖν
+τούτους· τῶν γὰρ νοουμένων τὰ μὲν κατὰ περίπτωσιν</span></span> (immediate contact) <span class="trans" title="enoēthē, ta de kath’ homoiotēta, ta de kat’ analogian, ta de kata metathesin, ta de kata synthesin, ta de kat’ enantiōsin ... noeitai de kai kata metabasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνοήθη, τὰ δὲ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα, τὰ δὲ κατ’ ἀναλογίαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ μετάθεσιν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ
+σύνθεσιν, τὰ δὲ κατ’ ἐναντίωσιν … νοεῖται δὲ καὶ κατὰ μετάβασιν</span></span> (transition from the sensuous to the super-sensuous) <span class="trans" title="tina, hōs ta lekta kai ho topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τινὰ, ὡς τὰ λεκτὰ καὶ ὁ τόπος</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 11, 42: <span lang="la">Comprehensio [= <span class="trans" title="katalēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατάληψις</span></span>] facta sensibus et vera illi [Zenoni] et fidelis videbatur: non quod omnia, quæ essent
+in re, comprehenderet, sed quia nihil quod cadere in eam posset relinqueret, quodque
+natura quasi normam scientiæ et principium sui dedisset, unde postea notiones rerum
+in animis imprimerentur.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> Fin. iii. 10, 33: <span lang="la">Cumque rerum notiones in animis fiant, si aut usu</span> (experience) <span lang="la">aliquid cognitum sit, aut conjunctione, aut similitudine, aut collatione rationis:
+hoc quarto, quod extremum posui, boni notitia facta est.</span> <i>Sext.</i> (Math. iii. 40; ix. 393) also agrees with the Stoic doctrine of the origin of conceptions,
+in saying that all our ideas arise either <span class="trans" title="kat’ empelasin tōn enargōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατ’ ἐμπέλασιν τῶν ἐναργῶν</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="kata tēn apo tōn enargōn metabasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναργῶν μετάβασιν</span></span> (cf. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 53), and in the latter case either by comparison, or actual combination, or
+analogy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6894src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6965">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6965src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> l.c. Compare the passage quoted from Seneca, 81, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6965src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e6969">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e6969src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 11: <span class="trans" title="tōn d’ ennoiōn hai men physikai ginontai kata tous eirēmenous tropous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δ’ ἐννοιῶν αἱ μὲν φυσικαὶ γίνονται κατὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους τρόπους</span></span> (according to the context, this must mean by memory and experience, but perhaps the
+author of the Placita has been careless in his extracts here) <span class="trans" title="kai anepitechnētōs; hai d’ ēdē di’ hēmeteras didaskalias kai epimeleias; hautai men oun ennoiai kalountai monai, ekeinai de kai prolēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἀνεπιτεχνήτως· αἱ δ’ ἤδη δι’ ἡμετέρας διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐπιμελείας· αὗται μὲν οὖν
+ἔννοιαι καλοῦνται μόναι, ἐκεῖναι δὲ καὶ προλήψεις</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 51: [<span class="trans" title="tōn phantasiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν φαντασιῶν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="hai men eisi technikai, hai de atechnoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱ μέν εἰσι τεχνικαὶ, αἱ δὲ ἄτεχνοι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e6969src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7036">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7036src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 11: <span class="trans" title="ho de logos kath’ hon prosagoreuometha logikoi ek tōn prolēpseōn symplērousthai legetai kata tēn prōtēn hebdomada"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ λόγος καθ’ ὃν προσαγορευόμεθα λογικοὶ ἐκ τῶν προλήψεων συμπληροῦσθαι λέγεται
+κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα</span></span> (the first seven years of life). Comm. Not. 3, <span class="pageNum" id="pb81n">[<a href="#pb81n">81</a>]</span>1, says that to the Stoics belonged <span class="trans" title="to para tas ennoias kai tas prolēpseis tas koinas philosophein, aph’ hōn malista tēn hairesin ... kai monēn homologein tē physei legousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ παρὰ τὰς ἐννοίας καὶ τὰς προλήψεις τὰς κοινὰς φιλοσοφεῖν, ἀφ’ ὧν μάλιστα τὴν αἵρεσιν
+… καὶ μόνην ὁμολογεῖν τῇ φύσει λέγουσιν</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Epist. 117, 6: <span lang="la">multum dare solemus præsumtioni (<span class="trans" title="prolēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψις</span></span>) omnium hominum; apud nos argumentum veritatis est, aliquid omnibus videri.</span> Frequent instances will occur of appeals to <span lang="la">communes notitiæ</span> and <span lang="la">consensus gentium</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7036src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7089">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7089src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 53: <span class="trans" title="physikōs de noeitai dikaion ti kai agathon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικῶς δὲ νοεῖται δίκαιόν τι καὶ ἀγαθόν</span></span>. 54: <span class="trans" title="esti d’ hē prolēpsis ennoia physikē tōn katholou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔστι δ’ ἡ πρόληψις ἔννοια φυσικὴ τῶν καθόλου</span></span>. In the same strain Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 17) speaks of <span class="trans" title="emphytoi prolēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔμφυτοι προλήψεις</span></span> of good and evil. In <i>Plut.</i> Frag. De Anim. vii. 6, T.&nbsp;V. 487 Wytt., the question is asked, How is it possible
+to learn what is not already known? The Stoics reply, By means of <span class="trans" title="physikai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικαὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7089src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7140">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7140src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> Compare <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 10: <span lang="la">hoc quarto [collatione rationis] boni notitia facta est; cum enim ab iis rebus, quæ
+sunt secundum naturam, adscendit animus collatione rationis, tum ad notitiam boni
+pervenit.</span> Similarly <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 120, 4, replying to the question, <span lang="la">Quomodo ad nos prima boni honestique notitia pervenerit?</span> observes, <span lang="la">Hoc nos natura docere non potuit: semina nobis scientiæ dedit, scientiam non dedit
+… nobis videtur observatio collegisse [speciem virtutis], et rerum sæpe factarum inter
+se collatio: per analogiam nostri intellectum et honestum et bonum judicant.</span> The notion of mental health and strength has grown out of corresponding bodily notions;
+the contemplation of virtuous actions and persons has given rise to the conception
+of moral perfection, the good points being improved upon, and defects being passed
+over, the experience of certain faults which resemble virtues serving to make the
+distinction plainer. Even belief in a God was produced, according to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 52, by <span class="trans" title="apodeixis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπόδειξις</span></span>. See p. 80, 1. Conf. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 792: <span class="trans" title="hoi men Stōïkoi legousi men euthys emphyesthai ton logon, hysteron de synathroizesthai apo tōn aisthēseōn kai phantasiōn peri dekatessara etē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ μὲν Στωϊκοὶ λέγουσι μὲν εὐθὺς ἐμφύεσθαι τὸν λόγον, ὕστερον δὲ συναθροίζεσθαι ἀπὸ
+τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ φαντασιῶν περὶ δεκατέσσαρα ἔτη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7140src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7179">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7179src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 128: <span class="trans" title="einai de tēn epistēmēn katalēpsin asphalē kai ametaptōton hypo logou; heteran de epistēmēn systēma ex epistēmōn toioutōn, hoion hē tōn kata meros logikē en tō spoudaiō hyparchousa; allēn de systēma ex epistēmōn technikōn ex autou echon to bebaion hōs echousin hai aretai; allēn de"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι δὲ τὴν ἐπιστήμην κατάληψιν ἀσφαλῆ καὶ ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου· ἑτέραν δὲ ἐπιστήμην
+σύστημα ἐξ ἐπιστημῶν τοιούτων, οἷον ἡ τῶν κατὰ μέρος λογικὴ ἐν τῷ σπουδαίῳ ὑπάρχουσα·
+ἄλλην δὲ σύστημα ἐξ ἐπιστημῶν τεχνικῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔχον τὸ βέβαιον ὡς ἔχουσιν αἱ ἀρεταί·
+ἄλλην δὲ</span></span> (knowledge in a relative sense) <span class="trans" title="hexin phantasiōn dektikēn ametaptōton hypo logou, hēntina phasin en tonō kai dynamei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξιν φαντασιῶν δεκτικὴν ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου, ἥντινά φασιν ἐν τόνῳ καὶ δυνάμει</span></span> (sc. <span class="trans" title="tēs psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῆς ψυχῆς</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="keisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κεῖσθαι</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 47: <span class="trans" title="autēn te tēn epistēmēn phasin ē katalēpsin asphalē ē hexin en phantasiōn prosdexei ametaptōton hypo logou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτήν τε τὴν ἐπιστήμην φασὶν ἢ κατάληψιν ἀσφαλῆ ἢ ἕξιν ἐν φαντασιῶν προσδέξει ἀμετάπτωτον
+ὑπὸ λόγου</span></span>. (This explanation, which Herillus used according to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 165, certainly belongs to Zeno.) <span class="trans" title="ouk aneu de tēs dialektikēs theōrias ton sophon aptōton esesthai en logō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἄνευ δὲ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς θεωρίας τὸν σοφὸν ἄπτωτον ἔσεσθαι ἐν λόγῳ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7179src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7241">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7241src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> See p. 80, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7241src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7244">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7244src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> This was the object of Plutarch’s treatise <span class="trans" title="peri tōn koinōn ennoiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν</span></span>. In the same way, the Peripatetic Diogenianus (in <i>Euseb.</i> Pr. Ev. vi. 8, 10) throws it in the teeth of Chrysippus that, whilst appealing to
+generally received opinions, he is always going contrary to them, and that he considers
+all men, with one or two exceptions, to be fools and madmen.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7244src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7267">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7267src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 52: <span class="trans" title="hē de katalēpsis ginetai kat’ autous aisthēsei men leukōn, k.t.l. logō de tōn di’ apodeixeōs synagomenōn, hōsper to theous einai, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ δὲ κατάληψις γίνεται κατ’ αὐτοὺς αἰσθήσει μὲν λευκῶν, κ.τ.λ. λόγῳ δὲ τῶν δι’ <span class="pageNum" id="pb83n">[<a href="#pb83n">83</a>]</span>ἀποδείξεως συναγομένων, ὥσπερ τὸ θεοὺς εἶναι, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7267src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7282">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7282src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 10: <span class="trans" title="hoi de apo tēs stoas legousi men tōn te aisthētōn tina kai tōn noētōn alēthē, ouk ex eutheias de ta aisthēta, alla kata anaphoran tēn hōs epi ta parakeimena toutois noēta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς λέγουσι μὲν τῶν τε αἰσθητῶν τινα καὶ τῶν νοητῶν ἀληθῆ, οὐκ ἐξ
+εὐθείας δὲ τὰ αἰσθητὰ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἀναφορὰν τὴν ὡς ἐπὶ τὰ παρακείμενα τούτοις νοητά</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7282src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7294">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7294src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. continues: <span class="trans" title="alēthes gar esti kat’ autous to hyparchon kai antikeimenon tini, kai pseudos to mē hyparchon kai mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀληθὲς γάρ ἐστι κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὸ ὑπάρχον καὶ ἀντικείμενόν τινι, καὶ ψεῦδος τὸ μὴ ὑπάρχον
+καὶ μὴ</span></span> (this <span class="trans" title="mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ</span></span> is obviously redundant as appears from Math. viii. 85, 88; xi. 220, where the same
+definition is given without the <span class="trans" title="mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="antikeimenon tini, hoper asōmaton axiōma kathestōs noēton einai;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντικείμενόν τινι, ὅπερ ἀσώματον ἀξίωμα καθεστὼς νοητὸν εἶναι·</span></span> every sentence containing an assertion or negative, and therefore being opposed to
+every other. <i>Ibid.</i> viii. 70: <span class="trans" title="ēxioun hoi Stōïkoi koinōs en lektō to de alēthes einai kai to pseudos; lekton de hyparchein phasi to kata logikēn phantasian hyphistamenon; logikēn de einai phantasian kath’ hēn to phantasthen esti logō parastēsai. tōn de lektōn ta men ellipē kalousi ta de autotelē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἠξίουν οἱ Στωϊκοὶ κοινῶς ἐν λεκτῷ τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς εἶναι καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος· λεκτὸν δὲ ὑπάρχειν
+φασὶ τὸ κατὰ λογικὴν φαντασίαν ὑφιστάμενον· λογικὴν δὲ εἶναι φαντασίαν καθ’ ἣν τὸ
+φαντασθὲν ἔστι λόγῳ παραστῆσαι. τῶν δὲ λεκτῶν τὰ μὲν ἐλλιπῆ καλοῦσι τὰ δὲ αὐτοτελῆ</span></span> (conceptions and propositions; conf. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 63) … <span class="trans" title="prosagoreuousi de tina tōn autotelōn kai axiōmata, haper legontes ētoi alētheuomen ē pseudometha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσαγορεύουσι δέ τινα τῶν αὐτοτελῶν καὶ ἀξιώματα, ἅπερ λέγοντες ἤτοι ἀληθεύομεν ἢ
+ψευδόμεθα</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 74; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 65: <span class="trans" title="axiōma de estin, ho estin alēthes ē pseudos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα δέ ἐστιν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἢ ψεῦδος</span></span> (see <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. I. 7, 14) <span class="trans" title="ē pragma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἢ πρᾶγμα</span></span> (better <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span> as <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xvi, 8, 4 reads) <span class="trans" title="autoteles apophanton hoson eph’ heautō; hōs ho Chrysippos phēsin en tois dialektikois horois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτοτελὲς ἀποφαντὸν ὅσον ἐφ’ ἑαυτῴ· ὡς ὁ Χρύσιππός φησιν ἐν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς ὅροις</span></span>. Aristotle had already observed that the distinction between false and <span class="pageNum" id="pb84n">[<a href="#pb84n">84</a>]</span>true first appears in judgment. See <i>Zeller</i>, <span lang="de">Philosophie der Griechen</span>, vol. ii. b, 156, 2; 157, 1<span>.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7294src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7404">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7404src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 93; <span class="trans" title="hōs to men phōs, phēsin ho Poseidōnios ton Platōnos Timaion exēgoumenos, hypo tēs phōtoeidous opseōs katalambanetai, hē de phōnē hypo tēs aeroeidous akoēs, houtō kai hē tōn holōn physis hypo syngenous opheilei katalambanesthai tou logou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς τὸ μὲν φῶς, φησὶν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος τὸν Πλάτωνος Τίμαιον ἐξηγούμενος, ὑπὸ τῆς φωτοειδοῦς
+ὄψεως καταλαμβάνεται, ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀεροειδοῦς ἀκοῆς, οὕτω καὶ ἡ τῶν ὅλων φύσις
+ὑπὸ συγγενοῦς ὀφείλει καταλαμβάνεσθαι τοῦ λόγου</span></span>. Conf. <i>Plato</i>, Rep. vi. 508, B.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7404src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7418">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7418src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> See <i>Zeller’s</i> <span lang="de">Philosophie der Griechen</span>, vol. ii. b, 231.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7418src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7426">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7426src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. a, 211.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7426src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7430">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7430src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 61: <span class="trans" title="ennoēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐννόημα</span></span> (object of thought) <span class="trans" title="de esti phantasma dianoias. oute ti on oute poion, hōsanei de ti on kai hōsanei poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δέ ἐστι φάντασμα διανοίας. οὔτε τί ὂν οὔτε ποιὸν, ὡσανεὶ δὲ τί ὂν καὶ ὡσανεὶ ποιόν</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 332: <span class="trans" title="ta ennoēmata phēsi mēti tina einai mēti poia, hōsanei de tina kai hōsanei poia phantasmata psychēs; tauta de hypo tōn archaiōn ideas prosagoreuesthai ... tauta [tautas] de hoi Stōïkoi philosophoi phasin anyparktous einai, kai tōn men ennoēmatōn metechein hēmas, tōn de ptōseōn, has dē prosēgorias kalousi, tynchanein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ ἐννοήματά φησι μήτι τινὰ εἶναι μήτι ποιὰ, ὡσανεὶ δὲ τινὰ καὶ ὡσανεὶ ποιὰ φαντάσματα
+ψυχῆς· ταῦτα δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἰδέας προσαγορεύεσθαι … ταῦτα [ταύτας] δὲ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ
+φιλόσοφοι φασὶν ἀνυπάρκτους εἶναι, καὶ τῶν μὲν ἐννοημάτων μετέχειν ἡμᾶς, τῶν δὲ πτώσεων,
+ἃς δὴ προσηγορίας καλοῦσι, τυγχάνειν</span></span>. Although defended by <span class="pageNum" id="pb85n">[<a href="#pb85n">85</a>]</span><i>Prantl</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Log.</span> I. 420, 63, the last words as they stand do not appear capable of any passable meaning
+and are most probably corrupt. <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 10, 4: <span class="trans" title="hoi apo Zēnōnos Stōïkoi ennoēmata hēmetera tas ideas ephasan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος Στωϊκοὶ ἐννοήματα ἡμέτερα τὰς ἰδέας ἔφασαν</span></span>. <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 26, e: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos aporei peri tēs ideas, ei tode ti rhēthēsetai. symparalēpteon de kai tēn synētheian tōn Stōïkōn peri tōn genikōn poiōn pōs hai ptōseis kat’ autous propherontai kai pōs outina ta koina par’ autois legetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος ἀπορεῖ περὶ τῆς ἰδέας, εἰ τόδε τι ῥηθήσεται. συμπαραληπτέον δὲ καὶ τὴν συνήθειαν
+τῶν Στωϊκῶν περὶ τῶν γενικῶν ποιῶν πῶς αἱ πτώσεις κατ’ αὐτοὺς προφέρονται καὶ πῶς
+οὔτινα τὰ κοινὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς λέγεται</span></span>. <i>Syrian<span>.</span></i> on Met. p. 59. (In <i>Petersen’s</i> Philos. Chrys. Fund. 80): <span class="trans" title="hōs ara ta eidē ... oute pros tēn rhēsin tēs tōn onomatōn synētheias parēgeto, hōs Chrysippos kai Archedēmos kai hoi pleious tōn Stōïkōn hysteron ōēthēsan ... ou mēn oude noēmata eisi par’ autois hai ideai, hōs Kleanthēs hysteron eirēke"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς ἄρα τὰ εἴδη … οὔτε πρὸς τὴν ῥῆσιν τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων συνηθείας παρήγετο, ὡς Χρύσιππος
+καὶ Ἀρχέδημος καὶ οἱ πλείους τῶν Στωϊκῶν ὕστερον ᾠήθησαν … οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ νοήματά εἰσι
+παρ’ αὐτοῖς αἱ ἰδέαι, ὡς Κλεάνθης ὕστερον εἴρηκε</span></span>. <i>Prantl</i>, l.c. takes objection to what Stobæus and Plutarch here say; yet this view is not
+that the Stoics regarded their conception of the <span class="trans" title="ennoēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐννόημα</span></span> as identical with Plato’s conception of ideas, but that they asserted that these
+ideas were only <span class="trans" title="ennoēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐννοήματα</span></span>—an assertion which had also been made by Antisthenes. Compare what is said on p.
+92 respecting the unreality of the <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτόν</span></span>, likewise what <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 246, quotes, as belonging to the Stoics: <span class="trans" title="oute de alētheis oute pseudeis eisin hai genikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε δὲ ἀληθεῖς οὔτε ψευδεῖς εἰσιν αἱ γενικαὶ</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="phantasiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαι</span></span>]· <span class="trans" title="hōn gar ta eidē toia ē toia toutōn ta genē oute toia oute toia;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὧν γὰρ τὰ εἴδη τοῖα ἢ τοῖα τούτων τὰ γένη οὔτε τοῖα οὔτε τοῖα·</span></span> if mankind be divided into Greeks and barbarians, the <span class="trans" title="genikos anthrōpos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γενικὸς ἄνθρωπος</span></span> will be neither one nor the other. The further therefore a conception is removed
+from individual limitations, the further it is removed from truth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7430src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7565">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7565src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 54: <span class="trans" title="esti d’ hē prolēpsis ennoia physikē tōn katholou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔστι δ’ ἡ πρόληψις ἔννοια φυσικὴ τῶν καθόλου</span></span>. Exc. e <i>Joan. Damasc.</i> (<i>Stob.</i> Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 236), Nr. 34: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos to men genikon hēdy noēton, to de eidikon kai prospipton ēdē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος τὸ μὲν γενικὸν ἡδὺ νοητὸν, τὸ δὲ εἰδικὸν καὶ προσπίπτον ἤδη</span></span> (<i>Petersen</i>, 83 without cause suggests <span class="trans" title="hēdy"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδὺ</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="aisthēton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰσθητόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7565src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7611">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7611src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> See p. 82, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7611src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7614">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7614src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 47, 145.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7614src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7618">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7618src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 128: Knowledge is defined to be <span class="trans" title="hexis phantasiōn dektikē ametaptōtos hypo logou, hēntina phasin en tonō kai dynamei keisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις φαντασιῶν δεκτικὴ ἀμετάπτωτος ὑπὸ λόγου, ἥντινά φασιν ἐν τόνῳ καὶ δυνάμει κεῖσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7618src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7640">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7640src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> Here may be noted the objection mentioned by <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 463; Pyrrh. ii. 186: The Sceptics cannot deny the possibility of arguing
+without proving their assertion and thereby practically admitting the possibility.
+Also another one urged by Antipater against Carneades (<i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 9, 28; 34, 109): He who asserts that nothing can be known with certainty
+must, at least, believe that he can with certainty know this. The replies of the Sceptics
+to these objections, and the way they turned them in their own favour, will be found
+in <i>Sext.</i> Math. l.c. and vii. 433.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7640src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7649">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7649src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> Chrysippus opposed Arcesilaus, with such success, according to the view of the Stoic
+School, that Carneades <span class="pageNum" id="pb87n">[<a href="#pb87n">87</a>]</span>was refuted by anticipation; and it was considered a special favour of Providence
+that the labours of Chrysippus had occupied an intermediate place between two of the
+most important Sceptics. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. i. 4, p. 1059. <i>Diog.</i> 198 mentions a treatise against Arcesilaus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7649src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7660">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7660src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 10 (see p. 66, 1); <i>Ibid.</i> 47, 12: <span class="trans" title="kai mēn en ge tois pros tous Akadēmaïkous agōsin ho pleistos autō te Chrysippō kai Antipatrō ponos gegone peri tou mēte prattein mēte horman asynkatathetōs, alla plasmata legein kai kenas hypotheseis tous axiountas oikeias phantasias genomenēs euthys horman mē eixantas mēde synkatatithemenous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μὴν ἔν γε τοῖς πρὸς τοὺς Ἀκαδημαϊκοὺς ἀγῶσιν ὁ πλεῖστος αὐτῷ τε Χρυσίππῳ καὶ Ἀντιπάτρῳ
+πόνος γέγονε περὶ τοῦ μήτε πράττειν μήτε ὁρμᾶν ἀσυγκαταθέτως, ἀλλὰ πλάσματα λέγειν
+καὶ κενὰς ὑποθέσεις τοῦς ἀξιοῦντας οἰκείας φαντασίας γενομένης εὐθὺς ὁρμᾶν μὴ εἴξαντας
+μηδὲ <span id="xd33e7669">συγκατατιθεμένους</span></span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> adv. Col. 26, 3, p. 1122: <span class="trans" title="tēn de peri pantōn epochēn oud’ hoi polla pragmateusamenoi kai katateinantes eis touto syngrammata kai logous ekinēsan; all’ ek tēs Stoas autēs teleutōntes hōsper Gorgona tēn apraxian epagontes apēgoreusan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν δὲ περὶ πάντων ἐποχὴν οὐδ’ οἱ πολλὰ πραγματευσάμενοι καὶ κατατείναντες εἰς τοῦτο
+συγγράμματα καὶ λόγους ἐκίνησαν· ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς Στοᾶς αὐτῆς τελευτῶντες ὥσπερ Γοργόνα
+τὴν ἀπραξίαν ἐπάγοντες ἀπηγόρευσαν</span></span>. <i>Epict.</i> (Arrian. Diss. i. 27, 15) quietly suppresses a Sceptic by saying: <span class="trans" title="ouk agō scholēn pros tauta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἄγω σχολὴν πρὸς ταῦτα</span></span>. Following also the Stoic line, <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 10–12, makes Antiochus argue that Scepticism makes all action impossible.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7660src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7705">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7705src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> In <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 244, <span class="trans" title="alētheis phantasiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀληθεῖς φαντασίαι</span></span> are, first of all, literally explained to be <span class="trans" title="phantasiai, hōn estin alēthē katēgorian poiēsasthai;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαι, ὧν ἔστιν ἀληθῆ κατηγορίαν ποιήσασθαι·</span></span> then, under the head of true <span class="trans" title="phantasiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαι</span></span>, the <span class="trans" title="katalēptikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καταληπτικαὶ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ou katalēptikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ καταληπτικαὶ</span></span> are distinguished, i.e., notions which are accompanied by a clear impression of being
+true, and such as are not; and, in conclusion, <span class="trans" title="phantasia katalēptikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία καταληπτικὴ</span></span> is defined: <span class="trans" title="hē apo tou hyparchontos kai kat’ auto to hyparchon enapomemagmenē kai enapesphragismenē, hopoia ouk an genoito apo mē hyparchontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπάρχοντος καὶ κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ ὑπάρχον ἐναπομεμαγμένη καὶ ἐναπεσφραγισμένη,
+ὁποία οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο ἀπὸ μὴ ὑπάρχοντος</span></span>. This definition is afterwards more fully explained. The same explanation is given
+<i>Ibid.</i> 402 and 426; viii. 85; Pyrrh. ii. 4; iii. 242; <i>Augustin</i><span id="xd33e7769">.</span> c. Acad. ii. 5, 11; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 18. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 46: <span class="trans" title="tēs de phantasias tēn men katalēptikēn tēn de akatalēpton; katalēptikēn men, hēn kritērion einai tōn pragmatōn phasi, tēn ginomenēn apo hyparchontos kat’ auto to hyparchon enapesphragismenēn kai enapomemagmenēn; akatalēpton de tēn mē apo hyparchontos, ē apo hyparchontos men, mē kat’ auto de to hyparchon, tēn mē tranē mēde ektypon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῆς δὲ φαντασίας τὴν μὲν καταληπτικὴν τὴν δὲ ἀκατάληπτον· καταληπτικὴν μὲν, ἣν κριτήριον
+εἶναι τῶν πραγμάτων φασὶ, τὴν γινομένην ἀπὸ <span class="pageNum" id="pb88n">[<a href="#pb88n">88</a>]</span>ὑπάρχοντος κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ ὕπαρχον ἐναπεσφραγισμένην καὶ ἐναπομεμαγμένην· ἀκατάληπτον
+δὲ τὴν μὴ ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος, ἢ ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος μὲν, μὴ κατ’ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ὑπάρχον, τὴν μὴ
+τρανῆ μηδὲ ἔκτυπον</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 50.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7705src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7800">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7800src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 397: <span class="trans" title="esti men oun hē apodeixis, hōs esti par’ autōn akouein, katalēptikēs phantasias synkatathesis, hētis diploun eoiken einai pragma kai to men ti echein akousion, to de hekousion kai epi tē hēmetera krisei keimenon. to men gar phantasiōthēnai aboulēton ēn kai ouk epi tō paschonti ekeito all’ epi tō phantasiounti to houtōsi diatethēnai ... to de synkatathesthai toutō tō kinēmati ekeito epi tō paradechomenō tēn phantasian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἡ ἀπόδειξις, ὡς ἔστι παρ’ αὐτῶν ἀκούειν, καταληπτικῆς φαντασίας συγκατάθεσις,
+ἥτις διπλοῦν ἔοικεν εἶναι πρᾶγμα καὶ τὸ μέν τι ἔχειν ἀκούσιον, τὸ δὲ ἑκούσιον καὶ
+ἐπὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ κρίσει κείμενον. τὸ μὲν γὰρ φαντασιωθῆναι ἀβούλητον ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ
+τῷ πάσχοντι ἔκειτο ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ φαντασιοῦντι τὸ οὑτωσὶ διατεθῆναι … τὸ δὲ συγκαταθέσθαι
+τούτῳ τῷ κινήματι ἔκειτο ἐπὶ τῷ παραδεχομένῳ τὴν φαντασίαν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 51; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 14, 40: <span lang="la">[Zeno] ad hæc quæ visa sunt, et quasi accepta sensibus assensionem adjungit animorum:
+quam esse vult in nobis positam et voluntariam.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 12, 37; De Fato, 19, 43, Chrysippus affirms: <span lang="la">visum objectum imprimet illud quidem et quasi signabit in animo suam speciem sed assensio
+nostra erit in potestate.</span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 47, 1: <span class="trans" title="tēn gar phantasian boulomenos [ho Chrysippos] ouk ousan autotelē tēs synkatatheseōs aitian apodeiknyein eirēken hoti; blapsousin hoi sophoi pseudeis phantasias empoiountes, an hai phantasiai poiōsin autotelōs tas synkatatheseis, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν γὰρ φαντασίαν βουλόμενος [ὁ Χρύσιππος] οὐκ οὖσαν αὐτοτελῆ τῆς συγκαταθέσεως αἰτίαν
+ἀποδεικνύειν εἴρηκεν ὅτι· βλάψουσιν οἱ σοφοὶ ψευδεῖς φαντασίας ἐμποιοῦντες, ἂν αἱ
+φαντασίαι ποιῶσιν αὐτοτελῶς τὰς συγκαταθέσεις, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Id.</i> 13: <span class="trans" title="authis de phēsi Chrysippos, kai ton theon pseudeis empoiein phantasias kai ton sophon ... hēmas de phaulous ontas synkatatithesthai tais toiautais phantasiais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὖθις δέ φησι Χρύσιππος, καὶ τὸν θεὸν ψευδεῖς ἐμποιεῖν φαντασίας καὶ τὸν σοφὸν … ἡμᾶς
+δὲ φαύλους ὄντας συγκατατίθεσθαι ταῖς τοιαύταις φαντασίαις</span></span>. <i>Id<span>.</span></i> Fragm. De An. 2: <span class="trans" title="ouch hē psychē trepei heautēn eis tēn tōn pragmatōn katalēpsin kai apatēn, kata tous apo tēs stoas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐχ ἡ ψυχὴ τρέπει ἑαυτὴν εἰς τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων κατάληψιν καὶ ἀπάτην, κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ
+τῆς στοᾶς</span></span>. <i>Epictet.</i> in Gell. N.&nbsp;A. xix. 1, 15: <span lang="la">visa animi, quas <span class="pageNum" id="pb89n">[<a href="#pb89n">89</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="phantasias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίας</span></span> philosophi appellant … non voluntatis sunt neque arbitrariæ, sed vi quadam sua inferunt
+sese hominibus noscitandæ; probationes autem, quas <span class="trans" title="synkatatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκαταθέσεις</span></span> vocant, quibus eadem visa noscuntur ac dijudicantur voluntariæ sunt fiuntque hominum
+arbitratu</span>: the difference between a wise man and a fool consists in <span class="trans" title="synkatatithesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκατατίθεσθαι</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="prosepidoxazein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσεπιδοξάζειν</span></span>. The freedom of approbation must, of course, be so understood in harmony with Stoic
+doctrine of the freedom of the will.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7800src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7899">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7899src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> On the difference between the conception of <span class="trans" title="eulogon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὔλογον</span></span> and that of <span class="trans" title="katalēptikē phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καταληπτικὴ φαντασία</span></span>, the latter alone being unerring, see <i>Athen.</i> viii. 354, e; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 177.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7899src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e7930">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e7930src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> Compare besides p. 87, 2, <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 11, 41: <span lang="la">[Zeno] visis (= <span class="trans" title="phantasiais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαις</span></span>) non omnibus adjungebat fidem, sed iis solum, quæ propriam quandam haberent declarationem
+earum rerum, quæ viderentur: id autem visum, cum ipsum per se cerneretur, comprehensibile</span> (<span class="trans" title="katalēptikē phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καταληπτικὴ φαντασία</span></span>). <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 12, 38: <span lang="la">ut enim necesse est lancem in libra ponderibus impositis deprimi, sic animum perspicuis
+cedere … non potest objectam rem perspicuam non approbare.</span> Conf. Fin. v. 26, 76: <span lang="la">percipiendi vis ita definitur a Stoicis, ut negent quidquam posse percipi nisi tale
+rerum, quale falsum esse non possit.</span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 54; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 227: <span class="trans" title="kritērion toinon phasin alētheias einai hoi andres houtoi tēn katalēptikēn phantasian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κριτήριον τοίνον φασὶν ἀληθείας εἶναι οἱ ἄνδρες οὗτοι τὴν καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν</span></span>. It was a departure from the older Stoic teaching, to refuse, as the later Stoics
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb90n">[<a href="#pb90n">90</a>]</span>did, to allow a conceptional notion to be considered a test of truth, except with
+the proviso that no contrary proof could be adduced against its truth. <i>Sext.</i> 253: <span class="trans" title="alla gar hoi men archaioteroi tōn Stōïkōn kritērion phasin einai tēs alētheias tēn katalēptikēn tautēn phantasian; hoi de neōteroi prosetithesan kai to mēden echousan enstēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἀρχαιότεροι τῶν Στωϊκῶν κριτήριόν φασιν εἶναι τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν καταληπτικὴν
+ταύτην φαντασίαν· οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι προσετίθεσαν καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἔχουσαν ἔνστημα</span></span>, since cases could be imagined in which a faulty view presented itself with the full
+force of truth. This was equivalent to overthrowing the whole doctrine of a criterion;
+for how could it be known in any particular case that there was not a negative instance?
+But it is quite in harmony with the Stoic teaching for a later Stoic (<i>Ibid.</i> 257) to say of conceptional perception: <span class="trans" title="hautē gar enargēs ousa kai plēktikē mononouchi tōn trichōn, phasi, lambanetai kataspōsa hēmas eis synkatathesin kai allou mēdenos deomenē eis to toiautē prospiptein, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὕτη γὰρ ἐναργὴς οὖσα καὶ πληκτικὴ μονονουχὶ τῶν τριχῶν, φασι, λαμβάνεται κατασπῶσα
+ἡμᾶς εἰς συγκατάθεσιν καὶ ἄλλου μηδενὸς δεομένη εἰς τὸ τοιαύτῃ προσπίπτειν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Hence <i>Simpl.</i> Phys<span>.</span> 20, b: <span class="trans" title="anēroun ta alla ... plēn ta enargē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνῄρουν τὰ ἄλλα … πλὴν τὰ ἐναργῆ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e7930src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8033">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8033src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 54: <span class="trans" title="kritērion de tēs alētheias phasi tynchanein tēn katalēptikēn phantasian, toutesti tēn apo hyparchontos, katha phēsi Chrysippos en tē dōdekatē tōn physikōn kai Antipatros kai Apollodōros. ho men gar Boēthos kritēria pleiona apoleipei, noun kai aisthēsin kai orexin kai epistēmēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κριτήριον δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας φασὶ τυγχάνειν τὴν καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν, τουτέστι τὴν
+ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος, καθά φησι Χρύσιππος ἐν τῇ δωδεκάτῃ τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ Ἀντίπατρος καὶ
+Ἀπολλόδωρος. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Βοηθὸς κριτήρια πλείονα ἀπολείπει, νοῦν καὶ αἴσθησιν καὶ ὄρεξιν
+καὶ ἐπιστήμην</span></span> (this looks like an approximation to the teaching of the Peripatetics); <span class="trans" title="ho de Chrysippos diapheromenos pros auton en tō prōtō peri logou kritēria phēsin einai aisthēsin kai prolēpsin ... alloi de tines tōn archaioterōn Stōïkōn ton orthon logon kritērion apoleipousin, hōs ho Poseidōnios en tō peri kritēriou phēsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος διαφερόμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ λόγου κριτήριά φησιν εἶναι
+αἴσθησιν καὶ πρόληψιν … ἄλλοι δέ τινες τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων Στωϊκῶν τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον κριτήριον
+ἀπολείπουσιν, ὡς ὁ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ περὶ κριτηρίου φησίν</span></span>. See above p. 76.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8033src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8088">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8088src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> See above p. 82, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8088src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8091">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8091src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> See above p. 89, 2, and <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 31, 101: <span lang="la">neque eos</span> (the Academicians) <span lang="la">contra sensus aliter dicimus, ac Stoici, qui multa falsa esse dicunt, longeque aliter
+se habere ac sensibus videantur.</span> Chrysippus had enquired into the truth of the perceptions of the senses, and of the
+notions derived from them, in his treatise <span class="trans" title="peri synētheias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ συνηθείας</span></span>, without, however, satisfactorily answering the objections which he quoted against
+the theory. See p. 46, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8091src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8115">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8115src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> See p. 60.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8115src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8126">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8126src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> See p. 73, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8126src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8139">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8139src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> See <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 11: <span class="trans" title="hoi apo tēs stoas, tria phamenoi syzygein allēlois, to te sēmainomenon kai to sēmainon kai to tynchanon. hōn sēmainon men einai tēn phōnēn ... sēmainomenon de auto to pragma to hyp’ autēs dēloumenon ... tynchanon de to ektos hypokeimenon ... toutōn de dyo men einai sōmata, kathaper tēn phōnēn kai to tynchanon, hen de asōmaton, hōsper to sēmainomenon pragma kai lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς, τρία φάμενοι συζυγεῖν ἀλλήλοις, τό τε σημαινόμενον καὶ τὸ σημαῖνον
+καὶ τὸ τυγχάνον. ὧν σημαῖνον μὲν εἶναι τὴν φωνὴν … σημαινόμενον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα
+τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς δηλούμενον … τυγχάνον δὲ τὸ ἐκτὸς ὑποκείμενον … τούτων δὲ δύο μὲν εἶναι
+σώματα, καθάπερ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὸ τυγχάνον, ἓν δὲ ἀσώματον, ὥσπερ τὸ σημαινόμενον πρᾶγμα
+καὶ λεκτόν</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 117, 13, giving it expressly as the teaching of the Stoics, not as his own: <span lang="la">Sunt, inquit, naturæ corporum … has deinde sequuntur motus animorum enuntiativi corporum</span>—for instance, I see Cato walk—<span lang="la">corpus est, quod video.… Dico deinde: Cato ambulat. Non corpus est, inquit, quod nunc
+loquor, sed enuntiativum quiddam de corpore, quod alii effatum vocant, alii enuntiatum,
+alii edoctum.</span> Compare also on the <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτόν</span></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 70 (above p. 83, 2); Pyrrh. iii. 52. Various arguments are used by the
+Stoics to prove that the voice as opposed to utterance (<span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span>) is material, as has been said. p. 74, 5. Illustrative of the distinction between
+utterance and the process of thought is the assertion (in <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 81) that certainty as being a definite condition of the soul is material,
+but that truth itself is not material: <span class="trans" title="legetai diapherein tēs alētheias to alēthes trichōs, ousia, systasei, dynamei; ousia men, epei to men alēthes asōmaton estin, axiōma gar esti kai lekton, hē de alētheia sōma, esti gar epistēmē pantōn alēthōn apophantikē, hē de epistēmē pōs echon hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγεται διαφέρειν τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ ἀληθὲς τριχῶς, οὐσίᾳ, συστάσει, δυνάμει· οὐσίᾳ μὲν,
+ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς ἀσώματόν ἐστιν, ἀξίωμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ λεκτὸν, ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια σῶμα,
+ἔστι γὰρ ἐπιστήμη πάντων ἀληθῶν ἀποφαντικὴ, ἡ δὲ ἐπιστήμη πὼς ἔχον ἡγεμονικόν</span></span> (<i>Id.</i> Math. vii. 38, a similar statement is expressly attributed to a Stoic); likewise
+a similar statement which <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 117, discusses, and at length declares to be a mere quibble, but not till after
+a lengthy refutation: <span lang="la">sapientiam bonum esse, sapere bonum non esse.</span> The statement rests on the assertion that nothing can be a good which does not make
+itself felt, and nothing can make itself felt which is not material; wisdom is material,
+because it is <span lang="la">mens perfecta</span>, but <span lang="la">sapere</span> is <span lang="la">incorporale et accidens alteri, i.e. sapientiæ.</span> Accordingly, <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span> (as <i>Ammon.</i> De Inter. 15, b, remarks) is a <span class="trans" title="meson tou te noēmatos kai tou pragmatos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέσον τοῦ τε νοήματος καὶ τοῦ πράγματος·</span></span> if, however, <span class="trans" title="noēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νόημα</span></span> be taken to express the thought itself, and not the process of thinking, it becomes
+identical with <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτόν</span></span>. Conf. <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 3, α, Basil.: <span class="trans" title="ta de legomena kai lekta ta noēmata estin, hōs kai tois Stōïkois edokei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ δὲ λεγόμενα καὶ λεκτὰ τὰ νοήματά ἐστιν, ὡς καὶ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἐδόκει</span></span>. In <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 11, 4, a definition of <span class="trans" title="noēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νόημα</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="ennoēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐννόημα</span></span> is given similar to that of <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span> in <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 70: <span class="trans" title="phantasma dianoias logikou zōou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φάντασμα <span id="xd33e8283">διανοίας</span> λογικοῦ ζῴου</span></span>. See above p. 84, 4. The statement, however, of <i>Philop.</i> Anal. Pr. lx. a, Schol. in Ar. 170, a, 2, cannot be true, that the Stoics called
+things <span class="trans" title="tynchanonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τυγχάνοντα</span></span>, thoughts <span class="trans" title="ekphorika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκφορικὰ</span></span>, and sounds <span class="trans" title="lekta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτά</span></span>, whereas <span class="trans" title="ekphorikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκφορικὸν</span></span> may be used of thoughts in the same sense as <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8139src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8338">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8338src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> 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 <span class="trans" title="anēnytos machē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνήνυτος μάχη</span></span> in reference to the <span class="trans" title="hyparxis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕπαρξις</span></span> of <span class="trans" title="lekta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὰ</span></span>, and he remarks (viii. 258): <span class="trans" title="horōmen de hōs eisi tines hoi anērēkotes tēn hyparxin tōn lektōn, kai ouch hoi heterodoxoi monon, hoion hoi Epikoureioi, alla kai hoi Stōïkoi, hōs hoi peri ton Basileidēn, hois edoxe mēden einai asōmaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>. 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 <span class="trans" title="lekta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὰ</span></span> was spoken of as quite natural.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8338src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8383">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8383src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 70, see above p. 83, 2: <span class="trans" title="tōn de lektōn ta men ellipē kalousi ta de autotelē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δὲ λεκτῶν τὰ μὲν ἐλλιπῆ καλοῦσι τὰ δὲ αὐτοτελῆ</span></span>. Various kinds of propositions are then enumerated as being <span class="trans" title="autotelē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτοτελῆ</span></span>. Following the same authority, (Diocles? see <i>Diog.</i> 48) <i>Diog.</i> 63, says: <span class="trans" title="phasi de to lekton einai to kata phantasian logikēn hyphistamenon. tōn de lektōn ta men legousin einai autotelē hoi Stōïkoi, ta de ellipē. ellipē men oun esti ta anapartiston echonta tēn ekphoran, hoion Graphei; epizētoumen gar, Tis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="autotelē d’ esti ta apērtismenēn echonta tēn ekphoran, hoion Graphei Sōkratēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτοτελῆ δ’ ἐστὶ τὰ ἀπηρτισμένην ἔχοντα τὴν ἐκφορὰν, οἷον Γράφει Σωκράτης</span></span>. <i>Prantl</i> in saying, p. 438, that the Stoics divide judgments (<span class="trans" title="axiōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξιώματα</span></span>) into complete and incomplete, is inaccurate. Only <span class="trans" title="lekta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὰ</span></span> are so divided, but <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span> has a wider meaning than that of a logical judgment. <span class="trans" title="axiōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξιώματα</span></span> are only one form of <span class="trans" title="lekta autotelē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὰ αὐτοτελῆ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8383src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8479">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8479src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Qu. Plat. x. 1, 2, p. 1008. A judgment (<span class="trans" title="protasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρότασις</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="ex onomatos kai rhēmatos synestēken, hōn to men ptōsin hoi dialektikoi, to de katēgorēma kalousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξ ὀνόματος καὶ ῥήματος συνέστηκεν, ὧν τὸ μὲν πτῶσιν οἱ διαλεκτικοὶ, τὸ δὲ κατηγόρημα
+καλοῦσιν</span></span>. The terms <span class="trans" title="ptōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πτῶσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγόρημα</span></span> belonging to the Stoic terminology, the Stoics must be meant by <span class="trans" title="hoi dialektikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ διαλεκτικοί</span></span>. In the first class of words they distinguish <span class="trans" title="onoma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄνομα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="prosēgoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσηγορία</span></span>, limiting <span class="trans" title="onoma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄνομα</span></span> to proper names, and understanding by <span class="trans" title="prosēgoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσηγορία</span></span> all general terms, whether substantives or adjectives (<i>Diog.</i> 58; <i>Bekker’s</i> Anecd. ii. 842). According to <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 332, <span class="trans" title="ptōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πτῶσις</span></span> was only used to express <span class="trans" title="prosēgoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσηγορία</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 192, mentions two books of Chrysippus <span class="trans" title="peri tōn prosēgorikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν προσηγορικῶν</span></span>. For the meaning of <span class="trans" title="katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγόρημα</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="rhēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ῥῆμα</span></span>, the verb, consult <i>Diog.</i> 58 and 64; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 14; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 9, 21; <i>Porphyr.</i> in Ammon. De Inter. 37, a. According to <i>Apollon.</i> De Construct. i. 8, <span class="trans" title="rhēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ῥῆμα</span></span> was used in strict accuracy only for the infinitive, other forms being called <span class="trans" title="katēgorēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγορήματα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8479src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8641">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8641src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> The distinction between <span class="trans" title="onoma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄνομα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγόρημα</span></span> was somewhat bluntly referred to this logical and metaphysical antithesis by the
+Stoics, as may be seen in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 336: <span class="trans" title="aition d’ ho Zēnōn phēsin einai di’ ho, hou de aition symbebēkos; kai to men aition sōma, hou de aition katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴτιον δ’ ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν εἶναι δι’ ὃ, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον συμβεβηκός· καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον σῶμα,
+οὗ δὲ αἴτιον κατηγόρημα</span></span>.… <span class="trans" title="Poseidōnios ... to men aition on kai sōma, hou de aition oute on oute sōma, alla symbebēkos kai katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ποσειδώνιος … τὸ μὲν αἴτιον ὂν καὶ σῶμα, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον οὔτε ὂν οὔτε σῶμα, ἀλλὰ συμβεβηκὸς
+καὶ κατηγόρημα</span></span>. Hence for the latter the names <span class="trans" title="symbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμβαμα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="parasymbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασύμβαμα</span></span>. See following note.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8641src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e8695">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e8695src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> In nouns the cases were distinguished, the nominative, according to <i>Ammon.</i> l.c. being called <span class="trans" title="onoma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄνομα</span></span>, and the other five cases <span class="trans" title="ptōseis;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πτώσεις·</span></span> a statement, however, which does not agree with the common use of those terms. In
+<i>Diog.</i> 65, the cases (<span class="trans" title="genikē, dotikē, aitiatikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γενικὴ, δοτικὴ, αἰτιατικὴ</span></span>) are called <span class="trans" title="plagiai ptōseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πλάγιαι πτώσεις</span></span>. Chrysippus wrote a distinct treatise on the five cases, <i>Diog.</i> 192. Similar were the divisions of the <span class="trans" title="katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγόρημα</span></span>. According to <i>Diog.</i> 65, the Stoics distinguished between transitive verbs (<span class="trans" title="ortha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀρθὰ</span></span>), such as <span class="trans" title="hora, dialegetai;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρᾷ, διαλέγεται·</span></span> passive verbs (<span class="trans" title="hyptia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕπτια</span></span>), such as <span class="trans" title="horōmai;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρῶμαι·</span></span> neuter verbs (<span class="trans" title="oudetera"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδέτερα</span></span>), such as <span class="trans" title="phronein, peripatein;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρονεῖν, περιπατεῖν·</span></span> and verbs which, with a passive form, do not express a passive relation (<span class="trans" title="antipeponthota"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντιπεπονθότα</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="keiresthai, peithesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κείρεσθαι, πείθεσθαι</span></span>, &amp;c. Consult on this point <i>Philo</i><span>,</span> De Cherub. 121, c; <i>Orig.</i> C. Cels. vi. 57. On the <span class="trans" title="ortha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀρθὰ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="hyptia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕπτια</span></span>, also <i>Dionys. Thrax<span>,</span></i> § 15, p. 886, Bekk.; <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 79, α, ζ; <i>Diog.</i> 191; and respecting all three divisions, <i>Lersch<span>,</span></i> ii. 196; <i>Steinthal</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. der Sprachw.</span> i. 294. They also distinguished between <span class="trans" title="symbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμβαμα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="parasymbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασύμβαμα</span></span>—a verb, when used with a nominative, being called <span class="trans" title="symbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμβαμα</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγόρημα</span></span>, and <span class="pageNum" id="pb96n">[<a href="#pb96n">96</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="parasymbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασύμβαμα</span></span> when used with an oblique case; <span class="trans" title="peripatei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περιπατεῖ</span></span> is a <span class="trans" title="symbama, metamelei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμβαμα, μεταμέλει</span></span> a <span class="trans" title="parasymbama, peripatei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασύμβαμα, περιπατεῖ</span></span> requiring a nominative (<span class="trans" title="Sōkratēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σωκράτης</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="metamelei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μεταμέλει</span></span> requiring a dative (<span class="trans" title="Sōkratei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σωκράτει</span></span>). If an oblique case is necessary to complete a sentence, besides the subject, the
+verb is called <span class="trans" title="elatton ē symbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔλαττον ἢ σύμβαμα</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="elatton ē katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔλαττον ἢ κατηγόρημα</span></span>, as in the sentence <span class="trans" title="Platōn philei, philei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πλάτων φιλεῖ, φιλεῖ</span></span> is so called; for these words only make a complete sentence by the addition of an
+object thus: <span class="trans" title="Platōn philei Diōna"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πλάτων φιλεῖ Δίωνα</span></span>. If this is necessary with a <span class="trans" title="parasymbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασύμβαμα</span></span>, it is called <span class="trans" title="elatton ē parasymbama;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔλαττον ἢ παρασύμβαμα·</span></span> such, for instance, is the word <span class="trans" title="melei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέλει</span></span>, for to complete the sentence it is not enough to say <span class="trans" title="Sōkratei melei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σωκράτει μέλει</span></span>, but the object must be added, as in the sentence: <span class="trans" title="Sōkratei metamelei Alkibiadous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σωκράτει μεταμέλει Ἀλκιβιάδους</span></span>. This difference is explained by <i>Porphyr.</i> in Ammon. l.c., 36, b, whom <i>Lersch<span>,</span></i> ii. 31, misunderstands and then blames. See <i>Diog.</i> 64 where the text is evidently corrupt. Without great temerity we might substitute
+for the meaningless <span class="trans" title="hoion to dia petras plein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἷον τὸ διὰ πέτρας πλεῖν</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="ta de parasymbamata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ δὲ <span id="xd33e9041">παρασυμβάματα</span></span></span>, which at least gives a better meaning than the proposals of <i>R. Schmidt</i>, Sto. Gramm. 66, 91, and <i>Lersch<span>,</span></i> l.c. 33. <i>Apollon.</i> De Const. iii. 32, p. 299<span id="xd33e9057">,</span> Bekk.; <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="symbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμβαμα</span></span> (very inaccurate); <i>Priscian</i>, xviii. p. 1118, who, in his equally inaccurate account, has <span class="trans" title="asymbamata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀσυμβάματα</span></span>. The example which <i>Lucian<span>,</span></i> Vit. Auct. 21 employs to ridicule the Stoic hair-splitting anent <span class="trans" title="symbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμβαμα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="parasymbama"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασύμβαμα</span></span> proves, of course, nothing.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e8695src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9106">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9106src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> There is nothing whatever on record which serves to show the position held by the
+categories. By several, definition and division were treated of most improperly under
+the head of language.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9106src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9111">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9111src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 60, <i>Bekker</i>, Anecd. ii. 647, <span class="trans" title="horos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅρος</span></span> was defined by Chrysippus as <span class="trans" title="idiou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδίου</span></span> (which must be read in <i>Diog.</i> in place of <span class="trans" title="kai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="apodosis;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπόδοσις·</span></span> by Antipater as <span class="trans" title="logos kat’ analysin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος κατ’ ἀνάλυσιν</span></span> (Anecd. <span class="trans" title="anankēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνάγκην</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="apartizontōs ekpheromenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπαρτιζόντως ἐκφερόμενος</span></span>, i.e. a proposition in <span class="pageNum" id="pb97n">[<a href="#pb97n">97</a>]</span>which the subject and the collective predicates may be interchanged. <span class="trans" title="Horismos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὁρισμὸς</span></span> gives in detail what <span class="trans" title="onoma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄνομα</span></span> gives collectively (<i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 16, β). An imperfect <span class="trans" title="horos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅρος</span></span> is called <span class="trans" title="hypographē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπογραφή</span></span>. Instead of the Aristotelian <span class="trans" title="ti ēn einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τί ἦν εἶναι</span></span>, the Stoics were content with the <span class="trans" title="ti ēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τί ἦν</span></span> of Antisthenes (<i>Alex.</i> Top. 24, m). Like Prodicus, they laid great stress on distinguishing accurately the
+conceptions of words of similar meaning, <span class="trans" title="chara, terpsis, hēdonē, euphrosynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαρὰ, τέρψις, ἡδονὴ, εὐφροσύνη</span></span> (<i>Alex.</i> Top. 96). The relation of <span class="trans" title="genos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γένος</span></span> to <span class="trans" title="eidos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶδος</span></span> is also explained: <span class="trans" title="genos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γένος</span></span> is defined to be the summing up of many thoughts (<span class="trans" title="anaphairetōn ennoēmatōn;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναφαιρέτων ἐννοημάτων·</span></span> which might mean thoughts which, as integral parts of a conception, cannot be separated
+from it; only this explanation would not agree with what follows, according to which
+one would more likely think of the different species included in the genus. <i>Prantl</i> p. 422 suggests <span class="trans" title="anaphorētōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναφορητῶν</span></span>, which, however, requires explanation); <span class="trans" title="eidos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶδος</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="to hypo tou genous periechomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ γένους περιεχόμενον</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 60). <span class="trans" title="genikōtaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γενικώτατον</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="ho genos on genos ouk echei; eidikōtaton ho eidos on eidos ouk echei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὃ γένος ὂν γένος οὐκ ἔχει· εἰδικώτατον ὃ εἶδος ὂν εἶδος οὐκ ἔχει</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 61; conf. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 138). As to <span class="trans" title="diairesis, hypodiairesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαίρεσις, ὑποδιαίρεσις</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="antidiairesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντιδιαίρεσις</span></span> (division into contradictories) nothing new is stated; but <span class="trans" title="merismos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μερισμὸς</span></span> has a special notice <span class="corr" id="xd33e9349" title="Not in source">(</span><i>Diog.</i> 61). Lastly, if <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 213 (the previous definition of dialectic is found, as was stated on p.
+73, 3, in <i>Alcinous</i> Isag. 3, and he also mentions c. 5 three of the four kinds of division, giving two
+others instead of the fourth) refers to the Stoics, four kinds of division are enumerated.
+The reference of the 8 <span class="trans" title="diaireseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαιρέσεις</span></span> mentioned by <i>Prantl</i>, p. 423, on the authority of <i>Bekker’s</i> Anecd. ii. 679 to a Stoic source is much more doubtful. There is little that is new
+in the Stoic discussion of Opposition, and the same may be said of what <i>Simpl.</i> (Categ. 100, β and δ; 101, ε; 102, β) quotes from Chrysippus (<span class="trans" title="peri tōn kata sterēsin legomenōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν κατὰ στέρησιν λεγομένων</span></span>) on the subject of <span class="trans" title="sterēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">στέρησις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span>. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 190.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9111src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9407">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9407src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> <i>Petersen</i>, Philos. Chrysipp. Fund. pp. 36–144, is invaluable for its careful collection of
+authorities, but in its attempt to construct the Stoic system on the categories it
+indulges in many capricious combinations. <i>Trendelenburg</i>, <span lang="de">Hist. Beitr.</span> i. 217; <i>Prantl</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. der Logik</span>, i. 426. Our authorities for the knowledge of the Stoic doctrine of the categories
+are besides a few notices in other writers principally <i>Simplicius</i>, on the Categories, and <i>Plotinus</i>, Ennead. vi. 1, 25–30.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9407src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9428">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9428src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> The Stoics attack the Aristotelian categories for being too numerous, and endeavour
+to show that they do not include every kind of expression (as if, rejoined <i>Simplicius</i>, Categ. 5, α, this were the point at all). Compare <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 5, α; 15, δ; 16, δ, who quotes these as objections raised by Athenodorus and
+Cornutus, the former of whom lived in the time of Augustus, the latter in the reign
+of Nero. Observations of these writers on some of the Aristotelian categories are
+given, <i>Ibid.</i> 47, ζ, 91, α.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9428src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9437">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9437src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> That this was intended by Aristotle to be the position of the categories appears by
+the way in which he introduced them; and also by his observations (Phys. v. 2) on
+the various kinds of motion—which are based entirely on the view that the categories
+are coordinate.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9437src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9445">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9445src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> It will thus be understood how the ancients could at one time speak of <span class="trans" title="on"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὂν</span></span>, at another of <span class="trans" title="ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τί</span></span>, as being the highest conception of the Stoics. The former is found in <i>Diog.</i> 61: <span class="trans" title="genikōtaton de estin ho genos on genos ouk echei, hoion to on"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γενικώτατον δέ ἐστιν ὃ γένος ὂν γένος οὐκ ἔχει, οἷον τὸ ὄν</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 58, 8: <span lang="la">Nunc autem genus illud primum quærimus, ex quo ceteræ species suspensæ sunt, a quo
+nascitur omnis divisio, quo universa comprehensa sunt</span>; after noticing the distinction between what is material and what is immaterial,
+he proceeds: <span lang="la">quid <span class="pageNum" id="pb99n">[<a href="#pb99n">99</a>]</span>ergo erit, ex quo hæc deducantur? illud … quod est [<span class="trans" title="to on"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὂν</span></span>] … quod est aut corporale est aut incorporale. Hoc ergo genus est primum et antiquissimum
+et, ut ita dicam, generale [<span class="trans" title="to genikōtaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ γενικώτατον</span></span>].</span> It is, however, more usual to find <span class="trans" title="ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τί</span></span>. Thus <i>Plotin.</i> Enn. vi. 1, 25: <span class="trans" title="koinon ti kai epi pantōn hen genos lambanousi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὸν τὶ καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων ἓν γένος λαμβάνουσι</span></span>. <i>Alex. Aphrod.</i> Top. 155; Schol. 278, b, 20: <span class="trans" title="houtō deiknyois an hoti mē kalōs to ti hoi apo stoas genos tou ontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὕτω δεικνύοις ἂν ὅτι μὴ καλῶς τὸ τὶ οἱ ἀπὸ στοᾶς γένος τοῦ ὄντος</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὶ</span></span> as the genus, of which <span class="trans" title="on"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὂν</span></span> is a species) <span class="trans" title="tithentai; ei gar ti, dēlon hoti kai on ... all’ ekeinoi nomothetēsantes autois to on kata sōmatōn monōn legesthai diapheugoien an to ēporēmenon; dia touto gar to ti genikōteron autou phasin einai katēgoroumenon ou kata sōmatōn monon alla kai asōmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τίθενται· εἰ γὰρ τὶ, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ὂν … ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνοι νομοθετήσαντες αὐτοῖς τὸ ὂν κατὰ
+σωμάτων μόνων λέγεσθαι διαφεύγοιεν ἂν τὸ ἠπορημένον· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ τὶ γενικώτερον
+αὐτοῦ φασιν εἶναι κατηγορούμενον οὐ κατὰ σωμάτων μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀσωμάτων</span></span>. Schol. in Arist. 34, b, 11. <i>Sext<span>.</span></i> Pyrrh. ii. 86: <span class="trans" title="to ti, hoper phasin einai pantōn genikōtaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ τὶ, ὅπερ φασὶν εἶναι πάντων γενικώτατον</span></span>. Math. x. 234: The Stoics affirm <span class="trans" title="tōn tinōn ta men einai sōmata ta de asōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν τινῶν τὰ μὲν εἶναι σώματα τὰ δὲ ἀσώματα</span></span>. <i>Sen<span>.</span></i> l.c. 13: <span lang="la">Stoici volunt superponere huic etiamnunc aliud genus magis principale … primum genus
+Stoicis quibusdam videtur quid, for in rerum, inquiunt, natura quædam sunt, quædam
+non sunt:</span> examples of the latter are centaurs, giants, and similar notions of unreal things.
+Ritter, iii. 566, remarks, with justice, that the older teaching must have placed
+the conception of Being at the head; otherwise the objection could not have been raised,
+that what has not being is thus made an object of thought. Probably the change was
+made by Chrysippus, although it is not definitely proved by <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 390. <i>Petersen</i> confuses the two views, in thinking (p. 146) that the Stoics divided Something into
+Being and Not Being, and subdivided Being again into what is material and what is
+not material. In other respects, too, he confounds the Stoic teaching with the consequences,
+whereby <i>Plotinus</i> l.c. and <i>Plut.</i> Comm. Not. 30, sought to refute it.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9445src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9593">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9593src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> See previous note and p. 92, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9593src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9598">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9598src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> The Stoics appear to have regarded them as <span class="trans" title="genikōtata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γενικώτατα</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="prōta genē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτα γένη</span></span>, rather than as categories. Conf. <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 16, δ (in other places as 51, β; 79, β, he is speaking for himself and not
+of the Stoic categories); <i>Marc. Aurel.</i> vi. 14; <span class="trans" title="katēgoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγορία</span></span> did not suit them so well because of their use of <span class="trans" title="katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγόρημα</span></span>. See p. 95, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9598src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9684">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9684src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> 16, δ: <span class="trans" title="hoi de ge Stōïkoi eis elattona systellein exiousi ton tōn prōtōn genōn arithmon ... poiountai gar tēn tomēn eis tessara; eis hypokeimena kai poia kai pōs echonta kai pros ti pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δέ γε Στωϊκοὶ εἰς ἐλάττονα συστέλλειν ἐξιοῦσι τὸν τῶν πρώτων γενῶν ἀριθμόν … ποιοῦνται
+γὰρ τὴν τομὴν εἰς τέσσαρα· εἰς ὑποκείμενα καὶ ποιὰ καὶ πὼς ἔχοντα καὶ πρός τί πως
+ἔχοντα</span></span>. <i>Plot.</i> En. vi. 1, 25; <i>Plut.</i> Comm. Not. 44, 6. p. 1083.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9684src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9705">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9705src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> Instead of <span class="trans" title="hypokeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποκείμενον</span></span>, the Aristotelian category of being, <span class="trans" title="ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσία</span></span>, was substituted by some, not only without the School, but also by Posidonius, who
+in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 434 distinguishes <span class="trans" title="ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσία</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="poios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸς</span></span> the change of the one and the other. Similarly his fellow-disciple Mnesarchus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9705src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9750">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9750src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> <i>Porphyr.</i> in Simpl. 12, δ: <span class="trans" title="hē te gar apoios hylē ... prōton esti tou hypokeimenou sēmainomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἥ τε γὰρ ἄποιος ὕλη … πρῶτόν ἐστι τοῦ ὑποκειμένου σημαινόμενον</span></span>. <i>Plot.</i> 588, B: <span class="trans" title="hypokeimena men gar prōta taxantes kai tēn hylēn entautha tōn allōn protaxantes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποκείμενα μὲν γὰρ πρῶτα τάξαντες καὶ τὴν ὕλην ἐνταῦθα τῶν ἄλλων προτάξαντες</span></span>. <i>Galen<span>,</span></i> Qu. Qual. S. Incorp. 6, xix. 478: <span class="trans" title="legousi monēn tēn prōtēn hylēn aïdion tēn apoion."><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγουσι μόνην τὴν πρώτην ὕλην ἀΐδιον τὴν ἄποιον.</span></span> Compare following note. It would seem to follow, as a matter of course, from the
+Stoic belief in immaterial properties, see p. 106, 4, that the Stoics also believed
+in immaterial substances (<i>Petersen</i>, 60); but as such a view would be at variance with their belief that reality only
+belongs to material things, and is nowhere mentioned by any authority, although obviously
+inviting the criticism of opponents, it is safer to suppose that they never went so
+far as to state the belief in words.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9750src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9788">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9788src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> 44, δ: <span class="trans" title="eoike Stōïkē tini synētheia synepesthai, ouden allo ē to hypokeimenon einai nomizōn, tas de peri auto diaphoras anypostatous hēgoumenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔοικε Στωϊκῇ τινι συνηθείᾳ συνεπέσθαι, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ τὸ ὑποκείμενον εἶναι νομίζων,
+τὰς δὲ περὶ αὐτὸ διαφορὰς ἀνυποστάτους ἡγούμενος</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 150. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 322 (see below 101, 2) and 324: <span class="trans" title="ephēse de ho Poseidōnios tēn tōn holōn ousian kai hylēn apoion kai amorphon einai, kath’ hoson ouden apotetagmenon idion echei schēma oude poiotēta kat’ autēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔφησε δὲ ὁ Ποσειδώνιος τὴν τῶν ὅλων οὐσίαν <span class="pageNum" id="pb101n">[<a href="#pb101n">101</a>]</span>καὶ ὕλην ἄποιον καὶ ἄμορφον εἶναι, καθ’ ὅσον οὐδὲν ἀποτεταγμένον ἴδιον ἔχει σχῆμα
+οὐδὲ ποιότητα κατ’ αὐτήν</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="kath’ hautēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ αὑτὴν</span></span>]· <span class="trans" title="aei d’ en tini schēmati kai poiotēti einai, diapherein de tēn ousian tēs hylēs, tēn ousan kata tēn hypostasin, epinoia monon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀεὶ δ’ ἔν τινι σχήματι καὶ ποιότητι εἶναι, διαφέρειν δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ὕλης, τὴν οὖσαν
+κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνον</span></span>. <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 50: <span class="trans" title="to apoion sōma tēn prōtistēn hylēn einai phasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἄποιον σῶμα τὴν πρωτίστην ὕλην εἶναί φασιν</span></span>. Further particulars on matter hereafter.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9788src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9844">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9844src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> <i>Porphyr.</i> in Simpl. Cat. 12, δ: <span class="trans" title="ditton esti to hypokeimenon ou monon kata tous apo tēs stoas alla kata tous presbyterous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διττόν ἐστι τὸ ὑποκείμενον οὐ μόνον κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους</span></span>. <i>Dexipp.</i> See following note.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9844src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e9858">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e9858src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 150: <span class="trans" title="ousian de phasi tōn ontōn hapantōn tēn prōtēn hylēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσίαν δέ φασι τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων τὴν πρώτην ὕλην</span></span>. So thought Zeno and Chrysippus: <span class="trans" title="hylē de estin ex hēs hotidēpotoun ginetai. kaleitai de dichōs ousia te kai hylē, hē te tōn pantōn kai hē tōn epi meros. hē men oun tōn holōn oute pleiōn oute elattōn ginetai, hē de tōn epi merous kai pleiōn kai elattōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕλη δέ ἐστιν ἐξ ἧς ὁτιδηποτοῦν γίνεται. καλεῖται δὲ διχῶς οὐσία τε καὶ ὕλη, ἥ τε τῶν
+πάντων καὶ ἡ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρος. ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὅλων οὔτε πλείων οὔτε ἐλάττων γίνεται, ἡ
+δὲ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους καὶ πλείων καὶ ἐλάττων</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 322: (<span class="trans" title="Zēnōnos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνωνος·</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="ousian de einai tēn tōn ontōn pantōn prōtēn hylēn, tautēn de pasan aïdion kai oute pleiō gignomenēn oute elattō, ta de merē tautēs ouk aei tauta diamenein, alla diaireisthai kai syncheisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσίαν δὲ εἶναι τὴν τῶν ὄντων πάντων πρώτην ὕλην, ταύτην δὲ πᾶσαν ἀΐδιον καὶ οὔτε
+πλείω γιγνομένην οὔτε ἐλάττω, τὰ δὲ μέρη ταύτης οὐκ ἀεὶ ταὐτὰ διαμένειν, ἀλλὰ διαιρεῖσθαι
+καὶ συγχεῖσθαι</span></span>. The same was held by Chrysippus, according to <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 432, who says: Posidonius held that there were four varieties of change,
+those <span class="trans" title="kata diairesin, kat’ alloiōsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ διαίρεσιν, κατ’ ἀλλοίωσιν</span></span> (water to air), <span class="trans" title="kata synchysin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ σύγχυσιν</span></span> (chemical combination), and <span class="trans" title="kat’ analysin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατ’ ἀνάλυσιν</span></span>, the latter also called <span class="trans" title="tēn ex holōn metabolēn. toutōn de tēn kat’ alloiōsin peri tēn ousian gignesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν ἐξ ὅλων μεταβολήν. τούτων δὲ τὴν κατ’ ἀλλοίωσιν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν γίγνεσθαι</span></span> (the elements, according to the Stoics, changing into each other) <span class="trans" title="tas de allas treis peri tous poious legomenous tous epi tēs ousias gignomenous. akolouthōs de toutois kai tas geneseis synbainein. tēn gar ousian out’ auxesthai oute meiousthai ... epi de tōn idiōs poiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς δὲ ἄλλας τρεῖς περὶ τοὺς ποιοὺς λεγομένους τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας γιγνομένους. ἀκολούθως
+δὲ τούτοις καὶ τὰς γενέσεις συνβαίνειν. τὴν γὰρ οὐσίαν οὔτ’ αὔξεσθαι οὔτε μειοῦσθαι
+… ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἰδίως ποιῶν</span></span> (which may be understood, not of individual properties, but of individually determined
+things) <span class="trans" title="hoion Diōnos kai Theōnos, kai auxēseis kai meiōseis gignesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἷον Δίωνος καὶ Θέωνος, καὶ αὐξήσεις καὶ μειώσεις γίγνεσθαι</span></span>. (These words are explained by <i>Prantl</i>, 432, thus: qualitative determination admits increase or decrease of intensity; but
+the use of the <span class="pageNum" id="pb102n">[<a href="#pb102n">102</a>]</span>terms <span class="trans" title="auxēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὔξησις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="meiōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μείωσις</span></span>, and indeed the whole context no less than the passage quoted from Diogenes, prove
+that they refer rather to the increase or diminution of substance in the individual
+thing.) <span class="trans" title="dio kai paramenein tēn hekastou poiotēta apo tēs geneseōs mechri tēs anaireseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὸ καὶ παραμένειν τὴν ἑκάστου ποιότητα ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως μέχρι τῆς ἀναιρέσεως</span></span>.… <span class="trans" title="epi de tōn idiōs poiōn dyo men einai phasi ta dektika moria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἰδίως ποιῶν δύο μὲν εἶναί φασι τὰ δεκτικὰ μόρια</span></span> (individual things have two component parts, which are capable of change), <span class="trans" title="to men ti kata tēn tēs ousias hypostasin to de ti kata tēn tou poiou. to gar [idiōs poion] hōs pollakis legomen tēn auxēsin kai tēn meiōsin epidechesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μέν τι κατὰ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ὑπόστασιν τὸ δέ τι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ποίου. τὸ γὰρ [ἰδίως
+ποιὸν] ὡς πολλάκις λέγομεν τὴν αὔξησιν καὶ τὴν μείωσιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι</span></span>. <i>Porphyr.</i> See previous note. <i>Dexipp.</i> in Cat. 31, 15, Speng.: <span class="trans" title="hōs esti to hypokeimenon ditton, ou monon kata tous apo tēs stoas alla kai kata tous presbyterous, hen men to legomenon prōton hypokeimenon, hōs hē apoios hylē ... deuteron de hypokeimenon to poion ho koinōs ē idiōs hyphistatai, hypokeimenon gar kai ho chalkos kai ho Sōkratēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς ἔστι τὸ ὑποκείμενον διττὸν, οὐ μόνον κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
+πρεσβυτέρους, ἓν μὲν τὸ λεγόμενον πρῶτον ὑποκείμενον, ὡς ἡ ἄποιος ὕλη … δεύτερον δὲ
+ὑποκείμενον τὸ ποιὸν ὃ κοινῶς ἢ ἰδίως ὑφίσταται, ὑποκείμενον γὰρ καὶ ὁ χαλκὸς καὶ
+ὁ Σωκράτης</span></span><span>.</span> <i>Plut.</i> Comm. Not. 44, 4, p. 1083 (the Stoics assert) <span class="trans" title="hōs dyo hēmōn hekastos estin hypokeimena, to men ousia, to de [poion]. kai to men aei rhei kai pheretai, mēt’ auxomenon mēte meioumenon, mēte holōs hoion esti diamenon, to de diamenei kai auxanetai kai meioutai kai panta paschei tanantia thaterō sympephykos kai synērmosmenon kai synkechymenon, kai tēs diaphoras tē aisthēsei mēdamou parechon hapsasthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς δύο ἡμῶν ἕκαστός ἐστιν ὑποκείμενα, τὸ μὲν οὐσία, τὸ δὲ [ποιόν]. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ
+ῥεῖ καὶ φέρεται, μήτ’ αὐξόμενον μήτε μειούμενον, μήτε ὅλως οἷόν ἐστι διαμένον, τὸ
+δὲ διαμένει καὶ αὐξάνεται καὶ μειοῦται καὶ πάντα πάσχει τἀναντία θἀτέρῳ συμπεφυκὸς
+καὶ συνηρμοσμένον καὶ συγκεχυμένον, καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῇ αἰσθήσει μηδαμοῦ παρέχον ἅψασθαι</span></span>. The latter is the individual thing itself, the former the material thereof, in reference
+to which Plutarch had just said: <span class="trans" title="ta lēmmata synchōrousin houtoi, tas [men] en merei pasas ousias rhein kai pheresthai, ta men ex hautōn metheisas, ta de pothen epionta prosdechomenas; hois de proseisi kai apeisin arithmois kai plēthesin, tauta mē diamenein, all’ hetera gignesthai tais eirēmenais prosodois, exallagēn tēs ousias lambanousēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ λήμματα συγχωροῦσιν οὗτοι, τὰς [μὲν] ἐν μέρει πάσας οὐσίας ῥεῖν καὶ φέρεσθαι, τὰ
+μὲν ἐξ αὑτῶν μεθείσας, τὰ δὲ ποθὲν ἐπιόντα προσδεχομένας· οἷς δὲ πρόσεισι καὶ ἄπεισιν
+ἀριθμοῖς καὶ πλήθεσιν, ταῦτα μὴ διαμένειν, ἀλλ’ ἕτερα γίγνεσθαι ταῖς εἰρημέναις προσόδοις,
+ἐξαλλαγὴν τῆς οὐσίας λαμβανούσης</span></span>. That it should be said of this perpetually changing material <span class="trans" title="mēt’ auxomenon mēte meioumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μήτ’ αὐξόμενον μήτε μειούμενον</span></span> may appear strange; but the meaning is this: it can only be said of an individual
+thing that it increases and diminishes in so far as it remains one and the same subject,
+an <span class="trans" title="idiōs poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδίως ποιὸν</span></span> during the change; but the material itself, which is ever changing, cannot be regarded
+as the one identical subject of increase and diminution. This idea is expanded by
+<i>Alex. Aphro.</i> Quæst. Nat. I. 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e9858src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10051">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10051src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸν</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης</span></span>, and also <span class="trans" title="poios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸς</span></span> (sc. <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>). According to <i>Simpl.</i> 55. α, many Stoics assign a threefold meaning to <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιόν</span></span>. The first, which is also the most extensive meaning, includes every kind of quality,
+whether essential or accidental—the <span class="trans" title="pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχον</span></span> as well as the <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιόν</span></span>. In the second meaning <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸν</span></span> is used to express <i>permanent</i> qualities, including those which are derivative and non-essential—the <span class="trans" title="scheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σχέσεις</span></span>. In the third and narrowest sense it expresses <span class="trans" title="tous apartizontas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοὺς ἀπαρτίζοντας</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="kata tēn ekphoran"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="kai emmonōs ontas kata diaphoran poious"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἐμμόνως ὄντας κατὰ διαφορὰν ποιοὺς</span></span>, i.e. those qualities which faithfully represent essential attributes in their <span class="pageNum" id="pb103n">[<a href="#pb103n">103</a>]</span>distinctive features. The substantive <span class="trans" title="poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης</span></span> is only used in the last sense.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10051src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10167">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10167src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> 57, ε (the passage is fully discussed by <i>Petersen</i>, 85, and <i>Trendelenburg</i>, 223): <span class="trans" title="hoi de Stōïkoi to koinon tēs poiotētos to epi tōn sōmatōn legousi diaphoran einai ousias ouk apodialēptēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ποιότητος τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων λέγουσι διαφορὰν εἶναι οὐσίας
+οὐκ ἀποδιαληπτὴν</span></span> (separable, i.e., from matter) <span class="trans" title="kath’ heautēn, all’ eis hen noēma kai idiotēta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ ἑαυτὴν, ἀλλ’ εἰς ἓν νόημα καὶ ἰδιότητα</span></span> [sc. <span class="trans" title="mian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μίαν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="apolēgousan oute chronō oute ischyï eidopoioumenēn, alla tē ex autēs toioutotēti, kath’ ēn poiou hyphistatai genesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπολήγουσαν οὔτε χρόνῳ οὔτε ἰσχύϊ εἰδοποιουμένην, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐξ αὐτῆς τοιουτότητι, καθ’
+ἢν ποιοῦ ὑφίσταται γένεσις</span></span>. In place of <span class="trans" title="hen noēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἓν νόημα</span></span> <i>Petersen</i>, 85, with the approval of <i>Trendelenburg</i> and <i>Prantl</i> (438, 96), reads <span class="trans" title="ennoēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐννόημα</span></span>. To me, <i>Brandis</i> Schol. 69, a, 32, appears to retain it with reason, the meaning being that <span class="trans" title="poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης</span></span> constitutes no independent unity, but only a unity of conception<span>.</span> Non-essential qualities are by the Stoics excluded from the category of <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸν</span></span>, and reckoned under that of <span class="trans" title="pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχον</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The same distinction between what is essential and what is not essential is indicated
+in the terms <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="schesis; poiotētes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σχέσις· ποιότητες</span></span>, or essential properties, being called essential forms (<span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="hekta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑκτά</span></span>); non-essential qualities being called features or varieties (<span class="trans" title="scheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σχέσεις</span></span>). See <i>Simpl.</i> 54, γ; 55, ε. In determining essential attributes, these, according to <i>Simpl.</i> 61, β (Schol. in Arist. 70, b, 43), are essential, not when they happen to be permanent,
+but when they spring from the nature of the object to which they belong: <span class="trans" title="tas men gar scheseis tais epiktētois katastasesi charaktērizesthai tas de hexeis tais ex heautōn energeiais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς μὲν γὰρ σχέσεις ταῖς ἐπικτήτοις καταστάσεσι χαρακτηρίζεσθαι τὰς δὲ ἕξεις ταῖς
+ἐξ ἑαυτῶν ἐνεργείαις</span></span>. A more limited meaning, that of local position, is given to <span class="trans" title="schesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σχέσις</span></span> in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 410.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The distinction between <span class="trans" title="henōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕνωσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="synaphē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συναφὴ</span></span> also belongs here. That, the oneness of which depends on an essential quality, is
+<span class="trans" title="hēnōmenon;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡνωμένον·</span></span> everything else is either <span class="trans" title="synēmmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνημμένον</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="ek diestōtōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκ διεστώτων</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 78 (also in vii. 102): <span class="trans" title="tōn te sōmatōn ta men estin hēnōmena ta de ek synaptomenōn ta de ek diestōtōn; hēnōmena men oun esti ta hypo mias hexeōs kratoumena, kathaper phyta kai zōa; synapheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν τε σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστιν ἡνωμένα τὰ <span id="xd33e10373">δὲ</span> ἐκ συναπτομένων τὰ δὲ ἐκ διεστώτων· ἡνωμένα μὲν οὖν ἐστι τὰ ὑπὸ μιᾶς ἕξεως κρατούμενα,
+καθάπερ φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα· <span id="xd33e10377">συνάφεια</span></span></span> applies to chains, houses, ships, &amp;c.; combination <span class="trans" title="ek diestōtōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκ διεστώτων</span></span> to flocks and armies. <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 102, 6, Nat. Qu. ii. 2, says the same. Conf. <i>Alex.</i> De Mixt. 143: <span class="trans" title="anankē de to hen sōma hypo mias hōs phasin hexeōs synelesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνάγκη δὲ τὸ ἓν σῶμα ὑπὸ μιᾶς ὥς φασιν ἕξεως συνελέσθαι</span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="synechesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνέχεσθαι</span></span>]. <i>Simpl.</i> 55, ε: <span class="trans" title="tas gar poiotētas hekta legontes houtoi [hoi Stōïkoi] epi tōn hēnōmenōn monōn hekta apoleipousin; epi de tōn kata synaphēn, hoion neōs, kai epi tōn kata diastasin, hoion stratou, mēden einai hekton mēde heuriskesthai pneumatikon ti hen ep’ autōn mēde hena logon echon hōste epi tina hypostasin elthein mias hexeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς γὰρ ποιότητας ἑκτὰ λέγοντες οὗτοι [οἱ Στωϊκοὶ] ἐπὶ τῶν ἡνωμένων μόνων ἑκτὰ ἀπολείπουσιν·
+ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν κατὰ συναφὴν, οἷον νεὼς, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ διάστασιν, οἷον στρατοῦ, μηδὲν
+εἶναι ἑκτὸν μηδὲ εὑρίσκεσθαι πνευματικόν τι ἓν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν μηδὲ ἕνα λόγον ἔχον ὥστε
+ἐπί τινα <span class="corr" id="xd33e10419" title="Source: ὑπόστασ ν">ὑπόστασιν</span> ἐλθεῖν μιᾶς ἕξεως</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Those <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span> which admit of no increase or diminution (<span class="trans" title="epitasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπίτασις</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="anesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνεσις</span></span>) are called <span class="trans" title="diatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαθέσεις</span></span> or <i>permanent forms</i>. Virtues, for instance, which, according to the Stoics, always exist in a perfect
+form where <span class="pageNum" id="pb104n">[<a href="#pb104n">104</a>]</span>they exist at all, are <span class="trans" title="diatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαθέσεις</span></span>, but arts are only <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span>. <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 61, β; 72, δ; 73, β; Schol. in Arist. 70, b, 28; 76, a, 12, 24; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 98 and 128. Conf. <i>Petersen</i> 91. A different view was taken by Aristotle of the relations of these expressions.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10167src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10508">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10508src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> <i>Syrian.</i> on Arist. Metaph. 21, p. 90 in <i>Petersen</i>: <span class="trans" title="kai hoi Stōïkoi de tous koinous poious pro tōn idiōn poiōn apotithentai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ δὲ τοὺς κοινοὺς ποιοὺς πρὸ τῶν ἰδίων ποιῶν ἀποτίθενται</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 434; see above p. 101, 2. <i>Simpl.</i> De An. 61, a, explains <span class="trans" title="idiōs poios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδίως ποιὸς</span></span> by <span class="trans" title="atomōthen eidos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀτομωθὲν εἶδος</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 138; <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 36. 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10508src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10547">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10547src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> Besides the passages already quoted in note 2 on p. 101, from Plutarch and Stobæus,
+see <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 57: <span class="trans" title="ta kirnamena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ κιρνάμενα</span></span> (the intermingling materials,—the question here is the possibility of mingling) <span class="trans" title="ex ousias kai poiotētōn synkeisthai phasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξ οὐσίας καὶ ποιοτήτων συγκεῖσθαί φασιν</span></span>. <i>Porphyry</i> in <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 12, δ disputes this view himself. The Stoics, therefore, clearly distinguish
+<span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span>, or <i>essential form</i>, from the subject to which it belongs; and Philo must have been following the Stoics
+when he said (Nom. Mutat. 1063, D): <span class="trans" title="hexeis gar tōn kat’ autas poiōn ameinous, hōs mousikē mousikou, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις γὰρ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰς ποιῶν ἀμείνους, ὡς μουσικὴ μουσικοῦ, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> They also distinguish between a thing and its <span class="trans" title="ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσία</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 436: <span class="trans" title="mē einai te touton to ti poion idiōs kai tēn ousian ex hēs esti touto, mē mentoi ge mēd’ heteron, alla monon ou tauton, dia to kai meros einai tēs ousias kai ton auton epechein topon, ta d’ hetera tinōn legomena dein kai topō kechōristhai kai mēd’ en merei theōreisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ εἶναί τε τοὐτὸν τό τι ποιὸν ἰδίως καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐξ ἧς ἔστι τοῦτο, μὴ μέντοι γε
+μήδ’ ἕτερον, ἀλλὰ μόνον οὐ ταὐτὸν, διὰ τὸ καὶ μέρος εἶναι τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν
+ἐπέχειν τόπον, τὰ δ’ ἕτερα τινῶν λεγόμενα δεῖν καὶ τόπῳ κεχωρίσθαι καὶ μήδ’ ἐν μέρει
+θεωρεῖσθαι</span></span>. Conf. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 170; Math. ix. 336: <span class="trans" title="hoi de Stōïkoi oute heteron tou holou to meros oute to auto phasin hyparchein;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ οὔτε ἕτερον τοῦ ὅλου τὸ μέρος οὔτε τὸ αὐτό φασιν ὑπάρχειν·</span></span> and <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 313, 4. Mnesarchus, a fellow disciple of Posidonius, accordingly compares the
+relation of an individual thing to its <span class="trans" title="ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσία</span></span> with that of a statue to the material of which it is composed. Since the <span class="trans" title="idiōs poios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδίως ποιὸς</span></span> distinguishes a thing from every other, there follows as a matter of course, what
+is asserted circumstantially and in detail by Chrysippus (in <i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 951, B), <span class="trans" title="hoti dyo eidopoious"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι δύο εἰδοποιοὺς</span></span> [= <span class="trans" title="idiōs poious"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδίως ποιοὺς</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="epi tēs autēs ousias amēchanon systēnai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ἀμήχανον συστῆναι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10547src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10673">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10673src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> L.c. 222.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10673src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10685">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10685src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> This may be seen from the <span class="pageNum" id="pb105n">[<a href="#pb105n">105</a>]</span>passages quoted in note 2 on the previous page.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10685src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10692">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10692src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> St. Rep. 43, 4, p. 1054: <span class="trans" title="tēn hylēn argon ex heautēs kai akinēton hypokeisthai tais poiotēsin apophainousi, tas de poiotētas pneumata ousas kai tonous aerōdeis hois an engenōntai meresi tēs hylēs eidopoiein hekasta kai schēmatizein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν ὕλην ἀργὸν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς καὶ ἀκίνητον ὑποκεῖσθαι ταῖς ποιότησιν ἀποφαίνουσι, τὰς δὲ
+ποιότητας πνεύματα οὔσας καὶ τόνους ἀερώδεις οἷς ἂν ἐγγένωνται μέρεσι τῆς ὕλης εἰδοποιεῖν
+ἕκαστα καὶ σχηματίζειν</span></span>. It is a carrying out of the Stoic teaching (as <i>Simpl.</i> 57, ε, remarks) for Plotinus to reduce <span class="trans" title="poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης</span></span> to the class-conception of <span class="trans" title="dynamis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύναμις</span></span> (Enn. vi. 1, 10, 574, β). But the Stoic definition of <span class="trans" title="dynamis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύναμις</span></span> (quoted by <i>Simpl.</i> 58, α—<span class="trans" title="hē pleionōn epoistikē symptōmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ πλειόνων ἐποιστικὴ συμπτωμάτων</span></span>, with the additional words <span class="trans" title="kai katakratousa tōn energeiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ κατακρατοῦσα τῶν ἐνεργειῶν</span></span>—does not directly refer to <span class="trans" title="poiotēs. Poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης. Ποιότης</span></span> may also be connected with the <span class="trans" title="logos spermatikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος σπερματικός</span></span>. See <i>Plotin.</i> i. 29, 593, A: <span class="trans" title="ei de ta poia hylēn poian legoien, prōton men hoi logoi autois enyloi all’ ouk en hylē genomenoi syntheton ti poiēsousin ... ouk ara autoi eidē oude logoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δὲ τὰ ποιὰ ὕλην ποιὰν λέγοιεν, πρῶτον μὲν οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῖς ἔνυλοι ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ὕλῃ
+γενόμενοι σύνθετόν τι ποιήσουσιν … οὐκ ἄρα αὐτοὶ εἴδη οὐδὲ λόγοι</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 148: <span class="trans" title="esti de physis hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔστι δὲ φύσις <span id="xd33e10781">ἕξις</span></span></span> [= <span class="trans" title="poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="ex autēs kinoumenē, kata spermatikous logous apotelousa te kai synechousa ta ex autēs, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξ αὐτῆς κινουμένη, κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους ἀποτελοῦσά τε καὶ συνέχουσα τὰ ἐξ αὐτῆς,
+κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10692src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10804">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10804src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">83</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Ibid. § 2: (<span class="trans" title="Chrysippos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="en tois hexeōn ouden allo tas hexeis plēn aeras einai phēsin; hypo toutōn gar synechetai ta sōmata, kai tou poion hekaston einai aitios ho synechōn aēr estin, hon sklērotēta men en sidērō, pyknotēta d’ en lithō, leukotēta d’ en argyrō kalousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν τοῖς ἕξεων οὐδὲν ἄλλο τὰς <span id="xd33e10819">ἕξεις</span> πλὴν <span id="xd33e10823">ἀέρας</span> εἶναί φησιν· ὑπὸ τούτων γὰρ συνέχεται τὰ σώματα, καὶ τοῦ ποιὸν ἕκαστον εἶναι αἴτιος
+ὁ συνέχων ἀήρ ἐστιν, ὃν σκληρότητα μὲν ἐν σιδήρῳ, πυκνότητα δ’ ἐν λίθῳ, λευκότητα
+δ’ ἐν ἀργύρῳ καλοῦσιν</span></span>. <i>Simpl.</i> 69. γ: <span class="trans" title="hē tōn Stōïkōn doxa legontōn, sōmata einai ta schēmata hōsper ta alla poia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ τῶν Στωϊκῶν δόξα λεγόντων, σώματα εἶναι τὰ σχήματα ὥσπερ τὰ ἄλλα ποιά</span></span>. Ibid. 67, ε; 56, δ: <span class="trans" title="pōs de kai pneumatikē hē ousia estai tōn sōmatikōn poiotētōn autou tou pneumatos synthetou ontos, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῶς δὲ καὶ πνευματικὴ ἡ οὐσία ἔσται τῶν σωματικῶν ποιοτήτων αὐτοῦ τοῦ πνεύματος συνθέτου
+ὄντος, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10804src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10849">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10849src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">84</a></span> <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 143, b: <span class="trans" title="pōs de sōzontōn esti tēn peri kraseōs koinēn prolēpsin to legein kai tēn hexin tois echousin autēn memichthai kai tēn physin tois phytois kai to phōs tō aeri kai tēn psychēn tō sōmati"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῶς δὲ σωζόντων ἐστὶ τὴν περὶ κράσεως κοινὴν πρόληψιν τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὴν <span id="xd33e10856">ἕξιν</span> τοῖς ἔχουσιν αὐτὴν μεμίχθαι καὶ τὴν φύσιν τοῖς φυτοῖς καὶ τὸ φῶς τῷ ἀέρι καὶ τὴν
+ψυχὴν τῷ σώματι</span></span>. Ibid. 144, α, the saying is quoted against the Stoics: <span class="trans" title="memichthai tē hylē ton theon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μεμίχθαι τῇ ὕλῃ τὸν θεόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10849src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10873">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10873src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">85</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 36, 3: <span class="trans" title="legousin houtoi kai plattousin epi mias ousias dyo idiōs genesthai poious"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγουσιν οὗτοι καὶ πλάττουσιν ἐπὶ μιᾶς οὐσίας δύο ἰδίως γενέσθαι ποίους</span></span> (this follows from their hypothesis, but it is distinctly denied by Chrysippus <i>in thesis</i>. See p. 104, 2) <span class="trans" title="kai tēn autēn ousian hena poion idiōs echousan epiontos heterou dechesthai kai diaphylattein homoiōs amphoterous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ἕνα ποιὸν ἰδίως ἔχουσαν ἐπιόντος ἑτέρου δέχεσθαι καὶ διαφυλάττειν
+ὁμοίως ἀμφοτέρους</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10873src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10898">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10898src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">86</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> 70, ε: <span class="trans" title="kai hoi Stōïkoi de poiotētas poiotētōn poiousin heautōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ δὲ ποιότητας ποιοτήτων ποιοῦσιν ἑαυτῶν</span></span> (? <span class="trans" title="hektōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑκτῶν</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="poiountes hektas hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιοῦντες ἑκτὰς <span id="xd33e10921">ἕξεις</span></span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="hekta kai hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑκτὰ καὶ <span id="xd33e10932">ἕξεις</span></span></span> or <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span> only]. The context shows that the meaning of these words is that given above. The
+conception of a property is compounded of several attributes, and, therefore, a property
+of several subordinate properties. If <span class="trans" title="leukon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λευκὸν</span></span> is a <span class="trans" title="chrōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χρῶμα</span></span>, the <span class="trans" title="diakritikon opseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διακριτικὸν ὄψεως</span></span> is the <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e10975">ἕξις</span></span></span>, or form of <span class="trans" title="leukon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λευκὸν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10898src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e10991">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e10991src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">87</a></span> This follows of necessity, quite independently of the above-quoted language of Alexander,
+from the Stoic doctrine of the material nature of properties and of the mingling of
+materials. For if that intermingling of materials in which each one retains its properties
+(<span class="trans" title="mixis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μῖξις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις</span></span> in contrast to chemical combination <span class="trans" title="parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παράθεσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύγχυσις</span></span>) is defined to be the complete interpenetration of one material by another, without
+passing into a third (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 376; <i>Alex.</i> De Mixt. 142, a; <i>Plut<span>.</span></i> C. Not. 37, 2); if, moreover, properties are said to be material; and in all cases
+when they are combined, each property retains its own peculiarity, and yet is inherent
+in the subject-matter and in every other property belonging to the same <span class="corr" id="xd33e11034" title="Source: subject-mat er">subject-matter</span>; it follows that this relation can only be explained by supposing a mutual interpenetration
+of properties with each other and with their subject-matter.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e10991src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11038">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11038src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">88</a></span> The proof of this will be given subsequently. Meantime compare the remarks, p. 92,
+2; 94, 1 on the <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11038src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11049">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11049src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">89</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> 56, δ, and 54, β: <span class="trans" title="hoi de Stōïkoi tōn men sōmatōn sōmatikas, tōn de asōmatōn asōmatous einai legousi tas poiotētas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ τῶν μὲν σωμάτων σωματικὰς, τῶν δὲ ἀσωμάτων ἀσωμάτους εἶναι λέγουσι τὰς
+ποιότητας</span></span>. Only the <span class="trans" title="sōmatikai poiotētes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σωματικαὶ ποιότητες</span></span> are <span class="trans" title="pneumata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεύματα</span></span>, see p. 105, 2; incorporeal properties are called <span class="trans" title="hekta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑκτὰ</span></span>, to distinguish them from <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span> (essential forms). <i>Dexipp.</i> in Cat. 61. 17, Speng.: <span class="trans" title="thaumazō de tōn Stōïkōn chōrizontōn tas hexeis apo tōn hektōn; asōmata gar mē paradechomenoi kath’ heauta, hotan ereschelein deon ē epi tas toiautas dialēpseis erchontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θαυμάζω δὲ τῶν Στωϊκῶν χωριζόντων τὰς <span id="xd33e11099">ἕξεις</span> ἀπὸ τῶν ἑκτῶν· ἀσώματα γὰρ μὴ παραδεχόμενοι καθ’ ἑαυτὰ, ὅταν ἐρεσχελεῖν <span id="xd33e11103">δέον</span> ᾖ ἐπὶ τὰς τοιαύτας διαλήψεις ἔρχονται</span></span>. But this use of terms appears not to have <span class="pageNum" id="pb107n">[<a href="#pb107n">107</a>]</span>been universal among the Stoics (<i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 54, γ), with whom different views prevailed touching the extent of the conception
+of <span class="trans" title="hekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑκτόν</span></span>. According to this passage it was Antipater who wished to include under <span class="trans" title="hekta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑκτὰ</span></span>, the <span class="trans" title="koina symptōmata sōmatōn kai asōmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὰ συμπτώματα σωμάτων καὶ ἀσωμάτων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11049src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11144">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11144src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">90</a></span> Conf. <i>Simpl.</i> 57, ε, who after giving the definition of quality, quoted p. 103, 1, continues: <span class="trans" title="en de toutois, ei mē hoion te kata ton ekeinōn logon koinon einai symptōma sōmatōn te kai asōmatōn, ouketi estai genos ē poiotēs, all’ heterōs men epi tōn sōmatōn heterōs de epi tōn asōmatōn hautē hyphestēke"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν δὲ τούτοις, εἰ μὴ οἷόν τε κατὰ τὸν ἐκείνων λόγον κοινὸν εἶναι σύμπτωμα σωμάτων
+τε καὶ ἀσωμάτων, οὐκέτι ἔσται γένος ἢ ποιότης, ἀλλ’ ἑτέρως μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων ἑτέρως
+δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσωμάτων αὕτη ὑφέστηκε</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11144src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11178">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11178src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">91</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> 44, δ: <span class="trans" title="ho de tēn stasin kai tēn kathisin mē prospoioumenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ τὴν στάσιν καὶ τὴν κάθισιν μὴ προσποιούμενος</span></span> (including sc. <span class="trans" title="tois ousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς οὖσιν</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="eoike Stōïkē tini synētheia synepesthai ouden allo ē to hypokeimenon einai nomizōn, tas de peri auto diaphoras anypostatous hēgoumenos kai pōs echonta auta apokalōn hōs en tois hypokeimenois echonta auto touto to pōs echein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔοικε Στωϊκῇ τινι συνηθείᾳ συνέπεσθαι οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ τὸ ὑποκείμενον εἶναι νομίζων, τὰς
+δὲ περὶ αὐτὸ διαφορὰς ἀνυποστάτους ἡγούμενος καὶ πὼς ἔχοντα αὐτὰ ἀποκαλῶν ὡς ἐν τοῖς
+ὑποκειμένοις ἔχοντα αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ πὼς ἔχειν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11178src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11206">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11206src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">92</a></span> <i>Dexipp.</i> in Cat. 41, 20, Speng.: <span class="trans" title="ei de tis eis to pōs echon syntattoi tas pleistas katēgorias, hōsper hoi Stōïkoi poiousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δέ τις εἰς τὸ πὼς ἔχον συντάττοι τὰς πλείστας κατηγορίας, ὥσπερ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ ποιοῦσιν</span></span>. <i>Plotin.</i> vi. 1, 30, 594, A: <span class="trans" title="pōs de hen to pōs echon, pollēs diaphoras en autois ousēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῶς δὲ <span class="pageNum" id="pb108n">[<a href="#pb108n">108</a>]</span>ἓν τὸ πὼς ἔχον, πολλῆς διαφορᾶς ἐν αὐτοῖς οὔσης</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="pōs gar to tripēchy kai to leukon eis hen [genos theteon], tou men posou tou de poiou ontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῶς γὰρ τὸ τρίπηχυ καὶ τὸ λευκὸν εἰς ἓν [γένος θετέον], τοῦ μὲν ποσοῦ τοῦ δὲ ποιοῦ
+ὄντος</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="pōs de to pote kai to pou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῶς δὲ τὸ ποτὲ καὶ τὸ ποῦ</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="pōs de holōs pōs echonta to chthes kai to perysi kai to en Lykeiō kai en Akadēmia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῶς δὲ ὅλως πὼς ἔχοντα τὸ χθὲς καὶ τὸ πέρυσι καὶ τὸ ἐν Λυκείῳ καὶ ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="kai holōs pōs de ho chronos pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ὅλως πῶς δὲ ὁ χρόνος πὼς ἔχον</span></span>; … <span class="trans" title="to de poiein pōs pōs echon ... kai ho paschon ou pōs echon ... isōs d’ an monon harmosei epi tou keisthai to pōs echon kai epi tou echein; epi de tou echein ou pōs echon alla echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ ποιεῖν πῶς πὼς ἔχον … καὶ ὁ πάσχον οὐ πὼς ἔχον … ἴσως δ’ ἂν μόνον ἁρμόσει ἐπὶ
+τοῦ κεῖσθαι τὸ πὼς ἔχον καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἔχειν· ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔχειν οὐ πὼς ἔχον ἀλλὰ ἔχον</span></span>. <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 94, ε: The Stoics included <span class="trans" title="echein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔχειν</span></span> under <span class="trans" title="pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχον</span></span>. In saying as <i>Simpl.</i> 16, δ, does that the Stoics omitted <span class="trans" title="poson"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποσὸν</span></span>, time, and place, it must be meant that they did not treat these conceptions as separate
+categories. What they did with them <i>Simpl.</i> explains l.c. <span class="trans" title="ei gar to pōs echon nomizousin autois ta toiauta perilambanein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ γὰρ τὸ πὼς ἔχον νομίζουσιν αὐτοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα περιλαμβάνειν</span></span>. <i>Trendelenburg</i>, 229, with justice, observes that, wherever the species-forming difference lies in
+<span class="trans" title="poson"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποσὸν</span></span> as in mathematical conceptions, there <span class="trans" title="poson"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποσὸν</span></span> comes under <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11206src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11380">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11380src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">93</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> 42, ε: <span class="trans" title="hoi de Stōïkoi anth’ henos genous dyo kata ton topon touton arithmountai, ta men en tois pros ti tithentes, ta d’ en tois pros ti pōs echousi, kai ta men pros ti antidiairountes tois kath’ hauta, ta de pros ti pōs echonta tois kata diaphoran"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ ἀνθ’ ἑνὸς γένους δύο κατὰ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ἀριθμοῦνται, τὰ μὲν ἐν τοῖς
+πρός τι τιθέντες, τὰ δ’ ἐν τοῖς πρός τί πως ἔχουσι, καὶ τὰ μὲν πρός τι ἀντιδιαιροῦντες
+τοῖς καθ’ αὑτὰ, τὰ δὲ πρός τί πως ἔχοντα τοῖς κατὰ διαφοράν</span></span>. (Ibid. 44, β: <span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi nomizousi pasēs tēs kata diaphoran idiotētos apēllachthai ta pros ti pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ νομίζουσι πάσης τῆς κατὰ διαφορὰν ἰδιότητος ἀπηλλάχθαι τὰ πρός τί πως ἔχοντα</span></span>.) Sweet and bitter belong to <span class="trans" title="ta pros ti;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ πρός τι·</span></span> to the other class belong <span class="trans" title="dexios, patēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δεξιὸς, πατὴρ</span></span>, &amp;c., <span class="trans" title="kata diaphoran de phasi ta kata ti eidos charaktērizomena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ διαφορὰν δέ φασι τὰ κατά τι εἶδος χαρακτηριζόμενα</span></span>. Every <span class="trans" title="kath’ hauto"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ αὑτὸ</span></span> is also <span class="trans" title="kata diaphoran"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ διαφορὰν</span></span> (determined as to quality), and every <span class="trans" title="pros ti pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τί πως ἔχον</span></span> is also a <span class="trans" title="pros ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τι</span></span>, but not conversely. Conf. 43, β. <span class="trans" title="ei de dei saphesteron metalabein ta legomena, pros ti men legousin hosa kat’ oikeion charaktēra diakeimena pōs aponeuei pros heteron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δὲ δεῖ σαφέστερον μεταλαβεῖν τὰ λεγόμενα, πρός τι μὲν λέγουσιν ὅσα κατ’ οἰκεῖον
+χαρακτῆρα διακείμενά πως ἀπονεύει πρὸς ἕτερον</span></span> (or, according to the definition in <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 454: <span class="trans" title="pros ti esti to pros heterō nooumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τι ἐστὶ τὸ πρὸς ἑτέρῳ νοούμενον</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="pros ti de pōs echonta hosa pephyke symbainein tini kai mē symbainein aneu tēs peri auta metabolēs kai alloiōseōs meta tou pros to ektos apoblepein, hōste hotan men kata diaphoran ti diakeimenon pros heteron neusē, pros ti monon touto estai, hōs hē hexis kai hē epistēmē kai hē aisthēsis; hotan de mē kata tēn enousan diaphoran kata psilēn de tēn pros heteron schesin theōrētai, pros ti pōs echonta estai; ho gar huios kai ho dexios exōthen tinōn prosdeontai, pros tēn hypostasin; dio kai mēdemias ginomenēs peri auta metabolēs genoit’ an ouketi patēr, tou huiou apothanontos, ho de dexios tou parakeimenou metastantos; to de glyky kai pikron ouk an alloia genoito ei mē symmetaballoi kai hē peri auta dynamis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τι δέ πως ἔχοντα ὅσα πέφυκε συμβαίνειν τινὶ καὶ μὴ συμβαίνειν ἄνευ τῆς περὶ αὐτὰ
+μεταβολῆς καὶ ἀλλοιώσεως μετὰ τοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἐκτὸς <span class="pageNum" id="pb109n">[<a href="#pb109n">109</a>]</span>ἀποβλέπειν, ὥστε ὅταν μὲν κατὰ διαφοράν τι διακείμενον πρὸς ἕτερον νεύσῃ, πρός τι
+μόνον τοῦτο ἔσται, ὡς ἡ ἕξις καὶ ἡ ἐπιστήμη καὶ ἡ αἴσθησις· ὅταν δὲ μὴ κατὰ τὴν ἐνοῦσαν
+διαφορὰν κατὰ ψιλὴν δὲ τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον σχέσιν θεωρῆται, πρὸς τί πως ἔχοντα ἔσται·
+ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ δεξιὸς ἔξωθεν τινῶν <span id="xd33e11481">προσδέονται</span>, πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν· διὸ καὶ μηδεμιᾶς γινομένης περὶ αὐτὰ μεταβολῆς γένοιτ’ ἂν οὐκέτι
+πατὴρ, τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀποθανόντος, ὁ δὲ δεξιὸς τοῦ παρακειμένου μεταστάντος· τὸ δὲ γλυκὺ
+καὶ πικρὸν οὐκ ἂν ἀλλοῖα γένοιτο εἰ μὴ συμμεταβάλλοι καὶ ἡ περὶ αὐτὰ δύναμις</span></span>. In this sense, therefore, <span class="trans" title="pros ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τι</span></span> belongs to <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸν</span></span>, being composed (as <i>Simpl.</i> 43, α, says) of <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="pros ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τι</span></span>. On the other hand, <span class="trans" title="pros ti pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τί <span class="corr" id="xd33e11528" title="Source: τως">πως</span> ἔχον</span></span> only expresses, to quote <i>Herbart</i>, an accidental relation. <i>Prantl’s</i> quotation (I. 437, 108) from <i>Simpl.</i> 44, β, we have no special reason to refer to the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11380src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11552">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11552src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">94</a></span> <i>Trendelenburg</i>, 220, considers that these genera are in so far subordinate to one another, that
+the previous one continues in the next, but with the addition of a fresh determination;
+a better name for the second category would be <span class="trans" title="hypokeimena poia;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποκείμενα ποιά·</span></span> for the third, <span class="trans" title="hypokeimena poia pōs echonta;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποκείμενα ποιά πως ἔχοντα·</span></span> for the fourth, <span class="trans" title="hypokeimena poia pros ti pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποκείμενα ποιὰ πρός τί πως ἔχοντα</span></span>. In support of this, he refers to <i>Simpl.</i> 43, α: <span class="trans" title="hepetai de autois kakeino atopon to syntheta poiein ta genē ek proterōn tinōn kai deuterōn hōs to pros ti ek poiou kai tou pros ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕπεται δὲ αὐτοῖς κἀκεῖνο ἄτοπον τὸ σύνθετα ποιεῖν τὰ γένη ἐκ προτέρων τινῶν καὶ δευτέρων
+ὡς τὸ πρός τι ἐκ ποιοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρός τι</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 44, 6: <span class="trans" title="tettara ge poiousin hypokeimena peri hekaston, mallon de tettara hekaston hēmōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέτταρά γε ποιοῦσιν ὑποκείμενα περὶ ἕκαστον, μᾶλλον δὲ τέτταρα ἕκαστον ἡμῶν</span></span>. <i>Plot.</i> Enn. vi. 1, 29, 593, A: <span class="trans" title="atopos hē diairesis ... en thaterō tōn eidōn to heteron titheisa, hōsper an [ei] tis diairōn tēn epistēmēn tēn men grammatikēn legoi, tēn de grammatikēn kai allo ti;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄτοπος ἡ διαίρεσις … ἐν θατέρῳ τῶν εἰδῶν τὸ ἕτερον τιθεῖσα, ὥσπερ ἂν [εἴ] τις διαιρῶν
+τὴν ἐπιστήμην τὴν μὲν γραμματικὴν λέγοι, τὴν δὲ γραμματικὴν καὶ ἄλλο τι·</span></span> if <span class="trans" title="poia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὰ</span></span> are to be <span class="trans" title="hylē poia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕλη ποιὰ</span></span>, they are composed of <span class="trans" title="hylē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕλη</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="eidos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶδος</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>. See p. 48, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11552src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11652">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11652src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">95</a></span> See p. 103, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11652src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11655">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11655src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">96</a></span> See p. 107, 2; <i>Plotin.</i> vi. 1, 30: Why are <span class="trans" title="pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχοντα</span></span> enumerated as a third category, since <span class="trans" title="panta peri tēn hylēn pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα περὶ τὴν ὕλην πὼς ἔχοντα</span></span>; the Stoics would probably say that <span class="trans" title="poia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὰ</span></span> are <span class="trans" title="peri tēn hylēn pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τὴν ὕλην πὼς ἔχοντα</span></span>, whereas the <span class="pageNum" id="pb110n">[<a href="#pb110n">110</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχοντα</span></span>, in the strict sense of the term, are <span class="trans" title="peri ta poia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τὰ ποιά</span></span>. Yet since the <span class="trans" title="poia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὰ</span></span> themselves are nothing more than <span class="trans" title="hylē pōs echousa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕλη πως ἔχουσα</span></span>, all categories must be ultimately reduced to <span class="trans" title="hylē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕλη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11655src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11747">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11747src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">97</a></span> <i>Prantl</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Logik</span>, i. 440–467.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11747src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11754">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11754src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">98</a></span> In <i>Diog.</i> 66; <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 70; <i>Ammon.</i> De Interp. 4, a (Schol. in Arist. 93, a; 22, b, 20); <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 103, α; <i>Boëth.</i> De Interp. 315; <i>Cramer</i>, Anecd. Oxon. iii. 267, conf. I. 104, a distinction is drawn between <span class="trans" title="axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα</span></span> (a judgment), <span class="trans" title="erōtēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐρώτημα</span></span> (a direct question, requiring Yes or No), <span class="trans" title="pysma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πύσμα</span></span> (an enquiry), <span class="trans" title="prostaktikon, horkikon, aratikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προστακτικὸν, ὁρκικὸν, ἀρατικὸν</span></span> (wishes), <span class="trans" title="euktikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐκτικὸν</span></span> (a prayer), <span class="trans" title="hypothetikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποθετικὸν</span></span> (a supposition), <span class="trans" title="ekthetikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκθετικὸν</span></span> (as <span class="trans" title="ekkeisthō eutheia grammē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκκείσθω εὐθεῖα γραμμὴ</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="prosagoreutikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσαγορευτικὸν</span></span> (an address), <span class="trans" title="thaumastikon, psektikon, epaporētikon, aphēgēmatikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θαυμαστικὸν, ψεκτικὸν, ἐπαπορητικὸν, ἀφηγηματικὸν</span></span> (explanatory statements), <span class="trans" title="homoion axiōmati"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅμοιον ἀξιώματι</span></span> (a judgment with something appended, as: <span class="trans" title="hōs Priamidēsin empherēs ho boukolos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς Πριαμίδῃσιν ἐμφερὴς ὁ βουκόλος</span></span>! by Sextus called <span class="trans" title="Pleion ē axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e11870">Πλεῖον</span> ἢ ἀξίωμα</span></span>). <i>Ammon.</i> in <i>Waitz</i>, Arist. Orig. i. 43, speaks of ten forms of sentences held by the Stoics, mentioning,
+however, only two, <span class="trans" title="prostaktikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προστακτικὸς</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ebktikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐβκτικός</span></span> (so reads the MS. Waitz suggests <span class="trans" title="ephektikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐφεκτικὸς</span></span>, more probably it is <span class="trans" title="euktikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐκτικός</span></span>). <i>Diog.</i> 191, mentions treatises of Chrysippus on interrogatory and hortatory sentences. On
+the relation of an oath to <span class="trans" title="axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα</span></span> light is thrown by <i>Simpl.</i> l.c., also by Chrysippus’ distinction between <span class="trans" title="alēthorkein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀληθορκεῖν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="euorkein pseudorkein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐορκεῖν ψευδορκεῖν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="epiorkein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιορκεῖν</span></span> in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 28, 15.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11754src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e11963">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e11963src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">99</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 65: <span class="trans" title="axiōma de estin ho estin alēthes ē pseudos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα δέ ἐστιν ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἢ ψεῦδος</span></span>. Questions and other similar sentences are neither true nor false (Ibid. 66 and 68).
+This definition of a judgment is constantly referred to, see p. 83, 2, by <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 103, α; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. i. 7, 14; De Fato, 10, 20; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xvi. 8, 8; Schol. in Arist. 93, b, 35. <span class="pageNum" id="pb111n">[<a href="#pb111n">111</a>]</span>The purport of the expression <span class="trans" title="logos apophantikos, lekton apophanton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος ἀποφαντικὸς, λεκτὸν ἀποφαντὸν</span></span> (in <i>Diog.</i> 65; <i>Gell.</i> xvi. 8, 4; <i>Ammon.</i> De Interp. 4, a; Schol. in Arist. 93, b, 20) is the same.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e11963src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12005">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12005src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">100</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 93: <span class="trans" title="tōn gar axiōmatōn prōtēn schedon kai kyriōtatēn ekpherousi diaphoran hoi dialektikoi kath’ hēn ta men estin autōn hapla ta d’ ouch hapla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν γὰρ ἀξιωμάτων πρώτην σχεδὸν καὶ κυριωτάτην ἐκφέρουσι διαφορὰν οἱ διαλεκτικοὶ καθ’
+ἣν τὰ μέν ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἁπλᾶ τὰ δ’ οὐχ ἁπλᾶ</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 95 and 108. <i>Diog.</i> 68 gives the definitions of both.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12005src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12021">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12021src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">101</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c., by whom <i>Diog.</i> must be corrected, see p. 113, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12021src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12031">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12031src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">102</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 69: <span class="trans" title="en de tois ouch haplois to synēmmenon kai to parasynēmmenon kai to sympeplegmenon kai to aitiōdes kai to diezeugmenon kai to diasaphoun to mallon kai to diasaphoun to hētton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν δὲ τοῖς οὐχ ἁπλοῖς τὸ συνημμένον καὶ τὸ παρασυνημμένον καὶ τὸ συμπεπλεγμένον καὶ
+τὸ αἰτιῶδες καὶ τὸ διεζευγμένον καὶ τὸ διασαφοῦν τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ διασαφοῦν τὸ ἧττον</span></span>. Further details presently respecting the <span class="trans" title="synēmmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνημμένον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="diezeugmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διεζευγμένον</span></span>. For the <span class="trans" title="parasynēmmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασυνημμένον</span></span>—a conditional sentence, the first part of which is introduced by <span class="trans" title="epeidē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπειδὴ</span></span>—see <i>Diog.</i> 71 and 74; for the <span class="trans" title="sympeplegmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπεπλεγμένον</span></span>, the characteristic of which is the <span class="trans" title="kai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="kai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ</span></span>, see <i>Diog.</i> 72; <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 124; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xvi. 8 and 9; Ps. <i>Galen</i>, <span class="trans" title="Eisag. dial"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰσαγ. διαλ</span></span>. 13; <i>Dexipp.</i> in Cat. 27, 3, Speng.; (Schol. in Arist. 44. a, 9—<i>Prantl</i>, 446, says this passage is not quite correct; it only implies that the term <span class="trans" title="symplokē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπλοκὴ</span></span> was confined to a copulative judgment); for the <span class="trans" title="aitiōdes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰτιῶδες</span></span>, which is characterised by a <span class="trans" title="dioti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διότι</span></span>, and therefore is not identical with the <span class="trans" title="parasynēmmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρασυνημμένον</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> 72 and 74; for the <span class="trans" title="diasaphoun to mallon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διασαφοῦν τὸ μᾶλλον</span></span> and the <span class="trans" title="diasaphoun to hētton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διασαφοῦν τὸ ἧττον</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> 72; conf. <i>Cramer</i>, Anecd. Oxon. i. 188; <i>Apollon.</i> Synt. (<i>Bekker’s</i> Anecd. ii.), 481. These are only some of the principal forms of composite judgments,
+their number being really indefinite. Chrysippus estimated that a million combinations
+might be formed with ten sentences. The celebrated mathematician, Hipparchus however,
+proved that only 103,049 affirmative and 310,952 negative judgments could be formed
+with that material (<i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 29, 5, p. 1047; Qu. Symp. viii. 9, 3, 11, p. 732).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12031src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12186">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12186src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">103</a></span> There is no notice of a division of judgments into general and particular. Instead
+of that, <i>Sext.</i> (Math. viii. 96) distinguishes <span class="trans" title="hōrismena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡρισμένα</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="houtos kathētai, aorista"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗτος <span class="pageNum" id="pb112n">[<a href="#pb112n">112</a>]</span>κάθηται, ἀόριστα</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="tis kathētai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὶς κάθηται</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="mesa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέσα</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="anthrōpos kathētai, Sōkratēs peripatei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνθρωπος κάθηται, Σωκράτης περιπατεῖ</span></span>. When the subject stood in the nominative, <span class="trans" title="hōrismena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡρισμένα</span></span> were called <span class="trans" title="katagoreutika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καταγορευτικὰ</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 70); the others <span class="trans" title="katēgorika;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγορικά·</span></span> a <span class="trans" title="katagoreutikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καταγορευτικὸν</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="houtos peripatei;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗτος περιπατεῖ·</span></span> a <span class="trans" title="katēgorikon, Diōn peripatei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγορικὸν, Δίων περιπατεῖ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12186src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12287">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12287src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">104</a></span> An affirmative judgment was called <span class="trans" title="kataphatikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καταφατικὸν</span></span>, a negative <span class="trans" title="apophatikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποφατικὸν</span></span>, by Chrysippus in the fragment about to be quoted, and <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 102, δ, ζ. <i>Apul.</i> Dogm. Plat. iii. 266, Oud. renders these terms by <span lang="la">dedicativa</span> and <span lang="la">abdicativa</span>. For the manner in which they expressed negative sentences, see <i>Boëth.</i> De Interp. 373; Schol. in Arist. 120.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12287src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12319">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12319src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">105</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 69 gives an example of <span class="trans" title="arnētikon, oudeis peripatei;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρνητικὸν, οὐδεὶς περιπατεῖ·</span></span> one of particular negation, <span class="trans" title="sterētikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">στερητικὸν</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="aphilanthrōpos estin houtos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφιλάνθρωπός ἐστιν οὗτος·</span></span> one of double negation, <span class="trans" title="hyperapophatikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπεραποφατικὸν</span></span>—as, <span class="trans" title="ouchi hēmera ouk esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐχὶ ἡμέρα οὐκ ἐστί</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12319src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12363">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12363src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">106</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 89; <i>Diog.</i> 73: <span class="trans" title="antikeimena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντικείμενα</span></span> are <span class="trans" title="hōn to heteron tou heterou estin apophatikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὧν τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου ἐστὶν ἀποφατικὸν</span></span> or (according to the outward treatment of these determinations) <span class="trans" title="apophasei pleonazei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποφάσει πλεονάζει</span></span>—as, It is day, and It is not day. Aristotle called such a contradictory <span class="trans" title="antiphasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντίφασις</span></span>, a contrary <span class="trans" title="enantiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐναντιότης</span></span>, putting both under the class conception of <span class="trans" title="antikeimena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντικείμενα</span></span>. The Stoics reserved <span class="trans" title="antikeimena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντικείμενα</span></span> for contradictories (<i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 102, δ and 102, ζ, a Stoic discussion intended to show that the conception of
+<span class="trans" title="enantion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνάντιον</span></span> is not applicable to negative sentences and conceptions), which is after all only
+a difference in terminology. <span class="trans" title="Enantion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐναντίον</span></span> they also call <span class="trans" title="machomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μαχόμενον</span></span> (<i>Apollon.</i> Synt. 484, Bekk.). Otherwise, following Aristotle, they distinguished between <span class="trans" title="enantion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐναντίον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="enantiōs echon; enantia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐναντίως ἔχον· ἐναντία</span></span> are conceptions which are in plain and immediate contrast, such as <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="aphronēsis; enantiōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφρόνησις· ἐναντίως ἔχοντα</span></span> are those which are only contrasted by means of the <span class="trans" title="enantia"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e12490">ἐναντία</span></span></span>, such as <span class="trans" title="phronimos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνιμος</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="aphrōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄφρων</span></span> (<i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 98, γ). The former, therefore, apply to abstract, the latter to concrete notions.
+That every negative judgment has an affirmative judgment opposed to it is elaborately
+proved by a series of quotations from poets, each one of which is four times repeated
+in the fragment <span class="trans" title="peri apophatikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ἀποφατικῶν</span></span> first edited by <i>Letronne</i> (<span lang="fr">Fragments inédits</span>, Paris, 1838), <span class="pageNum" id="pb113n">[<a href="#pb113n">113</a>]</span>and subsequently emended, explained, and with a great degree of probability referred
+to Chrysippus by Bergk (<span lang="la">De Chrysippi libro</span> <span class="trans" title="peri apophatikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ἀποφατικῶν</span></span>, Cassel, 1841, Gymn. progr.). In explaining the fragment <i>Prantl</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Log.</span> I. 451 appears to have hit the truth in one point, where Bergk is not satisfied.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12363src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12551">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12551src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">107</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 103, β; <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 16, 37; N.&nbsp;D. i. 25, 70. Further particulars above p. 83, 2; 110, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12551src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12562">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12562src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">108</a></span> Viz. that the members of a disjunction, as well as their contradictory opposites,
+must also be contraries (<span lang="la">adversa</span> or <span lang="la">pugnantia</span>), and that from the truth of the one the falsehood of the other follows. A disjunction
+which does not satisfy one or the other of these conditions is false (<span class="trans" title="paradiezeugmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παραδιεζευγμένον</span></span>). <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xvi. 8, 12; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 191; <i>Alex.</i> Anal. Pr. 7, b.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12562src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12617">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12617src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">109</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 71; <i>Sext.</i> Math. 109; <i>Galen</i>, De Simpl. Medicamen. ii. 16, vol. xi. 499; Ps. <i>Galen</i>, <span class="trans" title="Eisag. dial."><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰσαγ. διαλ.</span></span> p. 15. The Stoics distinguish most unnecessarily, but quite in harmony with their
+ordinary formal punctiliousness, the case in which the leading clause is identical
+with the inferential clause (<span class="trans" title="ei hēmera estin, hēmera estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ ἡμέρα ἐστὶν, ἡμέρα ἔστιν</span></span>) and the case in which it is different (<span class="trans" title="ei hēmera estin, phōs estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ ἡμέρα ἐστὶν, φῶς ἔστιν</span></span>). Conditional sentences of the first kind are called <span class="trans" title="diphoroumena synēmmena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διφορούμενα συνημμένα</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> viii. 281; 294; and 466; Pyrrh. ii. 112; conf. viii. 95; <i>Diog.</i> 68. That in all these passages <span class="trans" title="diphoroumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διφορούμενον</span></span> must be read, and not <span class="trans" title="diaphoroumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαφορούμενον</span></span>, appears according to <i>Prantl’s</i> (p. 445, 122) very true observation from the remarks of <i>Alex.</i> Top. 7, a; Anal. Pr. 7, b, on <span class="trans" title="diphoroumenoi syllogismoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διφορούμενοι συλλογισμοί</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12617src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12695">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12695src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">110</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 112; <span class="trans" title="koinōs men gar phasin hapantes hoi Dialektikoi hygies einai synēmmenon, hotan akolouthē tō en autō hēgoumenō to en autō lēgon. peri de tou pote akolouthei kai pōs, stasiazousi pros allēlous kai machomena tēs akolouthias ektithentai kritēria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινῶς μὲν γάρ φασιν ἅπαντες οἱ Διαλεκτικοὶ ὑγιὲς εἶναι συνημμένον, ὅταν ἀκολουθῇ
+τῷ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡγουμένῳ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ λῆγον. περὶ δὲ τοῦ πότε ἀκολουθεῖ καὶ πῶς, στασιάζουσι
+πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ μαχόμενα τῆς ἀκολουθίας ἐκτίθενται κριτήρια</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 47, 143: <span lang="la">In hoc ipso, quod in elementis dialectici docent, quomodo judicare oporteat, rerum
+falsumne sit, si quid ita connexum est, ut hoc: Si dies est, lucet; quanta contentio
+est! aliter Diodoro aliter Philoni, Chrysippo aliter placet.</span> (The further remarks on the points of difference between Chrysippus and Cleanthes
+have no reference to hypothetical judgments.) The Philo here alluded to—the same Philo
+against whom Chrysippus wrote his treatises (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 191 and 194)—is the well-known dialectician and pupil of Diodorus, who declared
+all conditional sentences to be right in which a false inferential clause is not drawn
+from a true leading clause. According to this view, conditional sentences would be
+right, with both clauses true, or both false, or with a false leading clause and true
+inferential clause (<i>Sext.</i> l.c. viii. 245 and 449; Pyrrh. ii. 110). According to <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 104, the view of Philo appears to have gained acceptance among the Stoics,
+perhaps through Zeno, for whose connection with Philo see <i>Diog.</i> vii. 16. But, in any case, the meaning appears to have been (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 81), that, in the cases mentioned, conditional sentences <i>may</i> be right, not that they must be right.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Others more appropriately judged of the correctness of conditional sentences by the
+connection of the clauses, and either required, for a conditional sentence to be right,
+that the contradictory opposite (<span class="trans" title="antikeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντικείμενον</span></span>) of the inferential clause should be irreconcileable with the leading clause, or
+that the inferential clause should be potentially (<span class="trans" title="dynamei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυνάμει</span></span>) contained in the leading clause (<i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 111). The first of these requirements, which is mentioned by <i>Diog.</i> 73 as the only criterion of the Stoic School, was due to Chrysippus, who accordingly
+refused to allow sentences in which this was not the case to be expressed hypothetically
+(<i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 6, 12; 8, 15): it was not right to say, <span lang="la">Si quis natus est oriente canicula, is in mari non morietur</span>; but, <span lang="la">Non et natus est quis oriente canicula et is in mari morietur.</span>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">It may be observed, in connection with the enquiry into the accuracy of conditional
+sentences, that a true conditional sentence may become false in time. The sentence,
+If Dion is alive now, he will continue to live, is true at the present moment; but
+in the last moment of Dion’s life it <span class="pageNum" id="pb115n">[<a href="#pb115n">115</a>]</span>will cease to be true. Such sentences were called <span class="trans" title="aperigraphōs metapiptonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπεριγράφως μεταπίπτοντα</span></span>, because the time could not be previously fixed when they would become false (<i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 305, a). Chrysippus also wrote on the <span class="trans" title="metapiptonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μεταπίπτοντα</span></span>, according to <i>Dionys.</i> Comp. Verb. p. 72 Schäfer. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 105, mentions two treatises of his on the subject, but characterises them as
+spurious.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12695src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12791">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12791src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">111</a></span> According to <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 100, Math. viii. 143 and 156, the Stoics distinguished between <span class="trans" title="sēmeia hypomnēstika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σημεῖα ὑπομνηστικὰ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="sēmeia endeiktika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σημεῖα ἐνδεικτικά</span></span>. The definition of the latter was <span class="trans" title="endeiktikon axiōma en hygiei synēmmenō kathēgoumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνδεικτικὸν ἀξίωμα ἐν ὑγιεῖ συνημμένῳ καθηγούμενον</span></span> (or <span class="trans" title="prokathēgoumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προκαθηγούμενον</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="ekkalyptikon tou lēgontos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκκαλυπτικὸν τοῦ λήγοντος·</span></span> the <span class="trans" title="hygies synēmmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑγιὲς συνημμένον</span></span> was a sentence with both the leading and inferential clauses true. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 101; 106; 115; Math. viii. 249.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12791src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e12852">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e12852src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">112</a></span> Diodorus had said that Only what is, or what will be, is possible. The Stoics, and
+in particular Chrysippus, define <span class="trans" title="dynaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυνατὸν</span></span> as what is capable of being true (<span class="trans" title="to epidektikon tou alēthes einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἐπιδεκτικὸν τοῦ ἀληθὲς εἶναι</span></span>), if circumstances do not prevent; <span class="trans" title="adynaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδύνατον</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="ho mē estin epidektikon tou alēthes einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὃ μή ἐστιν ἐπιδεκτικὸν τοῦ ἀληθὲς εἶναι</span></span>. From the <span class="trans" title="dynaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυνατὸν</span></span> they distinguish the <span class="trans" title="ouk anankaion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον</span></span>, which is defined as <span class="trans" title="ho kai alēthes esti kai pseudos hoion te einai tōn ektos mēden enantioumenōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὃ καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι καὶ ψεῦδος οἷόν τε εἶναι τῶν ἐκτὸς μηδὲν ἐναντιουμένων</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 46, p. 1055; <i>Diog.</i> 76; <i>Boëth.</i> De Interp. 374, Bas. The same thing is also stated in <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De Fato, c. 10, p. 30. <span class="trans" title="dynaton einai genesthai touto d’ hyp’ oudenos kōlyeta genesthai kan mē genētai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυνατὸν εἶναι γενέσθαι τοῦτο δ’ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς κωλύετα γενέσθαι κἂν μὴ γένηται</span></span>.) On the other hand, <span class="trans" title="anankaion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναγκαῖον</span></span> is, what is both true and incapable of being false, either in itself or owing to
+other circumstances. <i>Diog.</i> and <i>Boëth</i>. There was probably another definition of <span class="pageNum" id="pb116n">[<a href="#pb116n">116</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="ouk anankaion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον</span></span>, as <span class="trans" title="ho pseudos hoion te einai tōn ektos mē enantioumenōn;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὃ ψεῦδος οἷόν τε εἶναι τῶν ἐκτὸς μὴ ἐναντιουμένων·</span></span> so that it might be said (<i>Boëth.</i> 429) that the <span class="trans" title="ouk anankaion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον</span></span> was partly possible and partly impossible, without contradicting (as <i>Boëth.</i> and <i>Prantl</i>, p. 463, believe) their other statement, that the <span class="trans" title="dynaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυνατὸν</span></span> was partly necessary and partly not necessary. The conceptions of the Possible and
+the Not-necessary are thus made to overlap, the former including the Necessary and
+Not-necessary, the latter the Possible and the Not-possible.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">To defend his definition of the Possible against the <span class="trans" title="kyrieuōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κυριεύων</span></span> of Diodorus, Chrysippus denied the statement, <span class="trans" title="dynatō adynaton mē akolouthein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυνατῷ ἀδύνατον μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν</span></span>, without exposing the confusion contained in it between sequence in time and causal
+relation (<i>Alex.</i> Anal. Pr. 57, b; <i>Philop.</i> Anal. Pr. xlii. b; Schol. in Arist. 163, a; <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 7, 13; Ep. ad Div. ix. 4). Cleanthes, Antipater, and Panthoides preferred
+to attack another leading clause of Diodorus, the clause that Every past occurrence
+must necessarily be true (<i>Epictet.</i> Diss. ii. 19, 2 and 5). The Aristotelian position in reference to a disjunction,
+that When the disjunction refers to something future, the disjunction itself is true,
+without either clause being necessarily true, was not accepted by the Stoics (<i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 103, β).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e12852src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13013">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13013src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">113</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 46, p. 1055, justly insists on this point.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13013src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13024">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13024src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">114</a></span> <i>Prantl</i>, pp. 467–496.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13024src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13028">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13028src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">115</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 45; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 194, see above p. 65.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13028src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13034">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13034src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">116</a></span> Both were included by the Peripatetics under the term hypothetical. In the same way
+the Stoics include both among the five <span class="trans" title="anapodeiktoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναπόδεικτοι</span></span>. See below p. 119, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13034src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13045">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13045src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">117</a></span> Chain-argument seems to have been also treated of in the categorical form. See p.
+120, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13045src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13054">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13054src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">118</a></span> As shown by <i>Prantl</i>, 468, 171; on <i>Diog.</i> 76; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 135; <i>Apul.</i> Dogm. Plat. iii. 279, Oud. The latter rightly refers to the fact, that Chrysippus
+discussed the main forms of hypothetical inference at the very beginning of his doctrine
+of inference, <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 223.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13054src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13067">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13067src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">119</a></span> Anal. Pr. 87, b: <span class="trans" title="di’ hypotheseōs de allēs, hōs eipen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δι’ ὑποθέσεως δὲ ἄλλης, ὡς εἶπεν</span></span> (<i>Arist.</i> Anal. Pr. i. 23, 41, a, 37) <span class="trans" title="eien an kai hous hoi neōteroi syllogismous monous boulontai legein; houtoi d’ eisin hoi dia tropikou, hōs phasi, kai tēs prolēpseōs ginomenoi, tou tropikou ē synēmmenou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶεν ἂν καὶ οὓς οἱ νεώτεροι συλλογισμοὺς μόνους βούλονται λέγειν· οὗτοι δ’ εἰσὶν οἱ
+διὰ τροπικοῦ, ὡς φασὶ, καὶ τῆς προλήψεως γινόμενοι, τοῦ τροπικοῦ ἢ συνημμένου</span></span> (conditional) <span class="trans" title="ontos ē diezeugmenou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄντος ἢ διεζευγμένου</span></span> (disjunctive) <span class="trans" title="ē sympeplegmenou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἢ συμπεπλεγμένου</span></span> (a copulative judgment suggesting partly hypothetical judgments like the <span class="trans" title="sympeplegmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπεπλεγμένον</span></span> in <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 235, partly negative categorical judgments which have the force of hypothetical
+judgments, such as: it is not at the same time A and B. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 80. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 158; Matt. viii. 226. <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, vi. 12). By the <span class="trans" title="neōteroi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νεώτεροι</span></span>, the Stoics must be meant, for the terminology is theirs; and the Peripatetics, to
+whom it might otherwise apply, always considered the categorical to be the original
+form of judgment. See <i>Prantl</i>, 468, 172.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13067src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13132">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13132src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">120</a></span> Such an inference was called <span class="trans" title="logos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος·</span></span> when it was expressed in definite terms, for instance, If it is day, it is light.
+The arrangement of the clauses (which were designated by numbers, and not by letters,
+as the Peripatetics had done), was called <span class="trans" title="tropos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τρόπος·</span></span> for instance, <span class="trans" title="ei to prōton, to deuteron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ τὸ πρῶτον, τὸ δεύτερον</span></span>. A conclusion composed of both forms of expression was a <span class="trans" title="logotropos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λογότροπος·</span></span> for instance, <span class="trans" title="ei zē Platōn, anapnei Platōn; alla mēn to prōton; to ara deuteron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ ζῇ Πλάτων, ἀναπνεῖ Πλάτων· ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸ πρῶτον· τὸ ἄρα δεύτερον</span></span>. The premisses were called <span class="trans" title="lēmmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λήμματα</span></span> (in contrast to <span class="trans" title="axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα</span></span> which expresses a judgment independently of its position in a syllogism); or, more
+correctly, the major premiss was <span class="trans" title="lēmma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λῆμμα</span></span>, the minor <span class="trans" title="proslēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόσληψις</span></span> (hence the particles <span class="trans" title="de ge"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δὲ γε</span></span> were <span class="trans" title="proslēptikos syndesmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσληπτικὸς σύνδεσμος</span></span>, <i>Apollon.</i> Synt. p. 518, Bekk.). The conclusion was <span class="trans" title="epiphora"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιφορά</span></span>, also <span class="trans" title="epiphorikoi syndesmoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιφορικοὶ συνδεσμοί</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 519. The major premiss in a hypothetical syllogism was called <span class="trans" title="tropikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τροπικόν</span></span>, its two clauses being called, respectively, <span class="trans" title="hēgoumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγούμενον</span></span> (as by the Peripatetics) and <span class="trans" title="lēgon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λῆγον</span></span> (by the Peripatetics <span class="trans" title="hepomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑπόμενον</span></span>). <i>Diog.</i> 76; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh<span>.</span> ii. 135; Math. viii. 301, 227; <i>Alex.</i> l.c. and p. 88, a; 109, a; 7, b; <i>Philop.</i> Anal. Pr. lx. a; Schol. in Arist. 170, a, 2; <i>Ammon.</i> on Anal. Pr. 24, b, 19; Arist. Orig. ed. Waitz, i. 45; <i>Apul.</i> Dog. Plat. iii. 279, Oud.; Ps. <i>Galen</i>, <span class="trans" title="Eisag. dial"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰσαγ. διαλ</span></span>. p. 19.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13132src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13303">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13303src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">121</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> Anal. Pr. 116, b, after <span class="pageNum" id="pb118n">[<a href="#pb118n">118</a>]</span>mentioning <span class="trans" title="amethodōs perainontes syllogismoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀμεθόδως περαίνοντες συλλογισμοὶ</span></span>, or inferences incomplete in point of form, such as: A = B, B = C, ∴ A = C, which
+is said to want as its major premiss: Two things which are equal to a third are equal
+to one another. On these <span class="trans" title="amethodōs perainontes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀμεθόδως περαίνοντες</span></span> of the Stoics see l.c. 8, a; 22, b; <i>Alex.</i> Top. 10, Ps. <i>Galen</i>, <span class="trans" title="Eis. dial"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰς. <span id="xd33e13333">διαλ</span></span></span>. 59. He then continues: <span class="trans" title="hous hoti men mē legousi syllogistikōs synagein, hygiōs legousi [hoi neōteroi] ... hoti de hēgountai homoious autous einai tois katēgorikois syllogismois ... tou pantos diamartanousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὓς ὅτι μὲν μὴ λέγουσι συλλογιστικῶς συνάγειν, ὑγιῶς λέγουσι [<span id="xd33e13344">οἱ</span> νεώτεροι] … ὅτι δὲ ἡγοῦνται ὁμοίους αὐτοὺς εἶναι τοῖς κατηγορικοῖς συλλογισμοῖς …
+τοῦ παντὸς διαμαρτάνουσιν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13303src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13356">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13356src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">122</a></span> <span class="trans" title="synaktikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνακτικοὶ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="perantikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περαντικοὶ</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="asynaktikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀσυνακτικοὶ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="aperantoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπέραντοι</span></span>, or <span class="trans" title="asyllogistoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀσυλλόγιστοι</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 137; Math. viii. 303 and 428; <i>Diog.</i> 77.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13356src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13403">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13403src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">123</a></span> Syllogisms which are conclusive in point of fact, but wanting in precision of form,
+were called <span class="trans" title="perantikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περαντικοί</span></span> in the narrower sense; those complete also in form, <span class="trans" title="syllogistikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συλλογιστικοί</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 78; Ps. <i>Galen</i>, <span class="trans" title="Eisag. dial"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰσαγ. διαλ</span></span>. 58.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13403src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13434">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13434src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">124</a></span> An inference is true (<span class="trans" title="alēthēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀληθὴς</span></span>) when not only the illation is correct (<span class="trans" title="hygiēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑγιὴς</span></span>), but when the individual propositions, the premisses as well as the conclusion,
+are materially true. The <span class="trans" title="logoi synaktikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι συνακτικοὶ</span></span> may therefore be divided into true and false. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 138; Math. viii. 310 and 412; <i>Diog.</i> 79.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13434src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13465">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13465src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">125</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 140 and 135; Math. viii. 305; 313; and 411: True forms of inference are
+divided into <span class="trans" title="apodeiktikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποδεικτικοὶ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ouk apodeiktikoi. apodeiktikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἀποδεικτικοὶ. ἀποδεικτικοὶ</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="hoi dia prodēlōn adēlon ti synagontes; ouk apodeiktikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ διὰ προδήλων ἄδηλόν τι συνάγοντες· οὐκ ἀποδεικτικοὶ</span></span> when this is not the case, as in the inference: If it is day, it is light—It is day,
+∴ It is light; for the conclusion, It is light, is known as well as it is known that
+It is day. The <span class="trans" title="apodeiktikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποδεικτικοὶ</span></span> may proceed either <span class="trans" title="ephodeutikōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐφοδευτικῶς</span></span> from the premisses to the conclusions, or <span class="trans" title="ephodeutikōs hama kai ekkalyptikōs; ephodeutikōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐφοδευτικῶς ἅμα καὶ ἐκκαλυπτικῶς· ἐφοδευτικῶς</span></span> when the premisses rest upon belief (<span class="trans" title="pistis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πίστις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="mnēmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μνήμη</span></span>); <span class="trans" title="ekkalyptikōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκκαλυπτικῶς</span></span> when they are based on a scientific necessity.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13465src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13548">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13548src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">126</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 79, <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 157, others added other forms of <span class="trans" title="anapodeiktoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναπόδεικτοι</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i>, in adding a sixth and seventh (Top. 14, 57), must have been following these authorities.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13548src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13565">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13565src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">127</a></span> Consult, on these five <span class="trans" title="anapodeiktoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναπόδεικτοι</span></span> of Chrysippus (which need not be given here more at length, and are absolutely identical
+with those of Theophrastus) <i>Diog.</i> 79–81 (on p. 79 we must read <span class="trans" title="syllogistikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συλλογιστικῶν</span></span> for <span class="trans" title="syllogismōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συλλογισμὼν</span></span>. See p. 118, 2); <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 156–159; 201; Math. viii. 223–227; <i>Cic.</i> Top. 13; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 123, b; Ps. <i>Galen</i>, <span class="trans" title="Eisag. dial"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰσαγ. διαλ</span></span>. 17; <i>Prantl</i>, 473, 182; on the <span class="trans" title="pemptos anapodeiktos dia pleionōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πέμπτος ἀναπόδεικτος διὰ πλειόνων</span></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 69; <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteora, pp. 41 and 47; <i>Prantl</i>, p. 475.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13565src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13628">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13628src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">128</a></span> Two such cases are distinguished, one in which all three clauses, the other in which
+the conclusion and minor premiss are identical. The first class are called <span class="trans" title="diphoroumenoi;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διφορούμενοι·</span></span> If it is day, it is day; It is day, ∴ It is day. The second class, <span class="trans" title="adiaphorōs perainontes;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιαφόρως περαίνοντες·</span></span> It is either day or night; It is day, ∴ It is day. The latter term is, however, applied
+to both kinds. See <i>Alex.</i> Anal. Pr. 7, a; 53, b; Top. 7; Schol. in Arist. 294, b, 25; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 30, 96; <i>Prantl</i>, 476, 185.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13628src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13658">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13658src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">129</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Top. 15, 57: <span lang="la">ex his modis conclusiones innumerabiles nascuntur.</span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 228, in which passage it is striking that <span class="trans" title="anapodeiktoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναπόδεικτοι</span></span> should be divided into <span class="trans" title="haploi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἁπλοῖ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ouch haploi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐχ ἁπλοῖ</span></span>. It has been suggested that <span class="trans" title="apodeiktikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποδεικτικῶν</span></span> should be substituted for <span class="trans" title="anapodeiktōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναποδείκτων</span></span>, but it is also possible that the latter word may be used in a narrow as well as
+in a wider sense.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13658src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13708">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13708src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">130</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 78: <span class="trans" title="syllogistikoi [logoi] men oun eisin hoi ētoi anapodeiktoi ontes ē anagomenoi epi tous anapodeiktous kata ti tōn thematōn ē tina"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συλλογιστικοὶ [λόγοι] μὲν οὖν εἰσιν οἱ ἤτοι ἀναπόδεικτοι <span class="pageNum" id="pb120n">[<a href="#pb120n">120</a>]</span>ὄντες ἢ ἀναγόμενοι ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀναποδείκτους κατά τι τῶν θεμάτων ἢ τινά</span></span>. According to <i>Galen</i>, Hipp. et Plat. ii. 3, p. 224, Chrysippus had taken great pains in resolving the
+composite forms of inference (<i>Diog.</i> 190 and 194). Antipater suggested still simpler modes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13708src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13728">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13728src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">131</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> 229–243, borrowing the example used by Ænesidemus, but no doubt following the Stoic
+treatment. <i>Prantl</i>, 479. Such a composite inference is that mentioned by <i>Sextus</i> l.c. 281.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13728src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13736">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13736src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">132</a></span> <i>Sext.</i>; <i>Prantl</i>, p. 478.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13736src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13743">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13743src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">133</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> on Anal. Pr. i. 25, 42, b, 5, after speaking of the Sorites, continues (p. 94, b):
+<span class="trans" title="en tē toiautē tōn protaseōn synecheia to te synthetikon esti theōrēma ... kai hoi kaloumenoi hypo tōn neōterōn epiballontes te kai epiballomenoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ τῶν προτάσεων συνεχείᾳ τό τε συνθετικόν ἐστι θεώρημα … καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι
+ὑπὸ τῶν νεωτέρων ἐπιβάλλοντές τε καὶ ἐπιβαλλόμενοι</span></span>. The <span class="trans" title="synthetikon theōrēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνθετικὸν θεώρημα</span></span> (or chain-argument), the meaning of which is next investigated, must be a Peripatetic
+expression. The same meaning must attach to <span class="trans" title="epiballontes te kai epiballomenoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e13765">ἐπιβάλλοντές</span> τε καὶ ἐπιβαλλόμενοι</span></span>, which are to be found <span class="trans" title="en tais synechōs lambanomenais protasesi chōris tōn symperasmatōn;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν ταῖς συνεχῶς λαμβανομέναις προτάσεσι χωρὶς τῶν συμπερασμάτων·</span></span> for instance, A is a property of B, B of C, C of D; ∴ A is a property of D. <span class="trans" title="epiballomenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιβαλλόμενος</span></span> means the inference, the conclusion of which is omitted; <span class="trans" title="epiballōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιβάλλων</span></span>, the one with the omitted premiss. These inferences may be in either of the three
+Aristotelian figures <span class="trans" title="kata to paradedomenon synthetikon theōrēma. ho hoi men peri Aristotelēn tē chreia parametrēsantes paredosan, eph’ hoson autē apētei, hoi de apo tēs tou [stoas] par’ ekeinōn labontes kai dielontes epoiēsan ex autou to kaloumenon par’ autois deuteron kai triton thema kai tetarton, amelēsantes men tou chrēsimou, pan de to hopōsoun dynamenon legesthai en tē toiautē theōria kan achrēstos ē, epexelthontes te kai zēlōsantes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ τὸ παραδεδομένον συνθετικὸν θεώρημα. ὃ οἱ μὲν περὶ Ἀριστοτέλην τῇ χρείᾳ παραμετρήσαντες
+παρέδοσαν, ἐφ’ ὅσον αὐτὴ ἀπῇτει, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ [στοᾶς] παρ’ ἐκείνων λαβόντες καὶ
+διελόντες ἐποίησαν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ καλούμενον παρ’ αὐτοῖς δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον θέμα καὶ
+τέταρτον, ἀμελήσαντες μὲν τοῦ χρησίμου, πᾶν δὲ τὸ ὁπωσοῦν δυνάμενον λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ
+τοιαύτῃ θεωρίᾳ κἂν ἄχρηστος ᾖ, ἐπεξελθόντες τε καὶ ζηλώσαντες</span></span>. Reference is made to the same <span class="pageNum" id="pb121n">[<a href="#pb121n">121</a>]</span>thing in <i>Simpl.</i> De Cœlo; Schol. in Arist. 483, b, 26: <span class="trans" title="hē de toiautē analysis tou logou, hē to symperasma lambanousa kai proslambanousa allēn protasin, kata to triton legomenon para tois Stōïkois thema perainetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ δὲ τοιαύτη ἀνάλυσις τοῦ λόγου, ἡ τὸ συμπέρασμα λαμβάνουσα καὶ προσλαμβάνουσα ἄλλην
+πρότασιν, κατὰ τὸ τρίτον λεγόμενον παρὰ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς θέμα περαίνεται</span></span>, the rule of which is, that when a third proposition can be drawn from the conclusion
+of an inference and a second proposition, that third proposition can be drawn also
+from the premisses of the inference and the second proposition. Both these passages
+appear to have escaped the notice of <i>Prantl</i> in his summing up, otherwise so accurate. Or else the <span class="trans" title="prōton, deuteron, triton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρίτον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="tetarton thema"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέταρτον θέμα</span></span> mentioned by <i>Galen</i>, Hipp. et Plat. ii. 3, vol. v. 224; <i>Alex.</i> <span class="corr" id="xd33e13841" title="Source: Annal.">Anal.</span> Pr. 53, b, would hardly suggest to him the various forms of the <span class="trans" title="anapodeiktoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναπόδεικτοι</span></span> instead of the formulæ for the resolution of composite conclusions. The expressions
+<span class="trans" title="dia dyo tropikōn, dia triōn tropikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὰ δύο τροπικῶν, διὰ τριῶν τροπικῶν</span></span>, and the title of a treatise of Chrysippus <span class="trans" title="peri tou dia triōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τοῦ διὰ τριῶν</span></span> (sc. <span class="trans" title="tropikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τροπικῶν</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="lēmmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λημμάτων</span></span> conf. p. 117, 3) in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 191; (<i>Galen</i>, l.c.; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 2), appear to refer to such composite inferences.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13743src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13898">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13898src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">134</a></span> Called <span class="trans" title="monolēmmatoi syllogismoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μονολήμματοι συλλογισμοί</span></span>. Such were <span class="trans" title="hēmera esti, phōs ara estin;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡμέρα ἔστι, φῶς ἄρα ἔστιν·</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="anapneis, zēs ara"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναπνεῖς, ζῇς ἄρα</span></span>. See <i>Alex.</i> Top. 6, 274; <span class="corr" id="xd33e13926" title="Source: Annal.">Anal.</span> Pr. 7, a, 8, a: <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 167; Math. viii. 443; <i>Apul.</i> Dogm. Plat. iii. 272, Oud.; <i>Prantl</i>, 477, 186.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13898src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e13937">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e13937src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">135</a></span> Compare the remarks of <i>Prantl</i>, 481, on <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 2; <i>Alex.</i> Anal. Pr. 53, b; <i>Galen</i>, l.c.; Ps. <i>Galen</i>, <span class="trans" title="Eisag. dial"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἰσαγ. διαλ</span></span>. 57. If Posidonius, according to the latter passage, calls analogical conclusions
+<span class="trans" title="synaktikous kata dynamin axiōmatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνακτικοὺς κατὰ δύναμιν ἀξιώματος</span></span>, and the Stoics also, according to Schol. in Hermog. Rhet. Gr. ed. Walz, vii. 6,
+764, spoke of a <span class="trans" title="kata dynamin tropikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ δύναμιν τροπικὸν</span></span>, we have already met with the same thing, p. 119, 1, where an analogical conclusion
+was included in the <span class="trans" title="amethodōs perainontes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀμεθόδως περαίνοντες</span></span>, which, by the addition of an <span class="trans" title="axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξίωμα</span></span>, can be changed into regular conclusions. In the doctrine of proof the <span class="trans" title="topos paradoxos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόπος παράδοξος</span></span> was also treated of, according to <i><span class="corr" id="xd33e14000" title="Source: Prokl.">Procl.</span></i> in Euclid, 103, being probably suggested by the ethical paradoxes of the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e13937src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14007">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14007src" title="Return to note 136 in text.">136</a></span> Conf. <i>Alex.</i> Anal. Pr. 95, a; <i>Galen</i>. See above p. 120, 3. According to Ps. <i>Galen</i>, l.c. p. 58, Chrysippus wrote these treatises on <span class="trans" title="Syllogistikai achrēstoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συλλογιστικαὶ ἄχρηστοι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14007src" title="Return to note 136 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14031">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14031src" title="Return to note 137 in text.">137</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 186, mentions fallacies due to Chrysippus, which can only have been raised for the
+purpose of being refuted.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14031src" title="Return to note 137 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14035">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14035src" title="Return to note 138 in text.">138</a></span> The list of his writings contains a number of treatises on fallacies, among them no
+less than five on the <span class="trans" title="pseudomenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψευδόμενος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14035src" title="Return to note 138 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14046">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14046src" title="Return to note 139 in text.">139</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 29, 93: <span lang="la">Placet enim Chrysippo, cum gradatim interrogetur, verbi causa, tria pauca sint, anne
+multa, aliquanto prius, quam ad multa perveniat, quiescere, id est, quod ab iis dicitur
+<span class="trans" title="hēsychazein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡσυχάζειν</span></span>.</span> The same remark is made by <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 416; Pyrrh. ii. 253. The same argument was employed against other fallacies
+(<i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 6, γ). With this <span class="trans" title="logos hēsychazōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος ἡσυχάζων</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 198), <i>Prantl<span>,</span></i> p. 489, connects <span class="trans" title="argos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀργὸς λόγος</span></span> (<i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 12, 28), regarding the one as the practical application of the other, but
+apparently without reason. The <span class="trans" title="argos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀργὸς λόγος</span></span>, by means of which the Stoic fatalism was reduced ad absurdum, could not of course
+commend itself to Chrysippus, nor is it attributed to him.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14046src" title="Return to note 139 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14099">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14099src" title="Return to note 140 in text.">140</a></span> <i>Prantl</i>, pp. 485–496.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14099src" title="Return to note 140 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14112">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14112src" title="Return to note 141 in text.">141</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. viii. 367: <span class="trans" title="all’ ou dei, phasi, pantōn apodeixin aitein, tina de kai ex hypotheseōs lambanein, epei ou dynēsetai probainein hēmin ho logos, ean mē dothē ti piston ex hautou tynchanein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλ’ οὐ δεῖ, φασὶ, πάντων ἀπόδειξιν αἰτεῖν, τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως λαμβάνειν, ἐπεὶ
+οὐ δυνήσεται προβαίνειν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, ἐὰν μὴ δοθῇ τι <span id="xd33e14119">πιστὸν</span> ἐξ αὑτοῦ τυγχάνειν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 375: <span class="trans" title="all’ eiōthasin hypotynchanontes legein hoti pistis esti tou errōsthai tēn hypothesin to alēthes heuriskesthai ekeino to tois ex hypotheseōs lēphtheisin epipheromenon; ei gar to toutois akolouthoun estin hygies, kakeina hois akolouthei alēthē kai anamphilekta kathestēken"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλ’ εἰώθασιν ὑποτυγχάνοντες λέγειν ὅτι πίστις ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐρρῶσθαι τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τὸ ἀληθὲς
+εὑρίσκεσθαι ἐκεῖνο τὸ τοῖς ἐξ ὑποθέσεως ληφθεῖσιν ἐπιφερόμενον· εἰ γὰρ τὸ τούτοις
+ἀκολουθοῦν ἐστιν ὑγιὲς, κἀκεῖνα οἷς ἀκολουθεῖ ἀληθῆ καὶ ἀναμφίλεκτα καθέστηκεν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14112src" title="Return to note 141 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch6" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e725">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER VI.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE STUDY OF NATURE. FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONS.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">Of far more importance in the Stoic system than the study of logic was the study of
+nature. This branch of learning, notwithstanding an appeal to older views, was treated
+by them with more independence than any other. The subjects which it included may
+be divided under four heads, viz.: 1. Fundamental positions; 2. The course, character,
+and government of the universe; 3. Irrational nature; and 4. Man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14153src" href="#xd33e14153" title="Go to note 1.">1</a>
+</p>
+<p>The present chapter will be devoted to considering the first of these groups—the fundamental
+positions held by the Stoics in regard to nature; among <span class="pageNum" id="pb126">[<a href="#pb126">126</a>]</span>which three specially deserve notice—their Materialism; their Dynamical view of the
+world; and their Pantheism.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.a">A. <i>Materialism.</i><br id="ch6.a.1">(1) <i>Meaning of the Stoic materialism.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Material or corporeal objects.</i><br>(α) <i>Reality belongs to material objects only.</i></span>
+Nothing appears more striking to a reader fresh from the study of Plato or Aristotle
+than the startling contrast to those writers presented by the Materialism of the Stoics.
+Whilst so far following Plato as to define a real thing<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14222src" href="#xd33e14222" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> to be anything possessing the capacity of acting or being acted upon, the Stoics
+nevertheless restricted the possession of this power to material objects. Hence followed
+their conclusion that nothing real exists except what is material; or, if they could
+not deny existence in some sense or other to what is incorporeal, they were fain to
+assert that essential and real Being only belongs to what is material, whereas of
+what is incorporeal only a certain modified kind of Being can be predicated.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14225src" href="#xd33e14225" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> Following <span class="pageNum" id="pb127">[<a href="#pb127">127</a>]</span>out this view, it was natural that they should regard many things as corporeal which
+are not generally considered such; for instance, the soul and virtue. Nevertheless,
+it would not be correct to say<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14327src" href="#xd33e14327" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> that the Stoics gave to the conception of matter or corporeity a more extended meaning
+than it usually bears. For they define a body to be that which has three dimensions,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14337src" href="#xd33e14337" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> and they also lay themselves out to prove how things generally considered to be incorporeal
+may be material in the strictest sense of the term. Thus besides upholding the corporeal
+character of all substances, including the human soul and God,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14365src" href="#xd33e14365" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> they likewise assert that properties or forms are material: all attributes by means
+of which one object is distinguished from another are produced by the existence <span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Theory of air-currents.</i></span> of certain air-currents,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14372src" href="#xd33e14372" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> which, emanating from the centre of an object, diffuse themselves to its extremities,
+and having reached the surface, return again to the centre to constitute the inward
+unity.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14401src" href="#xd33e14401" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb128">[<a href="#pb128">128</a>]</span>Nor was the theory of air-currents confined to bodily attributes. It was applied quite
+as much to mental attributes. Virtues and vices are said to be material,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14456src" href="#xd33e14456" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> and are deduced from the tension imparted to the soul by atmospheric substances therein
+subsisting.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14468src" href="#xd33e14468" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> For the same reason the Good is called a body, for according to the Stoics the Good
+is only a virtue, and <span class="pageNum" id="pb129">[<a href="#pb129">129</a>]</span>virtue is a definite condition of that material which constitutes the soul.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14542src" href="#xd33e14542" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> In the same sense also truth is said to be material, personal and not independent,
+truth being of course meant,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14549src" href="#xd33e14549" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> that is to say, knowledge, or a property of the soul that knows. And since according
+to the Stoics knowledge consists in the presence of certain material elements within
+the soul, truth in the sense of knowledge may be rightly called something material.
+Even emotions, impulses, notions and judgments, in so far as they are due to material
+causes—the air-currents pouring into the soul (<span class="trans" title="pneumata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεύματα</span></span>)—were regarded as material objects, and for the same reason not only artistic skill
+but individual actions were said to be corporeal.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14569src" href="#xd33e14569" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> Yet <span class="pageNum" id="pb130">[<a href="#pb130">130</a>]</span> <span class="marginnote">(γ) <i>The causes of actions material.</i></span> certain actions, such as walking and dancing, can hardly have been called bodies
+by the Stoics, any more than being wise was called a body;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14664src" href="#xd33e14664" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> but the objects which produced these actions, as indeed everything which makes itself
+felt, were considered to be corporeal. To us it appears most natural to refer these
+actions to the soul as their originating cause; but the Stoics, holding the theory
+of subject-matter and property, preferred to refer each such action to some special
+material as its cause, considering that an action is due to the presence of this material.
+The idealism of Plato was thus reproduced in a new form by the materialism of the
+Stoics. <span class="pageNum" id="pb131">[<a href="#pb131">131</a>]</span>Plato had said, a man is just and musical when he participates in the <i>idea</i> of justice and music; the Stoics said, a man is virtuous when the <i>material</i> producing virtue is in him; musical, when he has the <i>material</i> producing music.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(δ) <i>Wide extension of material.</i></span>
+Moreover, these materials produce the phenomena of life. Hence, not content with calling
+them bodies, the Stoics actually went so far as to call them living beings. It seems,
+however, strange to hear such things as day and night, and parts of the day and parts
+of the night, months and years, even days of the month and seasons of the year, called
+bodies;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14683src" href="#xd33e14683" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> but by these singularly unhappy expressions Chrysippus appears to have meant little
+more than that the realities corresponding to these names depend on certain material
+conditions: by summer is meant a certain state of the air when highly heated by the
+sun; by month the moon for a certain definite period during which it gives light to
+the earth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14695src" href="#xd33e14695" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> From all <span class="pageNum" id="pb132">[<a href="#pb132">132</a>]</span>these examples one thing is clear, how impossible the Stoics found it to assign reality
+to what is not material.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>The incorporeal or non-material.</i></span>
+In carrying out this theory, they could not, as might be expected, wholly succeed.
+Hence a Stoic could not deny that there are certain things which it is absurd to call
+material. Among such include empty space, place, time, and expression (<span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτόν</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14759src" href="#xd33e14759" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> Admitting these to be incorporeal, they still would not allow that they do not exist
+at all. This view belongs only to isolated members of the Stoic School, for which
+they must be held personally responsible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14769src" href="#xd33e14769" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> How they could harmonise belief in incorporeal things with their tenet that existence
+alone belongs to what is material is not on record.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.a.2">(2) <i>Causes which produced the Stoic materialism.</i></span>
+The question next before us is: What led the Stoics to this materialism? It might
+be supposed that their peculiar theory of knowledge based on sensation was the cause;
+but this theory did not preclude the possibility of advancing from the sensible to
+the super-sensible. It might quite as well be said that their theory of knowledge
+was a consequence of their materialism, and that they referred all knowledge to sensation,
+because they could allow no real being to anything which is not material. The probability
+therefore remains that their theory of knowledge <span class="pageNum" id="pb133">[<a href="#pb133">133</a>]</span>and their materialistic view of nature both indicate one and the same habit of mind,
+and that both are due to the action of the same causes.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>The Stoic materialism not an expansion of Peripatetic views.</i></span>
+Nor will it do to seek for these causes in the influence exercised by the Peripatetic
+or pre-Socratic philosophy on the Stoic School. At first sight, indeed, it might appear
+that the Stoics had borrowed from Heraclitus their materialism, together with their
+other views on nature; or else their materialism might seem to be an expansion of
+the metaphysical notions of Plato and Aristotle. For if Aristotle denied Plato’s distinction
+of form and matter to such an extent that he would hardly allow form to <i>exist</i> at all except in union with matter, might it not appear to others more logical to
+do away with the distinction between them in <i>thought</i>, thus reducing both to a property of matter? Were there not difficulties in the doctrine
+of a God external to the world, of a passionless Reason? Were there not even difficulties
+in the antithesis of form and matter, which Aristotle’s system was powerless to overcome?
+And had not Aristoxenus and Dicæarchus before the time of Zeno, and Strato immediately
+after his time, been led from the ground occupied by the Peripatetics to materialistic
+views? And yet we must pause before accepting this explanation. The founder of Stoicism
+appears, from what is recorded of his intellectual growth, to have been repelled by
+the Peripatetic School more than by any other; nor is there the least indication in
+the records of the Stoic teaching that that teaching resulted from a criticism of
+the Aristotelian and Platonic views of a <span class="pageNum" id="pb134">[<a href="#pb134">134</a>]</span>double origin of things. Far from it, the proposition that everything capable of acting
+or being acted upon must be material, appears with the Stoics as an independent axiom
+needing no further proof.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>The Stoic materialism not due to Heraclitus.</i></span>
+The supposed connection between the Stoics and Heraclitus, so far from explaining
+their materialistic views, already presumes their existence. Yet long before Zeno’s
+time the philosophy of Heraclitus as a living tradition had become extinct. No historical
+connection therefore, or relation of original dependence, can possibly exist between
+the two, but at most a subsequent perception of relationship can have directed Zeno
+to Heraclitus. Zeno’s own view of the world was not a consequence, but the cause,
+of his sympathy with Heraclitus. In short, neither the Peripatetics nor Heraclitus
+can have given the first impulse to Zeno’s materialism, although they may have helped
+in many ways to strengthen his views on that subject, when already formed.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Practical turn of the Stoic philosophy the cause.</i></span>
+The real causes for these views must therefore be sought elsewhere, and will be found
+in the central idea of the whole system of the Stoics—the practical character of their
+philosophy. Devoting themselves from the outset with all their energies to practical
+enquiries, the Stoics in their theory of nature occupied the ground of common views,
+which know of no real object excepting what is grossly sensible and corporeal. Their
+aim in speculation was to discover a firm basis for human actions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14806src" href="#xd33e14806" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> In action, however, men are brought into direct and experimental <span class="pageNum" id="pb135">[<a href="#pb135">135</a>]</span>contact with objects. The objects thus presented to the senses we are brought face
+to face with in naked reality, nor is an opportunity afforded for doubting their real
+being. Their reality is proved practically, inasmuch as it affects us and offers itself
+for the exercise of our powers. In every such exercise of power, both subject and
+object are always material. Even when an impression is conveyed to the soul of man,
+the direct instrument is something material—the voice or the gesture. In the region
+of experience there are no such things as non-material impressions. This was the ground
+occupied by the Stoics: a real thing is what either acts on us, or is acted upon by
+us. Such a thing is naturally material; and the Stoics with their practical ideas
+not being able to soar above that which is most obvious, declared that reality belongs
+only to the world of bodies.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.a.3">(3) <i>Consequences of the Stoic materialism.</i></span>
+Herefrom it would appear to follow that only individual perceptions are true, and
+that all general conceptions without exception must be false. If each notion (<span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span>) is incorporeal, and consequently unreal,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14825src" href="#xd33e14825" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> will not absence of reality in a much higher degree belong to the notion of what
+is general? <span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>Individual perceptions alone true; yet a higher truth assigned to general conceptions.</i></span> Individual notions refer directly to perceptions, i.e. to things incorporeal; nevertheless
+they indirectly refer to the things perceived, i.e. to what is material. But general
+notions do not even indirectly refer to anything corporeal; they are pure fabrications
+of the mind, which have nothing real as their object. <span class="pageNum" id="pb136">[<a href="#pb136">136</a>]</span>This the Stoics explicitly maintained.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14836src" href="#xd33e14836" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> It was therefore a gross inconsistency to attribute notwithstanding to these general
+conceptions, to which no real objects correspond, a higher truth and certainty than
+belongs to the perceptions of individual objects, but an inconsistency which the Stoic
+system made not the slightest attempt to overcome.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Theory of universal intermingling.</i></span>
+The materialism of the Stoics likewise led to some remarkable assertions in the province
+of natural science. If the attributes of things, the soul and even the powers of the
+soul, are all corporeal, the relation of attributes to their objects, of the soul
+to the body, of one body to another body, is that of <i>mutual intermingling</i>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14848src" href="#xd33e14848" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> Moreover, inasmuch as the essential attributes of any definite material belong to
+every part of that material, and the soul resides in every part of the body, without
+the soul’s being identical with the body, and without the attributes being identical
+with the material to which they belong, or with one another; it follows that one body
+may intermingle with another not only by occupying the vacant spaces in that body,
+but by interpenetrating all its parts, without, however, being fused into a homogeneous
+mass with it.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14851src" href="#xd33e14851" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> This view involves not only a denial of the impenetrability of matter, but it <span class="pageNum" id="pb137">[<a href="#pb137">137</a>]</span>further supposes that a smaller body when mingled with a greater body will extend
+over the whole of the latter. It is known as the Stoic theory of universal intermingling
+(<span class="trans" title="krasis di’ holōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων</span></span>), and is alike different from the ordinary view of mechanical mixture and from that
+of chemical mixture. It differs from the former in that every part of the one body
+is interpenetrated by every part of the other; from the latter, because the bodies
+after mixture still retain their own properties.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e14865src" href="#xd33e14865" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> This peculiar theory, which <span class="pageNum" id="pb138">[<a href="#pb138">138</a>]</span>is one of the much debated but distinctive features of the Stoic system,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15083src" href="#xd33e15083" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> cannot have been deduced from physical causes. On the contrary, the arguments by
+which Chrysippus supported it prove that it was ultimately the result of metaphysical
+considerations.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15095src" href="#xd33e15095" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb139">[<a href="#pb139">139</a>]</span>We have, moreover, no reason to doubt it as a fact, inasmuch as the materialistic
+undercurrent of the Stoic system affords the best explanation of it.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.b">B. <i>Dynamical theory of nature.</i><br id="ch6.b.1">(1) <i>Matter and force.</i></span>
+Although the stamp of materialism was sharply cut, and its application fearlessly
+made by the Stoics, they were yet far from holding the mechanical theory of nature,
+which appears to us to be a necessary consequence of strict materialism. The universe
+was explained on a dynamical theory; the notion of force was placed above the notion
+of matter. To matter, they held, alone belongs real existence; but the characteristic
+of real existence they sought in causation, in the capacity to act and to be acted
+upon.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15276src" href="#xd33e15276" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> This capacity belongs to matter only by virtue of certain inherent forces, which
+impart to it definite attributes. Let pure matter devoid of every attribute <span class="pageNum" id="pb140">[<a href="#pb140">140</a>]</span>be considered, the matter which underlies all definite materials, and out of which
+all things are made;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15281src" href="#xd33e15281" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> it will be found to be purely passive, a something subject to any change, able to
+assume any shape and quality, but taken by itself devoid of quality and unable to
+produce any change whatsoever.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15349src" href="#xd33e15349" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> This inert and powerless matter is first reduced into shape by means of attributes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15352src" href="#xd33e15352" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> all of which suppose tension in the air-currents which produce them, and consequently
+suppose a force producing tension.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15357src" href="#xd33e15357" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> Even the shape of bodies, and the place they occupy in space, is, according to the
+Stoics, something derivative, the consequence of tension; tension keeping the different
+particles apart in one or the other particular way.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15360src" href="#xd33e15360" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> Just as some modern physiologists construct nature by putting together a sum of forces
+of attraction and repulsion, so the Stoics refer nature to two forces, or, speaking
+more accurately, to a double kind of motion—expansion and condensation. Expansion
+works outwardly, condensation inwardly; condensation produces being, or what is synonymous
+with it, <span class="pageNum" id="pb141">[<a href="#pb141">141</a>]</span>matter; expansion gives rise to the attributes of things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15374src" href="#xd33e15374" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> Whilst, therefore, they assert that everything really existing must be material,
+they still distinguish in what is material two component parts—the part which is acted
+upon, and the part which acts, or in other words <i>matter</i> and <i>force</i>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15409src" href="#xd33e15409" title="Go to note 34.">34</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.b.2">(2) <i>The nature of force.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Force limited to the notion of efficient cause.</i></span>
+The Stoics, however, would not agree with Plato and Aristotle so far as to allow to
+formal and final causes a place side by side with this acting force or efficient cause.
+If in general anything may be called <span class="pageNum" id="pb142">[<a href="#pb142">142</a>]</span>a cause which serves to bring about a definite result<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15481src" href="#xd33e15481" title="Go to note 35.">35</a>—and various kinds of causes may be distinguished, according as they bring about this
+result directly or indirectly, by themselves alone or by the help of others<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15508src" href="#xd33e15508" title="Go to note 36.">36</a>—in the highest sense there can be, according to the Stoics, only one acting or efficient
+cause. The form is due to the workman, and is therefore only a part of the efficient
+cause. The type-form is only an instrument, which the workman employs in his work.
+The final cause or end-in-chief, in as far as it represents the workman’s intention,
+is only an occasional cause; in as far as it belongs to the work he is about, it is
+not a cause at all, but a result. There can be but one pure and unconditional cause,
+just as there <span class="pageNum" id="pb143">[<a href="#pb143">143</a>]</span>can be but one matter; and to this efficient cause everything that exists and everything
+that takes place must be referred.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15605src" href="#xd33e15605" title="Go to note 37.">37</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Character of this efficient cause.</i></span>
+In attempting to form a more accurate notion of this efficient cause, the first point
+which deserves attention is, that the Stoics believed every kind of action <span class="corr" id="xd33e15632" title="Source: utimately">ultimately</span> to proceed from one source. For how could the world be such a self-circumscribed
+unity, such an harmonious whole, unless it were governed by one and the same force?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15635src" href="#xd33e15635" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> Again, as everything which acts is material, the highest efficient cause must likewise
+be considered material; and since all qualities and forces are produced by vapour-like
+or fiery elements, can it be otherwise with the highest acting force?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15658src" href="#xd33e15658" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> Everywhere warmth is the cause of nourishment and growth, life and motion; all things
+have in themselves their own natural heat, and are preserved and kept in life by the
+heat of the sun. <span class="pageNum" id="pb144">[<a href="#pb144">144</a>]</span>What applies to parts of the world must apply to the world as a whole; hence heat
+or fire is the power to which the life and the existence of the world must be referred.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15663src" href="#xd33e15663" title="Go to note 40.">40</a>
+</p>
+<p>This power must be further defined to be the soul of the world, the highest reason,
+a kind, beneficent, and philanthropic being; in short, deity. The universal belief
+and the universal worship of God prove this, as the Stoics think, beyond a doubt;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15681src" href="#xd33e15681" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> still more accurate investigation confirms it. Matter can never move or fashion itself;
+nothing but a power inherent as the soul is in man can produce these results.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15698src" href="#xd33e15698" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> The world would not be the most perfect and complete thing it is unless Reason were
+inherent therein;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15702src" href="#xd33e15702" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb145">[<a href="#pb145">145</a>]</span>nor could it contain any beings possessed of consciousness, unless it were conscious
+itself.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15736src" href="#xd33e15736" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> It could not produce creatures endowed with a soul and reason, unless it were itself
+endowed with a soul and reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15743src" href="#xd33e15743" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> Actions so far surpassing man’s power could not exist, unless there were a cause
+for them in perfection equally surpassing man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15782src" href="#xd33e15782" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> The subordination of means to ends which governs the world in every part down to
+the minutest details would be inexplicable, unless the world owed its origin to a
+reasonable creator.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15791src" href="#xd33e15791" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> The graduated rank of beings would be <span class="pageNum" id="pb146">[<a href="#pb146">146</a>]</span>incomplete, unless there were a highest Being of all whose moral and intellectual
+perfection cannot be surpassed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15813src" href="#xd33e15813" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> Although this perfection belongs, in the first place, to the world as a whole,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15820src" href="#xd33e15820" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> nevertheless, as in everything consisting of many parts, so in the world the ruling
+part must be distinguished from other parts. It is <i>the</i> part from which all acting forces emanate and diffuse themselves over the world,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15826src" href="#xd33e15826" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> whether the seat of this efficient force be placed in the heaven, as was done by
+Zeno, Chrysippus, and the majority of the Stoics;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15851src" href="#xd33e15851" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> or in the sun, as by <span class="pageNum" id="pb147">[<a href="#pb147">147</a>]</span>Cleanthes;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e15934src" href="#xd33e15934" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> or in the centre of the world, as by Archedemus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16006src" href="#xd33e16006" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> This primary source of all life and motion, the highest Cause and the highest Reason,
+is God. God, therefore, and formless matter, are the <i>two</i> ultimate grounds of things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16039src" href="#xd33e16039" title="Go to note 54.">54</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb148">[<a href="#pb148">148</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.b.3">(3) <i>Deity.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>The conception of Deity more accurately defined.</i></span>
+The language used by the Stoics in reference to the Deity at one time gives greater
+prominence to the material, at another to the spiritual side of their conception of
+God. As a rule, both are united in expressions which only cease to be startling when
+taken in connection with Stoic views in general. God is spoken of as being Fire, Ether,
+Air, most commonly as being <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span> or Atmospheric-Current, pervading everything without exception, what is most base
+and ugly, as well as what is most beautiful.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16071src" href="#xd33e16071" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> He is further described<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16228src" href="#xd33e16228" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> as the Soul, the Mind, or the Reason of <span class="pageNum" id="pb149">[<a href="#pb149">149</a>]</span>the world; as a united Whole, containing in Himself the germs of all things; as the
+Connecting <span class="pageNum" id="pb150">[<a href="#pb150">150</a>]</span>element in all things; as Universal Law, Nature, Destiny, Providence; as a perfect,
+happy, ever kind and all-knowing Being; nor was it hard to show that no conception
+could be formed of God without these attributes.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16548src" href="#xd33e16548" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> Both kinds of expression are combined <span class="pageNum" id="pb151">[<a href="#pb151">151</a>]</span>in the assertion that God is the fiery Reason of the World, the Mind in Matter, the
+reasonable Air-Current, penetrating all things, and assuming various names according
+to the material in which He resides, the artistically moulding Fire, containing in
+Himself the germs of everything, and producing according to an unalterable law the
+world and all that is therein.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16562src" href="#xd33e16562" title="Go to note 58.">58</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb152">[<a href="#pb152">152</a>]</span></p>
+<p>As used in the Stoic system, these expressions generally mean one and the same thing.
+It is an unimportant difference whether the original cause is described as an Air-Current
+or as Ether, or as Heat or as Fire. It is an Air-Current, for Air-Currents are, as
+we have already seen, the causes of the properties of things, giving them shape and
+connection. It is also Fire, for by fire is only meant the warm air, or the fiery
+fluid, which is sometimes called Ether, at other times Fire, at other times Heat,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16773src" href="#xd33e16773" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> and which is expressly distinguished from ordinary fire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16820src" href="#xd33e16820" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> Moreover the terms, Soul of the world, Reason of the world, Nature, Universal Law,
+Providence, Destiny—all mean the same thing, the one primary force penetrating the
+whole world. Even the more abstract expressions, Law, Providence, Destiny, have with
+the Stoics an essentially gross meaning, implying not only the form according to which
+the world is arranged and governed, but also the essential substance of the world,
+as a power above everything particular <span class="pageNum" id="pb153">[<a href="#pb153">153</a>]</span>and individual.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16869src" href="#xd33e16869" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> If Nature must be distinguished from Destiny, and both of these notions again from
+Zeus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16884src" href="#xd33e16884" title="Go to note 62.">62</a> the distinction can only consist herein, that the three conceptions describe one
+original Being at different stages of His manifestation and growth. Viewed as the
+whole of the world it is called Zeus; viewed as the inner power in the world, Providence
+or Destiny;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16948src" href="#xd33e16948" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> and to prove this identity at the close of every period, so taught Chrysippus, Zeus
+goes back into Providence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16967src" href="#xd33e16967" title="Go to note 64.">64</a>
+</p>
+<p>Upon closer examination, even the difference between the materialistic and idealistic
+description of God vanishes. God, according to Stoic principles, can only be invested
+with reality when He has a <span class="pageNum" id="pb154">[<a href="#pb154">154</a>]</span>material form. Hence, when He is called the Soul, the Mind, or the Reason of the world,
+this language does not exclude, but rather presupposes, that these conceptions have
+bodies; and such bodies the Stoics thought to discern in that heated fluid which they
+at one time call the all-penetrating Breath, at another Ether, or primary Fire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e16979src" href="#xd33e16979" title="Go to note 65.">65</a> Each of these two determinations appeared to them indispensable,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17032src" href="#xd33e17032" title="Go to note 66.">66</a> and both became identical by assuming, as the Stoics did, that the infinite character
+of the divine Reason depends on the purity and lightness of the fiery material which
+composes it.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17035src" href="#xd33e17035" title="Go to note 67.">67</a> Seneca is therefore only following out the principles of his School when he pronounces
+it indifferent whether God is regarded as Destiny or as an all-pervading Breath.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17044src" href="#xd33e17044" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> Those who charge the <span class="pageNum" id="pb155">[<a href="#pb155">155</a>]</span>Stoics with inconsistency for calling God at one time Reason, at another Soul of the
+universe, at another Destiny, at another Fire, Ether, or even the Universe,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17061src" href="#xd33e17061" title="Go to note 69.">69</a> forget that they are attaching to these terms a meaning entirely different from that
+in which they were used by them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17068src" href="#xd33e17068" title="Go to note 70.">70</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>God original matter.</i></span>
+The more the two sides of the conception of God—the material and the ideal—are compared,
+the clearer it becomes that there is no difference between God and primary Matter.
+Both are one and the same substance, which, when regarded as the universal substratum,
+is known as undetermined matter; but when conceived of as acting force, is called
+all-pervading Ether, all-warming Fire, all-penetrating Air, Nature, Soul of the world,
+Reason of the world, Providence, Destiny, God. Matter and power, material and form,
+are not, as with Aristotle, things radically different, though united from all eternity.
+Far from it, the forming force resides in matter as such; it is in itself something
+material; it is identical with Ether, or Fire-element, or Breath. Hence the difference
+between efficient and material cause, between God and matter, resolves itself into
+the difference between Breath and other elements. This difference, too, is no original
+or ultimate difference. According <span class="pageNum" id="pb156">[<a href="#pb156">156</a>]</span>to the Stoic teaching, every particular element has in process of time developed out
+of primary fire or God, and to God it will return at the end of every period of the
+world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17084src" href="#xd33e17084" title="Go to note 71.">71</a> It is therefore only a derivative and passing difference with which we are here concerned.
+But taking the conception of Deity in its full meaning, it may be described as primary
+matter, as well as primary power. The sum total of all that is real is the divine
+Breath, moving forth from itself and returning to itself again.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17087src" href="#xd33e17087" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> Deity itself is primary fire, containing in itself in germ both God and matter;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17091src" href="#xd33e17091" title="Go to note 73.">73</a> the world in its original gaseous condition;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17095src" href="#xd33e17095" title="Go to note 74.">74</a> the Universal Substance changing into particular elements, and from them returning
+to itself again, which regarded in its real form as God includes at one time everything,
+at another only a part of real existence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17100src" href="#xd33e17100" title="Go to note 75.">75</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.c">C. <i>Pantheism.</i><br id="ch6.c.1">(1) <i>God identical with the world.</i></span>
+From what has been said it follows that the Stoics admitted no essential difference
+between God and the world. Their system was therefore strictly pantheistic. The world
+is the sum of all real existence, and all real existence is originally contained in
+deity, which is at once the matter of everything and the creative force which moulds
+this matter into particular <span class="pageNum" id="pb157">[<a href="#pb157">157</a>]</span>individual substances. We can, therefore, think of nothing which is not either immediately
+deity or a manifestation of deity. In point of essence, therefore, God and the world
+are the same; indeed, the two conceptions are declared by the Stoics to be absolutely
+identical.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17135src" href="#xd33e17135" title="Go to note 76.">76</a> If they have nevertheless to be distinguished, the distinction is only derivative
+and partial. The same universal Being is called God when it is regarded as a whole,
+World when it is regarded as progressive in one of the many forms <span class="pageNum" id="pb158">[<a href="#pb158">158</a>]</span>assumed in the course of its development. The difference, therefore, is tantamount
+to assigning a difference of meaning to the term world, according as it is used to
+express the whole of what exists, or only the derivative part.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17222src" href="#xd33e17222" title="Go to note 77.">77</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.c.2">(2) <i>Difference between God and the world only relative.</i></span>
+Still this distinction does not depend only upon our way of looking at things, but
+it is founded in the nature of things. Primary force, as such, primary fire, primary
+reason, constitute what is primarily God. Things into which this primary substance
+has changed itself are only divine in a derivative sense. Hence deity, which is ultimately
+identical with the whole of the world, may again be described as a part of the world,
+as the leading part (<span class="trans" title="to hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>), as the Soul of the world, as the all-pervading fiery Breath.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17320src" href="#xd33e17320" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb159">[<a href="#pb159">159</a>]</span>The distinction, however, is only a relative one. What is not immediately divine is
+nevertheless divine derivatively, as being a manifestation of primary fire; and if
+the soul of the world is not identical with the body, at least it pervades every part
+of that body.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17332src" href="#xd33e17332" title="Go to note 79.">79</a> It is a distinction, too, which applies only to a part of the conditions of the world.
+At the end of every period, the sum of all derivative things reverts to the unity
+of the divine Being, and the distinction between what is originally and what is derivatively
+divine, in other words, the distinction between God and the world, ceases.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch6.c.3">(3) <i>Boëthus dissents from the pantheism of the Stoics.</i></span>
+Boëthus alone dissented from the pantheism of the Stoics by making a real distinction
+between God and the world. Agreeing with the other Stoics in considering deity to
+be an ethereal Substance,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17348src" href="#xd33e17348" title="Go to note 80.">80</a> he would not allow that it resided, as the Soul, within the whole world, and, consequently,
+he refused to call the world a living being.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17360src" href="#xd33e17360" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> Instead of doing so, he placed the seat of deity in the highest of the heavenly spheres,
+the sphere of the fixed stars, and made it operate upon the world from this abode.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17385src" href="#xd33e17385" title="Go to note 82.">82</a> The opposite <span class="pageNum" id="pb160">[<a href="#pb160">160</a>]</span>view detracted, in his eyes, from the unchangeable and exalted character of the divine
+Being. How anxious he was to vindicate that character will also be seen in the way
+in which he differed from his fellow-Stoics in reference to the destruction of the
+world.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb161">[<a href="#pb161">161</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14153">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14153src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Natural Science was divided by the Stoics themselves (<i>Diog.</i> 132): (1) <span class="trans" title="eidikōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰδικῶς</span></span> into <span class="trans" title="topoi peri sōmatōn kai peri archōn kai stoicheiōn kai theōn kai peratōn kai topou kai kenou;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόποι περὶ σωμάτων καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων καὶ θεῶν καὶ περάτων καὶ τόπου καὶ
+κενοῦ·</span></span> (2) <span class="trans" title="genikōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γενικῶς</span></span> into three divisions, <span class="trans" title="peri kosmon, peri stoicheiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κόσμον, περὶ στοιχείων</span></span>, and the <span class="trans" title="aitiologikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰτιολογικός</span></span>. The first of these divisions covers ground which is partly peculiar to natural science
+and is partly shared by the mathematician (astronomy. Posidonius in <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 64, b, discusses at length the difference between astronomy and natural science);
+and the third, ground which is shared by both the physician and the mathematician.
+The precise allotment of the subject into these divisions is not known. At best, it
+would be a very uncomfortable division.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14153src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14222">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14222src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> Soph. 247, D.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14222src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14225">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14225src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com<span>.</span> Not. 30, 2, p. 1073: <span class="trans" title="onta gar mona ta sōmata kalousin, epeidē ontos to poiein ti kai paschein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄντα γὰρ μόνα τὰ σώματα καλοῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ ὄντος τὸ ποιεῖν τι καὶ πάσχειν</span></span>. Plac. i. 11, 4: <span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi panta ta aitia sōmatika; pneumata gar"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ πάντα τὰ αἴτια σωματικά· πνεύματα γάρ</span></span>. iv. 20: <span class="trans" title="hoi de Stōïkoi sōma tēn phōnēn; pan gar to drōmenon ē kai poioun sōma; hē de phōnē poiei kai dra ... eti pan to kinoun kai enochloun sōma estin ... eti pan to kinoumenon sōma estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ σῶμα τὴν φωνήν· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δρώμενον ἢ καὶ ποιοῦν σῶμα· ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ποιεῖ
+καὶ δρᾷ … ἔτι πᾶν τὸ κινοῦν καὶ ἐνοχλοῦν σῶμά ἐστιν … ἔτι πᾶν τὸ κινούμενον σῶμά ἐστιν</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 11, 39: <span lang="la">[Zeno] nullo modo arbitrabatur quidquam effici posse ab ea [natura] quæ expers esset
+corporis … nec vero aut quod efficeret aliquid aut quod efficeretur</span> (more accurately: <span lang="la">in quo efficeretur aliquid.</span> Conf. <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 577) <span lang="la">posse esse non corpus.</span> <i>Seneca</i>, see below p. 128, 1; 129, 1; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 336 (see p. 95, 2) and 338: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos aition einai legei di’ ho. kai to men aition on kai sōma, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος αἴτιον εἶναι λέγει δι’ ὅ. καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον ὂν καὶ σῶμα, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <span class="trans" title="Poseidōnios de houtōs. aition d’ esti tinos di’ ho ekeino, ē to archēgon poiēseōs, kai to men aition on kai sōma, hou de aition oute on oute sōma, alla symbebēkos kai katēgorēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ποσειδώνιος δὲ οὕτως. αἴτιον δ’ ἐστί τινος δι’ ὃ ἐκεῖνο, ἢ τὸ ἀρχηγὸν ποιήσεως, καὶ
+τὸ μὲν αἴτιον ὂν καὶ σῶμα, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον οὔτε ὂν οὔτε σῶμα, ἀλλὰ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ κατηγόρημα</span></span>. See p. 95, 1 and 2. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 56: According to Chrysippus, Diogenes (see <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 97, a), and others, the voice is material, <span class="trans" title="pan gar to poioun sōma esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ποιοῦν σῶμά ἐστι</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 150: <span class="trans" title="ousian de phasi tōn ontōn hapantōn tēn prōtēn hylēn, hōs kai Chrysippos en tē prōtē tōn physikōn kai Zēnōn; hylē de estin, ex hēs hotidēpotoun ginetai ... sōma de esti kat’ autous hē ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσίαν δέ φασι τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων τὴν πρώτην ὕλην, ὡς καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν
+φυσικῶν καὶ Ζήνων· ὕλη δέ ἐστιν, ἐξ ἧς ὁτιδηποτοῦν γίνεται … σῶμα δέ ἐστι κατ’ αὐτοὺς
+ἡ οὐσία</span></span>. <i>Hippolyt.</i> Refut. <span class="corr" id="xd33e14314" title="Source: Haer.">Hær.</span> i. 21: <span class="trans" title="sōmata de panta hypethento, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">σώματα δὲ πάντα ὑπέθεντο, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14225src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14327">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14327src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> As do <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 577, and <i>Schleiermacher</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. der Philos.</span> 129.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14327src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14337">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14337src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 135: <span class="trans" title="sōma d’ esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σῶμα δ’ ἐστὶ</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="phēsin Apollodōros en tē physikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φησὶν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="to trichē diastaton, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ τριχῇ διαστατὸν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14337src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14365">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14365src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> See p. 98. The corporeal nature of deity and the soul will be subsequently discussed.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14365src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14372">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14372src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> See p. 105. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 102, 7, remarks, in reference to the difference of <span class="trans" title="hēnōmena;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡνωμένα·</span></span> (see p. 103, 1): <span lang="la">nullum bonum putamus esse, quod ex distantibus constat: uno enim spiritu unum bonum
+contineri ac regi debet, unum esse unius boni principale.</span> Hence the objection raised in <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 50, 1, p. 1085: <span class="trans" title="tas poiotētas ousias kai sōmata poiousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς ποιότητας οὐσίας καὶ σώματα ποιοῦσιν</span></span>, and <i>Ibid.</i> 44, 4, the statement discussed on p. 101, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14372src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14401">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14401src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Philo</i>, Qu. De. S. Immut. p. 298, D (the same in the spurious treatise De Mundo, p. 1154,
+E): <span class="trans" title="hē de [hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ δὲ [ἕξις</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="poiotēs] esti pneuma antistrephon eph’ heauto. archetai men gar apo tōn mesōn epi ta perata teinesthai, psausan de akras epiphaneias anakamptei palin, achris an epi ton auton aphikētai topon, aph’ hou to prōton hōrmisthē. hexeōs ho synechēs houtos diaulos aphthartos, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης] ἐστὶ πνεῦμα ἀντιστρέφον ἐφ’ ἑαυτό. ἄρχεται μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν μέσων ἐπὶ τὰ πέρατα
+τείνεσθαι, ψαῦσαν δὲ ἄκρας ἐπιφανείας ἀνακάμπτει πάλιν, ἄχρις ἂν ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀφίκηται
+τόπον, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ πρῶτον ὡρμίσθη. ἕξεως ὁ συνεχὴς οὗτος δίαυλος ἄφθαρτος, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Qu. Mund. S. Incorr. 960, D [De Mundo, 1169, A]: <span class="trans" title="hē d’ [hexis] esti pneumatikos tonos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ δ’ [ἕξις] ἐστὶ <span class="pageNum" id="pb128n">[<a href="#pb128n">128</a>]</span>πνευματικὸς τόνος</span></span>. There can be no doubt that Philo is describing the Stoic teaching in these passages.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The same idea is also used to explain the connection between the soul and the body.
+The unity of the universe is proved by the fact that the Divine Spirit pervades it.
+Further particulars hereafter. Conf. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De Mixt. 142, a: <span class="trans" title="hēnōsthai men hypotithetai [Chrysippos] tēn sympasan ousian pneumatos tinos dia pasēs autēs diēkontos, hyph’ hou synagetai te kai symmenei kai sympathes estin hautō to pan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡνῶσθαι μὲν ὑποτίθεται [Χρύσιππος] τὴν σύμπασαν οὐσίαν πνεύματός τινος διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς
+διήκοντος, ὑφ’ οὗ συνάγεταί τε καὶ συμμένει καὶ σύμπαθές ἐστιν αὑτῷ τὸ πᾶν</span></span>. (That must be the reading, the next sentence containing <span class="trans" title="tōn de, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δὲ, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Conf. 143, b). <i>Alex.</i> 143, b, carefully denies the statement, that the all-penetrating Breath keeps things
+together.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14401src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14456">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14456src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 45. See p. 129, 3. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 117, 2: <span lang="la">Placet nostris, quod bonum est, esse corpus, quia quod bonum est, facit: quidquid
+facit corpus est … sapientiam bonum esse dicunt: sequitur, ut necesse sit illam corporalem
+quoque dicere.</span> Conf<span>.</span> p. 129, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14456src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14468">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14468src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> This is the conception of <span class="trans" title="tonos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόνος</span></span>, upon which the strength of the soul depends, as well as the strength of the body.
+<i>Cleanthes</i>, in Plut. Sto. Rep. 7, 4, p. 1034: <span class="trans" title="plēgē pyros ho tonos esti kan hikanos en tē psychē genētai pros to epitelein ta epiballonta ischys kaleitai kai kratos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πληγὴ πυρὸς ὁ τόνος ἐστὶ κἂν ἱκανὸς ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γένηται πρὸς τὸ ἐπιτελεῖν τὰ ἐπιβάλλοντα
+ἰσχὺς καλεῖται καὶ κράτος</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 110: <span class="trans" title="hōsper ischys tou sōmatos tonos estin hikanos en neurois, houtō kai hē tēs psychēs ischys tonos estin hikanos en tō krinein kai prattein kai mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὥσπερ ἰσχὺς τοῦ σώματος τόνος ἐστὶν ἱκανὸς ἐν νεύροις, οὕτω καὶ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἰσχὺς
+τόνος ἐστὶν ἱκανὸς ἐν τῷ κρίνειν καὶ πράττειν καὶ μή</span></span>. All properties may be classed under the same conception of tension. See p. 127,
+5 and <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 49, 2, p. 1085: <span class="trans" title="gēn men gar isasi kai hydōr oute hauta synechein oute hetera, pneumatikēs de metochē, kai pyrōdous dynameōs tēn henotēta diaphylattein; aera de kai pyr hautōn t’ einai di’ eutonian ektatika kai tois dysin ekeinois enkekramena tonon parechein kai to monimon kai ousiōdes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γῆν μὲν γὰρ ἴσασι καὶ ὕδωρ οὔτε αὑτὰ συνέχειν οὔτε ἕτερα, πνευματικῆς δὲ μετοχῇ, καὶ
+πυρώδους δυνάμεως τὴν ἑνότητα διαφυλάττειν· ἀέρα δὲ καὶ πῦρ αὑτῶν τ’ εἶναι δι’ εὐτονίαν
+ἐκτατικὰ καὶ τοῖς δυσὶν ἐκείνοις ἐγκεκραμένα τόνον παρέχειν καὶ τὸ μόνιμον καὶ οὐσιῶδες</span></span>. Ps. <i>Censorin.</i> Fragm. c. 1, p. 75, Jahn: <span lang="la">Initia rerum eadem elementa et principia dicuntur. Ea Stoici credunt tenorem atque
+materiam; tenorem, qui rarescente materia a medio tendat ad summum, eadem concrescente
+rursus a summo referatur ad medium.</span> Here tenor or <span class="trans" title="tonos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόνος</span></span> is made equivalent to <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span>. <i>Seneca</i>, however, Nat. Qu. ii. 8, conf. vi. 21, endeavours to show that <i lang="la">intentio</i> belongs to <i lang="la">spiritus</i> more than to any other body.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14468src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14542">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14542src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 106, 4: <span lang="la">Bonum facit, prodest enim: quod facit corpus est: bonum agitat animum et quodammodo
+format et continet, quæ propria sunt corporis. Quæ corporis bona sunt, corpora sunt:
+ergo et quæ animi sunt. Nam et hoc corpus. Bonum hominis necesse est corpus sit, cum
+ipse sit corporalis.… Si adfectus corpora sunt et morbi animorum et avaritia, crudelitas,
+indurata vitia … ergo et malitia et species ejus omnes … ergo et bona.</span> It is then specially remarked that the Good, i.e. virtue, works upon the body, governing
+it and representing itself therein. Conf. p. 128, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14542src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14549">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14549src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 38: <span class="trans" title="tēn de alētheian oiontai tines, kai malista hoi apo tēs stoas, diapherein talēthous kata treis tropous ... ousia men par’ hoson hē men alētheia sōma esti to de alēthes asōmaton hypērche. kai eikotōs, phasi. touti men gar axiōma esti, to de axiōma lekton, to de lekton asōmaton; anapalin de hē alētheia sōma estin par’ hoson epistēmē pantōn alēthōn apophantikē dokei tynchanein; pasa de epistēmē pōs echon estin hēgemonikon ... to de hēgemonikon sōma kata toutous hypērche"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν δὲ ἀλήθειαν οἴονταί τινες, καὶ μάλιστα οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς, διαφέρειν τἀληθοῦς κατὰ
+τρεῖς τρόπους … οὐσία μὲν παρ’ ὅσον ἡ μὲν ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστι τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἀσώματον
+ὑπῆρχε. καὶ εἰκότως, φασί. τουτὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀξίωμά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἀξίωμα λεκτὸν, τὸ δὲ λεκτὸν
+ἀσώματον· ἀνάπαλιν δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστιν παρ’ ὅσον ἐπιστήμη πάντων ἀληθῶν ἀποφαντικὴ
+δοκεῖ τυγχάνειν· πᾶσα δὲ ἐπιστήμη πὼς ἔχον ἐστὶν ἡγεμονικὸν … τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν σῶμα
+κατὰ τούτους ὑπῆρχε</span></span>. Similarly Pyrrh. ii. 81. See p. 92, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14549src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14569">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14569src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 45, 2, p. 1084: <span class="trans" title="atopon gar eu mala, tas aretas kai tas kakias, pros de tautais tas technas kai tas mnēmas pasas, eti de phantasias kai pathē kai hormas kai synkatatheseis sōmata poioumenous en mēdeni phanai keisthai, k.t.l. ... hoi d’ ou monon tas aretas kai tas kakias zōa einai legousin, oude ta pathē monon, orgas kai phthonous kai lypas kai epichairekakias, oude katalēpseis kai phantasias kai agnoias oude tas technas zōa, tēn skytotomikēn, tēn chalkotypikēn; alla pros toutois kai tas energeias sōmata kai zōa poiousi, ton peripaton zōon, tēn orchēsin, tēn hypothesin, tēn prosagoreusin, tēn loidorian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄτοπον γὰρ εὖ μάλα, τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς κακίας, πρὸς δὲ ταύταις τὰς τέχνας καὶ τὰς
+μνήμας πάσας, ἔτι δὲ φαντασίας καὶ πάθη καὶ ὁρμὰς καὶ συγκαταθέσεις σώματα ποιουμένους
+ἐν μηδενὶ φάναι κεῖσθαι, κ.τ.λ. … οἱ δ’ οὐ μόνον τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς κακίας ζῷα εἶναι
+λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ τὰ πάθη μόνον, ὀργὰς καὶ φθόνους καὶ λύπας καὶ ἐπιχαιρεκακίας, οὐδὲ
+καταλήψεις καὶ φαντασίας καὶ ἀγνοίας οὐδὲ τὰς τέχνας ζῷα, τὴν σκυτοτομικὴν, τὴν <span id="xd33e14576">χαλκοτυπικήν</span>· ἀλλὰ πρὸς <span class="pageNum" id="pb130n">[<a href="#pb130n">130</a>]</span>τούτοις καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας σώματα καὶ ζῷα ποιοῦσι, τὸν περίπατον ζῷον, τὴν ὄρχησιν,
+τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, τὴν προσαγόρευσιν, τὴν λοιδορίαν</span></span>. Plutarch is here speaking as an opponent. Seneca, however (Ep. 106, 5). observes:
+<span lang="la">Non puto te dubitaturum, an adfectus corpora sint … tanquam ira, amor, tristitia:
+si dubitas, vide an vultum nobis mutent:… Quid ergo? tam manifestas corpori notas
+credis imprimi, nisi a corpore?</span> See p. 129, 1; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 114: The Stoics consider virtues to be substantially identical (<span class="trans" title="tas autas kath’ hypostasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς αὐτὰς καθ’ ὑπόστασιν</span></span>) with the leading part of the soul (<span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν</span></span>), and consequently to be, like it, <span class="trans" title="sōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σώματα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="zōa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῷα</span></span>. <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 113, 1, speaks still more plainly: <span lang="la">Desideras tibi scribi a me, quid sentiam de hac quæstione jactata apud nostros: an
+justitia, an fortitudo, prudentia ceteræque virtutes animalia sint.… Me in alia sententia
+profiteor esse.… Quæ sint ergo quæ antiquos moverint, dicam. Animum constat animal
+esse.… Virtus autem nihil aliud est, quam animus quodammodo se habens: ergo animal
+est. Deinde: virtus agit aliquid: agi autem nihil sine impetu (<span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span>) potest.</span> If it is urged: Each individual will thus consist of an innumerable number of living
+beings, the reply is that these <span lang="la">animalia</span> are only parts of one animal, the soul; they are accordingly not many (<span lang="la">multa</span>), but one and the same viewed from different sides: <span lang="la">idem est animus et justus et prudens et fortis ad singulas virtutes quodammodo se
+habens.</span> From the same letter, 23, we gather that Cleanthes explained <span lang="la">ambulatio</span> as <span lang="la">spiritus a principali usque in pedes permissus</span>, Chrysippus as <span lang="la">principale</span> itself.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14569src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14664">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14664src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> See p. 92, 2, the extract from <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 117.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14664src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14683">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14683src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 45, 5, p. 1084: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippou mnēmoneuontes en tō prōtō tōn physikōn zētēmatōn houtō prosagontos; ouch hē men nyx sōma estin, hē d’ hespera kai ho orthos kai to meson tēs nyktos sōmata ouk estin; oude hē men hēmera sōma estin, ouchi de kai hē noumēnia sōma, kai hē dekatē, kai pentekaidekatē kai hē triakas kai ho mēn sōma esti kai to theros kai to phthinopōron kai ho eniautos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρυσίππου μνημονεύοντες ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν φυσικῶν ζητημάτων οὕτω προσάγοντος· οὐχ ἡ
+μὲν νὺξ σῶμά ἐστιν, ἡ δ’ ἑσπέρα καὶ ὁ ὀρθὸς καὶ τὸ μέσον τῆς νυκτὸς σώματα οὐκ ἔστιν·
+οὐδὲ ἡ μὲν ἡμέρα σῶμά ἐστιν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἡ νουμηνία σῶμα, καὶ ἡ δεκάτη, καὶ πεντεκαιδεκάτη
+καὶ ἡ τριακὰς καὶ ὁ μὴν σῶμά ἐστι καὶ τὸ θέρος καὶ τὸ φθινόπωρον καὶ ὁ ἐνιαυτός</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14683src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14695">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14695src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 151: <span class="trans" title="cheimōna men einai phasi ton hyper gēs aera katepsygmenon dia tēn tou hēliou prosō aphodon, ear de tēn eukrasian tou aeros kata tēn pros hēmas poreian, theros de ton hyper gēs aera katathalpomenon, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">χειμῶνα μὲν εἶναί φασι τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἄερα κατεψυγμένον διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πρόσω ἄφοδον,
+ἔαρ δὲ τὴν εὐκρασίαν τοῦ ἀέρος κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς πορείαν, θέρος δὲ τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἀέρα
+καταθαλπόμενον, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 260: Chrysippus defines <span class="trans" title="ear etous hōran kekramenēn ek cheimōnas apolēgontos kai therous archomenou ... theros de hōran tēn malist’ aph’ hēliou diakekaumenēn; metopōron de hōran etous tēn meta theros men pro cheimōnos de kekramenēn; cheimōna de hōran etous tēn malista katepsygmenēn, ē tēn tō peri gēn aeri katepsygmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔαρ ἔτους ὥραν κεκραμένην ἐκ χειμῶνας ἀπολήγοντος καὶ θέρους ἀρχομένου … θέρος δὲ
+ὥραν τὴν μάλιστ’ ἀφ’ ἡλίου διακεκαυμένην· μετόπωρον δὲ ὥραν ἔτους τὴν μετὰ θέρος μὲν
+πρὸ χειμῶνος δὲ κεκραμένην· χειμῶνα δὲ ὥραν ἔτους τὴν μάλιστα κατεψυγμένην, ἢ τὴν
+τῷ περὶ γῆν ἀέρι κατεψυγμένην</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i>: According to Empedocles and the Stoics, the cause of winter is the preponderance
+of air, the cause of summer the preponderance of fire. <i>Ibid.</i> 556: <span class="trans" title="meis d’ esti, phēsi [Chrysippos] to phainomenon tēs selēnēs pros hēmas, ē selēnē meros echousa phainomenon pros hēmas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μεὶς δ’ ἐστὶ, φησὶ [Χρύσιππος] τὸ φαινόμενον τῆς σελήνης πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἢ σελήνη μέρος
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb132n">[<a href="#pb132n">132</a>]</span>ἔχουσα φαινόμενον πρὸς ἡμᾶς</span></span>. <i>Cleomedes</i>, Meteora, 112, distinguishes four meanings of <span class="trans" title="mēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μήν</span></span>. In the two first it means something material; in the others, as a definition of
+time, something immaterial.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14695src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14759">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14759src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 140; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 392; <i>Sext.</i> Math. x<span>.</span> 218 and 237; viii. 11; vii. 38; Pyrrh. ii. 81; iii. 52. See p. 92, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14759src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14769">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14769src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> See p. 94, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14769src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14806">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14806src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> See p. 66, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14806src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14825">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14825src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> See p. 93; 132, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14825src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14836">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14836src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> See p. 84, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14836src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14848">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14848src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> See p. 105, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14848src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14851">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14851src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> Let a piece of red-hot iron be taken, every part of which is heavy, hard, hot, &amp;c.
+Not one of these attributes can be confounded with another, or with the iron itself,
+but each one runs through the whole iron. Now, if each attribute is due to the presence
+of some material producing it, there is no avoiding the conclusion that there must
+exist in the iron, and in each part of it, as many various materials as there are
+attributes, without any one of them losing its own identity.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14851src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e14865">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e14865src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 151: <span class="trans" title="kai tas kraseis de diolou ginesthai, katha phēsin ho Chrysippos en tē tritē tōn physikōn, kai mē kata perigraphēn kai parathesin; kai gar eis pelagos oligos oinos blētheis epi poson antiparektathēsetai eita symphtharēsetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὰς κράσεις δὲ διόλου γίνεσθαι, καθά φησιν ὁ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν φυσικῶν,
+καὶ μὴ κατὰ περιγραφὴν καὶ παράθεσιν· καὶ γὰρ εἰς πέλαγος ὀλίγος οἶνος βληθεὶς ἐπὶ
+πόσον ἀντιπαρεκταθήσεται εἶτα συμφθαρήσεται</span></span>. According to <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 374, the Stoics more accurately distinguish <span class="trans" title="mixis, krasis, parathesis, synchysis. Parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μῖξις, κρᾶσις, παράθεσις, σύγχυσις. Παράθεσις</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="sōmatōn synaphē kata tas epiphaneias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σωμάτων συναφὴ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιφανείας</span></span>; for instance, the combination of various kinds of grain. <span class="trans" title="Mixis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Μῖξις</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="dyo ē kai pleionōn sōmatōn antiparektasis di’ holōn, hypomenousōn tōn symphyōn peri auta poiotētōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων σωμάτων ἀντιπαρέκτασις δι’ ὅλων, ὑπομενουσῶν τῶν συμφυῶν περὶ αὐτὰ
+ποιοτήτων</span></span>; for instance, the union of fire and iron, of soul and body. Such a union is called
+<span class="trans" title="mixis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μῖξις</span></span> in the case of solid bodies, <span class="trans" title="krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις</span></span> in the case of fluids. <span class="trans" title="Synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σύγχυσις</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="dyo ē kai pleionōn poiotētōn peri ta sōmata metabolē eis heteras diapherousēs toutōn poiotētos genesin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων ποιοτήτων περὶ τὰ σώματα μεταβολὴ εἰς ἑτέρας διαφερούσης τούτων
+ποιότητος γένεσιν</span></span>, as in the making up salves and medicines. Very much in the same way according to
+<i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De Mixt. 142, a, Chrysippus distinguished three kinds of <span class="trans" title="mixis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μῖξις</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παράθεσις</span></span>, or union of substances, in which each retains its <span class="trans" title="oikeia ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἰκεία οὐσία</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="poiotēs kata tēn perigraphēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης κατὰ τὴν περιγραφήν</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύγχυσις</span></span>, in which both substances, as well as attributes, are destroyed (<span class="trans" title="phtheiresthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φθείρεσθαι</span></span>), giving rise to a third body; <span class="trans" title="krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="dyo ē kai pleionōn tinōn sōmatōn holōn di’ holōn antiparektasin allēlois houtōs, hōste sōzein hekaston autōn en tē mixei tē toiautē tēn te oikeian ousian kai tas en autē poiotētas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων τινων σωμάτων ὅλων δι’ ὅλων ἀντιπαρέκτασιν ἀλλήλοις οὕτως, ὥστε
+σώζειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ μίξει τῇ τοιαύτῃ τήν τε οἰκείαν οὐσίαν καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ
+ποιότητας</span></span>. Materials thus united can be again separated, but yet are they so united: <span class="trans" title="hōs mēden morion en autois einai mē metechon pantōn tōn en tō migmati"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς μηδὲν μόριον ἐν αὐτοῖς εἶναι μὴ μετέχον πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ μίγματι</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">For such a union to be possible, (1) it must be possible for one body to penetrate
+every part of another, without being fused into a homogeneous mass. Hence the expression
+<span class="trans" title="sōma dia sōmatos antiparēkein, sōma sōmatos einai topon kai sōma chōrein dia sōmatos kenon mēdeterou periechontos alla tou plērous eis to plēres endyomenou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σῶμα διὰ σώματος ἀντιπαρήκειν, σῶμα σώματος εἶναι τόπον καὶ σῶμα χωρεῖν διὰ σώματος
+κένον μηδετέρου περιέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ πλήρους εἰς τὸ πλῆρες ἐνδυομένου</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 37, 2, p. 1077; <i>Alex.</i> 142, b; <i>Themist.</i> Phys. 37; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 123, b; <i>Hippolyt.</i> Refut. Hær. <span class="pageNum" id="pb138n">[<a href="#pb138n">138</a>]</span>i. 21); (2) it must be possible for the smaller body to extend over the whole size
+of the greater. This is affirmed by Chrysippus: <span class="trans" title="ouden apechein phamenos, oinou stalagmon hena kerasai tēn thalattan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲν ἀπέχειν φάμενος, οἴνου σταλαγμὸν ἕνα κεράσαι τὴν θάλατταν</span></span>, or even <span class="trans" title="eis holon ton kosmon diatenein tē krasei ton stalagmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον διατενεῖν τῇ κράσει τὸν σταλαγμόν</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> 10; <i>Alex.</i> 142, b; <i>Diog.</i>). The greater body is said to help the smaller, by giving to it an extension of which
+it would not otherwise be capable. Nevertheless, the bodies so united need not necessarily
+occupy more space than was previously occupied by one of them (<i>Alex.</i> 142, b; <i>Plotin.</i> Enn. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, C. Fic. 860, 14, Cr.). The absurdities which this theory involves
+were already exposed by Arcesilaus (<i>Plut.</i> 7), and in detail by Alexander, Plutarch, Sextus, and Plotinus, by the latter in
+a whole treatise (Enn. ii. 7) <span class="trans" title="peri tēs di’ holōn krateōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῆς δι’ ὅλων κράτεως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e14865src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15083">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15083src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <span class="trans" title="Polla men gar legetai peri kraseōs kai schedon anēnytoi peri tou prokeimenou skemmatos eisi para tois Dogmatikois staseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ λέγεται περὶ κράσεως καὶ σχεδὸν ἀνήνυτοι περὶ τοῦ προκειμένου σκέμματός
+εἰσι παρὰ τοῖς Δογματικοῖς στάσεις</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 56. See previous note.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15083src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15095">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15095src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> According to <i>Alex.</i> 142, a, the following arguments were used by Chrysippus:—(1) The argument from <span class="trans" title="koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span>—our notion of <span class="trans" title="krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις</span></span> is different from that of <span class="trans" title="synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύγχυσις</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παράθεσις</span></span>. (2) Many bodies are capable of extension, whilst retaining their own properties;
+frankincense, for instance, when burnt, and gold. (3) The soul penetrates every part
+of the body, without losing its properties. So <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> does in plants, and <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span> does in all which it connects. (4) The same holds good of fire in red-hot metal,
+of fire and air in water and earth, of poisons and perfumes in things with which they
+are mixed, and of light, which penetrates air.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The first of these arguments clearly does not embody the real reason in the mind of
+Chrysippus; it might, with equal justice, have been used to prove anything else. Just
+as little does the second; for the phenomena to which it refers would be equally well
+explained on the theory of simple intermingling (<span class="trans" title="parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παράθεσις</span></span>) or complete (<span class="trans" title="synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύγχυσις</span></span>) mixing. Nor does the fourth argument, taken independently of the theory of the corporeal
+nature of properties, necessarily lead to the idea of <span class="trans" title="krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις</span></span> as distinct from <span class="trans" title="parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παράθεσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύγχυσις</span></span>. For heat, according to the Peripatetic view, might be regarded as a property of
+what is hot, light as a definite property of a transparent body (conf. <i>Alex.</i> 143, a), <span class="trans" title="parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παράθεσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύγχυσις</span></span> sufficing for other <span class="pageNum" id="pb139n">[<a href="#pb139n">139</a>]</span>things. Even the fact, greatly insisted upon by the Stoics, that things so mixed can
+be again separated into their component materials (<i>Alex.</i> 143, a; <i>Stob.</i> i. 378), was not conclusive. As long as the knowledge of the actual composition depended
+on isolated cases and crude experiments, like the one named by Stobæus (into a mixture
+of wine and water, put an oiled sponge, it will absorb the water and not the wine),
+and as long as the substantial change of elements, advocated by the Stoics as well
+as by the Peripatetics, was clung to, it was no difficult matter for an opponent to
+reply. On the other hand, the relation of the soul to the body, of property to subject-matter,
+of <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> to <span class="trans" title="phyton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυτὸν</span></span>, of God to the world, can hardly be otherwise explained than it was by Chrysippus,
+if once material existence be assigned to the soul, to <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span>, to <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span>, and to God. We have, therefore, here the real ground on which this theory of <span class="trans" title="krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις</span></span> was based; and Simplicius rightly deduces it herefrom (Phys. 123, b): <span class="trans" title="to de sōma dia sōmatos chōrein hoi men archaioi hōs enarges atopon elambanon, hoi de apo tēs stoas hysteron prosēkanto hōs akolouthoun tais sphōn autōn hypothesesin ... sōmata gar legein panta dokountes, kai tas poiotētas kai tēn psychēn, kai dia pantos horōntes tou sōmatos kai tēn psychēn chōrousan kai tas poiotētas en tais krasesi, synechōroun sōma dia sōmatos chōrein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ σῶμα διὰ σώματος χωρεῖν οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι ὡς ἐναργὲς ἄτοπον ἐλάμβανον, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ
+τῆς στοᾶς ὕστερον προσήκαντο ὡς ἀκολουθοῦν ταῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν ὑποθέσεσιν … σώματα γὰρ
+λέγειν πάντα δοκοῦντες, καὶ τὰς ποιότητας καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ διὰ παντὸς ὁρῶντες τοῦ
+σώματος καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν χωροῦσαν καὶ τὰς ποιότητας ἐν ταῖς κράσεσι, συνεχώρουν σῶμα
+διὰ σώματος χωρεῖν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15095src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15276">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15276src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> See p. 95, 2; 126, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15276src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15281">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15281src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> On <span class="trans" title="apoios hylē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄποιος ὕλη</span></span>, as the universal <span class="trans" title="hypokeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποκείμενον</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="ousia koinē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσία κοινὴ</span></span>, see p. 100. <i>Sext.</i> Math. x. 312: <span class="trans" title="ex apoiou men oun kai henos sōmatos tēn tōn holōn hypestēsanto genesin hoi Stōïkoi. archē gar tōn ontōn kat’ autous estin hē apoios hylē kai di’ holōn treptē, metaballousēs te tautēs ginetai ta tessara stoicheia, pyr, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξ ἀποίου μὲν οὖν καὶ ἑνὸς σώματος τὴν τῶν ὅλων ὑπεστήσαντο γένεσιν οἱ Στωϊκοί. ἀρχὴ
+γὰρ τῶν ὄντων κατ’ αὐτούς ἐστιν ἡ ἄποιος ὕλη καὶ δι’ ὅλων τρεπτὴ, μεταβαλλούσης τε
+ταύτης γίνεται τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, πῦρ, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 48, 2, p. 1085: <span class="trans" title="hē hylē kath’ hautēn alogos ousa kai apoios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ ὕλη καθ’ αὑτὴν ἄλογος οὖσα καὶ ἄποιος</span></span>. <i>M. Aurel.</i> xii. 30: <span class="trans" title="mia ousia koinē, kan dieirgētai idiōs poiois sōmati myriois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μία οὐσία κοινὴ, κἂν διείργηται ἰδίως ποιοῖς σώματι μυρίοις</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 137: <span class="trans" title="ta dē tettara stoicheia einai homou tēn apoion ousian tēn hylēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ δὴ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα εἶναι ὁμοῦ τὴν ἄποιον οὐσίαν τὴν ὕλην</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15281src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15349">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15349src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> See p. 141, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15349src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15352">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15352src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 43. See p. 105, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15352src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15357">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15357src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> See p. 105, 1 and 2; 127, 5; 128, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15357src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15360">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15360src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 67, ε (Schol. 74, a, 10): <span class="trans" title="to toinyn schēma hoi Stōïkoi tēn tasin parechesthai legousin, hōsper tēn metaxy tōn sēmeiōn diastasin. dio kai eutheian horizontai grammēn tēn eis akron tetamenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ τοίνυν σχῆμα οἱ Στωϊκοὶ τὴν τάσιν παρέχεσθαι λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ τὴν μεταξὺ τῶν σημείων
+διάστασιν. διὸ καὶ εὐθεῖαν ὁρίζονται γραμμὴν τὴν εἰς ἄκρον τεταμένην</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15360src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15374">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15374src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 68, ε: <span class="trans" title="hoi de Stōïkoi dynamin, ē mallon kinēsin tēn manōtikēn kai pyknōtikēn tithentai, tēn men epi ta esō, tēn de epi ta exō; kai tēn men tou einai, tēn de tou poion einai nomizousin aitian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ δύναμιν, ἢ μᾶλλον κίνησιν τὴν μανωτικὴν καὶ πυκνωτικὴν τίθενται, τὴν
+μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔσω, τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω· καὶ τὴν μὲν τοῦ εἶναι, τὴν δὲ τοῦ ποιὸν εἶναι νομίζουσιν
+αἰτίαν</span></span>. <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. c. 2, p. 29: <span class="trans" title="ei de legoien, kathaper hoi Stōïkoi, tonikēn tina einai kinēsin peri ta sōmata, eis to esō hama kai eis to exō kinoumenēn, kai tēn men eis to exō megethōn kai poiotētōn apotelestikēn einai, tēn de eis to esō henōseōs kai ousias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δὲ λέγοιεν, καθάπερ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, τονικήν τινα εἶναι κίνησιν περὶ τὰ σώματα, εἰς
+τὸ ἔσω ἅμα καὶ εἰς τὸ ἔξω κινουμένην, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἰς τὸ ἔξω μεγεθῶν καὶ ποιότητων
+ἀποτελεστικὴν εἶναι, τὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ ἔσω ἑνώσεως καὶ οὐσίας</span></span>. This remark is confirmed by what is quoted, p. 128, 2 from Censorinus, and by the
+language of Plutarch (Def. Orac. c. 28. Schl. p. 425), in reference to Chrysippus:
+<span class="trans" title="pollakis eirēkōs, hoti tais eis to hautēs meson hē ousia kai tais apo tou hautēs mesou dioikeitai kai synechetai kinēsesi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολλάκις εἰρηκὼς, ὅτι ταῖς εἰς τὸ αὑτῆς μέσον ἡ οὐσία καὶ ταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ αὑτῆς μέσου
+διοικεῖται καὶ συνέχεται κινήσεσι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15374src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15409">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15409src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 134: <span class="trans" title="dokei d’ autois archas einai tōn holōn dyo, to poioun kai to paschon. to men oun paschon einai tēn apoion ousian tēn hylēn, to de poioun ton en autē logon ton theon. touton gar onta aïdion dia pasēs autēs dēmiourgein hekasta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δοκεῖ δ’ αὐτοῖς ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων δύο, τὸ ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον. τὸ μὲν οὖν πάσχον
+εἶναι τὴν ἄποιον οὐσίαν τὴν ὕλην, τὸ δὲ ποιοῦν τὸν ἐν αὐτῇ λόγον τὸν θεόν. τοῦτον
+γὰρ ὄντα ἀΐδιον διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς δημιουργεῖν ἕκαστα</span></span>. Such is the teaching of Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Archedemus, and Posidonius.
+<i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 11: <span class="trans" title="hoi apo tēs stoas dyo legontes archas, theon kai apoion hylēn, ton men theon poiein hypeilēphasi, tēn de hylēn paschein te kai trepesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς δύο λέγοντες ἀρχὰς, θεὸν καὶ ἄποιον ὕλην, τὸν μὲν θεὸν ποιεῖν ὑπειλήφασι,
+τὴν δὲ ὕλην πάσχειν τε καὶ τρέπεσθαι</span></span>. Similarly <i>Alex. Aph.</i> De Mixt. 144; <i>Achill. Tat.</i> Isag. c. 3, 124, <span class="asc">E</span>; <i>Plut.</i> Pl. Phil. i. 3, 39; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 306; 322, according to the passage quoted, p. 101, 2, from Zeno respecting
+<span class="trans" title="hylē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕλη</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="dia tautēs de diathein ton tou pantos logon hon enioi heimarmenēn kalousin, hoionper en tē gonē to sperma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὰ ταύτης δὲ διαθεῖν τὸν τοῦ παντὸς λόγον ὃν ἔνιοι εἱμαρμένην καλοῦσιν, οἷόνπερ ἐν
+τῇ γόνῃ τὸ σπέρμα</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 65, 2: <span lang="la">Dicunt, ut scis, Stoici nostri, duo esse in rerum natura, ex quibus omnia fiant: causam
+et materiam. Materia jacet iners, res ad omnia parata, cessatura si nemo moveat. Causa
+autem, i.e. ratio, materiam format et quocunque vult versat, ex illa varia opera producit.
+Esse ergo debet, unde fit aliquid, deinde a quo fiat. Hoc causa est, illud materia.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 23: <span lang="la">Universa ex materia et ex Deo constant … potentius autem est ac pretiosius quod facit,
+quod est Deus, quam materia patiens Dei.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15409src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15481">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15481src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 65, 11: <span lang="la">Nam si, quocumque remoto quid effici non potest, id causam judicant esse faciendi</span>, &amp;c. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 228: <span class="trans" title="ei aition estin hou parontos ginetai to apotelesma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ αἴτιόν ἐστιν οὗ παρόντος γίνεται τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα</span></span>. This appears to be the most general Stoic definition. That given by <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 14—<span class="trans" title="touto, di’ ho energoun ginetai to apotelesma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῦτο, δι’ ὃ ἐνεργοῦν γίνεται τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα</span></span>—and by him said to express the views of several schools, expresses a narrower conception—the
+conception of efficient cause, which, however, for a Stoic, is the only essential
+one.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15481src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15508">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15508src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 15, distinguishes between <span class="trans" title="synektika, synaitia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνεκτικὰ, συναίτια</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="synerga aitia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύνεργα αἴτια</span></span>, all of which are, however, subordinated to the <span class="trans" title="di’ ho"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δι’ ὃ</span></span>, which he is there alone discussing. Seneca l.c. maintains that, according to the
+definition given above, time, place, and motion ought to be reckoned as causes, since
+nothing can be produced without these. He allows, however, that a distinction must
+be made between <span lang="la">causa efficiens</span> and <span lang="la">causa superveniens</span>. This agrees with what Cicero (De Fato, 18, 41) quotes from Chrysippus relative to
+<span lang="la">causæ perfectæ et principales</span>, and <span lang="la">causæ adjuvantes et proximæ</span>, and with the Platonic and Aristotelian distinction of <span class="trans" title="aition di’ ho"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴτιον δι’ ὃ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="hou ouk aneu"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗ οὐκ ἄνευ</span></span>. See <i>Zeller’s</i> <span lang="de">Philosophie der Griechen</span>. In the same way, <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 47, 4, p. 1056 distinguishes between <span class="trans" title="aitia autotelēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴτια αὐτοτελὴς</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="prokatarktikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προκαταρκτική</span></span>. <i>Alex. Aph.</i> De Fato, 72, blames the Stoics: <span class="trans" title="smēnos gar aitiōn katalegousi, ta men prokatarktika, ta de synaitia, ta de hektika, ta de synektika, ta de allo ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σμῆνος γὰρ αἰτίων καταλέγουσι, τὰ μὲν προκαταρκτικὰ, τὰ δὲ συναίτια, τὰ δὲ ἑκτικὰ,
+<span id="xd33e15594">τὰ</span> δὲ συνεκτικὰ, τὰ δὲ ἄλλο τι</span></span>. Conf. Orelli ad locum.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15508src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15605">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15605src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Seneca</i>, l.c., after enumerating the four causes of Aristotle, to which the Platonic idea
+is added as a fifth, continues: This <span lang="la">turba causarum</span> embraces either too much or too little. <span lang="la">Sed nos nunc primam et generalem quærimus causam. Hæc simplex esse debet, nam et materia
+simplex est. Quærimus quæ sit causa, ratio scilicet faciens, id est Deus. Ita enim,
+quæcumque retulistis, non sunt multæ et singulæ causæ, sed ex una pendent, ex ea,
+quæ faciet.</span> Conf. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 336: <span class="trans" title="aition d’ ho Zēnōn phēsin einai di’ ho ... Chrysippos aition einai legei d’ ho ... Poseidōnios de houtōs; aition d’ esti tinos di’ ho ekeino, ē to prōton poioun ē to archēgon poiēseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴτιον δ’ ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν εἶναι δι’ ὃ … Χρύσιππος αἴτιον εἶναι λέγει δ’ ὃ … Ποσειδώνιος
+δὲ οὕτως· αἴτιον δ’ ἐστί τινος δι’ ὃ ἐκεῖνο, ἢ τὸ πρῶτον ποιοῦν ἢ τὸ ἀρχηγὸν ποιήσεως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15605src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15635">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15635src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 7, 19, after speaking of the <span lang="la">consentiens, conspirans, continuata cognatio rerum</span> (<span class="trans" title="sympatheia tōn holōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπάθεια τῶν ὅλων</span></span>), continues: <span lang="la">Hæc ita fieri omnibus inter se concinentibus mundi partibus profecto non possent,
+nisi ea uno divino et continuato spiritu continerentur<span>.</span></span> See <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 78. The same view is further expanded in <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 78. Conf. the quotation on p. 127, 5, from Alexander.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15635src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15658">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15658src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> According to the remarks, p. 105 and 126, this requires no proof.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15658src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15663">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15663src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 9, 23 (conf. iii. 14, 35), gives it apparently as the view of Cleanthes,
+who alone is mentioned, 9, 24. All living things, plants, and animals, exist by heat:
+<span lang="la">nam omne quod est calidum et igneum cietur et agitur motu suo.</span> Digestion and circulation are the result of heat: <span lang="la">ex quo intelligi debet, eam caloris naturam vim habere in se vitalem per omnem mundum
+pertinentem.</span> Moreover: <span lang="la">omnes partes mundi … calore fultæ sustinentur.</span> There must be fire in earth and stones, else it could not be extracted therefrom.
+Water, especially fresh spring water, is warm, more particularly in winter, and as
+motion warms us, so the roll of the waves does the sea. From water likewise as it
+evaporates, air derives its heat.… <span lang="la">Jam vero reliqua quarta pars mundi, ea et ipsa tota natura fervida est, et cæteris
+naturis omnibus salutarem impertit et vitalem calorem. Ex quo concluditur, cum omnes
+mundi partes sustineantur calore, mundum etiam ipsum simili parique natura in tanta
+diuturnitate servari: eoque magis quod intelligi debet, calidum illum atque igneum
+ita in omni fusum esse natura, ut in eo insit procreandi vis,</span> &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15663src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15681">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15681src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> On the argument, <span lang="la">ex consensu gentium</span>, consult <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 38. 3; Com. Not. 32, 1; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 2, 5; <i>Seneca</i>, Benef<span>.</span> iv. 4; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 123 and 131, where different varieties of it are given, even a particular
+one from Zeno.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15681src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15698">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15698src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 75.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15698src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15702">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15702src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 9, 22: <span lang="la">Zeno enim ita concludit: quod ratione utitur, melius est, quam id, quod ratione non
+utitur. Nihil <span class="pageNum" id="pb145n">[<a href="#pb145n">145</a>]</span>autem mundo melius. Ratione igitur mundus utitur.</span> The same, <i>ibid.</i> ii. 8, 21, and 12, 34. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 104: <span class="trans" title="ei to logikon tou mē logikou kreitton estin, ouden de ge kosmou kreitton esti, logikon ara ho kosmos ... to gar noeron tou mē noerou kai empsychon tou mē empsychou kreitton estin; ouden de ge kosmou kreitton; noeros ara kai empsychos estin ho kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ τὸ λογικὸν τοῦ μὴ λογικοῦ κρεῖττόν ἐστιν, οὐδὲν δέ γε κόσμου κρεῖττόν ἐστι, λογικὸν
+ἄρα ὁ κόσμος … τὸ γὰρ νοερὸν τοῦ μὴ νοεροῦ καὶ ἔμψυχον τοῦ μὴ ἐμψύχου κρεῖττόν ἐστιν·
+οὐδὲν δέ γε κόσμου κρεῖττον· νοερὸς ἄρα καὶ ἔμψυχός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος</span></span>. Likewise <i>Diog.</i> 142, says that Chrysippus, Apollodorus, and Posidonius agree that the world is <span class="trans" title="zōon kai logikon kai empsychon kai noeron; to gar zōon tou mē zōon kreitton; ouden de tou kosmou kreitton; zōon ara ho kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῷον καὶ λογικὸν καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ νοερόν· τὸ γὰρ ζῷον τοῦ μὴ ζῷον κρεῖττον· οὐδὲν δὲ
+τοῦ κόσμου κρεῖττον· ζῷον ἄρα ὁ κόσμος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15702src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15736">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15736src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 8, 22: Zeno affirms: <span lang="la">Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens. Mundi autem partes sentientes
+sunt. Non igitur caret sensu mundus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15736src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15743">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15743src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 143: <span class="trans" title="empsychon de [ton kosmon], hōs dēlon ek tēs hēmeteras psychēs ekeithen ousēs apospasmatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔμψυχον δὲ [τὸν κόσμον], ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας ψυχῆς ἐκεῖθεν οὔσης ἀποσπάσματος</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 101: <span class="trans" title="Zēnōn de ho Kittieus apo Xenophōntos tēn aphormēn labōn houtōsi synerōta; to proïemenon sperma logikou kai auto logikon estin; ho de kosmos proïetai sperma logikou, logikon ara estin ho kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Κιττιεὺς ἀπὸ Ξενοφῶντος τὴν ἀφορμὴν λαβὼν οὑτωσὶ συνερωτᾷ· τὸ <span id="xd33e15760">προϊέμενον</span> σπέρμα λογικοῦ καὶ αὐτὸ λογικόν ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ κόσμος <span id="xd33e15764">προΐεται</span> σπέρμα λογικοῦ, λογικὸν ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ κόσμος</span></span>. The same proof in <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 77 and 84; <i>Cic.</i> l.c. Conf. <i>ibid.</i> ii. 31, 79; 6, 18, where also the passage in Xenophon, Mem. i. 4, 8, quoted by <i>Sext.</i> ix. 94, is referred to.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15743src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15782">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15782src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. iii. 10, 25: <span lang="la">Is [Chrysippus] igitur: si aliquid est, inquit, quod homo efficere non possit, qui
+id efficit melior est homine. Homo autem hæc, quæ in mundo sunt, efficere non potest.
+Qui potuit igitur, is præstat homini. Homini autem præstare quis possit, nisi Deus?
+Est igitur Deus.</span> The same, only a little more fully, <i>ibid.</i> ii. 6, 16. To this argument, another favourite one of the Stoics, based on the fulfilment
+of prophecy, belongs.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15782src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15791">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15791src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> Cleanthes made use of arguments from final causes to prove the existence of God. Of
+this nature are all the four arguments which he employs in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 6, but particularly <span class="pageNum" id="pb146n">[<a href="#pb146n">146</a>]</span>the fourth, based on the regular order and beauty of heaven. A building cannot exist
+without a builder; no more can the building of the world exist without a ruling spirit.
+Therewith Cicero connects the above-named argument of Chrysippus. The same writer,
+N.&nbsp;D. ii. 32–66, gives very fully the physical theological argument for the existence
+of providence, which is given in a shorter form by <i>Cleomedes</i>, Meteora, 1; <i>Seneca</i>, De Provid. i. 1, 2–4; Nat. Qu. i.; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 111; conf. Ps. <i>Censorin.</i> Fragm. i. 2, p. 75, Jahn; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 6, 8: belief in gods grows out of considering the world and its beauty,
+an argument also quoted by <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 26.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15791src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15813">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15813src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> See the expansion of this thought by Cleanthes (in <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 88–91) and the Stoics (in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 12, 33). Cicero distinguishes four kinds of beings—Plants, Animals, Men,
+and that being which is altogether reasonable and perfect deity.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15813src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15820">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15820src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> See p. 143, 2; 144, 1–4; 145, 1 and 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15820src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15826">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15826src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 102, expanding Zeno’s argument given, p. 145, 2: <span class="trans" title="pasēs gar physeōs kai psychēs hē katarchē tēs kinēseōs ginesthai dokei apo hēgemonikou kai pasai hai epi ta merē tou holou exapostellomenai dynameis hōs apo tinos pēgēs tou hēgemonikou exapostellontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάσης γὰρ φύσεως καὶ ψυχῆς ἡ καταρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως γίνεσθαι δοκεῖ ἀπὸ ἡγεμονικοῦ καὶ
+πᾶσαι αἱ ἐπὶ τὰ μέρη τοῦ ὅλου ἐξαποστελλόμεναι δυνάμεις ὡς ἀπό τινος πηγῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ
+ἐξαποστέλλονται</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 29: according to Cleanthes, <span lang="la">omnem enim naturam necesse est, quæ non solitaria sit, neque simplex, sed cum alio
+juncta atque connexa, habere aliquem in se principatum [= <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν</span></span>] ut in homine mentem, &amp;c.… Itaque necesse est illud etiam, in quo sit totius naturæ
+principatus, esse omnium optimum.</span> See following note.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15826src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15851">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15851src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 41, 126: <span lang="la">Zenoni et reliquis fere Stoicis æther videtur summus Deus, mente præditus, qua omnia
+regantur.</span> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 36: <span lang="la">(Zeno) æthera Deum dicit.</span> 15, 39: <span lang="la">ignem præterea et eum, quem antea dixi, æthera (Chrysippus Deum dicit esse).</span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. <span class="pageNum" id="pb147n">[<a href="#pb147n">147</a>]</span>138: <span class="trans" title="ouranos de estin hē eschatē periphereia, en hē pan hidrytai to theion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐρανὸς δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐσχάτη περιφέρεια, ἐν ᾗ πᾶν ἵδρυται τὸ θεῖον</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 139: <span class="trans" title="ton holon kosmon zōon onta kai empsychon kai logikon echein hēgemonikon men ton aithera, katha phēsin Antipatros ... Chrysippos d’ ... kai Poseidōnios ... ton ouranon phasi to hēgemonikon tou kosmou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικὸν ἔχειν ἡγεμονικὸν μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα,
+καθά φησιν Ἀντίπατρος … Χρύσιππος δ’ … καὶ Ποσειδώνιος … τὸν οὐρανόν φασι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν
+τοῦ κόσμου</span></span>. He continues: <span class="trans" title="ho mentoi Chrysippos diaphorōteron palin to katharōteron tou aitheros en tautō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ μέντοι Χρύσιππος διαφορώτερον πάλιν τὸ καθαρώτερον τοῦ αἰθέρος ἐν ταὐτῷ</span></span> [= <span class="trans" title="tō ouranō] ho kai prōton theon legousin, aisthētikōs hōsper kechōrēkenai dia tōn en aeri kai dia tōn zōōn hapantōn kai phytōn, dia de tēs gēs autēs kath’ hexin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῷ <span id="xd33e15898">οὐρανῷ</span>] ὃ καὶ πρῶτον θεὸν λέγουσιν, αἰσθητικῶς ὥσπερ κεχωρηκέναι διὰ τῶν ἐν ἀέρι καὶ διὰ
+τῶν ζῴων ἁπάντων καὶ φυτῶν, διὰ δὲ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς καθ’ ἕξιν</span></span>. <i>Arius Didymus</i>, in Eus. Præp. Ev. xv. 15, 4: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippō de [hēgemonikon tou kosmou einai ērese] ton aithera ton katharōtaton kai eilikrinestaton, hate pantōn eukinētotaton onta kai tēn holēn periagonta tou kosmou physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρυσίππῳ δὲ [ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι ἤρεσε] τὸν αἰθέρα τὸν καθαρώτατον καὶ εἰλικρινέστατον,
+ἅτε πάντων εὐκινητότατον ὄντα καὶ τὴν ὅλην περιάγοντα τοῦ κόσμου φύσιν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> xv. 20, 2: According to the Stoics, the air surrounding sea and earth is the soul
+of the world. <i>Cornut.</i> Nat. De. 8: Zeus dwells in heaven, <span class="trans" title="epei ekei esti to kyriōtaton meros tēs tou kosmou psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπεὶ ἐκεῖ ἐστι τὸ κυριώτατον μέρος τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ψυχῆς</span></span>. <i>Tertullian</i> (Apol. 47; Ad Nat. ii. 2, 4) inaccurately attributes to the Stoics the belief in
+a God external to nature.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15851src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e15934">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e15934src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. l.c<span>.</span>: <span lang="la">Cleanthes … solem dominari et rerum potiri = <span class="trans" title="kratein tōn ontōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρατεῖν τῶν ὄντων</span></span> putat.</span> He speaks with less accuracy (<i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 428) in N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 37: <span class="corr" id="xd33e15955" title="Source: ether">either</span> he considers the original deity; for this does not exclude the other. No doubt he
+identified <span class="trans" title="aithēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰθὴρ</span></span> with calor (see p. 144, 1), believing that it emanated from the sun. <i>Diog.</i> 139: <span class="trans" title="Kleanthēs de [to hēgemonikon phasi] ton hēlion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κλεάνθης δὲ [τὸ ἡγεμονικόν φασι] τὸν ἥλιον</span></span>. <i>Ar. Didymus</i>, l.c. <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon de tou kosmou Kleanthei men ērese ton hēlion einai dia to megiston tōn astrōn hyparchein kai pleista symballesthai pros tēn tōn holōn dioikēsin, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου Κλεάνθει μὲν ἤρεσε τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι διὰ τὸ μέγιστον τῶν ἄστρων
+ὑπάρχειν καὶ πλεῖστα συμβάλλεσθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὅλων διοίκησιν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 452; Ps. <i>Censorin.</i> Fragm. i. 4. According to <i>Epiphan.</i> Exp. Fidei, 1090, <span class="asc">C</span>, he called the sun the <span class="trans" title="dadouchos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δᾳδοῦχος</span></span> to the universe.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e15934src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16006">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16006src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="Archidamos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀρχίδαμος</span></span> (leg. with Cod. A <span class="trans" title="Archedēmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀρχέδημος</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="to hēgemonikon tou kosmou en gē hyparchein apephēnato"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου ἐν γῇ ὑπάρχειν ἀπεφήνατο</span></span>: the same statement without mentioning the name in Ar. Didymus, l.c. This reminds
+one somewhat of the Pythagorean doctrine of a central fire, and the view of Speusippus.
+The resemblance to the Pythagoreans is greater, if <i>Simpl.</i> De Cœlo, Schol. in Ar. 505, a, 45, is correct in saying Archedemus denied with the
+Pythagoreans that the earth was in the centre of the world.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16006src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16039">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16039src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> See p. 141, 2; 143, 1. <i>Aristocles</i>, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 14: <span class="trans" title="stoicheion einai phasi [hoi Stōïkoi] tōn ontōn to pyr, kathaper Hērakleitos, toutou d’ archas hylēn kai theon, hōs Platōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">στοιχεῖον εἶναί φασι [οἱ Στωϊκοὶ] τῶν ὄντων τὸ πῦρ, καθάπερ Ἡράκλειτος, τούτου δ’
+ἀρχὰς ὕλην καὶ θεὸν, ὡς Πλάτων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16039src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16071">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16071src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> Fuller particulars p. 144, 1; 146. <i>Hippolytus</i>, Refut. Hær. i. 21: Chrysippus and Zeno suppose <span class="trans" title="archēn men theon tōn pantōn, sōma onta to katharōtaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρχὴν μὲν θεὸν τῶν πάντων, σῶμα ὄντα τὸ καθαρώτατον</span></span> (æther). <i>Diog.</i> 148: Antipater calls the <span class="trans" title="ousia theou aeroeidēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσία θεοῦ ἀεροειδής</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 60: Mnesarchus (a pupil of Panætius) defines God to be <span class="trans" title="ton kosmon tēn prōtēn ousian echonta epi pneumatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν κόσμον τὴν πρώτην οὐσίαν ἔχοντα ἐπὶ πνεύματος</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 218: <span class="trans" title="Stōïkoi de [legousi theon] pneuma diēkon kai dia tōn eidechthōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Στωϊκοὶ δὲ [λέγουσι θεὸν] πνεῦμα διῆκον καὶ διὰ τῶν εἰδεχθῶν</span></span> (the adverse). <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> on Metaph. 995, b, 31 (Schol. in Ar. 607, a, 19): <span class="trans" title="tois apo tēs stoas edoxen ho theos kai to poiētikon aition en tē hygē einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἔδοξεν ὁ θεὸς καὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν αἴτιον ἐν τῇ ὕγῃ εἶναι</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> De Mixt. 144, gives them credit: <span class="trans" title="pneumati hōs dia pantōn diēkonti anaptein to te einai hekastou kai to sōzesthai kai symmenein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεύματι ὡς διὰ πάντων διήκοντι ἀνάπτειν τό τε εἶναι ἑκάστου καὶ τὸ σώζεσθαι καὶ συμμένειν</span></span>. Compare the quotations p. 127, 5 and De An. 145: [<span class="trans" title="ton noun"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν νοῦν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="kai en tois phaulotatois einai theion onta, hōs tois apo tēs stoas edoxen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἐν τοῖς φαυλοτάτοις εἶναι θεῖον ὄντα, ὡς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἔδοξεν</span></span>. <i>Lucian</i>, Hermot. 81: <span class="trans" title="akouomen de autou legontos, hōs kai ho theos ouk en ouranō estin, alla dia pantōn pephoitēken, hoion xylōn kai lithōn kai zōōn, achri kai tōn atimōtatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκούομεν δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος, ὡς καὶ ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ διὰ πάντων πεφοίτηκεν,
+οἷον ξύλων καὶ λίθων καὶ ζῴων, ἄχρι καὶ τῶν ἀτιμωτάτων</span></span>. <i>Tertullian</i>, Ad Nation. ii. 4: Zeno makes God penetrate the <span lang="la">materia mundialis</span>, as honey does the honeycombs. See p. 105, 3.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont"><i>Clemens</i>, Strom. v. 591, <span class="asc">A</span>: <span class="trans" title="phasi gar sōma einai ton theon hoi Stōïkoi kai pneuma kat’ ousian, hōsper amelei kai tēn psychēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φασὶ γὰρ σῶμα εἶναι τὸν θεὸν οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ πνεῦμα κατ’ οὐσίαν, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ τὴν
+ψυχήν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> i. 295, <span class="asc">C</span>: (<span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="sōma onta ton theon dia tēs atimotatēs hylēs pephoitēkenai legousin ou kalōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σῶμα ὄντα τὸν θεὸν διὰ τῆς ἀτιμοτάτης ὕλης πεφοιτηκέναι λέγουσιν οὐ καλῶς</span></span>. Protrept. 44, <span class="asc">A</span>: <span class="trans" title="tous apo tēs stoas, dia pasēs hylēs, kai dia tēs atimotatēs, to theion diēkein legontas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς, διὰ πάσης ὕλης, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀτιμοτάτης, τὸ θεῖον διήκειν λέγοντας</span></span>. <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. vi. 71: <span class="trans" title="tōn Stōïkōn phaskontōn hoti ho theos pneuma esti dia pantōn dielēlythos kai pant’ en heautō periechon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν Στωϊκῶν φασκόντων ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμά ἐστι διὰ πάντων διεληλυθὸς καὶ πάντ’ ἐν ἑαυτῷ
+περιεχόν</span></span>. Opponents like Origen, l.c<span>.</span> and i. 21, Alexander, De Mixt. l.c., and Plutarch, Com. Not. 48, naturally attack
+them for their materialistic views.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16071src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16228">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16228src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 58. See following note. <i>Diog.</i> 138 (according to Chrysippus and Posidonius): <span class="trans" title="ton dē kosmon oikeisthai kata noun kai pronoian ... eis hapan autou meros diēkontos tou nou kathaper eph’ hēmōn tēs psychēs. all’ ēdē di’ hōn men mallon, di’ hōn de hētton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν δὴ κόσμον οἰκεῖσθαι κατὰ νοῦν καὶ πρόνοιαν … εἰς ἅπαν αὐτοῦ μέρος διήκοντος τοῦ
+νοῦ καθάπερ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς. ἀλλ’ ἤδη δι’ <span class="pageNum" id="pb149n">[<a href="#pb149n">149</a>]</span>ὧν μὲν μᾶλλον, δι’ ὧν δὲ ἧττον</span></span>. More popularly, <i>ibid.</i> 147: <span class="trans" title="theon einai zōon athanaton logikon teleion ē noeron en eudaimonia, kakou pantos anepidekton, pronoētikon kosmou te kai tōn en kosmō, mē einai mentoi anthrōpomorphon. einai de ton men dēmiourgon tōn holōn kai hōsper patera pantōn koinōs te kai to meros autou to diēkon dia pantōn, ho pollais prosēgoriais prosonomazesthai kata tas dynameis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεὸν εἶναι ζῷον ἀθάνατον λογικὸν τέλειον ἢ νοερὸν ἐν εὐδαιμονίᾳ, κακοῦ παντὸς ἀνεπίδεκτον,
+προνοητικὸν κόσμου τε καὶ τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ, μὴ εἶναι μέντοι ἀνθρωπόμορφον. εἶναι δὲ τὸν
+μὲν δημιοῦργον τῶν ὅλων καὶ ὥσπερ πατέρα πάντων κοινῶς τε καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ τὸ διῆκον
+διὰ πάντων, ὃ πολλαῖς προσηγορίαις προσονομάζεσθαι κατὰ τὰς δυνάμεις</span></span>. <i>Phæd.</i> Nat. De. (<i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri eusebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐσεβείας</span></span>) Col. 1 and <i>Cic.</i> Nat. De. i. 15, 39, quoting from him: According to Chrysippus, Zeus is <span class="trans" title="koinē chysis, heimarmenē, anankē, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὴ χύσις, εἱμαρμένη, ἀνάγκη, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Ibid.</i> Col. 3: He considered <span class="trans" title="nomos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νόμος</span></span> to be deity. <i>Cic.</i> l.c.: <span lang="la">legis perpetuæ et æternæ vim … Jovem dicit esse.</span> <i>Themist.</i> De An. 72, b: <span class="trans" title="tois apo Zēnōnos ... dia pasēs ousias pephoitēkenai ton theon tithemenois, kai pou men einai noun, pou de psychēn, pou de physin, pou de hexin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος … διὰ πάσης οὐσίας πεφοιτηκέναι τὸν θεὸν τιθεμένοις, καὶ ποῦ μὲν
+εἶναι νοῦν, ποῦ δὲ ψυχὴν, ποῦ δὲ φύσιν, ποῦ δὲ ἕξιν</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 37, 119: No Stoic can doubt <span lang="la">hunc mundum esse sapientem, habere mentem, quæ se et ipsum fabricata sit, et omnia
+moderetur, moveat, regat.</span> <i>Id.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 22, 58: <span lang="la">ipsius vero mundi … natura non artificiosa solum sed plane artifex ab eodem Zenone
+dicitur, consultrix et provida utilitatum opportunitatumque omnium.…</span> As every nature develops from its stock, <span lang="la">sic Natura mundi omnes motus habet voluntarios conatusque et appetitiones, quas <span class="trans" title="hormas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὰς</span></span> Græci vocant, et his consentaneas actiones sic adhibet ut nosmet ipsi, qui animis
+movemur et sensibus,</span> on which account the <span lang="la">mens mundi</span> is called <span class="trans" title="pronoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόνοια</span></span>. <i>M. Aurel.</i> iv. 40: <span class="trans" title="hōs hen zōon ton kosmon mian ousian kai psychēn mian epechon synechōs epinoein; pōs eis aisthēsin mian tēn toutou panta anadidotai kai pōs hormē mia panta prassei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς ἓν ζῷον τὸν κόσμον μίαν οὐσίαν καὶ ψυχὴν μίαν ἐπέχον συνεχῶς ἐπινοεῖν· πῶς εἰς
+αἴσθησιν μίαν τὴν τούτου πάντα ἀναδίδοται καὶ πῶς ὁρμῇ μιᾷ πάντα πράσσει</span></span>. <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. 72. <i>Tertullian</i>, Apol. 21: <span lang="la">Hunc enim (<span class="trans" title="logon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγον</span></span>) Zeno determinat factitatorem, qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit, eundem et fatum
+vocari et Deum et animum Jovis et necessitatem omnium rerum. Hæc Cleanthes in spiritum
+congerit, quem permeatorem universitatis affirmat.</span> Similarly <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. iv. 9, 1, 5. <i>Epiphan.</i> Hær. v. 1, p. 12: According to the Stoics, God is <span class="trans" title="nous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νοῦς</span></span>, residing in the world as its soul, and permeating the <span class="trans" title="merikai ousiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μερικαὶ οὐσίαι</span></span>. Zeus is also spoken of as being the soul of the world by <i>Cornutus</i>, Nat. De. 2; by <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 39, 2, p. 1052; and by Chrysippus, <i>ibid.</i> 34, 5, p. 1050: <span class="trans" title="hoti d’ hē koinē physis kai ho koinos tēs physeōs logos heimarmenē kai pronoia kai Zeus estin oude tous antipodas lelēthe; pantachou gar tauta thryleitai hyp’ autōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι δ’ ἡ κοινὴ φύσις καὶ ὁ κοινὸς τῆς φύσεως λόγος εἱμαρμένη καὶ πρόνοια καὶ Ζεύς
+ἐστιν οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀντίποδας λέληθε· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ταῦτα θρυλεῖται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 178: <span class="trans" title="Zēnōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνων</span></span> … [<span class="trans" title="tēn heimarmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν εἱμαρμένην</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="dynamin kinētikēn tēs hylēs kata tauta kai hōsautōs, hēntina mē diapherein pronoian kai physin kalein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυνάμιν κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως, ἥντινα μὴ διαφέρειν πρόνοιαν καὶ
+φύσιν καλεῖν</span></span>. <i>Ar. Didymus</i>, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 2: God cares for man; He is kind, beneficent, and loves
+men. Zeus is called <span class="trans" title="kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμος</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="aitios tou zēn, heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴτιος τοῦ ζῇν, εἱμαρμένη</span></span>, because <span class="trans" title="heiromenō logō dioikei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱρομένῳ λόγῳ διοικεῖ</span></span> all things, <span class="trans" title="adrasteia, hoti ouden estin auton apodidraskein, pronoia, hoti pros to chrēsimon oikonomei hekasta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδράστεια, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔστιν αὐτὸν <span class="pageNum" id="pb150n">[<a href="#pb150n">150</a>]</span>ἀποδιδράσκειν, πρόνοια, ὅτι πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον οἰκονομεῖ ἕκαστα</span></span>. <i>Aristocles</i> (Ibid. xv. 14): Primary fire contains the causes and <span class="trans" title="logoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι</span></span> of all things; the unchangeable law and destiny of the world supplies their connection.
+<i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 7, 1: <span lang="la">Quid enim aliud est natura, quam Deus et divina ratio toti mundo et partibus ejus
+inserta?… Hunc eundem et fatum si dixeris non mentieris.</span> (Similarly Frag. 122 in <i>Lact.</i> Inst. ii. 8, 23). <i>Id.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 45, 2: God or Jupiter may be equally well spoken of as Destiny, Providence,
+Nature, the World. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 178: <span class="trans" title="Antipatros ho Stōïkos theon apephēnato tēn heimarmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀντίπατρος ὁ Στωϊκὸς θεὸν ἀπεφήνατο τὴν εἱμαρμένην</span></span>. Zeus is called <span class="trans" title="koinos nomos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὸς νόμος</span></span> by <i>Diog.</i> vii. 88; by Cleanthes at the end of his hymn (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 34); likewise <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 36 says of Zeno: <span lang="la">Naturalem legem divinam esse censet, eamque vim obtinere recta imperantem prohibentemque
+contraria.</span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 32, 1; Sto. Rep. 38, 3 and 7 (here following Antipater): God must be conceived
+of as <span class="trans" title="makarios, eupoiētikos, philanthrōpos, kēdemonikos, ōphelimos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μακάριος, εὐποιητικὸς, φιλάνθρωπος, κηδεμονικὸς, ὠφέλιμος</span></span>. <i>Muson.</i> (in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 117, 8): God is the type of every virtue, <span class="trans" title="megalophrōn, euergetikos, philanthrōpos, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">μεγαλόφρων, εὐεργετικὸς, φιλάνθρωπος, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 48: <span lang="la">Quæ causa est Dis benefaciendi? Natura. Errat, si quis illos putat nocere nolle: non
+possunt.</span> Further details respecting the beneficent nature of the Gods in <i>Sen.</i> Benef. i. 9; iv. 3–9 and 26–28; Clement<span id="xd33e16539">.</span> i. 5, 7; Nat. Qu. v. 18, 13. On the divine omniscience; Ep. 83, 1; V. Beat. 20, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16228src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16548">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16548src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 30, 75, the Stoics divided the argument as to God’s providential care of
+the world into three parts. The first part went to establish that if there existed
+Gods, there must also be a care of the world; for Gods could not exist without having
+something to do, and to care for the world is the noblest thing that can be done.
+If, moreover, deity is the highest being, the world must be governed by deity. The
+same conclusion is arrived at from the wisdom and power of deity, which must always
+busy itself with what is best and highest. Lastly, it is stated, that inasmuch as
+the stars, heaven, the universe, and all powers in the world are divine, it is clear
+that everything must be governed by divine reason. The second part proved that the
+force and skill of nature produced and sustains all things. All the more reason that
+a universe so skilfully formed and so harmoniously arranged must be directed by a
+<span lang="la">natura sentiens</span>. And since, in its parts, it could not be more <span class="pageNum" id="pb151n">[<a href="#pb151n">151</a>]</span>beautiful or adapted to its purpose, it must be true of it more than of any human
+work of art, that it owes its origin to a forming reason. The third part aims at proving,
+on physico-theological grounds, <span lang="la">quanta sit admirabilitas cœlestium rerum atque terrestrium.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16548src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16562">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16562src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 58: <span class="trans" title="Diogenēs kai Kleanthēs kai Oinopidēs tēn tou kosmou psychēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διογένης καὶ Κλεάνθης καὶ Οἰνοπίδης τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴν</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="theon legousi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεὸν λέγουσι</span></span>] … <span class="trans" title="Poseidōnios pneuma noeron kai pyrōdes, ouk echon men morphēn metaballon de eis ho bouletai kai synexomoioumenon pasin ... Zēnōn ho Stōïkos noun kosmon pyrinon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ποσειδώνιος πνεῦμα νοερὸν καὶ πυρῶδες, οὐκ ἔχον μὲν μορφὴν μεταβάλλον δὲ εἰς ὃ βούλεται
+καὶ συνεξομοιούμενον πᾶσιν … Ζήνων ὁ Στωϊκὸς νοῦν κόσμον πύρινον</span></span>. <i>Ib.</i> 64; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 8, 17: <span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi noeron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ νοερὸν</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> <span class="trans" title="koinoteron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινότερον</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="theon apophainontai pyr technikon hodō badizon epi genesei kosmou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεὸν ἀποφαίνονται πῦρ τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον ἐπὶ γενέσει κόσμου</span></span> (a similar definition of nature is given by Zeno in <i>Cic.</i> Nat. De. ii. 22, 57) <span class="trans" title="emperieilēphos te pantas tous spermatikous logous, kath’ hous hapanta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐμπεριειληφός τε πάντας τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους, καθ’ οὓς ἅπαντα</span></span> (<i>Pl.</i> <span class="trans" title="hekasta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕκαστα</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="kath’ heimarmenēn ginetai, kai pneuma endiēkon, di’ holon tou kosmou, tas de prosēgorias metalambanon dia tas tēs holēs, di’ hēs kechōrēke metallaxeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται, καὶ πνεῦμα ἐνδιῆκον, δι’ ὅλον τοῦ κόσμου, τὰς δὲ προσηγορίας
+μεταλαμβάνον διὰ τὰς τῆς ὅλης, δι’ ἧς κεχώρηκε μεταλλάξεις</span></span>. Following the same source, <i>Athenag.</i> Leg. pro Christ. c. 5, Schl<span>.</span>: <span class="trans" title="ei gar ho men theos pyr technikon, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν θεὸς πῦρ τεχνικὸν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> (the same down to <span class="trans" title="ginetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γίνεται</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="to de pneuma autou diēkei di’ holou tou kosmou; ho theos heis kat’ autous, Zeus men kata to zeon tēs hylēs onomazomenos, Hēra de kata ton aera kai ta loipa kath’ hekaston tēs hylēs meros, di’ hēs kechōrēke, kaloumenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ διήκει δι’ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου· ὁ θεὸς εἷς κατ’ αὐτοὺς, Ζεὺς μὲν κατὰ
+τὸ ζέον τῆς ὕλης ὀνομαζόμενος, Ἥρα δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καθ’ ἕκαστον τῆς
+ὕλης μέρος, δι’ ἧς κεχώρηκε, καλούμενος</span></span>. The latter passage is explained by <i>Diog.</i> 147, who thus continues: <span class="trans" title="Dia men gar phasi di’ hon ta panta; Zēna de kalousi par’ hoson tou zēn aitios estin ē dia tou zēn kechōrēken"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Δία μὲν γάρ φασι δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα· Ζῆνα δὲ καλοῦσι παρ’ ὅσον τοῦ ζῇν αἴτιός ἐστιν ἢ
+διὰ τοῦ ζῇν κεχώρηκεν</span></span>. (This, too, in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 48.) <span class="trans" title="Athēnan de kata tēn eis aithera diatasin tou hēgemonikou autou. Hēran de kata tēn eis aera. kai Hēphaiston kata tēn eis to technikon pyr. kai Poseidōna kata tēn eis to hygron. kai Dēmētran kata tēn eis gēn; homoiōs de kai tas allas prosēgorias echomenoi tinos homoiotētos apedosan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀθηνᾶν δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰς αἰθέρα διάτασιν τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ αὐτοῦ. Ἥραν δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰς
+ἀέρα. καὶ Ἥφαιστον κατὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ τεχνικὸν πῦρ. καὶ Ποσειδῶνα κατὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ ὑγρόν.
+καὶ Δήμητραν κατὰ τὴν εἰς γῆν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας προσηγορίας ἐχόμενοί τινος
+ὁμοιότητος ἀπέδοσαν</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 48, 2, p. 1085: <span class="trans" title="ton theon ... sōma noeron kai noun en hylē poiountes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν θεὸν … σῶμα νοερὸν καὶ νοῦν ἐν ὕλῃ ποιοῦντες</span></span>. <i>M. Aurel.</i> 5, 32: <span class="trans" title="ton dia tēs ousias diēkonta logon, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν διὰ τῆς οὐσίας διήκοντα λόγον, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Porphyr.</i> in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 16, 1: <span class="trans" title="ton de theon ... pyr noeron eipontes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν δὲ θεὸν … πῦρ νοερὸν εἰπόντες</span></span>. <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. vi. 71: <span class="trans" title="kata men oun tous apo tēs stoas ... kai ho logos tou theou ho mechri anthrōpōn kai tōn elachistōn katabainōn ouden allo estin ē pneuma sōmatikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς … καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μέχρι ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἐλαχίστων
+καταβαίνων οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ πνεῦμα σωματικόν</span></span>. The same combination of nature and mind in the conceptions of God is <span class="pageNum" id="pb152n">[<a href="#pb152n">152</a>]</span>found in the hymn of Cleanthes (in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 30), Zeus being described as the <span class="trans" title="archēgos physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρχηγὸς φύσεως</span></span>, who directs the <span class="trans" title="koinos logos hos dia pantōn phoita"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὸς λόγος ὃς διὰ πάντων φοιτᾷ</span></span>, by means of <span class="trans" title="pyr aeizōon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ ἀείζωον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16562src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16773">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16773src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 374: Chrysippus teaches <span class="trans" title="einai to on pneuma kinoun heauto pros heauto kai ex heautou, ē pneuma heauto kinoun prosō kai opisō; pneuma de eilēptai dia to legesthai auto aera einai kinoumenon; analogon de gignesthai epeita"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι τὸ ὂν πνεῦμα κινοῦν ἑαυτὸ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ, ἢ πνεῦμα ἑαυτὸ κινοῦν πρόσω
+καὶ ὀπίσω· πνεῦμα δὲ εἴληπται διὰ τὸ λέγεσθαι αὐτὸ ἀέρα εἶναι κινούμενον· ἀνάλογον
+δὲ γίγνεσθαι ἔπειτα</span></span> [? perhaps: <span class="trans" title="auto"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτὸ</span></span>, or: <span class="trans" title="pyros ē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πυρὸς ἢ</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="aitheros, hōste kai eis koinon logon pesein auta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰθερὸς, ὥστε καὶ εἰς κοινὸν λόγον πεσεῖν αὐτά</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 137: <span class="trans" title="anōtatō men oun einai to pyr hon dē aithera kaleisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνωτάτω μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ ὃν δὴ αἰθέρα καλεῖσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16773src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16820">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16820src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 538, on the authority of Zeno; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 15, 40, on that of Cleanthes. Both state that the difference consists in
+this: Ordinary (<span class="trans" title="atechnon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄτεχνον</span></span>) fire consumes things; but the <span class="trans" title="pyr technikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ τεχνικὸν</span></span>, which constitutes <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ</span></span>, preserves things. Heraclitus, too, in making primary fire the basis of things, did
+not mean flame, but warmth, which may be equally well described as atmospheric substance
+or as <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχή</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16820src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16869">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16869src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> <i>Seneca</i>, De Benefic. iv. 7, 2: God may also be called <span lang="la">fatum</span>: <span lang="la">nam cum fatum nihil aliud sit quam series implexa causarum, ille est prima omnium
+causa, ex qua ceteræ pendent.</span> Nat. Qu. ii<span>.</span> 45, 1: <span lang="la">Vis illum fatum vocare? Non errabis. Hic est, ex quo suspensa sunt omnia, causa causarum.</span> The same applies to the name of providence and nature. See p. 162, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16869src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16884">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16884src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 178 (<i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 28, 5): <span class="trans" title="Poseidōnios [tēn heimarmenēn] tritēn apo Dios. prōton men gar einai ton Dia, deuteron de tēn physin, tritēn de tēn heimarmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ποσειδώνιος [τὴν εἱμαρμένην] τρίτην ἀπὸ Διός. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Δία, δεύτερον
+δὲ τὴν φύσιν, τρίτην δὲ τὴν εἱμαρμένην</span></span>. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 55, 125, where prophecy is deduced, according to Posidonius, (1) a Deo,
+(2) a fato, (3) a natura. <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 36, 5, p. 1077: <span class="trans" title="legei goun Chrysippos, eoikenai tō men anthrōpō ton Dia kai ton kosmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγει γοῦν Χρύσιππος, ἐοικέναι τῷ μὲν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν κόσμον</span></span> (instead of which <i>Heine</i>, Stoic. De Fat. Doct. p. 25, apparently without reason, conjectures: <span class="trans" title="kai tō men sōmati ton kosmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τῷ μὲν σώματι τὸν κόσμον</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="tē de psychē tēn pronoian; hotan oun ekpyrōsis genētai monon aphtharton onta ton Dia tōn theōn anachōrein epi tēn pronoian, eita homou genomenous epi mias tēs tou aitheros ousias diatelein amphoterous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ τὴν πρόνοιαν· ὅταν οὖν ἐκπύρωσις γένηται μόνον ἄφθαρτον ὄντα τὸν Δία τῶν
+θεῶν ἀναχωρεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν πρόνοιαν, εἶτα ὁμοῦ γενομένους ἐπὶ μιᾶς τῆς τοῦ αἰθέρος οὐσίας
+διατελεῖν ἀμφοτέρους</span></span>. To this maxim of Chrysippus, reference is made by <i>Philo</i>, Incorrup. M. 951, B, where, too, <span class="trans" title="pronoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόνοια</span></span> is equivalent to <span class="trans" title="psychē tou kosmou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16884src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16948">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16948src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> According to Chrysippus. A different view is taken by Posidonius. With him Zeus stands
+for the original force, <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> for its first, and <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη</span></span> for its second production.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16948src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16967">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16967src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> l.c. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 9, 16: <span lang="la">[Jupiter] resoluto mundo et Diis in unum confusis, paullisper cessante natura, acquiescit
+sibi, cogitationibus suis traditus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16967src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e16979">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e16979src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> Compare, besides what has been already quoted, <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 11, 39: (Zeno) <span lang="la">statuebat ignem esse ipsam naturam.</span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 156: <span class="trans" title="dokei de autois tēn men physin einai pyr technikon hodō badizon eis genesin, hoper esti pneuma pyroeides kai technoeides"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτοῖς τὴν μὲν φύσιν εἶναι πῦρ τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον εἰς γένεσιν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ
+πνεῦμα πυροειδὲς καὶ τεχνοειδές</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 180: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos dynamin pneumatikēn tēn tou ousian tēs heimarmenēs taxei tou pantos dioikētikēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος δύναμιν πνευματικὴν τὴν τοῦ οὐσίαν τῆς εἱμαρμένης τάξει τοῦ παντὸς διοικητικήν</span></span>; or, according to another definition: <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē estin ho tou kosmou logos, ē logos, tōn en tō kosmō pronoia dioikoumenōn, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος, ἢ λόγος, τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων,
+κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Instead of <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>, he also used <span class="trans" title="alētheia, physis, aitia, anankē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλήθεια, φύσις, αἰτία, ἀνάγκη</span></span>, &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e16979src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17032">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17032src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> See p. 143.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17032src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17035">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17035src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 11, 30: <span lang="la">Atque etiam mundi ille fervor purior, perlucidior mobiliorque multo ob easque causas
+aptior ad sensus commovendos quam hic noster calor, quo hæc quæ nota nobis sunt, retinentur
+et vigent. Absurdum igitur est dicere, cum homines bestiæque hoc calore teneantur
+et propterea moveantur ac sentiant, mundum esse sine sensu, qui integro et puro et
+libero eodemque acerrimo et mobilissimo ardore teneatur.</span> Conf. <i>Ar. Didymus</i>, in the passage quoted, p. 146, 4, p. 105, 127.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17035src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17044">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17044src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> Consol. ad Helviam, 8, 3: <span lang="la">Id actum est, mihi crede, ab illo, quisquis formator universi fuit, sive ille Deus
+est potens omnium, sive incorporalis ratio, ingentium operum artifex, sive divinus
+spiritus per omnia maxima ac minima æquali intentione [= <span class="trans" title="tonos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόνος</span></span>] diffusus, sive fatum et immutabilis causarum inter se cohærentium series.</span> Conf. p. 153, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17044src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17061">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17061src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14: Zeno calls natural law divine, but he also calls the Ether and the all-pervading
+Reason deity. (We shall come back presently to what he says as to the divinity of
+the stars.) Cleanthes gives the name of deity to the world, reason, the soul of the
+world, and ether; Chrysippus to reason, to the soul of the world, to ruling reason,
+to <span lang="la">communis natura</span>, destiny, fire, ether, the universe, and eternal law.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17061src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17068">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17068src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> i. 365.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17068src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17084">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17084src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> See pp. 153, 2; 153, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17084src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17087">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17087src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> <i>Chrysippus.</i> See p. 152, note 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17087src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17091">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17091src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> <i>Aristocles.</i> See p. 147, note 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17091src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17095">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17095src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> <i>Mnesarchus</i>, in Stob. i. 60. See p. 148, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17095src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17100">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17100src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. iii. 75, p. 497, <span class="asc">A</span>: <span class="trans" title="Stōïkōn theon phtharton eisagontōn kai tēn ousian autou legontōn sōma trepton diolou kai alloiōton kai metablēton kai pote panta phtheirontōn kai monon ton theon katalipontōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Στωϊκῶν θεὸν φθαρτὸν εἰσαγόντων καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ λεγόντων σῶμα τρεπτὸν διόλου
+καὶ ἀλλοιωτὸν καὶ μεταβλητὸν καί ποτε πάντα φθειρόντων καὶ μόνον τὸν θεὸν καταλιπόντων</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> iv. 14: <span class="trans" title="ho tōn Stōïkōn theos hote sōma tynchanōn hote men hēgemonikon echei tēn holēn ousian hotan hē ekpyrōsis ē; hote de epi merous ginetai autēs hotan ē diakosmēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ τῶν Στωϊκῶν θεὸς ὅτε σῶμα τυγχάνων ὅτε μὲν ἡγεμονικὸν ἔχει τὴν ὅλην οὐσίαν ὅταν
+ἡ ἐκπύρωσις ᾖ· ὅτε δὲ ἐπὶ μέρους γίνεται αὐτῆς ὅταν ᾖ διακόσμησις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17100src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17135">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17135src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> Besides the quotations already given from Chrysippus on p. 153, 2, and Cleanthes on
+p. 155, 1, compare <i>Phædr.</i> Nat. De. (<i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri eusebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐσεβείας</span></span>), Col. 5: <span class="trans" title="Diogenēs d’ ho Babylōnios en tō peri tēs Athēnas ton kosmon graphei tō Diï ton auton hyparchein, ē periechein ton Dia kathaper anthrōpon psychēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διογένης δ’ ὁ Βαβυλώνιος ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς τὸν κόσμον γράφει τῷ Διῒ τὸν αὐτὸν
+ὑπάρχειν, ἢ περιέχειν τὸν Δία καθάπερ ἄνθρωπον ψυχήν</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> N. De. ii. 17, 45: Nothing corresponds better to the idea of God, <span lang="la">quam ut primum hunc mundum, quo nihil fieri excellentius potest, animantem esse et
+Deum judicem.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 13, 34: Perfect reason <span lang="la">Deo tribuenda, id est mundo.</span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 45, 3; <span lang="la">Vis illum vocare mundum? Non falleris. Ipse enim est hoc quod vides totum, suis partibus
+inditus et se sustinens <span class="corr" id="xd33e17172" title="Source: vi">et</span> sua.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> Prolog. 13: <span lang="la">Quid est Deus? Mens universi. Quid est Deus? Quod vides totum et quod non vides totum.
+Sic demum magnitudo sua illi redditur, qua nihil majus excogitari potest, si solus
+est omnia, opus suum et extra et intra tenet.</span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 148: <span class="trans" title="ousian de theou Zēnōn men phēsi ton holon kosmon kai ton ouranon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μέν φησι τὸν ὅλον κόσμον καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν</span></span>. <i>Ar. Didym.</i> in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 1 and 3: <span class="trans" title="holon de ton kosmon syn tois heautou meresi prosagoreuousi theon.... dio dē kai Zeus legetai ho kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅλον δὲ τὸν κόσμον σὺν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσι προσαγορεύουσι θεόν.… διὸ δὴ καὶ Ζεὺς λέγεται
+ὁ κόσμος</span></span>. <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. v. 7: <span class="trans" title="saphōs dē ton holon kosmon legousin einai theon Stōïkoi men to prōton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σαφῶς δὴ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον λέγουσιν εἶναι θεὸν Στωϊκοὶ μὲν τὸ πρῶτον</span></span>. The arguments given, p. 144, for the existence of God are based on the supposition
+that God is the same as the World. The existence of God is proved by showing the reasonableness
+of the world. <i>Aratus</i> gives a poet’s description of the Stoic pantheism at the beginning of the Phænomena:
+Zeus is the being of whom streets and markets, sea and land, are full, whose offspring
+is man, and who, out of regard for man, has appointed signs in the heavens to regulate
+the year. The same idea is contained in the well-known lines of Virgil, Georg. iv.
+220; Æn. vi. 724. The round figure of the Stoic deity, <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 113, 22; De M. Claud. 8, 1, has also reference to the world as God. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 17, 46.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17135src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17222">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17222src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 444: <span class="trans" title="kosmon d’ einai phēsin ho Chrysippos systēma ex ouranou kai gēs kai tōn en toutois physeōn; ē to ek theōn kai anthrōpōn systēma kai ek tōn heneka toutōn gegonotōn. legetai d’ heterōs kosmos ho theos, kath’ hon hē diakosmēsis ginetai kai teleioutai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμον δ’ εἶναι φησιν ὁ Χρύσιππος σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεων·
+ἢ τὸ ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων σύστημα καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἕνεκα τούτων γεγονότων. λέγεται δ’ ἑτέρως
+κόσμος ὁ θεὸς, καθ’ ὃν ἡ διακόσμησις γίνεται καὶ τελειοῦται</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 137: <span class="trans" title="legousi de kosmon trichōs; auton te ton theon ton ek tēs hapasēs ousias idiōs poion, hos dē aphthartos esti kai agennētos dēmiourgos ōn tēs diakosmēseōs kata chronōn tinas periodous analiskōn eis heauton tēn hapasan ousian kai palin ex heautou gennōn. kai autēn de tēn diakosmēsin tōn asterōn kosmon einai legousi kai triton to synestēkos ex amphoin. kai esti kosmos ē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγουσι δὲ κόσμον τριχῶς· αὐτόν τε τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἁπάσης οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιὸν,
+ὃς δὴ ἄφθαρτός ἐστι καὶ ἀγέννητος δημιουργὸς ὢν τῆς διακοσμήσεως κατὰ χρόνων τινὰς
+περιόδους ἀναλίσκων εἰς ἑαυτὸν τὴν ἅπασαν οὐσίαν καὶ πάλιν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ γεννῶν. καὶ αὐτὴν
+δὲ τὴν διακόσμησιν τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον εἶναι λέγουσι καὶ τρίτον τὸ συνεστηκὸς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν.
+καὶ ἔστι κόσμος ἢ</span></span> (according to the first meaning of the word) <span class="trans" title="ho idiōs poios tēs tōn holōn ousias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ ἰδίως ποιὸς τῆς τῶν ὅλων οὐσίας</span></span>, (universal substance in its definite quality) <span class="trans" title="ē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἢ</span></span> (second meaning) <span class="trans" title="hōs phēsi Poseidōnios ... systēma ex ouranou kai gēs kai tōn en toutois physeōn, ē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὥς φησι Ποσειδώνιος … σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεων, ἢ</span></span> (third meaning) <span class="trans" title="systēma ek theōn kai anthrōpōn kai tōn heneka toutōn gegonotōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύστημα ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἕνεκα τούτων γεγονότων</span></span>. <i>Ar. Didym.</i> in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 1: <span class="trans" title="kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμος</span></span> is the name for <span class="trans" title="to ek pasēs tēs ousias poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἐκ πάσης τῆς οὐσίας ποιὸν</span></span>, and for <span class="trans" title="to kata tēn diakosmēsin tēn toiautēn kai diataxin echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν τὴν τοιαύτην καὶ διάταξιν ἔχον</span></span>. In the former sense, the world is eternal, and the same as God; in the latter, created,
+and subject to change. Compare also the quotations from the mathematician Diodorus,
+in <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. c. 6. p. 129, b.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17222src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17320">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17320src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> See p. 148. The two ideas blend. Thus <i>Seneca</i>, Nat. Qu. Prol. 13, says God must be the Reason of the world and must also be the
+universe itself; and he continues: <span lang="la">Quid ergo <span class="pageNum" id="pb159n">[<a href="#pb159n">159</a>]</span>interest, inter naturam Dei et nostram? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla
+pars extra animum est. Totus est ratio,</span> &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17320src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17332">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17332src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> The connection of the two, like the connection between soul and body, and the argument
+quoted by Tertullian from Zeno on p. 148, 1, is <span class="trans" title="krasis di’ holōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων</span></span>. See p. 135.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17332src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17348">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17348src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 60: <span class="trans" title="Boēthos ton aithera theon apephēnato"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Βόηθος τὸν αἰθέρα θεὸν ἀπεφήνατο</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17348src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17360">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17360src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 143: <span class="trans" title="Boēthos de phēsin ouk einai zōon ton kosmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Βόηθος δέ φησιν οὐκ εἶναι ζῷον τὸν κόσμον</span></span>. The words of <i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 953, <span class="asc">C</span>—<span class="trans" title="psychē de tou kosmou kata tous antidoxountas ho theos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ τοὺς ἀντιδοξοῦντας ὁ θεὸς</span></span>—imply the same, but these words evidently are not taken from Boëthus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17360src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17385">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17385src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 148: <span class="trans" title="Boēthos de en tē peri physeōs ousian theou tēn tōn aplanōn sphairan;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Βόηθος δὲ ἐν τῇ περὶ φύσεως οὐσίαν θεοῦ τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαῖραν·</span></span> which must be understood in the same sense as the corresponding statements <span class="pageNum" id="pb160n">[<a href="#pb160n">160</a>]</span>of other Stoics: the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν</span></span> of the world resides in the purest part of the ether. Yet, inasmuch as the world
+is no living being, nor is deity the soul of the world, it must, according to the
+view of Boëthus, act upon it from without. This is expressly stated in <i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 953, <span class="asc">B</span>, God is described as the charioteer guiding the world, and <span class="trans" title="paristamenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παριστάμενος</span></span> the stars and elements. But this passage, beginning at <span class="trans" title="kai mēpot’ eikotōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μήποτ’ εἰκότως</span></span>, is evidently Philo’s own expansion of what he has just quoted from Boëthus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17385src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch7" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e860">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER VII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE STUDY OF NATURE. COURSE, CHARACTER, AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSE.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.a">A. <i>The general course of the universe.</i><br id="ch7.a.1">(1) <i>Origin of the world.</i></span>
+By virtue of a law inherent in nature, Primary Being passes over into particular objects;
+for, involving as it does the conception of a forming and creating force, it must
+as necessarily develop into a universe, as a seed or ovum must develop into a plant
+or animal.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17445src" href="#xd33e17445" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> Primary fire—so taught the Stoics, following Heraclitus—first goes over into vapour,
+then into moisture; one part of this moisture is precipitated in the form of earth,
+another remains as water, whilst a third part evaporating constitutes atmospheric
+air, and air, again, enkindles fire out of itself. By the mutual play of these four
+elements the world is formed,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17464src" href="#xd33e17464" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> built round the earth as a <span class="pageNum" id="pb162">[<a href="#pb162">162</a>]</span>centre;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17524src" href="#xd33e17524" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> heat, as it is developed out of water,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17528src" href="#xd33e17528" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> moulding the chaotic mass. By the separation of these <span class="pageNum" id="pb163">[<a href="#pb163">163</a>]</span>elements, a distinction between the active and the passive powers of nature—between
+the soul of the world and the body of the world—becomes apparent. The moisture into
+which the primary fire was first changed represents the body, just as the heat<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17590src" href="#xd33e17590" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> latent in it represents the soul;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17611src" href="#xd33e17611" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> or, taking the later fourfold division of the elements, the two lower ones correspond
+to matter, the two higher ones to acting force.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17624src" href="#xd33e17624" title="Go to note 7.">7</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.a.2">(2) <i>End of the world.</i></span>
+As the distinction between matter and force has <span class="pageNum" id="pb164">[<a href="#pb164">164</a>]</span>its origin in time, so it will also have an end in time.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17645src" href="#xd33e17645" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> Matter which primary Being has separated from itself to form its body is being gradually
+resolved into primary Being again; so that, at the end of the present course of things,
+a general conflagration of the world will restore all things to their original form,
+in which everything derivative will have ceased to exist, and pure Deity, or primary
+fire, will alone remain in its original purity.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17741src" href="#xd33e17741" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> This resolution of the world into <span class="pageNum" id="pb165">[<a href="#pb165">165</a>]</span>fire or ether,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17844src" href="#xd33e17844" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> the Stoics thought, would take place, through the same intermediate stages as its
+generation from the primary fire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17905src" href="#xd33e17905" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> Cleanthes, following his peculiar view as to the seat of the governing<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17910src" href="#xd33e17910" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> force in the world, supposed that its destruction would come from the sun.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17913src" href="#xd33e17913" title="Go to note 13.">13</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.a.3">(3) <i>Cycles in the world’s course.</i></span>
+No sooner, however, will everything have returned to its original unity,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17941src" href="#xd33e17941" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> and the course of the <span class="pageNum" id="pb166">[<a href="#pb166">166</a>]</span>world have come to an end, than the formation of a new world will begin,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e17973src" href="#xd33e17973" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> so exactly corresponding with the previous world that every particular thing, every
+particular person, and every occurrence will recur in it,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18092src" href="#xd33e18092" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> precisely as they occurred in the world preceding. <span class="pageNum" id="pb167">[<a href="#pb167">167</a>]</span>Hence the history of the world and of Deity—as, indeed, with the eternity of matter
+and acting force, must necessarily be the case—revolves in an endless cycle through
+exactly the same stages.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18212src" href="#xd33e18212" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> Still <span class="pageNum" id="pb168">[<a href="#pb168">168</a>]</span>there were not wanting, even in comparatively early times, members of the Stoic School
+who entertained doubts on this teaching; and among the most distinguished of the later
+Stoics some gave it up altogether.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18257src" href="#xd33e18257" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> Besides the periodical destruction by fire, <span class="pageNum" id="pb169">[<a href="#pb169">169</a>]</span>periodical destructions by floods<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18367src" href="#xd33e18367" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> were also assumed; there being, however, a difference of opinion as to whether the
+whole universe, or only the earth and its inhabitants, were subject to these floods.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18410src" href="#xd33e18410" title="Go to note 20.">20</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb170">[<a href="#pb170">170</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.b">B. <i>Government of the world.</i><br id="ch7.b.1">(1) <i>Nature of Destiny.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Destiny as Providence.</i></span>
+One point established by the generation and destruction of the world—the uncertainty
+of all particular things, and the unconditional dependence of everything on a universal
+law and the course of the universe—is a leading one in the Stoic enquiries into nature.
+All things in nature come about by virtue of a natural and unchangeable connection
+of cause and effect, as the nature of the universe and the general law require. This
+absolute necessity, regulating all Being and Becoming, is expressed in the conception
+of Fate or Destiny (<span class="trans" title="hē heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ εἱμαρμένη</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18436src" href="#xd33e18436" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> Viewed from the point of view of natural science, Destiny is only another name for
+primary Being, for the all-pervading, all-producing Breath, for the artistic fire
+which is the soul of the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18497src" href="#xd33e18497" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> But again the activity of this Being being always rational and according to law,
+Destiny may also be described as the Reason of the World, as universal Law, as the
+rational form of the world’s <span class="pageNum" id="pb171">[<a href="#pb171">171</a>]</span>course.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18514src" href="#xd33e18514" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> When regarded as the groundwork of natural formations, this primary Being or general
+Law is called Nature; but when it appears as the cause of the orderly arrangement
+and development of the world, it is known as Providence;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18691src" href="#xd33e18691" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> or in popular language it is called Zeus, or the will of Zeus; and in this sense
+it is said that nothing happens without the will of Zeus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18694src" href="#xd33e18694" title="Go to note 25.">25</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb172">[<a href="#pb172">172</a>]</span><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Destiny as generative reason.</i></span>
+In action as the creative force in nature, this universal Reason also bears the name
+of Generative Reason (<span class="trans" title="logos spermatikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος σπερματικός</span></span>). It bears this name more immediately in relation to the universe, not only as being
+the generating power by which all things are produced from primary fire as from seed
+according to an inner law, but because in the present condition of things all form
+and shape, all life and reason, grow out of it, in short, because primary fire and
+reason contain in themselves the germ of all things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18769src" href="#xd33e18769" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> In the same sense, generative powers in the plural, or <span class="trans" title="logoi spermatikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι σπερματικοί</span></span>, are spoken of as belonging to Deity and Nature; and in treating of man, <span class="trans" title="logoi spermatikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι σπερματικοί</span></span> denote the generative powers as a part of the soul, and must be thought of as bearing
+the same relation to the individual soul that the generative powers of Nature do to
+the soul of nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18818src" href="#xd33e18818" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> By the term Generative Reason, therefore, must be understood the creative and forming
+forces in nature, which have collectively produced the universe, and particular exercises
+of which produce <span class="pageNum" id="pb173">[<a href="#pb173">173</a>]</span>individual things. These forces, agreeably with the ordinary Stoic speculations, are
+spoken of as the original <i>material</i>, or material germ of things. On the other hand, they also constitute the <i>form</i> of things—the law which determines their shape and qualities, the <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>—only we must beware of trying to think of form apart from matter. Just as the igneous
+or ethereal material of primary Being is in itself the same as the forming and creating
+element in things, the Reason of the world or the Soul of nature; so the atmospheric
+substance in the seeds of individual things, in which the Stoics thought the generative
+power (<span class="trans" title="sperma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπέρμα</span></span>) alone resides,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18890src" href="#xd33e18890" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> is in itself the germ out of which the corresponding thing is produced by virtue
+of an inherent law.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18911src" href="#xd33e18911" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> The inward form is the only permanent element in things amid the perpetual change
+of materials.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18931src" href="#xd33e18931" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> It constitutes the identity of the universe; and whereas matter is constantly changing
+from one form to another,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18934src" href="#xd33e18934" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> the universal law of the process alone continues unchangeably the same.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.b.2">(2) <i>Arguments in favour of Providence.</i></span>
+All parts of the Stoic system lead so unmistakeably to the conclusion, not only that
+the world as a whole is governed by Providence, but that every <span class="pageNum" id="pb174">[<a href="#pb174">174</a>]</span>part of it is subject to the same unchangeable laws, that no definite arguments would
+appear necessary to establish this point. Nevertheless, the Stoics lost no opportunity
+of meeting objections to their views <span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>Argument from the general convictions of mankind.</i></span> in the fullest manner.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18950src" href="#xd33e18950" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> In the true spirit of a Stoic, Chrysippus appealed to the general conviction of mankind,
+as expressed in the names used to denote fate and destiny,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e18957src" href="#xd33e18957" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> and to the language of poetry.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19007src" href="#xd33e19007" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> <span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Argument from the perfection of God.</i></span> Nor was it difficult to show<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19019src" href="#xd33e19019" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> that a divine government of the world followed of necessity from the Stoic conception
+of the perfection of God. Besides, in proving the existence of a God by the argument
+drawn from the adaptation of means to ends, a providential government of the world
+was at the same <span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Argument from the theory of necessity.</i></span> time proved.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19030src" href="#xd33e19030" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> Chrysippus also thought to defend his theory of necessity in the same strictly logical
+manner. For must not every judgment be either true or false?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19033src" href="#xd33e19033" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> And does not this apply to judgments which refer to future events, as well as to
+others? Judgments, however, referring to the future can only <span class="pageNum" id="pb175">[<a href="#pb175">175</a>]</span>be true when what they affirm must come to pass of necessity; they can only be false
+when what they affirm is impossible; and, accordingly, everything that takes place
+must follow of necessity from the causes which produce it.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19041src" href="#xd33e19041" title="Go to note 38.">38</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>d</i>) <i>Argument from foreknowledge of God.</i></span>
+The same process of reasoning, transferred from the outer world to the inner world
+of mind, underlies the argument from the foreknowledge of God.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19052src" href="#xd33e19052" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> If in the one case it is alleged that whatever is true, before it comes to pass,
+is necessary, so in the other it is said to be necessary, if it can be truly known
+before it comes to pass.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>e</i>) <i>Argument from the existence of divination.</i></span>
+To this argument may be added a further one to which the Stoics attached great importance—the
+argument from the existence of divination.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19075src" href="#xd33e19075" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> If it is impossible to know beforehand with certainty what is accidental, it is also
+impossible to predict it.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.b.3">(3) <i>The idea of Providence determined.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Providence as necessity.</i></span>
+But the real kernel of the Stoic fatalism is expressed in the maxim, that nothing
+can take place without a sufficient cause, nor, under given circumstances, can happen
+differently from what has happened.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19110src" href="#xd33e19110" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> This were as impossible, according to the <span class="pageNum" id="pb176">[<a href="#pb176">176</a>]</span>Stoics, as for something to come out of nothing;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19135src" href="#xd33e19135" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> were it possible, the unity of the world would be at an end, consisting, as it does,
+in the chain-like dependence of cause upon cause, and in the absolute necessity of
+everything and of every change.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19147src" href="#xd33e19147" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> The Stoic doctrine of necessity was the direct consequence of the Stoic pantheism.
+The divine power which rules the world could not be the absolute uniting cause of
+all things, if there existed anything in any sense independent of it, and unless one
+unchanging causal connection governed every thing.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Providence directed immediately to the universe, indirectly to individuals.</i></span>
+Divine Providence, therefore, does not extend to individual things taken by themselves,
+but only to things in their relation to the whole. Everything being in every respect
+determined by this relation, and being consequently subject to the general order of
+the <span class="pageNum" id="pb177">[<a href="#pb177">177</a>]</span>world, it follows that we may say that God cares not only for the universe, but for
+all individual members of the universe.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19180src" href="#xd33e19180" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> The converse of this may also be asserted with equal justice, viz. that God’s care
+is directed to the whole, and not to individuals, and that it extends to things great,
+but not to things small.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19187src" href="#xd33e19187" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> Directly it always extends to the whole, indirectly to individuals throughout the
+whole, in so far as they are therein contained, and their condition is determined
+by its condition.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19203src" href="#xd33e19203" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> The Stoic notion of Providence is therefore entirely based on a view of the universe
+as a whole; individual things and persons can only come into consideration as dependent
+parts of this whole.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Difficulties connected with the theory of necessity.</i><br>(α) <i>Statement of several difficulties.</i></span>
+The Stoics were thus involved in a difficulty which besets every theory of necessity—the
+difficulty of doing justice to the claims of morality, and of vindicating the existence
+of moral responsibility. <span class="pageNum" id="pb178">[<a href="#pb178">178</a>]</span>This difficulty became for them all the more pressing the higher those claims were
+advanced, and the more severely they judged the great majority of their fellow-men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19229src" href="#xd33e19229" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> To overcome it, Chrysippus appears to have made most energetic efforts.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19234src" href="#xd33e19234" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> The existence of chance he could not allow, it being his aim to establish that what
+seems to be accidental has always some hidden cause.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19247src" href="#xd33e19247" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> Nor would he allow that everything is necessary, since that can only be called necessary
+which depends on no external conditions, and is therefore always true;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19285src" href="#xd33e19285" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> in other words, what is eternal and unchangeable, not that which comes to pass in
+time, however inevitable it may be.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19302src" href="#xd33e19302" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> And, by a similar process of reasoning, he still tried to rescue the idea of the
+Possible, little as that idea accords with the Stoic system.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19325src" href="#xd33e19325" title="Go to note 52.">52</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb179">[<a href="#pb179">179</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Moral responsibility vindicated.</i></span>
+In reference to human actions, the Stoics did not allow the freedom of the will, in
+the proper sense of the term;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19348src" href="#xd33e19348" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> but were of opinion that absence of freedom does not prejudice the character of the
+will as a deciding power. For is not one and the same all-determining power everywhere
+active, working in each particular being according to the law of its nature, in one
+way in organic beings, in another in inorganic beings, differently again in animals
+and plants, in rational and irrational creatures?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19351src" href="#xd33e19351" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> And albeit every action may be brought about by the co-operation of causes depending
+on the nature of things and the character of the agent, is it not still free, the
+resultant of our own impulses and decision?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19359src" href="#xd33e19359" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> Involuntary it would only be were it produced by external causes alone, without any
+co-operation, on the part of our wills, with external causes.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19391src" href="#xd33e19391" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> Moral <span class="pageNum" id="pb180">[<a href="#pb180">180</a>]</span>responsibility, according to the Stoics, depends only on freedom of the will. What
+emanates from my will is my action, no matter whether it be possible for me to act
+differently or not.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19425src" href="#xd33e19425" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> Praise and blame, rewards and punishment, express the judgment of society relative
+to the character of certain persons or actions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19431src" href="#xd33e19431" title="Go to note 58.">58</a> Whether they could have been different, or not, is irrelevant. Otherwise virtue and
+vice must be set down as things not in our power, for which, consequently, we are
+not responsible, seeing that when a man is once virtuous or vicious, he cannot be
+otherwise;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19443src" href="#xd33e19443" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> and the highest perfection, that of the Gods, is absolutely unchangeable.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19447src" href="#xd33e19447" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> Chrysippus<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19451src" href="#xd33e19451" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> even endeavoured to show, not only that his whole theory of destiny was in harmony
+with the claims of morality and moral responsibility, but that it presupposed their
+existence. The arrangement of the universe, he argued, involves law, and law involves
+the distinction between what is conventionally right and what is conventionally wrong,
+between what deserves praise and what deserves blame.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19454src" href="#xd33e19454" title="Go to note 62.">62</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb181">[<a href="#pb181">181</a>]</span>Moreover, it is impossible to think of destiny without thinking of the world, or to
+think of the world without thinking of the Gods, who are supremely good. Hence the
+idea of destiny involves also that of goodness, which again includes the contrast
+between virtue and vice, between what is praiseworthy and what is blameworthy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19528src" href="#xd33e19528" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> If his opponents objected that, if everything is determined by destiny, individual
+action is superfluous, since what has been once foreordained must happen, come what
+may, Chrysippus replied:—There is a distinction to be made between simple and complex
+predestination; the consequences of human actions being simply results of those actions,
+are quite as much foreordained as the actions themselves.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19576src" href="#xd33e19576" title="Go to note 64.">64</a>
+</p>
+<p>From these observations, it appears that the <span class="pageNum" id="pb182">[<a href="#pb182">182</a>]</span>Stoics never intended to allow man to hold a different position, in regard to destiny,
+from that held by other beings. All the actions of man—in fact, his destiny—are decided
+by his relation to things: one individual only differs from another in that one acts
+on his own impulse, and agreeably with his own feelings, whereas another, under compulsion
+and against his will, conforms to the eternal law of the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19664src" href="#xd33e19664" title="Go to note 65.">65</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.c">C. <i>Nature of the world.</i></span>
+Everything in the world being produced by one and the same divine power, the world,
+as regards its structure, is an organic whole, in respect of its <span class="pageNum" id="pb183">[<a href="#pb183">183</a>]</span> <span class="marginnote" id="ch7.c.1">(1) <i>Its unity and perfections.</i></span> constitution perfect. The unity of the world, a doctrine distinguishing the Stoics
+from the Epicureans, followed as a corollary from the unity of primary substance and
+of primary force.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19705src" href="#xd33e19705" title="Go to note 66.">66</a> It was further proved by the intimate connection, or, as the Stoics called it, the
+sympathy of all its parts, and, in particular, by the coincidence of the phenomena
+of earth and heaven.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19722src" href="#xd33e19722" title="Go to note 67.">67</a> The perfection of the world follows generally <span class="pageNum" id="pb184">[<a href="#pb184">184</a>]</span>from a consideration of fundamental principles.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19869src" href="#xd33e19869" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> But the Stoics made use of many arguments in support of its perfection, appealing,
+after the example of preceding philosophers, sometimes to its beauty, and, at other
+times, to the adaptation of means to ends.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19889src" href="#xd33e19889" title="Go to note 69.">69</a> An appeal to beauty is the assertion of Chrysippus, that nature made many creatures
+for the sake of beauty, the peacock, for instance, for the sake of its tail<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19901src" href="#xd33e19901" title="Go to note 70.">70</a>;—and the dictum of Marcus Aurelius, that what is purely subsidiary and subservient
+to no purpose, even what is ugly or frightful in nature, has peculiar attractions
+of its own;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19921src" href="#xd33e19921" title="Go to note 71.">71</a> and the <span class="pageNum" id="pb185">[<a href="#pb185">185</a>]</span>same kind of consideration may have led to the Stoic assertion, that no two things
+in nature are altogether alike.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19941src" href="#xd33e19941" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> Their chief argument, however, for the beauty of the world, was based on the shape,
+the size, and the colour of the heavenly structure.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19946src" href="#xd33e19946" title="Go to note 73.">73</a>
+</p>
+<p>The other line of argument is followed not so much in individual expressions. But
+owing no doubt to the pre-eminently practical character of its treatment of things,
+the Stoic view of nature, like the Socratic, has ever an eye on the adaptation of
+means to ends in the world. As, on the one hand, this adaptation of means to ends
+is the most convincing proof of the existence of deity, so, on the other hand, by
+it, more than by anything else, the divine government of the world makes itself manifest.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19960src" href="#xd33e19960" title="Go to note 74.">74</a> Like Socrates, however, they took a very superficial view of the adaptation of means
+to ends, arguing that everything in the world was created for the benefit of some
+other thing—plants for the support of animals, animals for the support and the service
+of man,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19965src" href="#xd33e19965" title="Go to note 75.">75</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb186">[<a href="#pb186">186</a>]</span>the world for the benefit of Gods and men<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e19992src" href="#xd33e19992" title="Go to note 76.">76</a>—not unfrequently degenerating into the ridiculous and pedantic, in their endeavours
+to trace the special end for which each thing exists.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20020src" href="#xd33e20020" title="Go to note 77.">77</a> But, in asking <span class="pageNum" id="pb187">[<a href="#pb187">187</a>]</span>the further question, For what purpose do Gods and men exist? they could not help
+being at length carried beyond the idea of a relative end to the idea of an end-in-itself.
+The end for which Gods and men exist is that of mutual society.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20046src" href="#xd33e20046" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> Or, expressing the same idea in language more philosophical, the end of man is the
+contemplation and imitation of the world; man has only importance as being a part
+of a whole; only this whole is perfect and an end-in-itself.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20049src" href="#xd33e20049" title="Go to note 79.">79</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch7.c.2">(2) <i>Moral theory of the world.</i></span>
+The greater the importance attached by the Stoics to the perfection of the world,
+the less were they able to avoid the difficult problem of reconciling the various
+forms of evil in the world. By the attention which, following the example of Plato,
+they gave to this question, they may be said to be the real creators of the moral
+theory of the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20060src" href="#xd33e20060" title="Go to note 80.">80</a> The character of this moral theory was already determined by their system. Subordinating
+individuals, as that system did, to the law of the whole, it met the charges preferred
+against the evil found in the world by the general maxim, that imperfection in details
+is necessary for the perfection of the whole.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20073src" href="#xd33e20073" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> This maxim, however, might be explained <span class="pageNum" id="pb188">[<a href="#pb188">188</a>]</span>in several ways, according to the meaning assigned to the term necessary. If necessity
+is taken to be physical, the existence of evil is excused as being a natural necessity,
+from which not even deity could grant exemption. If, on the other hand, the necessity
+is not a physical one, but one arising from the relation of means to ends, evil is
+justified as a condition or necessary means for bringing about good. Both views are
+combined in the three chief questions involved in the moral theory of the world: the
+existence of physical evil, the existence of moral evil, and the relation of outward
+circumstances to morality.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>Existence of physical evil.</i></span>
+The existence of physical evil gave the Stoics little trouble, since they refused
+to regard it as an evil at all, as will be seen in treating of their ethical system.
+It was enough for them to refer evils of this kind—diseases, for instance—to natural
+causes, and to regard them as the inevitable consequences of causes framed by nature
+to serve a definite purpose.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20098src" href="#xd33e20098" title="Go to note 82.">82</a> Still, they did not fail to point out that <span class="pageNum" id="pb189">[<a href="#pb189">189</a>]</span>many things only become evil by a perverted use,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20163src" href="#xd33e20163" title="Go to note 83.">83</a> and that other things, ordinarily regarded as evils, are of the greatest value.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20169src" href="#xd33e20169" title="Go to note 84.">84</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Existence of moral evil</i></span>
+Greater difficulty was found by the Stoics to beset the attempt to justify the existence
+of moral evil, and the difficulty was enhanced in their case by the prevalence and
+intensity of moral evil in the world<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20185src" href="#xd33e20185" title="Go to note 85.">85</a> according to their view. By their theory of necessity they were prevented from shifting
+the responsibility for moral evil from natural law or deity on to man, which is one
+way out of the difficulty. In not altogether eschewing this course, and yet refusing
+to allow to deity any participation in evil, and referring evil to the free will and
+intention of man,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20190src" href="#xd33e20190" title="Go to note 86.">86</a> they acted as other <span class="pageNum" id="pb190">[<a href="#pb190">190</a>]</span>systems of necessity have done before,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20257src" href="#xd33e20257" title="Go to note 87.">87</a> reserving the final word. The real solution which they gave to the difficulty is
+to be found partly in the assertion that even the deity is not able to keep human
+nature free from faults,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20262src" href="#xd33e20262" title="Go to note 88.">88</a> and partly in the consideration that the existence of evil is necessary, as a counterpart
+and supplement to good,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20282src" href="#xd33e20282" title="Go to note 89.">89</a> and that, in the long run, evil will be turned by the deity into good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20340src" href="#xd33e20340" title="Go to note 90.">90</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb191">[<a href="#pb191">191</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Connection between virtue and happiness.</i></span>
+The third point in their moral theory of the world, the connection between moral worth
+and happiness, engaged all the subtlety of Chrysippus and his followers. To deny any
+connection between them would have been to contradict the ordinary views of the relation
+of means to ends. Besides, they were prepared to regard some part of the evils of
+life as divine judgments.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20394src" href="#xd33e20394" title="Go to note 91.">91</a> Still there were facts which could not be reconciled with this view—the misfortunes
+of the virtuous, the good fortune of the vicious—and these required explanation. The
+task of explaining them appears to have involved the Stoics in considerable embarrassment,
+nor were their answers altogether satisfactory.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20432src" href="#xd33e20432" title="Go to note 92.">92</a> The spirit of their system, however, <span class="pageNum" id="pb192">[<a href="#pb192">192</a>]</span>rendered only one explanation possible: no real evil could happen to the virtuous,
+no real good fortune could fall to the lot of the vicious.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20480src" href="#xd33e20480" title="Go to note 93.">93</a> Apparent misfortune will be regarded by the wise man partly as a natural consequence,
+partly as a wholesome training for his moral powers;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20492src" href="#xd33e20492" title="Go to note 94.">94</a> there is nothing which is not matter for rational action: everything that happens,
+when rightly considered, contributes to our good; nothing that is secured by moral
+depravity is in itself desirable.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20505src" href="#xd33e20505" title="Go to note 95.">95</a> With this view it <span class="pageNum" id="pb193">[<a href="#pb193">193</a>]</span>was possible to connect a belief in divine punishment, by saying that what to a good
+man is a training of his powers, is a real misfortune and consequently a punishment
+to a bad man; but we are not in a position to say whether the scattered hints of Chrysippus
+really bear this meaning.
+</p>
+<p>The whole investigation is one involving much doubt and inconsistency. Natural considerations
+frequently intertwine with considerations based on the adaptation of means to ends;
+the divine power is oftentimes treated as a will working towards a definite purpose,
+at one time arranging all things for the best with unlimited power, at another time
+according to an unchangeable law of nature;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20521src" href="#xd33e20521" title="Go to note 96.">96</a> but all these inconsistencies and defects belong to other moral theories of the world,
+quite as much as they belong to that of the Stoics.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb194">[<a href="#pb194">194</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17445">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17445src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 136: <span class="trans" title="kat’ archas men oun kath’ hauton onta [ton theon] trepein tēn pasan ousian di’ aeros eis hydōr; kai hōsper en tē gonē to sperma periechetai, houtō kai touton spermatikon logon onta tou kosmou toioude hypolipesthai en tō hygrō energon autō poiounta tēn hylēn pros tēn tōn hexēs genesin, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατ’ ἀρχὰς μὲν οὖν καθ’ αὑτὸν ὄντα [τὸν θεὸν] τρέπειν τὴν πᾶσαν οὐσίαν δι’ ἀέρος εἰς
+ὕδωρ· καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ γονῇ τὸ σπέρμα περιέχεται, οὕτω καὶ τοῦτον σπερματικὸν λόγον
+ὄντα τοῦ κόσμου τοιοῦδε ὑπολιπέσθαι ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ ἐνεργὸν αὐτῷ ποιοῦντα τὴν ὕλην πρὸς
+τὴν τῶν ἑξῆς γένεσιν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Seneca</i>, Nat. Quæst. iii. 13, 1: Fire will consume the world: <span lang="la">hunc evanidum considere, et nihil relinqui aliud in rerum natura, igne restincto,
+quam humorem. In hoc futuri mundi spem latere.</span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 372 and 414, 5. See pp. 161, 2; 164, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17445src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17464">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17464src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> i. 370: <span class="trans" title="Zēnōna de houtōs apophainesthai diarrēdēn; toiautēn deēsei einai en periodō tēn tou holou diakosmēsin ek tēs ousias. hotan ek pyros tropē eis hydōr di’ aeros genētai to men ti hyphistasthai kai gēn synistasthai, ek tou loipou de to men diamenein hydōr, ek de tou atmizomenou aera ginesthai, ek tinos de tou aeros pyr exaptein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνωνα δὲ οὕτως ἀποφαίνεσθαι διαρρήδην· τοιαύτην <span class="pageNum" id="pb162n">[<a href="#pb162n">162</a>]</span>δεήσει εἶναι ἐν περιόδῳ τὴν τοῦ ὅλου διακόσμησιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς τροπὴ
+εἰς ὕδωρ δι’ ἀέρος γένηται τὸ μέν τι ὑφίστασθαι καὶ γῆν συνίστασθαι, ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ
+δὲ τὸ μὲν διαμένειν ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἀτμιζομένου ἀέρα γίνεσθαι, ἐκ τινος δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος
+πῦρ ἐξάπτειν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 142: <span class="trans" title="ginesthai de ton kosmon hotan ek pyros hē ousia trapē di’ aeros eis hygrotēta, eita to pachymeres autou systan apotelesthē gē to de leptomeres exaerōthē kai tout’ epipleon leptynthen pyr apogennēsē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι’ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα, εἶτα τὸ
+παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς ἐξαερωθῇ καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπιπλέον
+λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="eita kata mixin ek toutōn phyta te kai zōa kai alla genē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶτα κατὰ μίξιν ἐκ τούτων φυτά τε καὶ ζῷα καὶ ἄλλα γένη</span></span>. Chrys. in <i>Plut.</i> St. Rep. 41, 3, p. 1053: <span class="trans" title="hē de pyros metabolē esti toiautē; di’ aeros eis hydōr trepetai; kak toutou gēs hyphistamenēs aēr enthymiatai; leptynomenou de tou aeros ho aithēr pericheitai kyklō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη· δι’ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ τρέπεται· κἀκ τούτου γῆς ὑφισταμένης
+ἀὴρ ἐνθυμιᾶται· λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ</span></span>. The same writer observes, in the Scholia on Hesiod’s Theogony, v. 459, <span class="trans" title="hoti kathygrōn ontōn tōn holōn kai ombrōn katapheromenōn pollōn tēn ekkrisin toutōn Kronon ōnomasthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι καθύγρων ὄντων τῶν ὅλων καὶ ὄμβρων καταφερομένων πολλῶν τὴν ἔκκρισιν τούτων Κρόνον
+ὠνομάσθαι</span></span>. Conf. <i>Clemens</i>, Strom. v. 599, <span class="asc">C</span>, and <i>Stob.</i> i. 312.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17464src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17524">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17524src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 442, also affirms that the creation of the universe begins with earth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17524src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17528">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17528src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="Kleanthēs de houtō pōs phēsin; ekphlogisthentos tou pantos synizein to meson autou prōton, eita ta echomena aposbennysthai di’ holou. tou de pantos exygranthentos, to eschaton tou pyros, antitypēsantos autō tou mesou, trepesthai palin eis tounantion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κλεάνθης δὲ οὕτω πώς φησιν· ἐκφλογισθέντος τοῦ παντὸς συνίζειν τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ πρῶτον,
+εἶτα τὰ ἐχόμενα ἀποσβέννυσθαι δι’ ὅλου. τοῦ δὲ παντὸς ἐξυγρανθέντος, τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ
+πυρὸς, ἀντιτυπήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ μέσου, τρέπεσθαι πάλιν εἰς τοὐναντίον</span></span> (the probable meaning is, that the last remains of the original fire begin a motion
+in the opposite direction) <span class="trans" title="eith’ houtō trepomenon anō phēsin auxesthai; kai archesthai diakosmein to holon, kai toiautēn periodon aei kai diakosmēsin poioumenou tou en tē tōn holōn ousia tonou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶθ’ οὕτω τρεπόμενον ἄνω φησὶν αὔξεσθαι· καὶ ἄρχεσθαι διακοσμεῖν τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τοιαύτην
+περίοδον ἀεὶ καὶ διακόσμησιν ποιουμένου τοῦ ἐν τῇ τῶν ὅλων οὐσίᾳ τόνου</span></span> (for this favourite expression of Cleanthes, see p. 127, 5; 128, 2) <span class="trans" title="mē pauesthai [diakosmoumenon to holon]. hōsper gar henos tinos ta merē panta phyetai ek spermatōn en tois kathēkousi chronois, houtō kai tou holou ta merē, hōn kai ta zōa kai ta phyta onta tynchanei, en tois kathēkousi chronois phyetai. kai hōsper tines logoi tōn merōn eis sperma syniontes mignyntai kai authis diakrinontai genomenōn tōn merōn, houtōs ex henos te panta gignesthai kai ek pantōn eis hen synkrinesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ παύεσθαι [διακοσμούμενον τὸ ὅλον]. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἑνός τινος τὰ μέρη πάντα φύεται ἐκ
+σπερμάτων ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ ὅλου τὰ μέρη, ὧν καὶ τὰ ζῷα καὶ
+τὰ φυτὰ ὄντα τυγχάνει, ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις φύεται. καὶ ὥσπερ τινὲς λόγοι τῶν
+μερῶν εἰς σπέρμα συνιόντες μίγνυνται καὶ αὖθις διακρίνονται γενομένων τῶν μερῶν, οὕτως
+ἐξ ἑνός τε πάντα γίγνεσθαι καὶ ἐκ πάντων εἰς ἓν συγκρίνεσθαι</span></span>, (conf. Heraclit. in vol. i. 467, 1), <span class="trans" title="hodō kai symphōnōs diexiousēs tēs periodou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁδῷ καὶ συμφώνως διεξιούσης τῆς περιόδου</span></span>. A few further details are supplied by <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 17. The myth respecting the birth of Apollo and Artemis is referred to the
+formation of the sun and moon. <span lang="la">Namque post chaos, ubi primum cœpit confusa deformitas in rerum formas et elementa
+nitescere, terræque adhuc humida substantia in molli atque instabili sede nutaret:
+convalescente paullatim æthereo calore atque inde seminibus in eam igneis defluentibus</span> (the connection of Zeus, i.e., of Ether, with Leto, the Earth) <span lang="la">hæc sidera edita esse creduntur; et solem maxima caloris vi in superna raptum; lunam
+vero humidiore et velut femineo sexu naturali quodam pressam tepore inferiora tenuisse,
+tanquam ille magis substantia patris constet, <span class="pageNum" id="pb163n">[<a href="#pb163n">163</a>]</span>hæc matris.</span> The statement that besides other things plants and animals had their origin in the
+intermingling of elements (<i>Stob.</i> and <i>Diog.</i>) must be understood in the sense of <span lang="la">generatio æquivoca.</span> <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. vii. 4, says the Stoics make men grow like sponges out of the earth, and <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 28 says the Stoics speak of the earth-born men of prehistoric ages.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17528src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17590">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17590src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> There must always be some remainder of heat or fire, as Cleanthes and Chrysippus avowed,
+or else there would be no active life-power from which a new creation could emanate.
+<i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 964, C, observes that, if the world were entirely consumed by fire
+at the <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσις</span></span>, the fire itself would be extinguished, and no new world would be possible. <span class="trans" title="dio kai tines tōn apo tēs stoas ... ephasan, hoti meta tēn ekpyrōsin, epeidan ho neos kosmos mellē dēmiourgeisthai, sympan men to pyr ou sbennytai, posē de tis autou moira hypoleipetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὸ καί τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς … ἔφασαν, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν, ἐπειδὰν ὁ νέος κόσμος
+μέλλῃ δημιουργεῖσθαι, σύμπαν μὲν τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται, ποσὴ δέ τις αὐτοῦ μοῖρα ὑπολείπεται</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17590src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17611">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17611src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> Chrys. in <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 41, 6: <span class="trans" title="diolou men gar ōn ho kosmos pyrōdēs euthys kai psychē estin heautou kai hēgemonikon. hote de metabalōn eis to hygron kai tēn enapoleiphtheisan psychēn tropon tina eis sōma kai psychēn metebalen hōste synestanai ek toutōn, allon tina esche logon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διόλου μὲν γὰρ ὢν ὁ κόσμος πυρώδης εὐθὺς καὶ ψυχή ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικόν. ὅτε
+δὲ μεταβαλὼν εἰς τὸ ὑγρὸν καὶ τὴν ἐναπολειφθεῖσαν ψυχὴν τρόπον τινὰ εἰς σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν
+μετέβαλεν ὥστε συνεστάναι ἐκ τούτων, ἄλλον τινὰ ἔσχε λόγον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17611src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17624">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17624src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. C. 2, p. 72: <span class="trans" title="legousi de hoi Stōïkoi, tōn stoicheiōn ta men einai drastika ta de pathētika; drastika men aera kai pyr, pathētika de gēn kai hydōr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγουσι δὲ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, τῶν στοιχείων τὰ μὲν εἶναι δραστικὰ τὰ δὲ παθητικά· δραστικὰ
+μὲν ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ, παθητικὰ δὲ γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 49, 2. See above p. 127, 5. From this passage a further insight is obtained
+into two points connected with the Stoic philosophy, which have been already discussed.
+It can no longer appear strange that the active power, or deity (and likewise the
+human soul), should at one time be called Fire, at another Air-Current, for both represent
+equally the acting force; and the statement that properties are atmospheric currents—as,
+indeed, the whole distinction of subject-matter and property—follows from this view
+of things.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17624src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17645">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17645src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> The Stoics, according to <i>Diog.</i> 141, where, however, there is apparently a lacuna in the text, prove that the world
+(<span class="trans" title="diakosmēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διακόσμησις</span></span>, not <span class="trans" title="kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμος</span></span>, in the absolute sense, see p. 158, 1) will come to an end, partly because it has
+come into being, and partly by two not very logical inferences: <span class="trans" title="hou ta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗ τὰ</span></span> [<span lang="la">vulgo</span> <span class="trans" title="hou te ta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗ τε τὰ</span></span>, <i>Cobet</i>: <span class="trans" title="hou ta te] merē phtharta esti, kai to holon; ta de mera tou kosmou phtharta, eis allēla gar metaballei; phthartos ara ho kosmos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗ τά τε] μέρη φθαρτά ἐστι, καὶ τὸ ὅλον· τὰ δὲ μέρα τοῦ κόσμου φθαρτὰ, εἰς ἄλληλα
+γὰρ μεταβάλλει· φθαρτὸς ἄρα ὁ κόσμος·</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ei ti epidektikon esti tēs epi cheiron metabolēs, phtharton esti; kai ho kosmos ara; exauchmoutai gar kai exydatoutai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἴ τι <span class="corr" id="xd33e17699" title="Source: ἐπιδεικτόν">ἐπιδεκτικόν</span> <span id="xd33e17703">ἐστι</span> τῆς ἐπὶ χεῖρον μεταβολῆς, φθαρτόν ἐστι· καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἄρα· ἐξαυχμοῦται γὰρ καὶ ἐξυδατοῦται</span></span>. Conf. <i>Alex.</i> Meteora, 90. In <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 44, 2, p. 1054, Chrysippus asserts that the <span class="trans" title="ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐσία</span></span> is immortal, but to <span class="trans" title="kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμος</span></span> belongs a <span class="trans" title="hōsper aphtharsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὥσπερ ἀφθαρσία</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17645src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17741">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17741src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 39, 2, p. 1052: [<span class="trans" title="Chrysippos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="en tō prōtō peri pronoias ton Dia, phēsin, auxesthai mechris an eis hauton hapanta katanalōsē. epei gar ho thanatos men esti psychēs chōrismos apo tou sōmatos, hē de tou kosmou psychē ou chōrizetai men, auxetai de synechōs mechris an eis hautēn exanalōsē tēn hylēn, ou rhēteon apothnēskein ton kosmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ προνοίας τὸν Δία, φησὶν, αὔξεσθαι μέχρις ἂν εἰς αὑτὸν ἅπαντα καταναλώσῃ.
+ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ θάνατος μέν ἐστι ψυχῆς χωρισμὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴ οὐ
+χωρίζεται μὲν, αὔξεται δὲ συνεχῶς μέχρις ἂν εἰς αὑτὴν ἐξαναλώσῃ τὴν ὕλην, οὐ ῥητέον
+ἀποθνήσκειν τὸν κόσμον</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 414 (according to <i>Numenius</i>: see <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 18, 1): <span class="trans" title="Zēnōni kai Kleanthei kai Chrysippō areskei tēn ousian metaballein hoion eis sperma to pyr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνωνι καὶ Κλεάνθει καὶ Χρυσίππῳ ἀρέσκει τὴν οὐσίαν μεταβάλλειν οἷον εἰς σπέρμα τὸ
+πῦρ</span></span> (<i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 956, B, expresses himself against this description) <span class="trans" title="kai palin ek toutou toiautēn apoteleisthai tēn diakosmēsin hoia proteron ēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ πάλιν ἐκ τούτου τοιαύτην ἀποτελεῖσθαι τὴν διακόσμησιν οἷα πρότερον ἦν</span></span>. <i>Seneca</i>, Consol. ad Marciam, gives a graphic description of the end of the world, which recalls
+the language of the Revelation. Compare, on the subject of <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσις</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> vii. 142, 137 (see above p. 158, 1); <i>Ar<span>.</span> Didym.</i> in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 1; <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 36 (see p. 153, 2); <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 25, p. 53; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 37, 119; N.&nbsp;D. ii. 46, 118; <i>Sen.</i> Consol. ad Polyb. i. 2; <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> in Meteor. 90, a. In the last-named passage, it is urged by the Stoics, in support
+of their view, that even now large tracts of water are dried up or else take the place
+of dry land. <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. iii. b; De Cœlo; Schol. in Arist. 487, b, 35 and 489, a, 13; <i>Justin.</i> Apol. i. 20; ii. 7; <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. iii. 75, 497, a; vi. 71. Since at the <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσις</span></span> everything <span class="pageNum" id="pb165n">[<a href="#pb165n">165</a>]</span>is resolved into deity, <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 17, 3, p. 1067, says: <span class="trans" title="hotan ekpyrōsōsi ton kosmon houtoi, kakon men oud’ hotioun apoleipetai, to d’ holon phronimon esti tēnikauta kai sophon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅταν ἐκπυρώσωσι τὸν κόσμον οὗτοι, κακὸν μὲν οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν ἀπολείπεται, τὸ δ’ ὅλον φρόνιμόν
+ἐστι τηνικαῦτα καὶ σοφόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17741src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17844">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17844src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 18, 1: <span class="trans" title="areskei de tois presbytatois tōn apo tēs haireseōs tautēs, exaerousthai panta kata periodous tinas tas megistas, eis pyr aitherōdes analyomenōn pantōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρέσκει δὲ τοῖς πρεσβυτάτοις τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως ταύτης, <span class="corr" id="xd33e17852" title="Source: ἐξαγροῦσθαι">ἐξαεροῦσθαι</span> πάντα κατὰ περιόδους τινὰς τὰς μεγίστας, εἰς πῦρ αἰθερῶδες ἀναλυομένων πάντων</span></span>. According to <i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 954, <span class="asc">E</span>, Cleanthes called this fire <span class="trans" title="phlox"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φλόξ</span></span>, Chrysippus <span class="trans" title="augē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐγή</span></span>. Respecting <span class="trans" title="anthrax, phlox, augē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνθραξ, φλόξ, αὐγή</span></span>, see <i>ibid.</i> 953, <span class="asc">E</span>. The observations on p. 151 respecting the identity of <span class="trans" title="pyr, pneuma, aithēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ, πνεῦμα, αἰθὴρ</span></span> apply here.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17844src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17905">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17905src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> This is, at least, the import of the general principle (assigned to Chrysippus by
+<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 314) expressed by Heraclitus, that, in the resolution of earth and water
+into fire, the same steps intervene, in a retrograde order, as in their generation.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17905src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17910">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17910src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> See p. 147, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17910src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17913">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17913src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 31, 10: <span class="trans" title="epagōnizomenos ho Kleanthēs tē ekpyrōsei legei tēn selēnēn kai ta loipa astra ton hēlion exomoiōsai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπαγωνιζόμενος ὁ Κλεάνθης τῇ ἐκπυρώσει λέγει τὴν σελήνην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα τὸν ἥλιον
+ἐξομοιῶσαι</span></span> [leg. -<span class="trans" title="ein] panta heautō kai metabalein eis heauton"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e17927">ειν</span>] πάντα ἑαυτῷ καὶ μεταβαλεῖν εἰς ἑαυτόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17913src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17941">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17941src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> It is expressly asserted that everything, without exception, is liable to this destiny;
+neither the soul nor the Gods are exempt. Conf. <i>Sen.</i> Cons. ad Marc. 26, 7: <span lang="la">Nos quoque felices animæ et æterna sortitæ</span> (the words are put in the mouth of a dead man) <span lang="la">cum Deo visum sit iterum ista moliri, labentibus cunctis, et ipsæ parva ruinæ ingentis
+accessio, in antiqua elementa vertemur.</span> Chrysippus says of the Gods, in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 38, 5: Some of the Gods have come into being and are perishable, others
+are eternal: Helios and Selene, and other similar deities, have come into being; Zeus
+is eternal. In <i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 950, A, <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. iv. 68, <i>Plut.</i> Def. Orac. 19, p. 420, Com. Not. 31, 5, p. 1075, it is objected that, at the general
+conflagration, the Gods will melt away, as though they were made of wax or tin. According
+to <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri theōn diagōgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς</span></span>, Tab. i. 1, Vol. Hercul. vi. 1, even Zeno restricted the happy life of the Gods to
+certain lengthy periods of time.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17941src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e17973">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e17973src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Arius</i>, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 19: <span class="trans" title="epi tosouto de proelthōn ho koinos logos kai koinē physis meizōn kai pleiōn genomenē telos anaxēranasa panta kai eis heautēn analabousa en tē pasē ousia ginetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπὶ τοσοῦτο δὲ προελθὼν ὁ κοινὸς λόγος καὶ κοινὴ φύσις μείζων καὶ πλείων γενομένη
+τέλος ἀναξηράνασα πάντα καὶ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναλαβοῦσα ἐν τῇ πάσῃ οὐσίᾳ γίνεται</span></span> (it occupies the room of the whole substance) <span class="trans" title="epanelthousa eis ton prōton rhēthenta logon kai eis anastasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπανελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν πρῶτον ῥηθέντα λόγον καὶ εἰς ἀνάστασιν</span></span> [? <span class="trans" title="katastasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατάστασιν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="ekeinēn tēn poiousan eniauton ton megiston, kath’ hon ap’ autēs monēs eis autēn palin ginetai hē apokatastasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκείνην τὴν ποιοῦσαν <span id="xd33e18004">ἐνιαυτὸν</span> τὸν μέγιστον, καθ’ ὃν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς μόνης εἰς αὐτὴν πάλιν γίνεται ἡ ἀποκατάστασις</span></span> (the same in <i>Philop.</i> Gen. et Corr. B. ii. Schl. p. 70), <span class="trans" title="epanelthousa de dia taxin aph’ hoias diakosmein hōsautōs ērxato kata logon palin tēn autēn diexagōgēn poieitai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπανελθοῦσα δὲ διὰ τάξιν ἀφ’ οἵας διακοσμεῖν ὡσαύτως ἤρξατο κατὰ λόγον πάλιν τὴν αὐτὴν
+διεξαγωγὴν ποιεῖται</span></span>. See p. 161. According to <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. c, 38, p. 147, conf. <i>Censorin.</i> Di. Nat. 18, 11, the <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσις</span></span> takes place when all the planets have got back to the identical places which they
+occupied at the beginning of the world, or, in other words, when a periodic year is
+complete. The length of a periodic year was estimated by Diogenes (<i>Plut.</i> Pl. i. 32, 2; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 264) at 365 periods, or 365 × 18,000 ordinary years. <i>Plut.</i> De Ei ap. D. 9, g, E, p. 389 mentions the opinion, <span class="trans" title="hoper tria pros hen, touto tēn diakosmēsin chronō pros tēn ekpyrōsin einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅπερ τρία πρὸς ἓν, τοῦτο τὴν διακόσμησιν χρόνῳ πρὸς τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν εἶναι</span></span>. Inasmuch as it had been previously said that the duration of <span class="trans" title="koros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόρος</span></span> (i.e. <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσις</span></span>) was longer, and that therefore Apollo, who represents the state of perfect unity,
+was honoured nine months with the pæan, whilst Dionysus, torn to pieces by the Titans,
+the emblem of the present world of contraries, was only honoured for three with the
+dithyramb, some mistake seems to have crept in. Probably we ought either to read <span class="trans" title="hoper pros tria hen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅπερ πρὸς τρία ἕν</span></span>, or to transpose the passage from <span class="trans" title="diakosmēsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διακόσμησιν</span></span> to <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσιν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e17973src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18092">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18092src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> The belief in changing cycles is a common one in the older Greek philosophy. In particular,
+the Stoics found it in Heraclitus. The belief, however, that each new world exactly
+represents the preceding one is first met with among the Pythagoreans, and is closely
+connected with the theory of the migration of souls and a periodic year. Eudemus,
+in a passage which has generally been lost sight of in describing Pythagorean teaching,
+had taught (in <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 173): <span class="trans" title="ei de tis pisteuseie tois Pythagoreiois, hōs palin ta auta arithmō kagō mythologēsō to rhabdion echōn hymin kathēmenois houtō kai ta alla panta homoiōs hexei, kai ton chronon eulogon esti ton auton einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δέ τις πιστεύσειε τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις, ὡς πάλιν τὰ αὐτὰ ἀριθμῷ κἀγὼ μυθολογήσω τὸ
+ῥαβδίον ἔχων ὑμῖν καθημένοις <span class="corr" id="xd33e18100" title="Source: αὕτω">οὕτω</span> καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὁμοίως ἕξει, καὶ τὸν χρόνον εὔλογόν ἐστι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι</span></span> (in that case the time must be the same as the present time). The Stoics appear to
+have borrowed this view from the Pythagoreans <span class="pageNum" id="pb167n">[<a href="#pb167n">167</a>]</span>(unless with other Orphic-Pythagorean views it was known to Heraclitus), and it commended
+itself to them as being in harmony with their theory of necessity. Hence they taught:
+<span class="trans" title="meta tēn ekpyrōsin palin panta tauta en tō kosmō genesthai kat’ arithmon, hōs kai ton idiōs poion palin ton auton tō prosthen einai te kai ginesthai ekeinō tō kosmō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μετὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν πάλιν πάντα ταὐτὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ γενέσθαι κατ’ ἀριθμὸν, ὡς καὶ τὸν
+ἰδίως ποιὸν πάλιν τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ πρόσθεν εἶναί τε καὶ γίνεσθαι ἐκείνῳ τῷ κόσμῳ</span></span> (<i>Alex.</i> Anal. Pr. 58, b). <span class="trans" title="toutou de houtōs echontos, dēlon, hōs ouden adynaton, kai hēmas meta to teleutēsai palin periodōn tinōn eilēmmenōn chronon eis hon nyn esmen katastēsesthai schēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τούτου δὲ οὕτως ἔχοντος, δῆλον, ὡς οὐδὲν ἀδύνατον, καὶ ἡμᾶς μετὰ τὸ τελευτῆσαι πάλιν
+περιόδων τινῶν εἰλημμένων χρόνον εἰς ὃν νῦν ἐσμεν καταστήσεσθαι σχῆμα</span></span> (Chrysippus, <span class="trans" title="peri Pronoias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ Προνοίας</span></span>, in <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. vii. 23. Conf. <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 36, 10: <span lang="la">Veniet iterum qui nos in lucem reponat dies</span>). This applies to every fact and to every occurrence in the new world, at the <span class="trans" title="palingenesia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παλιγγενεσία</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="apokatastasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποκατάστασις</span></span> (as the return of a former age is called): thus there will be another Socrates, who
+will marry another Xanthippe, and be accused by another Anytus and Meletus. Hence
+<i>M. Aurel.</i> vii. 19, xi. 1, deduces his adage, that nothing new happens under the sun. <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 207, b; <i>Philop.</i> Gen. et Corr. B. ii. Schl. p. 70; <i>Tatian.</i> c. Græc. c, 3, 245, d; <i>Clemens</i>, Strom. v. 549, <span class="asc">D</span>; <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. iv. 68; v. 20 and 23; <i>Nemes.</i> l.c.; <i>Plut.</i> Def. Or. 29, p. 425. Amongst other things, the Stoics raised the question, Whether
+the Socrates who would appear in the future world would be numerically identical (<span class="trans" title="heis arithmō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἷς ἀριθμῷ</span></span>) with the present Socrates or not? (<i>Simpl.</i> l.c.)—the answer being, that they could not be numerically identical, since this
+would involve uninterrupted existence, but that they would be alike without a difference
+(<span class="trans" title="aparallaktoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπαράλλακτοι</span></span>). Others, however, chiefly among the younger Stoics, appear to have held that there
+might be noticeable differences between the two. (<i>Orig.</i> v. 20, 592, c.) This remark appears to have given rise to the false notion (<i>Hippolyt.</i> Refut. Hær. i. 21; <i>Epiphan.</i> Hær. v. p. 12, b) that the Stoics believed in the transmigration of souls. The remark
+made by <i>Nemes.</i>, that the Gods know the whole course of the present world, from having survived the
+end of the former one, can only apply to one highest God, who, however, does not require
+such empirical knowledge. The other deities will not have survived the general conflagration.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18092src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18212">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18212src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Ar. Didym.</i> l.c. continues: <span class="trans" title="tōn toioutōn periodōn ex aïdiou ginomenōn akatapaustōs. oute gar tēs archēs aitian kai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν τοιούτων περιόδων ἐξ ἀϊδίου γινομένων ἀκαταπαύστως. οὔτε γὰρ τῆς ἀρχῆς αἰτίαν
+καὶ</span></span> [del.] <span class="trans" title="pasin hoion te ginesthai, oute tou dioikountos auta. ousian te gar tois ginomenois hyphestanai dei pephykuian anadechesthai tas metabolas pasas kai to dēmiourgēson ex autēs, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶσιν οἷόν τε γινέσθαι, οὔτε τοῦ διοικοῦντος αὐτά. οὐσίαν τε γὰρ τοῖς γινομένοις ὑφεστάναι
+δεῖ πεφυκυῖαν ἀναδέχεσθαι τὰς μεταβολὰς πάσας καὶ τὸ δημιουργῆσον ἐξ αὐτῆς, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Conf. <i>Philop.</i>: <span class="trans" title="aporēseie d’ an tis, hōs phēsin Alexandros, pros Aristotelē. ei gar hē hylē hē autē aei diamenei, esti de kai to poiētikon aition to auto aei, dia poian aitian ouchi kata periodon tina pleionos chronou ek tēs autēs hylēs ta auta palin kat’ arithmon hypo tōn autōn estai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπορήσειε δ’ ἄν τις, ὥς φησιν <span class="pageNum" id="pb168n">[<a href="#pb168n">168</a>]</span>Ἀλέξανδρος, πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλη. εἰ γὰρ ἡ ὕλη ἡ αὐτὴ ἀεὶ διαμένει, ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν
+αἴτιον τὸ αὐτὸ ἀεὶ, διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν οὐχὶ κατὰ περίοδόν τινα πλείονος χρόνου ἐκ τῆς
+αὐτῆς ὕλης τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν κατ’ ἀριθμὸν ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔσται</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="hoper tines phasi kata tēn palingenesian kai ton megan eniauton symbainein, en hō pantōn tōn autōn apokatastasis ginetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅπερ τινές φασι κατὰ τὴν παλιγγενέσιαν καὶ τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν συμβαίνειν, ἐν ᾧ πάντων
+τῶν αὐτῶν ἀποκατάστασις γίνεται</span></span>. See <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 32.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18212src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18257">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18257src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> According to Philo (Incorrupt. M. 947, C), besides Posidonius and Panætius, his instructor
+(<i>Diog.</i> vii. 142; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 414), Boëthus asserted, in opposition to the ordinary Stoic teaching, the
+eternity of the world. Philo adds that this was also the view of Diogenes of Seleucia
+in his later years. Moreover, Zeno of Tarsus, on the authority of Numenius (in <i>Euseb.</i> Præp. Ev. xv. 19, 2), considered that the destruction of the world by fire could
+not be proved (<span class="trans" title="phasin epischein peri tēs ekpyrōseōs tōn holōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φασὶν ἐπισχεῖν περὶ τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως τῶν ὅλων</span></span>). But these statements are elsewhere contradicted. Diogenes mentions Posidonius as
+one who held the destruction of the world by fire. The testimony of Diogenes is confirmed
+by <i>Plut.</i> Pl. Phil. ii. 9, 3 (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 380; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 40. See <i>Achill. Tatian</i>, Isag. 131, <span class="asc">C</span>), who says that Posidonius only allowed so much empty space outside the world as
+was necessary for the world to be dissolved in at the <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσις</span></span>. The difference between his view and the older Stoical view which Bake (Posidon.
+Rel. 58) deduces from <i>Stob.</i> i. 432, is purely imaginary. Antipater, according to Diogenes, also believed in a
+future conflagration. Little importance can be attached to the statement in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 46, 118, respecting Panætius, <span lang="la">addubitare dicebant</span>; whereas the words of <i>Stob.</i> are: <span class="trans" title="pithanōteran nomizei tēn aïdiotēta tou kosmou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πιθανωτέραν νομίζει τὴν ἀϊδιότητα τοῦ κόσμου</span></span>; and those of <i>Diog.</i>: <span class="trans" title="aphtharton apephēnato ton kosmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄφθαρτον ἀπεφήνατο τὸν κόσμον</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Boëthus emphatically denied the destruction of the world, his chief reasons (in <i>Philo</i>, l.c. 952, <span class="asc">C</span>) being the following:—(1) If the world were destroyed, it would be a destruction
+without a cause, for there is no cause, either within or without, which could produce
+such an effect. (2) Of the three modes of destruction, those <span class="trans" title="kata diairesin, kata anairesin tēs epechousēs poiotētos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ διαίρεσιν, κατὰ ἀναίρεσιν τῆς ἐπεχούσης ποιότητος</span></span> (as in the crushing of a statue), <span class="trans" title="kata synchysin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ σύγχυσιν</span></span> (as in chemical resolution), not one can apply to the world. (3) If the world ceased
+to exist, the action of God on the world, in fact, His activity would altogether cease.
+(4) If everything were consumed <span class="pageNum" id="pb169n">[<a href="#pb169n">169</a>]</span>by fire, the fire must go out for want of fuel. With that, the possibility of a new
+world is at an end.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The resolution of the world into indefinite vacuum, attributed by <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 9, 2, to the Stoics in general, is no doubt the same as the condensation
+and expansion of matter. <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 599 and 703, supposes it to be a misapprehension of the real Stoic teaching.
+How <i>Hegel</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Phil.</span> ii. 391, and <i>Schleiermacher</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Philos.</span> p. 129, in view of the passages quoted, can absolutely deny that the Stoics held
+a periodic destruction of the world, is hard to comprehend.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18257src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18367">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18367src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> The flood and its causes are fully discussed by <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. iii. 27–30. Rain, inroads of the sea, earthquakes, are all supposed to contribute.
+The chief thing, however, is, that such a destruction has been ordained in the course
+of the world. It comes <span lang="la">cum fatalis dies venerit, cum adfuerit illa necessitas temporum</span> (27, 1), <span lang="la">cum Deo visum ordiri meliora, vetera finiri</span> (28, 7); it has been fore-ordained from the beginning (29, 2; 30, 1), and is due,
+not only to the pressure of the existing waters, but also to their increase, and to
+a changing of earth into water (29, 4). The object of this flood is to purge away
+the sins of mankind, <span lang="la">ut de integro totæ rudes innoxiæque generentur [res humanæ] nec supersit in deteriora
+præceptor</span> (29, 5); <span lang="la">peracto judicio generis humani exstructisque pariter feris … antiquus ordo revocabitur.
+Omne ex integro animal generabitur dabiturque terris, homo inscius scelerum:</span> but this state of innocence will not last long. Seneca (29, 1) appeals to Berosus,
+according to whom the destruction of the world by fire will take place when all the
+planets are in the sign of the Crab, its destruction by water when they are in the
+sign of the Capricorn. Since these signs correspond with the summer and winter turns
+of the sun, the language of Seneca agrees with that of <i>Censorin.</i> Di. Nat. 18, 11, evidently quoted from Varro, conf. <i>Jahn</i>, p. viii: <span lang="la">Cujus anni hiems summa est cataclysmus … æstas autem ecpyrosis.</span> Conf. <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c, 25, p. 53: When one element gains the supremacy over the others, the
+course of the world will come to an end, by <span class="trans" title="ekpyrōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκπύρωσις</span></span>, if the element is fire; <span class="trans" title="ei d’ athroun hydōr ekrageiē, kataklysmō ton kosmon apoleisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δ’ ἄθρουν ὕδωρ ἐκραγείη, κατακλυσμῷ τὸν κόσμον ἀπολεῖσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18367src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18410">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18410src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> For the former view, the language of Heraclitus and Censorinus tells, for the latter
+that of Seneca.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18410src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18436">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18436src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 149: <span class="trans" title="kath’ heimarmenēn de phasi ta panta ginesthai Chrysippos, k.t.l. esti d’ heimarmenē aitia tōn ontōn eiromenē ē logos kath’ hon ho kosmos diexagetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ εἱμαρμένην δέ φασι τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι Χρύσιππος, κ.τ.λ. ἔστι δ’ εἱμαρμένη αἰτία
+τῶν ὄντων εἰρομένη ἢ λόγος καθ’ ὃν ὁ κόσμος διεξάγεται</span></span>. <i>A. Gell.</i> vi. 2, 3: <span lang="la">(Chrysippus) in libro <span class="trans" title="peri pronoias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ προνοίας</span></span> quarto <span class="trans" title="heimarmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένην</span></span> esse dicit <span class="trans" title="physikēn tina syntaxin tōn holōn ex aïdiou tōn heterōn tois heterois epakolouthountōn kai meta poly men oun aparabatou ousēs tēs toiautēs symplokēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικήν τινα σύνταξιν τῶν ὅλων ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῶν ἑτέρων τοῖς ἑτέροις ἐπακολουθούντων καὶ
+μετὰ πολὺ μὲν οὖν ἀπαραβάτου οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης συμπλοκῆς</span></span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 55, 125 (according to Posidonius): Fatum, or <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη</span></span>, was called <span lang="la">ordinem seriemque causarum, cum causa causæ nexa rem ex se gignat.</span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 36: <span lang="la">Quid enim intelligis fatum? existimo necessitatem rerum omnium actionumque, quam nulla
+vis rumpat.</span> De Prov. 5, 8: <span lang="la">Irrevocabilis humana pariter ac divina cursus vehit. Ille ipse omnium conditor et
+rector scripsit quidem fata, sed sequitur. Semper paret, semper jussit.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18436src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18497">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18497src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> Conf. p. 152 and <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 180 (<i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 28), <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos dynamin pneumatikēn tēn ousian tēs heimarmenēs taxei tou pantos dioikētikēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος δύναμιν πνευματικὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς εἱμαρμένης τάξει τοῦ παντὸς διοικητικήν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18497src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18514">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18514src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> Hence Chrysippus’ definition (<i>Plut.</i> and <i>Stob.</i>): <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē estin ho tou kosmou logos ē logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος ἢ λόγος</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> <span class="trans" title="nomos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νόμος</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="tōn en tō kosmō pronoia dioikoumenōn; ē logos kath’ hon ta men gegonota gegone, ta de gignomena gignetai, ta de genēsomena genēsetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων· ἢ λόγος καθ’ ὃν τὰ μὲν γεγονότα γέγονε, τὰ δὲ
+γιγνόμενα γίγνεται, τὰ δὲ γενησόμενα γενήσεται</span></span>. Instead of <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>, Chrysippus also used <span class="trans" title="alētheia, aitia, physis, anankē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλήθεια, αἰτία, φύσις, ἀνάγκη</span></span>. <i>Theodoret.</i> Cur. Gr. Aff. vi. 14, p. 87: Chrysippus assigns the same meaning to <span class="trans" title="heimarmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="katēnankasmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηναγκασμένον</span></span>, explaining <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη</span></span> to be <span class="trans" title="kinēsis aïdios synechēs kai tetagmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κίνησις ἀΐδιος συνεχὴς καὶ τεταγμένη</span></span>; Zeno defines it (as <i>Stob.</i> i. 178, also says) as <span class="trans" title="dynamis kinētikē tēs hylēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύναμις κινητικὴ τῆς ὕλης</span></span>; also as <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="pronoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόνοια</span></span>; his successors as <span class="trans" title="logos tōn en tō kosmō pronoia dioikoumenōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων</span></span>, or as <span class="trans" title="heirmos aitiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱρμὸς αἰτίων</span></span>. (The same in <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 28, 4. <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. c. 36, p. 143.) Even <span class="trans" title="tychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τύχη</span></span>, he continues, is explained as a deity (or as <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 74, b, has it as a <span class="trans" title="theion kai daimonion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεῖον καὶ δαιμόνιον</span></span>); but this supposes it to be essentially identical with <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη</span></span>. Chrysippus in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 34, 8, p. 1050: <span class="trans" title="tēs gar koinēs physeōs eis panta diateinousēs, deēsei pan to hopōsoun ginomenon en tō holō kai tōn moriōn hotōoun, kat’ ekeinēn genesthai kai ton ekeinēs logon, kata to hexēs akōlytōs; dia to mēt’ exōthen einai to enstēsomenon tē oikonomia mēte tōn merōn mēden echein hopōs kinēthēsetai ē schēsei allōs [ē] kata tēn koinēn physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῆς γὰρ κοινῆς φύσεως εἰς πάντα διατεινούσης, δεήσει πᾶν τὸ ὁπωσοῦν γινόμενον ἐν τῷ
+ὅλῳ καὶ τῶν μορίων ὁτῳοῦν, κατ’ ἐκείνην γενέσθαι καὶ τὸν ἐκείνης λόγον, κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς
+ἀκωλύτως· διὰ τὸ μήτ’ ἔξωθεν εἶναι τὸ ἐνστησόμενον τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μήτε τῶν μερῶν μηδὲν
+ἔχειν ὅπως κινηθήσεται ἢ σχήσει ἄλλως [ἢ] κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν</span></span>. <i>Cleanthes</i>, Hymn. (in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 30) v. 12, 18; <i>M. Aurel.</i> ii. 3. See p. 151, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18514src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18691">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18691src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> It has been already demonstrated that all these ideas pass into one another.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18691src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18694">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18694src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 34<span>,</span> 5, p. 1076: <span class="trans" title="ei de, hōs phēsi Chrysippos, oude toulachiston esti tōn merōn echein allōs all’ ē kata tēn Dios boulēsin, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δὲ, ὥς φησι Χρύσιππος, οὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστόν ἐστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ
+τὴν Διὸς βούλησιν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Conf. Sto. Rep. 34, 2: <span class="trans" title="houtō de tēs tōn holōn oikonomias proagousēs, anankaion kata tautēn, hōs an pot’ echōmen, echein hēmas, eite para physin tēn idian nosountes, eite pepērōmenoi, eite grammatikoi gegonotes ē mousikoi ... kata touton de ton logon ta paraplēsia eroumen kai peri tēs aretēs hēmōn kai peri tēs kakias kai to holon tōn technōn kai tōn atechniōn, hōs ephēn ... outhen gar estin allōs tōn kata meros genesthai, oude toulachiston, all’ ē kata tēn koinēn physin kai kata ton ekeinēs logon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὕτω δὲ τῆς τῶν ὅλων οἰκονομίας προαγούσης, ἀναγκαῖον κατὰ ταύτην, ὡς ἄν ποτ’ ἔχωμεν,
+ἔχειν ἡμᾶς, εἴτε παρὰ φύσιν τὴν ἰδίαν νοσοῦντες, εἴτε πεπηρωμένοι, εἴτε γραμματικοὶ
+γεγονότες ἢ μουσικοὶ … κατὰ τοῦτον δὲ τὸν λόγον τὰ παραπλήσια ἐροῦμεν καὶ περὶ τῆς
+ἀρετῆς ἡμῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς κακίας καὶ τὸ ὅλον τῶν τεχνῶν καὶ τῶν ἀτεχνιῶν, ὡς ἔφην …
+οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλως τῶν κατὰ μέρος γενέσθαι, οὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστον, ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν
+φύσιν καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἐκείνης λόγον</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 47, 4 and 8. <i>Cleanth.</i> Hymn. v. 15:
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="oude ti gignetai ergon epi chthoni sou dicha, daimon,"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδέ τι γίγνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα, δαῖμον,</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="oute kat’ aitherion theion polon out’ eni pontō,"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε κατ’ αἰθέριον θεῖον πόλον οὔτ’ ἐνὶ πόντῳ,</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="plēn hoposa rhezousi kakoi spheterēsin anoiais."><span lang="grc" class="grek">πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέρῃσιν ἀνοίαις.</span></span> </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18769">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18769src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> See the quotations on p. 161, 1; 161, 2; 164, 2; 144, 1; 148; 145, 2, from <i>Diog.</i> vii. 136; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 372 and 414; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 10, 28; 22, 58; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 101: <i>M. Aurel.</i> iv. 14: <span class="trans" title="enaphanisthēsē tō gennēsanti, mallon de analēphthēsē eis ton logon autou ton spermatikon kata metabolēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐναφανισθήσῃ τῷ γεννήσαντι, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀναληφθήσῃ εἰς τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τὸν σπερματικὸν
+κατὰ μεταβολήν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 21: <span class="trans" title="hai psychai ... eis ton tōn holōn spermatikon logon analambanomenai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱ ψυχαὶ … εἰς τὸν τῶν ὅλων σπερματικὸν λόγον ἀναλαμβανόμεναι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18769src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18818">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18818src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> See on p. 151, 1, the definition of deity from <i>Stob.</i><span id="xd33e18821">;</span> <i>Plut. Athenag.</i>; <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 1: <span class="trans" title="hōrmēsen [hē physis] epi tēnde tēn diakosmēsin syllabousa tinas logous tōn esomenōn kai dynameis gonimous aphōrisasa, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὥρμησεν [ἡ φύσις] ἐπὶ τήνδε τὴν διακόσμησιν συλλαβοῦσά τινας λόγους τῶν ἐσομένων καὶ
+δυνάμεις γονίμους ἀφωρίσασα, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Ibid.</i> vi. 24: Alexander and his groom <span class="trans" title="elēphthēsan eis tous autous tou kosmou spermatikous logous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐλήφθησαν εἰς τοὺς αὐτοὺς τοῦ κόσμου σπερματικοὺς λόγους</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 148: <span class="trans" title="esti de physis hexis ex hautēs kinoumenē kata spermatikous logous, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔστι δὲ φύσις ἕξις ἐξ αὑτῆς κινουμένη κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 157: <span class="trans" title="merē de psychēs legousin oktō, tas pente aisthēseis kai tous en hēmin spermatikous logous kai to phōnētikon kai to logistikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέρη δὲ ψυχῆς λέγουσιν ὀκτὼ, τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ τοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν σπερματικοὺς λόγους
+καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ τὸ λογιστικόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18818src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18890">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18890src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> As the primary fire or ether is called the seed of the world (p. 161, 1), so, according
+to Chrysippus (in <i>Diog.</i> 159), the <span class="trans" title="sperma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπέρμα</span></span> in the seed of plants and animals is a <span class="trans" title="pneuma kat’ ousian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα κατ’ οὐσίαν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18890src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18911">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18911src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <span class="trans" title="spermatikos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπερματικὸς λόγος</span></span> is also used to express the seed or the egg itself. Thus, in <i>Plut.</i> Quæst. Conviv. ii. 3, 3 and 4, it is defined as <span class="trans" title="logos endeēs geneseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος ἐνδεὴς γενέσεως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18911src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18931">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18931src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> See p. 101, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18931src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18934">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18934src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> This is particularly manifest, not only in the history of the world, but also in the
+doctrine of the constant change of the elements.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18934src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18950">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18950src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Heine</i>, <span lang="la">Stoicorum de Fato Doctrina</span> (Naumb. 1859), p. 29.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18950src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e18957">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e18957src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> Compare what the Peripatetic Diogenianus (in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. vi. 8, 7) and <i>Stob.</i> (Ecl. i. 180) observe on the derivations of <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē, peprōmenē, Chreōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη, πεπρωμένη, Χρεὼν</span></span> (<i>Heine</i>, p. 32, 1, suggests on the strength of <i>Theodoret</i>, Cur. Gr. Affect. vi. 11, p. 87, 4, who transcribes the quotation from Eusebius,
+<span class="trans" title="ton chronon kata to chreōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν χρόνον κατὰ τὸ χρεών</span></span>. We ought rather to read, according to <i>Theod.</i> Gaisf., <span class="trans" title="to chreōn kata to chreos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ χρεὼν κατὰ τὸ χρέος</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="Moirai, Klōthō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Μοῖραι, Κλωθώ</span></span>: and the quotations p. 170, 1; 171, 1; also Ps. <i>Arist.</i> De Mundo, c. 7. The argument for Providence, drawn from the consensus gentium in
+<i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 4, follows another tack.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e18957src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19007">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19007src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> Homeric passages, which he was in the habit of quoting in <i>Eus.</i> l.c. 8, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19007src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19019">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19019src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> See <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 30, 76.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19019src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19030">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19030src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> The two are generally taken together. Compare the quotations on p. 145, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19030src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19033">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19033src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> See p. 83, 2; 110, 3; Aristotle and the Peripatetics thought differently. See <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 103, β.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19033src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19041">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19041src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 10, 20.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19041src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19052">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19052src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> De Fato, p. 92, Orel.: <span class="trans" title="to de legein eulogon einai tous theous ta esomena proeidenai ... kai touto lambanontas kataskeuazein peirasthai di’ autou to panta ex anankēs te ginesthai kai kath’ heimarmenēn oute alēthes oute eulogon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ λέγειν εὔλογον εἶναι τοὺς θεοὺς τὰ <span id="xd33e19059">ἐσόμενα</span> προειδέναι … καὶ τοῦτο λαμβάνοντας κατασκευάζειν πειρᾶσθαι δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸ πάντα ἐξ
+ἀνάγκης τε γίνεσθαι καὶ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην οὔτε ἀληθὲς οὔτε εὔλογον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19052src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19075">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19075src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 65, 162; De Fato, 3, 5 (unfortunately the previous exposition is wanting);
+<i>Diogenian</i> (in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. iv. 3, 1): Chrysippus proves, by the existence of divination, that all things
+happen <span class="trans" title="kath’ heimarmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ εἱμαρμένην</span></span>; for divination would be impossible, unless things were foreordained. <i>Alex.</i> De Fato, c. 21, p. 96: <span class="trans" title="hoi de hymnountes tēn mantikēn kai kata ton hautōn logon monon sōzesthai legontes autēn kai tautē pistei tou panta kath’ heimarmenēn ginesthai chrōmenoi, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ ὑμνοῦντες τὴν μαντικὴν καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὑτῶν λόγον μόνον σώζεσθαι λέγοντες αὐτὴν
+καὶ ταύτῃ πίστει τοῦ πάντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεσθαι χρώμενοι, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19075src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19110">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19110src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> De Fato, 11, p. 374: <span class="pageNum" id="pb176n">[<a href="#pb176n">176</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="kata de ton enantion [logon] malista men kai prōton einai doxeie to mēden anaitiōs ginesthai, alla kata proēgoumenas aitias; deuteron de to physei dioikeisthai tonde ton kosmon, sympnoun kai sympathē auton hautō onta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ δὲ τὸν ἐναντίον [λόγον] μάλιστα μὲν καὶ πρῶτον εἶναι δόξειε τὸ μηδὲν ἀναιτίως
+γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ προηγουμένας αἰτίας· δεύτερον δὲ τὸ φύσει διοικεῖσθαι τόνδε τὸν
+κόσμον, σύμπνουν καὶ συμπαθῆ αὐτὸν αὑτῷ ὄντα</span></span>. Then come the considerations confirmatory of that view—divination, the wise man’s
+acquiescence in the course of the world, the maxim that every judgment is either true
+or false. <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. c. 35, p. 139: <span class="trans" title="ei gar tōn autōn aitiōn periestēkotōn, hōs phasin autoi, pasa anankē ta auta ginesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν αἰτίων περιεστηκότων, ὥς φασιν αὐτοὶ, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τὰ αὐτὰ γίνεσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19110src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19135">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19135src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> De Fato, c. 22, p. 72: <span class="trans" title="homoion te einai phasi kai homoiōs adynaton to anaitiōs tō ginesthai ti ek mē ontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅμοιόν τε εἶναί φασι καὶ ὁμοίως ἀδύνατον τὸ ἀναιτίως τῷ γίνεσθαί τι ἐκ μὴ ὄντος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19135src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19147">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19147src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> l.c. p. 70: <span class="trans" title="phasi dē ton kosmon tonde hena onta ... kai hypo physeōs dioikoumenon zōtikēs te kai logikēs kai noeras echein tēn tōn ontōn dioikēsin aïdion kata heirmon tina kai taxin proïousan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φασὶ δὴ τὸν κόσμον τόνδε ἕνα ὄντα … καὶ ὑπὸ φύσεως διοικούμενον ζωτικῆς τε καὶ λογικῆς
+καὶ νοερᾶς ἔχειν τὴν τῶν ὄντων διοίκησιν ἀΐδιον κατὰ εἱρμόν τινα καὶ τάξιν προϊοῦσαν</span></span>; so that everything is connected as cause and effect, <span class="trans" title="alla panti te tō ginomenō heteron ti epakolouthein, ērtēmenon ex autou ap’ anankēs hōs aitiou, kai pan to ginomenon echein ti pro autou, hō hōs aitiō synērtētai; mēden gar anaitiōs mēte einai mēte ginesthai tōn en tō kosmō dia to mēden einai en autō apolelymenon te kai kechōrismenon tōn progegonotōn hapantōn; diaspasthai gar kai diaireisthai kai mēketi ton kosmon hena menein aei, kata mian taxin te kai oikonomian dioikoumenon, ei anaitios tis eisagoito kinēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ παντί τε τῷ γινομένῳ ἕτερόν τι ἐπακολουθεῖν, ἠρτημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀπ’ ἀνάγκης ὡς
+αἰτίου, καὶ πᾶν τὸ γινόμενον ἔχειν τι πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ᾧ ὡς αἰτίῳ συνήρτηται· μηδὲν γὰρ
+ἀναιτίως μήτε εἶναι μήτε γίνεσθαι τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ διὰ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ ἀπολελυμένον
+τε καὶ κεχωρισμένον τῶν προγεγονότων ἁπάντων· διασπᾶσθαι γὰρ καὶ διαιρεῖσθαι καὶ μηκέτι
+τὸν κόσμον ἕνα μένειν ἀεὶ, κατὰ μίαν τάξιν τε καὶ οἰκονομίαν διοικούμενον, εἰ ἀναίτιός
+τις εἰσάγοιτο κίνησις</span></span>. See <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 55, 125; De Fato, 4, 7; <i>M. Aurel.</i> x. 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19147src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19180">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19180src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> In <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 65, 164, the Stoic says: <span lang="la">Nec vero universo generi hominum solum, sed etiam singulis a Diis immortalibus consuli
+et provideri solet.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19180src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19187">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19187src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 46: <span lang="la">Singulis non adest [Jupiter], et tamen vim et causam et manum omnibus dedit.</span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. 66, 167: <span lang="la">Magna Dii curant, parva negligunt.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> iii. 35, 86: <span lang="la">At tamen minora Dii negligunt … ne in regnis quidem reges omnia minima curant. Sic
+enim dicitis.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19187src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19203">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19203src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> Cicero uses the following argument to show that the providential care of God extends
+to individuals:—If the Gods care for all men, they must care for those in our hemisphere,
+and, consequently, for the cities in our hemisphere, and for the men in each city.
+The argument may be superfluous, but it serves to show that the care of individuals
+was the result of God’s care of the whole world. <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 44: <span class="trans" title="ei men oun ebouleusanto peri emou kai tōn emoi symbēnai opheilontōn hoi theoi, kalōs ebouleusanto ... ei de mē ebouleusanto kat’ idian peri emou, peri ge tōn koinōn pantōs ebouleusanto, hois kat’ epakolouthēsin kai tauta symbainonta aspazesthai kai stergein opheilō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐβουλεύσαντο περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐμοὶ συμβῆναι ὀφειλόντων οἱ θεοὶ, καλῶς
+ἐβουλεύσαντο … εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐβουλεύσαντο κατ’ ἰδίαν περὶ ἐμοῦ, περί γε τῶν κοινῶν πάντως
+ἐβουλεύσαντο, οἷς κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν καὶ ταῦτα συμβαίνοντα ἀσπάζεσθαι καὶ στέργειν
+ὀφείλω</span></span>. Similarly, iv. 28. It will be seen that the Stoics consider that the existence of
+divination, which served as a proof of special providence, was caused by the connection
+of nature.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19203src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19229">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19229src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> As <i>Alex.</i> c. 28, p. 88, fitly observes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19229src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19234">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19234src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> The great majority of the Stoic answers to <span class="trans" title="polla zētēmata physika te kai ēthika kai dialektika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολλὰ ζητήματα φυσικά τε καὶ ἠθικὰ καὶ διαλεκτικά</span></span>, which (according to <i>Plut.</i> De Fato, c. 3) were called forth by the theory of destiny, in all probability belong
+to him.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19234src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19247">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19247src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> See p. 171, 3, Chrysippus, in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 23, 2, p. 1045. He assigned as a general reason <span class="trans" title="to gar anaition holōs anyparkton einai kai to automaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ γὰρ ἀναίτιον ὅλως ἀνύπαρκτον εἶναι καὶ τὸ αὐτόματον</span></span>. Hence the Stoic definition of <span class="trans" title="tychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τύχη</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="aitia apronoētos kai adēlos anthrōpinō logismō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰτία ἀπρονόητος καὶ ἄδηλος ἀνθρωπίνῳ λογισμῷ</span></span> in <i>Plut.</i> De Fato. c. 7, p. 572; Plac. i. 29, 3 (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 218); <i>Alex.</i> De Fato, p. 24; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 74, 6. See p. 171, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19247src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19285">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19285src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> l.c. The Stoics assert that things are possible which do not take place, if in themselves
+they can take place, and <span class="trans" title="dia touto phasi mēde ta genomena kath’ heimarmenēn, kaitoi aparabatōs ginomena, ex anankēs ginesthai, hoti estin autois dynaton genesthai kai to antikeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὰ τοῦτο φασὶ μηδὲ τὰ γενόμενα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, καίτοι ἀπαραβάτως γινόμενα, ἐξ ἀνάγκης
+γίνεσθαι, ὅτι ἔστιν αὐτοῖς δυνατὸν γενέσθαι καὶ τὸ ἀντικείμενον</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Top. 15, 59: <span lang="la">Ex hoc genere causarum ex æternitate pendentium fatum a Stoicis nectitur.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19285src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19302">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19302src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> De Fato, c. 10, p. 32; <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 17, 39); 18, 41, and above, p. 115, 2. Hence <i>Plut.</i> Plac. (similarly <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. c. 39, p. 149): <span class="trans" title="ha men gar einai kat’ anankēn, ha de kath’ heimarmenēn, ha de kata proairesin, ha de kata tychēn, ha de kata to automaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἃ μὲν γὰρ εἶναι κατ’ ἀνάγκην, ἃ δὲ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, ἃ δὲ κατὰ προαίρεσιν, ἃ δὲ κατὰ
+τύχην, ἃ δὲ κατὰ τὸ <span id="xd33e19315">αὐτόματον</span></span></span>, which is evidently more explicit than the language used by <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 176, and the statement of Theodoret on p. 171, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19302src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19325">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19325src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> See p. 115, 2. Opponents such as <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. c. 46, <span class="pageNum" id="pb179n">[<a href="#pb179n">179</a>]</span>and <i>Alex.</i>, pointed out how illusory this attempt was. According to the latter, he fell back
+on the simple result, maintaining that, in the case of things happening <span class="trans" title="kath’ heimarmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ εἱμαρμένην</span></span>, there is nothing to prevent the opposite from coming about, so far as the causes
+which prevent this from happening are unknown to us.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19325src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19348">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19348src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> See above, p. 171, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19348src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19351">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19351src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> <i>Chrysipp.</i> in <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. vii. 2, 6; <i>Alex.</i> De Fato, c. 36, p. 112.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19351src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19359">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19359src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> <i>Gell.</i> l.c.; Alex. c. 13; <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. c. 35, p. 138, 140. <i>Alex.</i> c. 33 (on which see <i>Heine</i>, p. 43) gives a long argument, concluding with the words: <span class="trans" title="pan to kath’ hormēn ginomenon epi tois houtōs energousin einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν τὸ καθ’ ὁρμὴν γινόμενον ἐπὶ τοῖς οὕτως ἐνεργοῦσιν εἶναι</span></span>. <i>Nemes.</i> appeals to Chrysippus, and also to Philopator, a Stoic of the second century <span class="asc">A.D.</span> Of him he remarks, that he has consistently attributed <span class="trans" title="to eph’ hēmin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν</span></span> to lifeless objects.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19359src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19391">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19391src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 18, 41: In order to avoid <span lang="la">necessitas</span>, or to uphold fate, Chrysippus distinguishes <span lang="la">causæ principales et perfectæ</span> from <span lang="la">causæ adjuvantes</span>, his meaning being that everything happens according to fate, not <span lang="la">causis perfectis et principalibus, sed causis adjuvantibus.</span> Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Top. 15, 59. Although these causes may not be in our power, still it is our will
+which assents to the impressions received. Œnomaus <span class="pageNum" id="pb180n">[<a href="#pb180n">180</a>]</span>(in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. vi. 7, 3, and 10) charges Chrysippus with making a <span class="trans" title="hēmidoulon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡμίδουλον</span></span> of the will, because he laid so great a stress on its freedom.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19391src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19425">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19425src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> <i>Gell.</i> vii. 2, 13: <i>Cic.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19425src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19431">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19431src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> c. 34, p. 106, puts in the mouth of the Stoics: <span class="trans" title="ta men tōn zōōn energēsei monon, ta de praxei ta logika, kai ta men hamartēsetai, ta de katorthōsei. tauta gar toutois kata physin men, ontōn de kai hamartēmatōn kai katorthōmatōn, kai tōn toiautōn physeōn kai poiotētōn mē agnooumenōn, kai epainoi men kai psogoi kai timai kai kolaseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ μὲν τῶν ζῴων ἐνεργήσει μόνον, τὰ δὲ πράξει τὰ λογικὰ, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἁμαρτήσεται, τὰ
+δὲ κατορθώσει. ταῦτα γὰρ τούτοις κατὰ φύσιν μὲν, ὄντων δὲ καὶ ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ κατορθωμάτων,
+καὶ τῶν τοιαύτων φύσεων καὶ ποιοτήτων μὴ ἀγνοουμένων, καὶ ἔπαινοι μὲν καὶ ψόγοι καὶ
+τιμαὶ καὶ κολάσεις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19431src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19443">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19443src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> c. 26, p. 82.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19443src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19447">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19447src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> c. 32, p. 102.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19447src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19451">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19451src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> The arguments usual among the Stoics in after times may, with great probability, be
+referred to Chrysippus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19451src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19454">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19454src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> c. 35: <span class="trans" title="legousi gar; ouk esti toiautē men hē heimarmenē, ouk esti de peprōmenē;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγουσι γάρ· οὐκ ἔστι τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ εἱμαρμένη, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ πεπρωμένη·</span></span> (It never happens that there is a <span class="trans" title="heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἱμαρμένη</span></span> but not a <span class="trans" title="peprōmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πεπρωμένη</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="oude esti peprōmenē, ouk esti de aisa; oude esti men aisa, ouk [oude] esti de nemesis; ouk esti men nemesis, ouk esti de nomos; oude esti men nomos, ouk esti de logos orthos prostaktikos men hōn poiēteon apagoreutikos de hōn ou poiēteon; alla apagoreuetai men ta hamartanomena, prostattetai de ta katorthōmata; ouk ara esti men toiautē hē heimarmenē, ouk esti de hamartēmata kai katorthōmata; all’ ei estin hamartēmata kai katorthōmata, estin aretē kai kakia; ei de tauta, esti kalon kai aischron; alla to men kalon epaineton, to de aischron psekton; ouk ara esti toiautē men hē heimarmenē, ouk esti de epaineton kai psekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲ ἔστι <span class="pageNum" id="pb181n">[<a href="#pb181n">181</a>]</span>πεπρωμένη, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ αἶσα· οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν αἶσα, οὐκ [οὐδὲ] ἔστι δὲ νέμεσις· οὐκ ἔστι
+μὲν νέμεσις, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ νόμος· οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν νόμος, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ λόγος ὀρθὸς προστακτικὸς
+μὲν ὧν ποιητέον ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ ὧν οὐ ποιητέον· ἀλλὰ ἀπαγορεύεται μὲν τὰ ἁμαρτανόμενα,
+προστάττεται δὲ τὰ κατορθώματα· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι μὲν τοιαύτη ἡ εἱμαρμένη, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ
+ἁμαρτήματα καὶ κατορθώματα· ἀλλ’ εἰ ἔστιν ἁμαρτήματα καὶ κατορθώματα, ἔστιν ἀρετὴ
+καὶ κακία· εἰ δὲ ταῦτα, ἔστι καλὸν καὶ αἰσχρόν· ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν καλὸν ἐπαινετὸν, τὸ δὲ
+αἰσχρὸν ψεκτόν· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ εἱμαρμένη, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἐπαινετὸν καὶ ψεκτόν</span></span>. What is praiseworthy deserves <span class="trans" title="timē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τιμὴ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="gerōs axiōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γέρως ἀξίωσις</span></span>, and what is blameworthy merits <span class="trans" title="kolasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόλασις</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="epanorthōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπανόρθωσις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19454src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19528">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19528src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> <i>Alex.</i> c. 37, p. 118: A second argument <span class="trans" title="apo tēs autēs palaistras"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς παλαίστρας</span></span> is the following:—<span class="trans" title="ou panta men esti kath’ heimarmenēn, ouk esti de akōlytos kai aparempodistos hē tou kosmou dioikēsis; oude esti men touto, ouk esti de kosmos; oude esti men kosmos, ouk eisi de theoi;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ πάντα μὲν ἔστι καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἀκώλυτος καὶ ἀπαρεμπόδιστος ἡ τοῦ κόσμου
+διοίκησις· οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν τοῦτο, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κόσμος· οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν κόσμος, οὐκ εἰσὶ
+<span id="xd33e19543">δὲ</span> θεοί·</span></span> (for <span class="trans" title="kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμος</span></span>, according to the definitions of Chrysippus, is the whole, including gods and men.
+See p. 158, 1) <span class="trans" title="ei de eisi theoi, eisin agathoi hoi theoi; all’ ei touto, estin aretē; all’ ei estin aretē, esti phronēsis; all’ ei touto estin hē epistēmē poiēteōn te kai ou poiēteōn; alla poiētea men esti ta katorthōmata, ou poiētea de ta hamartēmata, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δέ εἰσι θεοὶ, εἰσὶν ἀγαθοὶ οἱ θεοί· ἀλλ’ εἰ τοῦτο, ἔστιν ἀρετή· ἀλλ’ εἰ ἔστιν ἀρετὴ,
+ἔστι φρόνησις· ἀλλ’ εἰ τοῦτο ἔστιν ἡ ἐπιστήμη ποιητέων τε καὶ οὐ ποιητέων· ἀλλὰ ποιητέα
+μὲν ἔστι τὰ κατορθώματα, οὐ ποιητέα δὲ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <span class="trans" title="ouk ara panta men ginetai kath’ heimarmenēn, ouk esti de gerairein kai epanorthoun"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἄρα πάντα μὲν γίνεται καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ γεραίρειν καὶ ἐπανορθοῦν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19528src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19576">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19576src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 12, 28; <i>Diogenian.</i> (in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. vi. 8, <span class="pageNum" id="pb182n">[<a href="#pb182n">182</a>]</span>16); <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 37. Things which were determined by the co-operation of destiny alone
+Chrysippus called <span class="trans" title="synkatheimarmena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκαθειμαρμένα</span></span> (<span lang="la">confatalia</span>). The argument by which he was confuted, which <i>Prantl</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Log.</span> i. 489, erroneously attributes to the Stoics themselves, went by the name of <span class="trans" title="argos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀργὸς λόγος</span></span> (<span lang="la">ignava ratio</span>). Besides the <span class="trans" title="argos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀργὸς λόγος</span></span>, <i>Plut.</i> De Fato, c. 11, p. 574, mentions the <span class="trans" title="therizōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θερίζων</span></span> and the <span class="trans" title="logos para tēn heimarmenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος παρὰ τὴν εἱμαρμένην</span></span> as fallacies which could only be refuted on the ground of the freedom of the will.
+The last-named one, perhaps, turned on the idea (Œnomaus, in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. vi. 7, 12) that man might frustrate destiny if he neglected to do what was
+necessary to produce the foreordained results. According to <i>Ammon.</i> De Inter. 106, a, <i>Lucian</i>, Vit. Auct. 22, the <span class="trans" title="therizōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θερίζων</span></span> was as follows:—Either you will reap or you will not reap: it is therefore incorrect
+to say, <i>perhaps</i> you will reap.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19576src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19664">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19664src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> (after Cleanthes, whose verses in <i>Epictet.</i> Man. 52) Ep. 107, 11: <span lang="la">Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt.</span> <i>Hippolyt.</i> Refut. Hær. i. 21, has put it very plainly: <span class="trans" title="to kath’ heimarmenēn einai pantē diebebaiōsanto paradeigmati chrēsamenoi toioutō, hoti hōsper ochēmatos ean ē exērtēmenos kyōn, ean men boulētai hepesthai, kai helketai kai hepetai hekōn ... ean de mē boulētai hepesthai, pantōs anankasthēsetai, to auto dēpou kai epi tōn anthrōpōn; kai mē boulomenoi gar akolouthein anankasthēsontai pantōs eis to peprōmenon eiselthein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην εἶναι πάντη διεβεβαιώσαντο παραδείγματι χρησάμενοι τοιούτῳ, ὅτι
+ὥσπερ ὀχήματος ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξηρτημένος κύων, ἐὰν μὲν βούληται ἕπεσθαι, καὶ ἕλκεται καὶ ἕπεται
+ἑκὼν … ἐὰν δὲ μὴ βούληται ἕπεσθαι, πάντως ἀναγκασθήσεται, τὸ αὐτὸ δήπου καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν
+ἀνθρώπων· καὶ μὴ βουλόμενοι γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκασθήσονται πάντως εἰς τὸ πεπρωμένον
+εἰσελθεῖν</span></span>. The same idea is expanded by <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 42: All must work for the whole, <span class="trans" title="ek periousias de kai ho memphomenos kai ho antibainein peirōmenos kai anairein ta ginomena, kai gar tou toioutou echrēzen ho kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκ περιουσίας δὲ καὶ ὁ μεμφόμενος καὶ ὁ ἀντιβαίνειν πειρώμενος καὶ ἀναιρεῖν τὰ γινόμενα,
+καὶ γὰρ τοῦ τοιούτου ἔχρῃζεν ὁ κόσμος</span></span>. It is man’s business to take care that he acts a dignified part in the common labour.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19664src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19705">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19705src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> After all that has been said, this needs no further confirmation. Conversely, the
+unity of the forming power is concluded from the unity of the world. See p. 143, 1,
+2. Conf. <i>Plut.</i> Def. Orac. 29, p. 425. <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 38: <span class="trans" title="panta allēlois epipeplektai kai panta kata touto phila allēlois esti ... touto de dia tēn tonikēn kinēsin kai sympnoian kai tēn henōsin tēs ousias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα ἀλλήλοις ἐπιπέπλεκται καὶ πάντα κατὰ τοῦτο φίλα ἀλλήλοις ἐστί … τοῦτο δὲ διὰ
+τὴν τονικὴν κίνησιν καὶ σύμπνοιαν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς οὐσίας</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> vii. 9.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19705src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19722">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19722src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 78: <span class="trans" title="tōn sōmatōn ta men estin hēnōmena, ta de ek synaptomenōn, ta de ek diestōtōn ... epei oun kai ho kosmos sōma estin, ētoi hēnōmenon esti sōma ē ek synaptomenōn, ē ek diestōtōn; oute de ek synaptomenōn oute ek diestōtōn, hōs deiknymen ek tōn peri auton sympatheiōn; kata gar tas tēs selēnēs auxēseis kai phthiseis polla tōn te epigeiōn zōōn kai thalassiōn phthinei te kai auxetai, ampōteis te kai plēmmyrides"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστιν ἡνωμένα, τὰ δὲ ἐκ συναπτομένων, τὰ δὲ ἐκ διεστώτων … ἐπεὶ
+οὖν καὶ ὁ κόσμος σῶμά ἐστιν, ἤτοι ἡνωμένον ἐστι σῶμα ἢ ἐκ συναπτομένων, ἢ ἐκ διεστώτων·
+οὔτε δὲ ἐκ συναπτομένων οὔτε ἐκ διεστώτων, ὡς δείκνυμεν ἐκ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν συμπαθειῶν·
+κατὰ γὰρ τὰς τῆς σελήνης αὐξήσεις καὶ φθίσεις πολλὰ τῶν τε ἐπιγείων ζῴων καὶ θαλασσίων
+φθίνει τε καὶ αὔξεται, ἀμπώτεις τε καὶ πλημμυρίδες</span></span> (ebb and flood), <span class="trans" title="peri tina merē tēs thalassēs ginontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περί τινα μέρη τῆς θαλάσσης γίνονται</span></span>. In the same way, atmospheric changes coincide with the setting and rising of the
+stars: <span class="trans" title="ex hōn symphanes, hoti hēnōmenon ti sōma kathestēken ho kosmos, epi men gar tōn ek synaptomenōn ē diestōtōn ou sympaschei ta merē allēlois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξ ὧν συμφανὲς, ὅτι ἡνωμένον τι σῶμα καθέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐκ συναπτομένων
+ἢ διεστώτων οὐ συμπάσχει τὰ μέρη ἀλλήλοις</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 140: <span class="trans" title="en de tō kosmō mēden einai kenon all’ hēnōsthai auton, touto gar anankazein tēn tōn ouraniōn pros ta epigeia sympnoian kai syntonian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ἀλλ’ ἡνῶσθαι αὐτὸν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἀναγκάζειν τὴν τῶν
+οὐρανίων πρὸς τὰ ἐπίγεια σύμπνοιαν καὶ συντονίαν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 143: <span class="trans" title="hoti th’ heis esti Zēnōn phēsin en tō peri tou holou kai Chrysippos kai Apollodōros ... kai Poseidōnios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι θ’ <span id="xd33e19767">εἷς</span> ἐστι Ζήνων φησὶν ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ὅλου καὶ Χρύσιππος καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος … καὶ Ποσειδώνιος</span></span>. <i>Alex.</i> De Mixt. 142, a, see p. 127, 5; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 7, 19; <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 14, 2: <span class="trans" title="ou dokei soi, ephē, hēnōsthai ta panta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ δοκεῖ σοι, ἔφη, ἡνῶσθαι τὰ πάντα</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="Dokei, ephē; ti de"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Δοκεῖ, ἔφη· τί δέ</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="sympathein ta epigeia tois ouraniois ou dokei soi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπαθεῖν τὰ ἐπίγεια τοῖς οὐρανίοις οὐ δοκεῖ σοι</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="Dokei, ephē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Δοκεῖ, ἔφη</span></span>. Cicero mentions the changes in animals and plants corresponding with the changes
+of seasons, the phases of the moon, and the greater or less nearness of the sun. <i>M. Aurel.</i> iv. 40. From all these passages we gather what the question really was. It was not
+only whether other worlds were possible, besides the one which we know from observation,
+but whether the heavenly bodies visible were in any essential way connected with the
+earth, so as to form an organic whole (<span class="trans" title="zōon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῷον</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> vii. 143).
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The Stoic conception of <span class="trans" title="sympatheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπάθεια</span></span> was not used to denote the magic connection which it <span class="pageNum" id="pb184n">[<a href="#pb184n">184</a>]</span>expresses in ordinary parlance, but the natural coincidence between phenomena belonging
+to the different parts of the world, the <span lang="la">consensus, concentus, cognatio, conjunctio</span>, or <span lang="la">continuatio naturæ</span> (<i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 11, 28; Divin. ii. 15, 34; 69, 142). In this sense, <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 9, observes that like is attracted by like; fire is attracted upwards, earth
+downwards; beasts and men seek out each other’s society; even amongst the highest
+existences, the stars, there exists a <span class="trans" title="henōsis ek diestēkotōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕνωσις ἐκ διεστηκότων</span></span>, a <span class="trans" title="sympatheia en diestōsi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπάθεια ἐν διεστῶσι</span></span>. Even the last remark does not go beyond the conception of a natural connection;
+nevertheless, it paves the way for the later Neoplatonic idea of sympathy, as no longer
+a physical connection, but as an influence felt at a distance by virtue of a connection
+of soul.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19722src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19869">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19869src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 1: <span class="trans" title="hē tōn holōn ousia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ τῶν ὅλων οὐσία</span></span> (the matter of the world) <span class="trans" title="eupeithēs kai eutrepēs; ho de tautēn dioikōn logos oudemian en heautō aitian echei tou kakopoiein; kakian gar ouk echei, oude ti kakōs poiei, oude blaptetai ti hyp’ ekeinou. panta de kat’ ekeinon ginetai kai perainetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐπειθὴς καὶ εὐτρεπής· ὁ δὲ ταύτην διοικῶν λόγος οὐδεμίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ αἰτίαν ἔχει τοῦ
+κακοποιεῖν· κακίαν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχει, οὐδέ τι κακῶς ποιεῖ, οὐδὲ βλάπτεταί τι ὑπ’ ἐκείνου.
+πάντα δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον γίνεται καὶ περαίνεται</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19869src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19889">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19889src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 149: <span class="trans" title="tautēn de [tēn physin] kai tou sympherontos stochazesthai kai hēdonēs, hōs dēlon ek tēs tou anthrōpou dēmiourgias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ταύτην δὲ [τὴν φύσιν] καὶ τοῦ συμφέροντος στοχάζεσθαι καὶ ἡδονῆς, ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῆς
+τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργίας</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19889src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19901">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19901src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 21, 3, p. 1044: <span class="trans" title="eipōn [Chrysippos] hoti ... philokalein ... tēn physin tē poikilia chairousan eikos esti, tauta kaka lexin eirēke; genoito d’ an malista toutou emphasis epi tēs kerkou tou taō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰπὼν [Χρύσιππος] ὅτι … φιλοκαλεῖν … τὴν φύσιν <span id="xd33e19908">τῇ</span> ποικιλίᾳ χαίρουσαν εἰκός ἐστι, ταῦτα κακὰ λέξιν εἴρηκε· γένοιτο δ’ ἂν μάλιστα τούτου
+ἔμφασις ἐπὶ τῆς κέρκου τοῦ ταώ</span></span>. Conf. the Stoic in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 5, 18: <span lang="la">Jam membrorum … alia videntur propter eorum usum a natura esse donata … alia autem
+nullam ob utilitatem, quasi ad quendam ornatum, ut cauda pavoni, plumæ versicolores
+columbis, viris mammæ atque barba.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19901src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19921">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19921src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> iii. 2: It is there proved by examples, <span class="trans" title="hoti kai ta epiginomena tois physei gignomenois echei ti euchari kai epagōgon ... schedon ouden ouchi kai tōn kat’ epakolouthēsin symbainontōn hēdeōs pōs diasynistasthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἐπιγινόμενα τοῖς φύσει γιγνομένοις <span class="pageNum" id="pb185n">[<a href="#pb185n">185</a>]</span>ἔχει τι εὔχαρι καὶ ἐπαγωγὸν … σχεδὸν οὐδὲν οὐχὶ καὶ τῶν κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν συμβαινόντων
+<span id="xd33e19930">ἡδέως</span> πως διασυνίστασθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19921src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19941">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19941src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 26, 85; Sen. Ep. 113, 16. The latter includes this variety of natural objects
+among the facts, which must fill us with admiration for the divine artificer.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19941src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19946">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19946src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 6, 2: <span class="trans" title="kalos de ho kosmos; dēlon d’ ek tou schēmatos kai tou chrōmatos kai tou megethous kai tēs peri ton kosmon tōn asterōn poikilias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καλὸς δὲ ὁ κόσμος· δῆλον δ’ ἐκ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ χρώματος καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους καὶ
+τῆς περὶ τὸν κόσμον τῶν ἀστέρων ποικιλίας</span></span>; the world has the most perfect form, that of a globe, with a sky the most perfect
+in colour, &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19946src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19960">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19960src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> See the passages quoted p. 145, 4, particularly <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 32.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19960src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19965">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19965src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> (in <i>Porphyr.</i> De Abstin. iii. 32): <span class="trans" title="all’ ekeino nē Dia tou Chrysippou pithanon ēn, hōs hēmas autōn kai allēlōn hoi theoi charin epoiēsanto, hēmōn de ta zōa, sympolemein men hippous kai synthēreuein kynas, andreias de gymnasia pardaleis kai arktous kai leontas, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο νὴ Δία τοῦ Χρυσίππου πιθανὸν ἦν, ὡς ἡμᾶς αὐτῶν καὶ ἀλλήλων οἱ θεοὶ χάριν
+ἐποιήσαντο, ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ ζῷα, συμπολεμεῖν μὲν ἵππους καὶ συνθηρεύειν κύνας, ἀνδρείας
+δὲ γυμνάσια παρδάλεις καὶ ἄρκτους καὶ λέοντας, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 14, 37: <span class="pageNum" id="pb186n">[<a href="#pb186n">186</a>]</span><span lang="la">Scite enim Chrysippus: ut clypei causa involucrum, vaginam autem gladii, sic præter
+mundum cetera omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ut eas fruges et fructus, quas terra
+gignit, animantium causa, animantes autem hominum, ut equum vehendi causa, arandi
+bovem, venandi et custodiendi canem.</span> <i>Id.</i> Off. i. 7, 22: <span lang="la">Placet Stoicis, quæ in terris gignantur ad usum hominum omnia creari.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19965src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e19992">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e19992src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 20, 67: <span lang="la">Præclare enim Chrysippus, cetera nata esse hominum causa et Deorum, eos autem communitatis
+et societatis suæ.</span> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 53, 133, in describing the Stoic teaching: Why has the universe been made?
+Not for the sake of plants or animals, but for the sake of rational beings, Gods and
+men. It is then shown (c. 54–61), by an appeal to the structure of man’s body, and
+his mental qualities, how God has provided for the wants of man; and the argument
+concludes with the words, <span lang="la">Omnia, quæ sint in hoc mundo, quibus utantur homines, hominum causa facta esse et
+parata.</span> Just as a city, and what is therein, exists for the use of the inhabitants, so the
+world is intended for the use of Gods and men. Even the stars <span lang="la">quanquam etiam ad mundi cohærentiam pertinent, tamen et spectaculum hominibus præbent.</span> The earth with its plants and animals was created for the service of man. In <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. iv. 74, p. 559, the Stoics assert that Providence created all things for
+the sake of rational beings; <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 16 and 30; <i>Gell.</i> vii. 1, 1. Hence the definition of <span class="trans" title="kosmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμος</span></span> quoted on p. 158, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e19992src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20020">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20020src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 32, 1, p. 1049) shows how useful fowls are; the horse is intended for riding,
+the ox for ploughing, the dog for hunting. The pig, Cleanthes thought (<i>Clemens</i>, Strom. vii. 718, <span class="asc">B</span>), was made to sustain man, and endowed with a soul, in place of salt, to prevent
+its corrupting (<i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii, 64, 160; Fin. v. 13, 38; <i>Plut.</i> Qu. Conviv. v. 10, 3 and 6, p. 685; <i>Porphyr.</i> De Abstin. iii. 20); oysters and birds for the same purpose also (<i>Porphyr.</i> l.c.). In the same way, he spoke of the value of mice and bugs, see p. 189, 1. The
+Stoic in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 63, 158, following in the same track, declares that sheep only exist for
+the purpose of clothing, dogs for guarding and helping man, fishes for eating, and
+birds of prey for divers uses. <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. ii. 8, 7, in the same spirit, speaks of asses being intended to carry burdens;
+for this purpose they must be able to walk, and, in order to walk, must possess the
+power of imagination.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20020src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20046">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20046src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> See p. 186, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20046src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20049">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20049src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 14, 37: <span lang="la">Ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplandum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus,
+sed est quædam particula perfecti. Sed mundus quoniam omnia complexus est, nec est
+quidquam, quod non insit in eo, perfectus undique est.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20049src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20060">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20060src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> We gather this from the comparatively full accounts of the Stoic theory of the moral
+government of the world. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 37, 1, p. 1051, says that Chrysippus wrote several treatises <span class="trans" title="peri tou mēden enklēton einai mēde mempton kosmō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν ἐγκλητὸν εἶναι μηδὲ μεμπτὸν κόσμῳ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20060src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20073">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20073src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> See p. 187, 2, and Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 44, 6): <span class="pageNum" id="pb188n">[<a href="#pb188n">188</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="teleon men ho kosmos sōma estin, ou telea de ta kosmou merē tō pros to holon pōs echein kai mē kath’ hauta einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλεον μὲν ὁ κόσμος σῶμά ἐστιν, οὐ τέλεα δὲ τὰ κόσμου μέρη τῷ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον πως ἔχειν
+καὶ μὴ καθ’ αὑτὰ εἶναι</span></span>. Compare also the statement in <i>Plut.</i> Solert. An. c. 2, 9, p. 960, that animals must be irrational, because the irrational
+must be contrasted with the rational.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20073src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20098">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20098src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> <i>Gell.</i> vii. [vi.] 1, 7: Chrysippus in his treatise <span class="trans" title="peri pronoias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ προνοίας</span></span>, discussed, amongst other things, the question, <span class="trans" title="ei hai tōn anthrōpōn nosoi kata physin ginontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων νόσοι κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται</span></span>. <span lang="la">Existimat autem non fuisse hoc principale naturæ consilium, ut faceret homines morbis
+obnoxios … sed cum multa inquit atque magna gigneret pareretque aptissima et utilissima,
+alia quoque simul agnata sunt incommoda iis ipsis, quæ faciebat cohærentia: eaque
+non per naturam sed per sequelas quasdam necessarias facta dicit, quod ipse appellat
+<span class="trans" title="kata parakolouthēsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ παρακολούθησιν</span></span>.… Proinde morbi quoque et ægritudines partæ sunt dum salus paritur.</span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 36: All evils are <span class="pageNum" id="pb189n">[<a href="#pb189n">189</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="epigennēmata tōn semnōn kai kalōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιγεννήματα τῶν σεμνῶν καὶ καλῶν</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> An. Procr. c. 6 and 9, p. 1015: <span class="trans" title="autoi de"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτοὶ δὲ</span></span> (the Stoics) <span class="trans" title="kakian kai kakodaimonian tosautēn ... kat’ epakolouthēsin gegonenai legousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κακίαν καὶ κακοδαιμονίαν τοσαύτην … κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν γεγονέναι λέγουσιν</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. vi. 3, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20098src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20163">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20163src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">83</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. v. 18, 4 and 13: <span lang="la">Non ideo non sunt ista natura bona, si vitio male utentium nocent.… Si beneficia naturæ
+utentium pravitate perpendimus, nihil non nostro malo accepimus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20163src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20169">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20169src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">84</a></span> Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 21, 4) remarks that bugs do us good service by preventing us from sleeping
+too long, and mice warn us not to leave things about. He also observes (<i>Ibid.</i> 32, 2) that wars are as useful as colonies, by preventing over-population. See the
+quotations, p. 185, 4; 186, 2. <i>M. Aurel.</i> viii. 50, makes a similar remark in regard to weeds. In the house of nature all the
+waste has its uses.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20169src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20185">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20185src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">85</a></span> A circumstance which <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 19, p. 1067, dexterously uses against the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20185src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20190">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20190src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">86</a></span> <i>Cleanthes</i>, Hymn. v. 17 (see p. 171, 3); <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 33, 2: Chrysippus affirms, <span class="trans" title="hōs tōn aischrōn to theion paraition ginesthai ouk eulogon estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς τῶν αἰσχρῶν τὸ θεῖον παραίτιον γίνεσθαι οὐκ εὔλογόν ἐστιν</span></span>, law is innocent of crime, God of impiety. <i>Id.</i> (in <i>Gell.</i> vii. 2, 7): <span lang="la">Quanquam ita sit, ut ratione quadam necessaria et principali coacta atque connexa
+sint fato omnia, ingenia tamen ipsa mentium nostrarum perinde sunt fato obnoxia, ut
+proprietas eorum est ipsa et qualitas … sua sævitate et voluntario impetu in assidua
+delicta, et in errores se ruunt.</span> Hence Cleanthes continues, in a passage quoted in Greek by Gellius: <span class="trans" title="hōs tōn blabōn hekastois par’ autois ginomenōn kai kath’ hormēn autōn hamartanontōn te kai blaptomenōn kai kata tēn autōn dianoian kai prothesin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς τῶν βλαβῶν ἑκάστοις παρ’ <span class="pageNum" id="pb190n">[<a href="#pb190n">190</a>]</span>αὐτοῖς γινομένων καὶ καθ’ ὁρμὴν αὐτῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τε καὶ βλαπτομένων καὶ κατὰ τὴν
+αὐτῶν διάνοιαν καὶ πρόθεσιν</span></span>. In <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 47, 13, p. 1057, Chrysippus says that, even if the Gods make false representations
+to man, it is man’s fault if he follows those representations. Conf. <i>Epictet.</i> Ench. c. 27: <span class="trans" title="hōsper skopos pros to apotychein ou tithetai, houtōs oude kakou physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὥσπερ σκοπὸς πρὸς τὸ ἀποτυχεῖν οὐ τίθεται, οὕτως οὐδὲ κακοῦ φύσις</span></span> (evil in itself) <span class="trans" title="en kosmō ginetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν κόσμῳ γίνεται</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> Diss. i. 6, 40. Such observations bear out in some degree the statement of <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 27, 3, that, according to the Stoics, <span class="trans" title="ta men heimarthai, ta de aneimarthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ μὲν εἱμάρθαι, τὰ δὲ ἀνειμάρθαι</span></span>. See above, p. 179, 3, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20190src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20257">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20257src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">87</a></span> Chrysippus felt this. Hence he says (in <i>Gell.</i>): It has been also decreed by destiny that the bad should do wrong.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20257src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20262">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20262src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">88</a></span> Chrysippus in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 36, 1: <span class="trans" title="kakian de katholou arai oute dynaton estin out’ echei kalōs arthēnai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κακίαν δὲ καθόλου ἆραι οὔτε δυνατόν ἐστιν οὔτ’ ἔχει καλῶς ἀρθῆναι</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> (in <i>Gell.</i> vii. 1, 10): As diseases spring from human nature, <span lang="la">sic hercle inquit dum virtus hominibus per consilium naturæ gignitur vitia ibidem
+per affinitatem contrariam nata sunt.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20262src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20282">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20282src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">89</a></span> Chrysippus in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 35, 3 (C. Not. 13, 2): <span class="trans" title="ginetai gar autē pōs [hē kakia] kata ton tēs physeōs logon kai hina houtōs eipō ouk achrēstōs ginetai pros ta hola, oude gar an tagathon ēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γίνεται γὰρ αὐτή πως [ἡ κακία] κατὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως λόγον καὶ ἵνα οὕτως εἴπω οὐκ ἀχρήστως
+γίνεται πρὸς τὰ ὅλα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν τἀγαθὸν ἦν</span></span>. C. Not. 14, 1: As in a comedy, what is absurd contributes to the effect of the whole,
+<span class="trans" title="houtō psexeias an autēn eph’ heautēs tēn kakian; tois d’ allois ouk achrēstos estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὕτω ψέξειας ἂν αὐτὴν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῆς τὴν κακίαν· τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοις οὐκ ἄχρηστός ἐστιν</span></span>. Similarly <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 42. <i>Gell.</i> viii. 1, 2: (Chrysippus) <span lang="la">nihil est prorsus istis, inquit, insubidius, qui opinantur, bona esse potuisse, si
+non essent ibidem mala: nam cum bona malis contraria sint, utraque necessum est opposita
+inter se et quasi mutuo adverso quæque fulta nixu</span> (Heraclitus’ <span class="trans" title="antixoun sympheron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντίξουν συμφέρον</span></span>) <span lang="la">consistere: nullum adeo contrarium est sine contrario altero.</span> Without injustice, cowardice, &amp;c., we could not know what justice and valour are.
+If there were no evil, <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="epistēmē agathōn kai kakōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν</span></span> would be impossible (<i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 16, 2, p. 1066).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20282src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20340">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20340src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">90</a></span> <i>Cleanthes</i>, Hymn. 18:
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="alla sy kai ta perissa epistasai artia theikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ σὺ καὶ τὰ περισσὰ ἐπίστασαι ἄρτια θεῖκαι</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="kai kosmein ta akosma, kai ou phila soi phila estin;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ κοσμεῖν τὰ ἄκοσμα, καὶ οὐ φίλα σοὶ φίλα ἐστίν·</span></span> <span class="pageNum" id="pb191n">[<a href="#pb191n">191</a>]</span></p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="hōde gar eis hen hapanta synērmokas esthla kakoisin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὧδε γὰρ εἰς ἓν ἅπαντα συνήρμοκας ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="hōsth’ hena gignesthai pantōn logon aien eonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὥσθ’ ἕνα γίγνεσθαι πάντων λόγον αἰὲν ἐόντα</span></span>. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20394">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20394src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">91</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 35, 1: <span class="trans" title="ton theon kolazein phēsi tēn kakian kai polla poiein epi kolasei tōn ponērōn ... pote men ta dyschrēsta symbainein phēsi tois agathois ouch hōsper tois phaulois kolaseōs charin alla kat’ allēn oikonomian hōsper en tais polesin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν θεὸν κολάζειν φησὶ τὴν κακίαν καὶ πολλὰ ποιεῖν ἐπὶ κολάσει τῶν πονηρῶν … ποτὲ
+μὲν τὰ δύσχρηστα συμβαίνειν φησὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐχ ὥσπερ τοῖς φαύλοις κολάσεως χάριν
+ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν</span></span> … [<span class="trans" title="ta kaka"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ κακὰ</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="aponemetai kata ton tou Dios logon ētoi epi kolasei ē kat’ allēn echousan pōs pros ta hola oikonomian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπονέμεται κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς λόγον ἤτοι ἐπὶ κολάσει ἢ κατ’ ἄλλην ἔχουσάν πως πρὸς
+τὰ ὅλα οἰκονομίαν</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> 15, 2: <span class="trans" title="tauta phēsi tous theous poiein hopōs tōn ponērōn kolazomenōn hoi loipoi paradeigmasi toutois chrōmenoi hētton epicheirōsi toiouton ti poiein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ταῦτά φησι τοὺς θεοὺς ποιεῖν ὅπως τῶν πονηρῶν κολαζομένων οἱ λοιποὶ παραδείγμασι τούτοις
+χρώμενοι ἧττον ἐπιχειρῶσι τοιοῦτόν τι ποιεῖν</span></span>. At the beginning of the same chapter, the ordinary views of divine punishment had
+been treated with ridicule. Conf. Quæst. Rom. 51, p. 277.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20394src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20432">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20432src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">92</a></span> Thus Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 37, 2) in answer to the question, How the misfortune of the virtuous is
+to be explained, says: <span class="trans" title="poteron ameloumenōn tinōn kathaper en oikiais meizosi parapiptei tina pityra kai posoi pyroi tines tōn holōn eu oikonomoumenōn; ē dia to kathistasthai epi tōn toioutōn daimonia phaula en hois tō onti ginontai enklēteai ameleiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πότερον ἀμελουμένων τινῶν καθάπερ ἐν οἰκίαις μείζοσι παραπίπτει τινὰ πίτυρα καὶ ποσοὶ
+πυροί τινες τῶν ὅλων εὖ οἰκονομουμένων· ἢ διὰ τὸ καθίστασθαι ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων δαιμόνια
+φαῦλα ἐν οἷς τῷ ὄντι γίνονται ἐγκλητέαι ἀμέλειαι</span></span>; Similarly the Stoic in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 66: <span lang="la">Magna Dii curant, parva negligunt</span>,—hardly satisfactory explanations for any theory of necessity. It is still more unsatisfactory
+to hear Seneca (Benef. iv. 32) justifying the unmerited good fortune of the wicked
+as due to the nobility of their ancestors. The reason assigned by Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i>)—<span class="trans" title="poly kai to tēs anankēs memichthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολὺ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης μεμῖχθαι</span></span>—does not quite harmonise with <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 34, 2: <span class="trans" title="ou gar hē ge hylē to kakon ex heautēs pareschēken, apoios gar esti kai pasas hosas dechetai diaphoras hypo tou kinountos autēn kai schēmatizontos eschen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γὰρ ἥ γε ὕλη τὸ κακὸν ἐξ <span class="pageNum" id="pb192n">[<a href="#pb192n">192</a>]</span>ἑαυτῆς παρέσχηκεν, ἄποιος γάρ ἐστι καὶ πάσας ὅσας δέχεται διαφορὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ κινοῦντος
+αὐτὴν καὶ σχηματίζοντος ἔσχεν</span></span>. Just as little does Seneca’s—<span lang="la">Non potest artifex mutare materiam</span> (De Prov. 5, 9)—agree with his lavish encomia on the arrangement and perfection of
+the world. For, according to the Stoics, matter is ultimately identical with reason
+and deity. These contradictions do not, however, justify the doubt expressed by <i>Heine</i>, Stoic. de Fato Doct. 46, that Seneca is here not speaking as a Stoic. For Chrysippus
+says very much the same thing. See p. 190, 1, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20432src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20480">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20480src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">93</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 16: <span class="trans" title="ouk en peisei, all’ energeia, to tou logikou zōou kakon kai agathon, hōsper oude hē aretē kai kakia autou en peisei, alla energeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργείᾳ, τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ζῴου κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ ἀρετὴ
+καὶ κακία αὐτοῦ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλὰ ἐνεργείᾳ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20480src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20492">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20492src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">94</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> viii. 35: <span class="trans" title="hon tropon ekeinē [hē physis] pan to enistamenon kai antibainon epiperitrepei kai katatassei eis tēn heimarmenēn kai meros heautēs poiei, houtōs kai to logikon zōon dynatai pan kōlyma holēn heautou poiein kai chrēsthai autō eph’ hoion an kai hōrmēsen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὃν τρόπον ἐκείνη [ἡ φύσις] πᾶν τὸ ἐνιστάμενον καὶ ἀντιβαῖνον ἐπιπεριτρέπει καὶ κατατάσσει
+εἰς τὴν εἱμαρμένην καὶ μέρος ἑαυτῆς ποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον δύναται πᾶν κώλυμα
+ὅλην ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν καὶ χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ ἐφ’ οἷον ἂν καὶ ὥρμησεν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20492src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20505">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20505src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">95</a></span> Seneca’s treatise, De Providentia, is occupied with expanding this thought. In it,
+the arguments by which the outward misfortunes of good men are harmonised with the
+divine government of the world are: (1) The wise man cannot really meet with misfortune:
+he cannot receive at the hands of fortune what he does not, on moral grounds, assign
+to himself (c. 2, 6). (2) Misfortune, therefore, is an unlooked-for exercise of his
+powers, a divine instrument of training; a hero in conflict with fortune is a <span lang="la">spectaculum Deo dignum</span> (c. 1, 2–4. Conf. Ep. 85, 39). (3) The misfortunes of the righteous show that external
+conditions are neither a good nor an evil (c. 5). (4) Everything is a natural consequence
+of natural causes (c. 5). Similar explanations in <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. iii. 17; i. 6, 37; i. 24, 1; <i>Stob.</i> Ed. i. 132; <i>M. Aurel.</i> iv. 49: vii. 68 and 64; x. 33.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20505src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20521">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20521src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">96</a></span> <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri theōn diagōgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς</span></span>, col. 8, Vol. Herc. vi. 53: <span class="trans" title="idiōtikōs hapantos autō [theō] dynamin anathentes, hotan hypo tōn elenchōn piezōntai, tote katapheugousin epi to dia touto phaskein ta synaptomena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδιωτικῶς ἅπαντος αὐτῷ [θεῷ] δύναμιν ἀναθέντες, ὅταν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐλέγχων πιέζωνται, τότε
+καταφεύγουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ διὰ τοῦτο φάσκειν τὰ συναπτόμενα</span></span> (what is suitable) <span class="trans" title="mē poiein, hoti ou panta dynatai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ ποιεῖν, ὅτι οὐ πάντα δύναται</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20521src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch8" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e983">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER VIII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">IRRATIONAL NATURE. THE ELEMENTS. THE UNIVERSE.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">Turning from the questions which have hitherto engaged our attention to natural science
+in the stricter sense of the term, we must first touch upon <span class="marginnote" id="ch8.a">A. <i>The most general ideas on nature.</i></span> a few characteristic questions affecting the general conditions of all existence.
+In these the Stoics hold little that is of a distinctive character. The matter or
+substance of which all things are made is corporeal.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20561src" href="#xd33e20561" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> All that is corporeal is infinitely divisible, although it is never infinitely divided.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20568src" href="#xd33e20568" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> At the same time, all things are exposed to the action of change, since one material
+is constantly going over into another.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20579src" href="#xd33e20579" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> Herein the Stoics follow Aristotle, in contrast to the mechanical theory of nature,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20603src" href="#xd33e20603" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb195">[<a href="#pb195">195</a>]</span>and distinguish change in quality from mere motion in space. They enumerate several
+varieties of each kind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20627src" href="#xd33e20627" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> Nevertheless, they look upon motion in space as the primary form of motion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20692src" href="#xd33e20692" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> Under the conception of motion, they, moreover, include action and suffering.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20704src" href="#xd33e20704" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> The condition of all action is contact;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20716src" href="#xd33e20716" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> and since the motions of different objects in nature are due to various causes, and
+have a variety of characters, the various kinds of action must be distinguished which
+correspond with them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20720src" href="#xd33e20720" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> In all <span class="pageNum" id="pb196">[<a href="#pb196">196</a>]</span>these statements there is hardly a perceptible deviation from Aristotle.
+</p>
+<p>Of a more peculiar character are the views of the Stoics as to the intermingling of
+substances, to which reference has already been made.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20837src" href="#xd33e20837" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> With regard to Time and Space, they found some innovations on Aristotle’s theory
+to be necessary. Space (<span class="trans" title="topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόπος</span></span>), according to their view, is the room occupied by a body,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e20848src" href="#xd33e20848" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> the distance enclosed within the limits of a body.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21015src" href="#xd33e21015" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> From Space they distinguish the Empty. The Empty is not met with in the universe,
+but beyond the universe it extends indefinitely.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21022src" href="#xd33e21022" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> And hence they assert that Space is limited, like the world of matter, and that the
+Empty is unlimited.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21055src" href="#xd33e21055" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Nay, not only Space, but Time also, is by them set <span class="pageNum" id="pb197">[<a href="#pb197">197</a>]</span>down as immaterial;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21061src" href="#xd33e21061" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> and yet to the conception of Time a meaning as concrete as possible is given, in
+order that Time may have a real value. Zeno defined Time as the extension of motion;
+Chrysippus defines it, more definitely, as the extension of the motion of the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21066src" href="#xd33e21066" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> The Stoics affirm the infinite divisibility of Time and Space,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21117src" href="#xd33e21117" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> but do not appear to have instituted any deep researches into this point.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch8.b">B. <i>Elements.</i></span>
+In expanding their views on the origin of the world, the Stoics begin with the doctrine
+of the four elements,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21130src" href="#xd33e21130" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> a doctrine which, since the time of Aristotle and Plato, was the one universally
+accepted. They even refer this doctrine to Heraclitus, <span class="pageNum" id="pb198">[<a href="#pb198">198</a>]</span>desiring, above all things, to follow his teaching in natural science.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21163src" href="#xd33e21163" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> On a previous occasion, the order and the stages have been pointed out, according
+to which primary fire developed into the several elements in the formation of the
+world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21167src" href="#xd33e21167" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> In the same order, these elements now go over one into the other. Yet, in this constant
+transformation of materials, in the perpetual change of form to which primary matter
+is subject, in this flux of all its parts, the unity of the whole still remains untouched.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21186src" href="#xd33e21186" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> The distinctive characteristic of fire is heat; that of air is cold; <span class="pageNum" id="pb199">[<a href="#pb199">199</a>]</span>that of water, moisture; dryness that of the earth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21250src" href="#xd33e21250" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> These essential qualities, however, are not always found in the elements to which
+they belong in a pure state,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21292src" href="#xd33e21292" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> and hence every element has several forms and varieties.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21297src" href="#xd33e21297" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> Among the four essential qualities of the elements, Aristotle had already singled
+out two, viz. heat and cold, as the active ones, calling dryness and moisture the
+passive ones. The Stoics do the same, only more avowedly. They consider the two elements
+to which these qualities properly belong to be the seat of all active force, and distinguish
+them from the other two elements, as the soul is distinguished from the body.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21323src" href="#xd33e21323" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> In their <span class="pageNum" id="pb200">[<a href="#pb200">200</a>]</span>materialistic system, the finer materials, as opposed to the coarser, occupy the place
+of incorporeal forces.
+</p>
+<p>The relative density of the elements also determines their place in the universe.
+Fire and air are light; water and earth are heavy. Fire and air move away from the
+centre of the universe;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21330src" href="#xd33e21330" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> water and earth are drawn towards it;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21359src" href="#xd33e21359" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> and thus, from above to below—or, what is the same thing, from without to within—the
+four layers of fire, air, water, and earth are formed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21412src" href="#xd33e21412" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> The fire on the circumference <span class="pageNum" id="pb201">[<a href="#pb201">201</a>]</span>goes by the name of Ether.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21439src" href="#xd33e21439" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> Its most remote portion was called by Zeno Heaven;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21498src" href="#xd33e21498" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> and it differs from earthly fire not only by its greater purity,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21527src" href="#xd33e21527" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> but also because the motion of earthly fire is in a straight line, whereas the motion
+of the Ether is circular.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21530src" href="#xd33e21530" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> Because of this difference of motion, Aristotle supposed a radical difference to
+exist between these two kinds of fire, but the Stoics did not feel it necessary to
+admit such a difference.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21554src" href="#xd33e21554" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> They could always maintain that, when beyond the limits of its proper locality, fire
+tried to return to it as quickly as possible, <span class="pageNum" id="pb202">[<a href="#pb202">202</a>]</span>whereas within those limits it moved in the form of a circle.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch8.c">C<span>.</span> <i>The universe.</i></span>
+Holding this view of the elements, the Stoics, it will be seen, did not deviate to
+any very great extent, in their ideas of the World, from Aristotle and the views which
+were generally entertained. In the centre of the Universe reposes the globe of the
+earth;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21575src" href="#xd33e21575" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> around it is water, above the water is air. These three strata form the kernel of
+the world, which is in a state of repose,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21587src" href="#xd33e21587" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> and around these the Ether revolves in a circle, together with the stars which are
+set therein. At the top, in one stratum, are all the fixed stars; under the stratum
+containing the fixed stars are the planets, in seven different strata—Saturn, Jupiter,
+Mars, Mercury, Venus, then the Sun, and in the lowest stratum, bordering on the region
+of air, is the Moon.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21599src" href="#xd33e21599" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> Thus the world consists, <span class="pageNum" id="pb203">[<a href="#pb203">203</a>]</span>as with Aristotle, of a globe containing many strata, one above another.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21636src" href="#xd33e21636" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> That it cannot be unlimited, as Democritus and Epicurus maintain, follows from the
+very nature of body.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21671src" href="#xd33e21671" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> The space within the world is fully occupied by the material of the world, without
+a vacant space being anywhere left.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21679src" href="#xd33e21679" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> Outside the world, however, is empty space, or else how—the Stoics asked—would there
+be a place into which the world could be resolved at the general conflagration?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21706src" href="#xd33e21706" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> Moreover, this empty space must be unlimited; for how can there be a limit, or any
+kind of boundary, to that which is immaterial and non-existent?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21711src" href="#xd33e21711" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> But although the world is in <span class="pageNum" id="pb204">[<a href="#pb204">204</a>]</span>empty space, it does not move, for the half of its component elements being heavy,
+and the other half light, as a whole it is neither heavy nor light.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21741src" href="#xd33e21741" title="Go to note 42.">42</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch8.c.1">(1) <i>Stars.</i></span>
+The stars are spherical masses,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21807src" href="#xd33e21807" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> consisting of fire; but the fire is not in all cases equally pure,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21839src" href="#xd33e21839" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> and is sustained, as Heraclitus taught, by evaporations from <span class="pageNum" id="pb205">[<a href="#pb205">205</a>]</span>the earth and from water.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21889src" href="#xd33e21889" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> With this process of sustentation the motion of the stars is brought into connection,
+their orbit extending over the space in which they obtain their nutriment.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21939src" href="#xd33e21939" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> Not only the sun, but the moon also, was believed to be larger than the earth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e21988src" href="#xd33e21988" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> Plato and Aristotle had already held <span class="pageNum" id="pb206">[<a href="#pb206">206</a>]</span>that the stars are living rational divine beings; and the same view was entertained
+by the Stoics, not only because of the wonderful regularity of their motion and orbits,
+but also from the very nature of the material of which they consist.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22024src" href="#xd33e22024" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> The earth, likewise, is filled by an animating soul; or else how could it supply
+plants with animation, and afford nutriment to the stars?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22082src" href="#xd33e22082" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> Upon the oneness of the soul, which permeates all its parts, depends, in the opinion
+of the Stoics, the oneness of the universe.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch8.c.2">(2) <i>Meteorology.</i></span>
+Most thoroughly, however, did the Stoics—and, in particular, Posidonius<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22095src" href="#xd33e22095" title="Go to note 50.">50</a>—devote themselves to investigating <span class="pageNum" id="pb207">[<a href="#pb207">207</a>]</span>those problems, which may be summed up under the name of meteorology. This portion,
+however, of their enquiries is of little value for illustrating their philosophical
+tenets, and it may suffice to mention in a note the objects which it included, and
+the sources whence information may be obtained.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22138src" href="#xd33e22138" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> The same treatment may be given to <span class="pageNum" id="pb208">[<a href="#pb208">208</a>]</span>the few maxims laid down by the Stoics on the subject of inorganic nature which have
+come down to us.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22243src" href="#xd33e22243" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> Nor need we mention here the somewhat copious writings of Posidonius,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22261src" href="#xd33e22261" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> on the subjects of geography, history, and mathematics.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch8.c.3">(3) <i>Plants and animals.</i></span>
+Little attention was devoted by the Stoics to the world of plants and animals. About
+this fact there can be no doubt, since we neither hear of any treatises by the Stoics
+on this subject, nor do they appear to have advanced any peculiar views. The most
+prominent point is, that they divided all things in nature into four classes—those
+of inorganic beings, plants, animals, and rational beings. In beings belonging to
+the first class a simple quality (<span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span>) constitutes the bond of union; in those of the second class, a forming power (<span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span>); in those of the third class, a soul; and in those of the fourth class, a rational
+soul.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22292src" href="#xd33e22292" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> By means of this division, <span class="pageNum" id="pb209">[<a href="#pb209">209</a>]</span>the various branches of a science of nature were mapped out, based on a gradually
+increasing development of the powers of life. No serious attempt was made by the Stoics
+to work out this thought. With the single exception of man, we know exceedingly little
+of their views on organic beings.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22466src" href="#xd33e22466" title="Go to note 55.">55</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb210">[<a href="#pb210">210</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20561">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20561src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> See above, p. 126; 101, 2; <i>Diog.</i> 135. Conf. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 410.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20561src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20568">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20568src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> In <i>Diog.</i> 150, there is no difference made between Apollodorus and Chrysippus. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 344; <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 38, 3, p. 1079; <i>Sext.</i> Math. x. 142. Similarly Aristotle.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20568src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20579">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20579src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 9, 2: <span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi treptēn kai alloiōtēn kai metablētēn kai rheustēn holēn di’ holou tēn hylēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ τρεπτὴν καὶ ἀλλοιωτὴν καὶ μεταβλητὴν καὶ ῥευστὴν ὅλην δι’ ὅλου τὴν ὕλην</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 150. <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. iii. 101, 3: <span lang="la">Fiunt omnia ex omnibus, ex aqua aër, ex aëre aqua, ignis ex aëre, ex igne aër … ex
+aqua terra fit, cur non aqua fiat e terra? … omnium elementorum in alternum recursus
+sunt.</span> Similarly <i>Epictet.</i> in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 108, 60. Conf. p. 101, 2; 198, 3. This is borrowed not only from Heraclitus,
+but also from Aristotle.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20579src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20603">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20603src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> They only called the first kind <span class="trans" title="kinēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κίνησις</span></span>. Aristotle understood <span class="pageNum" id="pb195n">[<a href="#pb195n">195</a>]</span>by <span class="trans" title="kinēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κίνησις</span></span> every form of change.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20603src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20627">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20627src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 404, 408, gives definitions of <span class="trans" title="kinēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κίνησις</span></span>, of <span class="trans" title="phora"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φορά</span></span>, and of <span class="trans" title="monē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μονή</span></span>, taken from Chrysippus and Apollodorus. <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 110, β (Schol. in Arist. 92, 6, 30. Respecting the kinds of <span class="trans" title="metabolē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μεταβολή</span></span> see the extracts from Posidonius on p. 101, 2) distinguishes between <span class="trans" title="menein, ēremein, hēsychazein, akinētein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μένειν, ἠρεμεῖν, ἡσυχάζειν, ἀκινητεῖν</span></span>, but this is rather a matter of language. <i>Simpl.</i> Cat. 78, β, relates that the Stoics differed from the Peripatetics in explaining
+Motion as an incomplete energy, and discusses their assertion that <span class="trans" title="kineisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κινεῖσθαι</span></span> is a wider, <span class="trans" title="kinein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κινεῖν</span></span> a narrower, idea.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20627src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20692">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20692src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 310, b: <span class="trans" title="hoi de apo tēs stoas kata pasan kinēsin elegon hypeinai tēn topikēn, ē kata megala diastēmata ē kata logō theōrēta hyphistamenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς κατὰ πᾶσαν κίνησιν ἔλεγον ὑπεῖναι τὴν τοπικὴν, ἢ κατὰ μέγαλα διαστήματα
+ἢ κατὰ λόγῳ θεωρητὰ ὑφισταμένην</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20692src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20704">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20704src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 78, β (Schol. 78, a, 23): Plotinus and others introduce into the Aristotelian
+doctrine the Stoic view: <span class="trans" title="to koinon tou poiein kai paschein einai tas kinēseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κοινὸν τοῦ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν εἶναι τὰς κινήσεις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20704src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20716">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20716src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> l.c. 77, β; Schol. 77, b, 33. Simplicius himself contradicts this statement. It had,
+however, been already advanced by Aristotle.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20716src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20720">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20720src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> l.c. 78, β (Schol. 78, a, 28): The Stoics who, according to p. 84, ε, Schol. 79,
+a, 16, very fully discussed the categories, made the following <span class="trans" title="diaphorai genōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαφοραὶ γενῶν</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="to ex autōn kineisthai, hōs hē machaira to temnein ek tēs oikeias echei kataskeuēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἐξ αὐτῶν κινεῖσθαι, ὡς ἡ μάχαιρα τὸ τέμνειν ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας ἔχει κατασκευῆς</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="to di’ heautou energein tēn kinēsin, hōs hai physeis kai hai iatrikai dynameis tēn poiēsin hypergazontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐνεργεῖν τὴν κίνησιν, ὡς αἱ φύσεις καὶ αἱ ἰατρικαὶ δυνάμεις τὴν ποίησιν
+ὑπεργάζονται</span></span>; for instance, the seed, in developing into a plant—<span class="trans" title="to aph’ heautou poiein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν</span></span>, or <span class="trans" title="apo idias hormēs poiein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπὸ ἰδίας ὁρμῆς ποιεῖν</span></span>, one species of which is <span class="trans" title="to apo logikēs hormēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἀπὸ λογικῆς ὁρμῆς</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="to kat’ aretēn energein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἐνεργεῖν</span></span>. It is, in short, the application to a particular case of the distinction which will
+be subsequently met with of <span class="trans" title="hexis, physis, psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις, φύσις, ψυχὴ</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="psychē logikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ λογική</span></span>. The celebrated grammatical distinction of <span class="trans" title="ortha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀρθὰ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="hyptia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὕπτια</span></span> mentioned p. 95, 3 is connected with the distinction between <span class="trans" title="poiein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιεῖν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="paschein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάσχειν</span></span>. Conf. <i>Simpl.</i> p. 79, α, ζ; Schol. 78, b, 17 and 30.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20720src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20837">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20837src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> See page 135.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20837src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e20848">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e20848src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 382: <span class="trans" title="Zēnōn kai hoi ap’ autou entos men tou kosmou mēden einai kenon exō d’ autou apeiron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ἔξω δ’ αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον</span></span> (conf. <i>Themist.</i> Phys. 40, b; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 18, 4; <i>ibid.</i> c. 20, beginning <span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi kai Epikouros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ <span id="xd33e20869">Ἐπίκουρος</span></span></span>). <span class="trans" title="diapherein de kenon topon chōran; kai to men kenon einai erēmian sōmatos, ton de topon to epechomenon hypo sōmatos, tēn de chōran to ek merous epechomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαφέρειν δὲ κενὸν τόπον χώραν· καὶ τὸ μὲν κενὸν εἶναι ἐρημίαν σώματος, τὸν δὲ τόπον
+τὸ ἐπεχόμενον ὑπὸ σώματος, τὴν δὲ χώραν τὸ ἐκ μέρους ἐπεχόμενον</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> adds, like a half-empty vessel). <i>Stob.</i> i. 390: Chrysippus defined <span class="trans" title="topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόπος</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="to katechomenon di’ holou hypo ontos, ē to hoion katechesthai hypo ontos kai di’ holou katechomenon eite hypo tinos eite hypo tinōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κατεχόμενον δι’ ὅλου ὑπὸ <span id="xd33e20901">ὄντος</span>, ἢ τὸ οἷον κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ <span id="xd33e20905">ὄντος</span> καὶ δι’ ὅλου κατεχόμενον εἴτε ὑπὸ τινὸς εἴτε ὑπὸ τινῶν</span></span>. If, however, only one portion of the <span class="trans" title="hoion te katechesthai hypo ontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἷόν τε κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ ὄντος</span></span> is really filled, the whole is neither <span class="trans" title="kenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κενὸν</span></span> nor <span class="trans" title="topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόπος</span></span>, but <span class="trans" title="heteron ti ouk ōnomasmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕτερόν τι οὐκ ὠνομασμένον</span></span>, which may possibly be called <span class="trans" title="chōra"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χώρα</span></span>. Hence <span class="trans" title="topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόπος</span></span> corresponds to a full, <span class="trans" title="kenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κενὸν</span></span> to an empty, <span class="trans" title="chōra"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χώρα</span></span> to a half-empty, vessel. <i>Sext.</i> Math. x. 3, Pyrrh. iii. 124, speaks to the same effect. <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteor. p. 2, 4; <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 91, δ. According to the Stoics, <span class="trans" title="paryphistatai tois sōmasin ho topos kai ton horon ap’ autōn proslambanei ton mechri tosoude, kathoson symplērountai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρυφίσταται τοῖς σώμασιν ὁ τόπος καὶ τὸν ὅρον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν προσλαμβάνει τὸν <span class="corr" id="xd33e20989" title="Source: μέχι">μέχρι</span> τοσοῦδε, καθόσον συμπληροῦνται</span></span> [-<span class="trans" title="outai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οῦται</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="hypo tōn sōmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπὸ τῶν σωμάτων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e20848src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21015">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21015src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> The Stoic idea of space is so understood by <i>Themist.</i> Phys. 38, b; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 133, a.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21015src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21022">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21022src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> See previous note and in <i>Diog.</i> 140 (where, however, instead of <span class="trans" title="asōmaton de"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀσώματον δὲ</span></span>, we should read <span class="trans" title="kenon de"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span class="corr" id="xd33e21037" title="Source: κονὸν">κενὸν</span> δὲ</span></span>) definitions of <span class="trans" title="kenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κενόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21022src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21055">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21055src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 392, quoting Chrysippus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21055src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21061">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21061src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> See p. 131, 2<span id="xd33e21063">.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21061src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21066">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21066src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 88, ζ. Schol. 80, a, 6: <span class="trans" title="tōn de Stōïkōn Zēnōn men pasēs haplōs kinēseōs diastēma ton chronon eipe"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δὲ Στωϊκῶν Ζήνων μὲν πάσης ἁπλῶς κινήσεως διάστημα τὸν χρόνον εἶπε</span></span> (conf. <i>Plut.</i> Plat. Quæst. viii. 4, 3) <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos de diastēma tēs tou kosmou kinēseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος δὲ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεως</span></span>. Conf. <i>Ibid.</i> 89, α, β; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 165, a. More full is <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 260: <span class="trans" title="ho de Chrysippos chronon einai kinēseōs diastēma kath’ ho pote legetai metron tachous te kai bradytētos, ē to parakolouthoun diastēma tē tou kosmou kinēsei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος χρόνον εἶναι κινήσεως διάστημα καθ’ ὅ ποτε λέγεται μέτρον τάχους τε
+καὶ βραδύτητος, ἢ τὸ παρακολουθοῦν διάστημα τῇ τοῦ κόσμου κινήσει</span></span>. The passages quoted by <i>Stob.</i> Ibid. 250 (<i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 22, 2), 254, <span class="corr" id="xd33e21106" title="Source: 265">256</span>, 258, and <i>Diog.</i> 141, from Zeno, Chrysippus, Apollodorus, and Posidonius, are in agreement with this.
+In the same places occur several other observations on Time, which are, however, of
+no importance, such as that Time as a whole, and likewise the past and the future,
+are unlimited, the present is limited; the present cannot be accurately determined,
+it is the boundary between the past and the future (Archedemus in <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 38, 6, p. 1081), lying partly in the one, partly in the other (Chrysippus,
+<i>ibid.</i> 38, 8).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21066src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21117">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21117src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. x. 142; <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 41, p. 1081; <i>Stob.</i> i. 260.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21117src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21130">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21130src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> For the conception of <span class="trans" title="stoicheion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">στοιχεῖον</span></span>, which is also that of Aristotle (Metaph. i. 3, 938, b, 8), and its difference from
+that of <span class="trans" title="archē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρχὴ</span></span>, see <i>Diog.</i> 134; 136. The difference, however, is not always observed. Chrysippus (in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 312) distinguishes three meanings of <span class="trans" title="stoicheion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">στοιχεῖον</span></span>. In one sense, it is fire; in another, the four elements; in the third, any material
+out of which something is made.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21130src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21163">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21163src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Lassalle</i>, Heraclitus, ii. 84.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21163src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21167">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21167src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> See p. 161. As is there stated, primary fire first goes over into water <span class="trans" title="di’ aeros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δι’ ἀέρος</span></span> (i.e. after first going over into air, not passing through air as an already existing
+medium, as <i>Lassalle</i>, Heracl. ii. 86, inaccurately says), and water goes over into the three other elements.
+In this process there is, however, a difficulty. Fire is said to derive its origin
+from water, and yet a portion of primary fire must have existed from the beginning,
+as the soul of the world. Nor is it correct to say, that <i>actual</i> fire is never obtained from water in the formation of the upper elements (as <i>Lassalle</i>, p<span>.</span> 88, does).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21167src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21186">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21186src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 312: <span class="trans" title="prōtēs men gignomenēs tēs ek pyros kata systasin eis aera metabolēs, deuteras d’ apo toutou eis hydōr, tritēs d’ eti mallon kata to analogon synistamenou tou hydatos eis gēn, palin de apo tautēs dialyomenēs kai diacheomenēs prōtē men gignetai chysis eis hydōr, deutera de ex hydatos eis aera, tritē de kai eschatē eis pyr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρώτης μὲν γιγνομένης τῆς ἐκ πυρὸς κατὰ σύστασιν εἰς ἀέρα μεταβολῆς, δευτέρας δ’ ἀπὸ
+τούτου εἰς ὕδωρ, τρίτης δ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον κατὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον συνισταμένου τοῦ ὕδατος εἰς
+γῆν, πάλιν δὲ ἀπὸ ταύτης διαλυομένης καὶ διαχεομένης πρώτη μὲν γίγνεται χύσις εἰς
+ὕδωρ, δεύτερα δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος εἰς ἀέρα, τρίτη δὲ καὶ ἐσχάτη εἰς πῦρ</span></span>. On account of this constant change, primary matter is called (<i>Ibid.</i> 316, where, however, the text is obviously corrupt, and therefore only partially
+intelligible) <span class="trans" title="hē archē kai ho logos kai hē aïdios dynamis ... eis autēn te panta katanaliskousa kai to [ex] hautēs palin apokathistasa tetagmenōs kai hodō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ ἀΐδιος δύναμις … εἰς αὐτήν τε πάντα καταναλίσκουσα καὶ τὸ
+[ἐξ] αὑτῆς πάλιν ἀποκαθιστᾶσα τεταγμένως καὶ ὁδῷ</span></span>. Epictet. in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 108, 60: Not only mankind and animals are undergoing perpetual changes, <span class="trans" title="alla kai ta theia, kai nē Di’ auta ta tettara stoicheia anō kai katō trepetai kai metaballei; kai gē te hydōr ginetai kai hydōr aēr, houtos de palin eis aithera metaballei; kai ho autos tropos tēs metabolēs anōthen katō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ θεῖα, καὶ νὴ <span id="xd33e21215">Δί’</span> αὐτὰ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα ἄνω καὶ κάτω τρέπεται καὶ μεταβάλλει· καὶ γῆ τε ὕδωρ γίνεται
+καὶ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ, οὗτος δὲ πάλιν εἰς αἰθέρα μεταβάλλει· καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος τῆς μεταβολῆς
+ἄνωθεν κάτω</span></span>. On the flux of things, see also <i>M. Aurel.</i> ii. 3; vii. 19; ix. 19; 28. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 33, 84: <span lang="la">Et cum quatuor sint genera corporum, vicissitudine eorum mundi continuata</span> (= <span class="trans" title="synechēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνεχής</span></span>; conf. <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 2, 2, <span lang="la">continuatio est partium inter <span class="pageNum" id="pb199n">[<a href="#pb199n">199</a>]</span>se non intermissa conjunctio) natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aër, ex
+aëre æther: deinde retrorsum vicissim ex æthere aër, ex aëre aqua, ex aqua terra infima.
+Sic naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursum deorsum, ultro citroque commeantibus,
+mundi partium conjunctio continetur.</span> See p. 194, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21186src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21250">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21250src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 137: <span class="trans" title="einai de to men pyr to thermon, to d’ hydōr to hygron, ton t’ aera to psychron kai tēn gēn to xēron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι δὲ τὸ μὲν πῦρ τὸ θερμὸν, τὸ δ’ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑγρὸν, τόν τ’ ἀέρα τὸ ψυχρὸν καὶ τὴν
+γῆν τὸ ξηρόν</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 43, 1, p. 1053. The air is, according to Chrysippus, <span class="trans" title="physei zopheros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσει ζοφερὸς</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="prōtōs psychros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρώτως ψυχρός</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> De Primo Frig. 9, 1; 17, 1, p. 948, 952; <i>Galen</i>, Simpl. Medic. ii. 20, vol. xi. 510. <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. iii. 10; i. 4: <span lang="la">Aër … frigidus per se et obscurus … natura enim aëris gelida est.</span> Conf. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 10, 26. Of the four properties by the pairing of which elements arise,
+even Aristotle had attributed one to each element as its distinguishing feature, assigning
+cold to water, moisture to air.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21250src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21292">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21292src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> Thus the upper portion of the air, owing to its proximity to the region of fire and
+the stars (<i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. iii. 10), is the warmest, the driest, and the rarest; but yet, owing to
+the evaporation of the earth and the radiation of heat, warmer than the middle, which
+in point of dryness and density is between the two, but exceeds both in cold. See
+p. 146, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21292src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21297">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21297src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Stob.</i> i. 314: <span class="trans" title="legesthai de pyr to pyrōdes pan kai aera to aerōdes kai homoiōs ta loipa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγεσθαι δὲ πῦρ τὸ πυρῶδες πᾶν καὶ ἀέρα τὸ ἀερῶδες καὶ ὁμοίως τὰ λοιπά</span></span>. Thus <i>Philo</i>, Incorrupt. M. 953, <span class="asc">E</span>, who is clearly following the Stoics, distinguishes three kinds of fire: <span class="trans" title="anthrax, phlox, augē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνθραξ, φλὸξ, αὐγή</span></span>. He seems, however, only to refer to terrestrial fire, which, after all, forms only
+one small portion of fire.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21297src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21323">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21323src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> Pp. 128, 2; 148, 2; 151, 1; 163, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21323src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21330">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21330src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> This statement must be taken with such modification as the unity of the world renders
+necessary. If the upper elements were to move altogether away from the centre, the
+world would go to pieces. Hence the meaning can only be this: that the difference
+of natural motions can only take place within the enclosure holding the elements together,
+and so far a natural motion towards the centre can be attributed to all bodies as
+a distinctive feature, anterior to the contrast between heaviness and lightness. Conf.
+Chrysippus, in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 44, 6, p. 1054: The striving of all the parts of the world is to keep together,
+not to go asunder. <span class="trans" title="houtō de tou holou teinomenou eis tauto kai kinoumenou kai tōn moriōn tautēn tēn kinēsin echontōn ek tēs tou sōmatos physeōs, pithanon, pasi tois sōmasin einai tēn prōtēn kata physin kinēsin pros to tou kosmou meson, tō men kosmō houtōsi kinoumenō pros hauton, tois de meresin hōs an meresin ousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὕτω δὲ τοῦ ὅλου τεινομένου εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ κινουμένου καὶ τῶν μορίων ταύτην τὴν κίνησιν
+ἐχόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ σώματος φύσεως, πιθανὸν, πᾶσι τοῖς σώμασιν εἶναι τὴν πρώτην κατὰ
+φύσιν κίνησιν πρὸς τὸ τοῦ κόσμου μέσον, τῷ μὲν κόσμῳ οὑτωσὶ κινουμένῳ πρὸς αὑτὸν,
+τοῖς δὲ μέρεσιν ὡς ἂν μέρεσιν οὖσιν</span></span>. <i>Achill. Tat.</i> Isag. 132, <span class="asc">A</span>: The Stoics maintain that the world continues in empty space, <span class="trans" title="epei panta autou ta merē epi to meson neneuke"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπεὶ πάντα αὐτοῦ τὰ μέρη ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον νένευκε</span></span>. The same reason is assigned by <i>Cleomedes</i>, Meteor. p. 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21330src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21359">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21359src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 346 (<i>Plut.</i> Pl. i. 12, 4). Zeno, <i>Ibid.</i> 406: <span class="trans" title="ou pantōs de sōma baros echein, all’ abarē einai aera kai pyr ... physei gar anōphoita taut’ einai dia to mēdenos metechein barous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ πάντως δὲ σῶμα βάρος ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ ἀβαρῆ εἶναι ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ … φύσει γὰρ ἀνώφοιτα
+ταῦτ’ εἶναι διὰ τὸ μηδενὸς μετέχειν βάρους</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 42, p. 1053: In the treatise <span class="trans" title="peri kinēseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κινήσεως</span></span>, Chrysippus calls fire <span class="trans" title="abares"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀβαρὲς</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="anōpheres kai toutō paraplēsiōs ton aera, tou men hydatos tē gē mallon prosnemomenou, tou d’ aeros, tō pyri"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνωφερὲς καὶ τούτῳ παραπλησίως τὸν ἀέρα, τοῦ μὲν ὕδατος τῇ γῇ μᾶλλον προσνεμομένου,
+τοῦ δ’ ἀέρος, τῷ πυρί</span></span>. (So too in <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. i. 4 in Pet. Doctr. Temp. iii. 75.) On the other hand, in his <span class="trans" title="Physikai technai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Φυσικαὶ τέχναι</span></span>, he inclines to the view that air in itself is neither heavy nor light, which however
+can only mean that it is neither absolutely, being heavy compared with fire, and light
+compared with water and earth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21359src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21412">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21412src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 137: <span class="trans" title="anōtatō men oun einai to pyr ho dē aithera kaleisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνωτάτω μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ ὃ δὴ αἰθέρα καλεῖσθαι</span></span>, <span class="pageNum" id="pb201n">[<a href="#pb201n">201</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="en hō prōtēn tēn tōn aplanōn sphairan gennasthai, eita tēn tōn planōmenōn. meth’ hēn ton aera, eita to hydōr, hypostathmēn de pantōn tēn gēn, mesēn hapantōn ousan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν ᾧ πρώτην τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαῖραν γεννᾶσθαι, εἶτα τὴν τῶν πλανωμένων. μεθ’ ἣν τὸν
+ἀέρα, εἶτα τὸ ὕδωρ, ὑποστάθμην δὲ πάντων τὴν γῆν, μέσην ἁπάντων οὖσαν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 156; see p. 202, 3. To these main masses, all other smaller masses of the same element
+in different parts of the world are attracted, because all seek to reach their natural
+place. Conf. <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 9.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21412src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21439">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21439src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. vi. 16, 2 (<span lang="la">totum hoc cœlum, quod igneus æther, mundi summa pars, claudit</span>), and p. 198, 3, where the same thing is called <span class="trans" title="pyr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ</span></span> by Stobæus, æther by Cicero. See p. 146, 4. The same thing is meant by Zeno, where
+he says (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 538, 554, and Cleanthes says the same in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 15, 40. <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. 133, <span id="xd33e21460"><span class="asc">C</span></span>) that the stars are made of fire; not, however, of <span class="trans" title="pyr atechnon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ ἄτεχνον</span></span>, but of <span class="trans" title="pyr technikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ τεχνικὸν</span></span>, which appears in plants as <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span>, in animals as <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχή</span></span>. See p. 201, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21439src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21498">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21498src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> In <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. 130, <span class="asc">A</span>, he defines <span class="trans" title="ouranos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐρανὸς</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="aitheros to eschaton, ex hou kai en hō esti panta emphanōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἐστὶ πάντα ἐμφανῶς</span></span>. Similarly <i>Diog.</i> 138; <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. p. 7. Otherwise the term is used in a wider sense.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21498src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21527">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21527src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> See p. 146, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21527src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21530">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21530src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> i. 346: <span class="trans" title="to men perigeion phōs kat’ eutheian, to d’ aitherion peripherōs kineitai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μὲν περίγειον φῶς κατ’ εὐθεῖαν, τὸ δ’ αἰθέριον περιφερῶς κινεῖται</span></span>. See p. 202, 3. It is only of terrestrial fire that Zeno can (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 356) say, it moves in a straight line. Cleanthes even attributed to the stars
+the spherical shape, which on the strength of this passage he attributes to it. See
+<i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 14, 2; <i>Stob.</i> i. 516; <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. 133, <span class="asc">B</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21530src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21554">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21554src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> They denied it, according to <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. iv. 56. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 11, 39, says: Zeno dispensed with a <span lang="la">quinta natura</span>, being satisfied with four elements: <span lang="la">statuebat enim ignem esse ipsam naturam, quæ quæque gigneret, et mentem atque sensus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21554src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21575">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21575src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> The spherical shape of the earth is a matter of course, and is mentioned by <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. 126, <span class="asc">C</span>; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iii. 10, 1; 9, 3. <i>Cleom.</i> Met. p. 40, gives an elaborate proof of it, for the most part taken from Posidonius.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21575src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21587">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21587src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 36, and <i>Diog.</i> 145, also affirm that the earth is in the centre, <i>un</i>moved. The reason for this fact is stated by <i>Stob.</i> i. 408, to be its weight. Further proofs in <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. p. 47.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21587src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21599">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21599src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 446: <span class="trans" title="tou de ... kosmou to men einai peripheromenon peri to meson, ti d’ hypomenon, peripheromenon men ton aithera, hypomenon de tēn gēn kai ta ep’ autēs hygra kai ton aera"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῦ δὲ … κόσμου τὸ μὲν εἶναι περιφερόμενον περὶ τὸ μέσον, τὶ δ’ ὑπομένον, περιφερόμενον
+μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, ὑπομένον δὲ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ὑγρὰ καὶ τὸν ἀέρα</span></span>. The earth is the natural framework, and, as it were, the skeleton of the world.
+Around it water has been poured, out of which the more exalted spots project as islands.
+For what is called continent is also an island: <span class="trans" title="apo de tou hydatos ton aera exēphthai kathaper exatmisthenta sphairikōs kai perikechysthai, ek de toutou ton aithera araiotaton te kai eilikrinestaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ὕδατος τὸν ἀέρα ἐξῆφθαι καθάπερ ἐξατμισθέντα σφαιρικῶς καὶ περικεχύσθαι,
+ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὸν αἰθέρα ἀραιότατόν τε καὶ εἰλικρινέστατον</span></span>. It moves in circular form round the world. Then follows what is given in the text
+as to the stars, next to which comes the stratum of air, then that of water, and lastly,
+in the centre, the earth. Conf. <i>Achil. Tat.</i> Isag. 126, <span class="asc">B</span>, see p. 200, 3. The language of <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. c. 3, p. 6, is <span class="pageNum" id="pb203n">[<a href="#pb203n">203</a>]</span>somewhat divergent. He places the sun amongst the planets, between Mars and Venus.
+That Archedemus also refused to allow the earth a place in the centre has been already
+stated, p. 147, 2. The language of <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. c. 7, 131, <span class="asc">B</span>, is ambiguous: As the circumference originates from the centre, so according to the
+Stoics the outer circle originates from the earth; when compared with the quotations
+on p. 161, 2; 162, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21599src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21636">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21636src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> i. 356; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 2, 1; i. 6, 3; <i>Diog.</i> 140; <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. pp. 39 and 46; <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 46. <i>Ibid.</i> on the perfection of this form and its adaptation for motion. Comparing <i>Achil. Tat.</i> Isag. 130, <span class="asc">C</span>, <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 2, 1 (<i>Galen.</i> Hist. Phil. c. 11), with the passages on p. 201, note 4, it appears probable that
+Cleanthes believed in a spherical form of the earth. According to <i>Ach. Tat.</i> Isag. 152, <span class="asc">A</span>, who probably has the Stoics in view, the axis of the world consists of a current
+of air passing through the centre. On the division of the heaven into five parallel
+circles, and that of the earth into five zones, conf. <i>Diog.</i> 155; <i>Strabo</i>, ii. 2, 3, p. 95.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21636src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21671">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21671src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> i. 392; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. iii. 6; <i>Diog.</i> 143 and 150.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21671src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21679">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21679src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 140; <i>Stob.</i> i. 382; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 18, 4; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 214; <i>Theodoret</i>, Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 14, p. 58; <i>Hippolyt.</i> Refut. Hær. i. 21. <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 7, observes that motion is possible by means of <span class="trans" title="antiperistasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντιπερίστασις</span></span>, without supposing the existence of empty space. A number of arguments against the
+existence of empty space may be found in <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. p. 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21679src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21706">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21706src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> See p. 168, 1; <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. 2 and 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21706src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21711">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21711src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Stob.</i> i. 392: The Empty and the Non-Material <span class="pageNum" id="pb204n">[<a href="#pb204n">204</a>]</span>is unlimited. <span class="trans" title="hōsper gar to mēden ouden esti peras, houtō kai tou mēdenos, hoion esti to kenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ μηδὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πέρας, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ μηδενὸς, οἷόν ἐστι τὸ κενόν</span></span>. The Empty could only be bounded by being filled. To the same effect, <i>Cleomed.</i> p. 6. On the unlimited beyond the world, see <i>Diog.</i> 140 and 143; <i>Stob.</i> i. 260 and 382; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 44, 1, p. 1054; C. Not. 30, 2, p. 1073; Plac. i. 18, 4; ii. 9, 2; <i>Theodoret</i>, l.c. and p. 196, 2. That Posidonius denied the infinity of the Empty has been already
+stated, p. 168, 1. Chrysippus, in affirming that the world occupies the centre of
+space, was therefore contradicting himself, as <i>Plut.</i> Def. Or. 28, p. 425, Sto. Rep. 44, 2, observes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21711src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21741">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21741src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Achil. Tat.</i> Isag. 126, <span class="asc">A</span>; 132, <span class="asc">A</span>, see p. 200, 1; <i>Stob.</i> i. 408. According to <i>Stob.</i> i. 442, <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 30, 2 and 10, p. 1073, Plac. ii. 1, 6; i. 5, 1, <i>Diog.</i> 143, <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 332, <i>Ach. Tat.</i> 129, <span class="asc">D</span>, the Stoics had various names for the world, according as the Empty was included
+or excluded in the conception. Including the Empty, it is called <span class="trans" title="to pan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ πᾶν</span></span>; without it, <span class="trans" title="holon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅλον</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="to holon, ta hola"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὅλον, τὰ ὅλα</span></span>, frequently occurs with the Stoics). The <span class="trans" title="pan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν</span></span>, it was said, is neither material nor immaterial, since it consists of both. <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21741src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21807">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21807src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 145; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 14, 1; 22, 3; 27, 1; <i>Stob.</i> i. 516; 540; 554; <i>Ach. Tat.</i> 133, <span class="asc">D</span>. Compare the reference to Cleanthes on p. 201, 4, with which, however, the statement
+in <i>Stob.</i> i. 554, that he considered the moon <span class="trans" title="piloeidēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πιλοειδὴς</span></span> (ball-like—the MSS. have <span class="trans" title="pēloeidē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πηλοειδῆ</span></span>) does not agree.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21807src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21839">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21839src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 15, 40, <i>Diog.</i> 144, <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 314; 519; 538; 554; 565, <i>Plut.</i> Fac. Lun. 5, 1; 21, 13, p. 921, 935, Plac. ii. 25, 3; 30, 3, <i>Galen</i>, Hist. Phil. 15, <i>Philo</i>, De Somn. 587, <span class="asc">B</span>, <i>Achil. Tat.</i> Isag. 124, <span class="asc">D</span>; 133, <span class="asc">C</span>, and above p. 200, 3; 162, 2, the stars generally consist of fire, or, more accurately,
+of <span class="trans" title="pyr technikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ τεχνικὸν</span></span>, or Ether. The purest fire is in the sun. The moon is a compound of dull fire and
+air, or, as it is said, is more earth-like, since (as <i>Plin.</i> Hist. Nat. ii. 9, 46, without doubt after Stoic teaching, observes) owing to its
+proximity to the earth, it takes up earthy particles in vapour. Perhaps it was owing
+to this fact that it was said to receive its light from the sun (<i>Diog.</i> 145), which, according to Posidonius in <i>Plut.</i> Fac. Lun. 16, 12, p. 929, <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. p. 106, not only illuminates its surface, but penetrates some depth. <i>Cleomed.</i> 100, believes <span class="pageNum" id="pb205n">[<a href="#pb205n">205</a>]</span>that, besides the light of the sun, it has also a light of its own.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21839src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21889">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21889src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 145; <i>Stob.</i> i. 532; 538; 554; Floril. 17, 43; <i>Plut.</i> De Is. 41, p. 367; Sto. Rep. 39, 1; Qu. Conv. viii. 8, 2, 4; Plac. ii. 17, 2; 20,
+3; 23, 5; <i>Galen</i>, Hist. Phil. 14; <i>Porphyr.</i> Antr. Nymph, c. 11; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 14, 37; ii. 15, 40; 46, 118; <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. vi. 16. 2; <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 36, p. 74 and 56, p. 117; most of whom affirm that the sun is sustained
+by vapours from the sea, the moon by those of fresh water, and the other stars by
+vapours from the earth. The stars are also said to owe their origin to such vapours.
+Chrysippus, in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 41, 3, adds to the passage quoted p. 161, 2: <span class="trans" title="hoi d’ asteres ek thalassēs meta tou hēliou enaptontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δ’ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐνάπτονται</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Ibid. 2: <span class="trans" title="empsychon hēgeitai ton hēlion, pyrinon onta kai gegenēmenon ek tēs anathymiaseōs eis pyr metabalousēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔμψυχον ἡγεῖται τὸν ἥλιον, πύρινον ὄντα καὶ γεγενημένον ἐκ τῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως εἰς πῦρ
+μεταβαλούσης</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> C. Not. 46, 2, p. 1084: <span class="trans" title="gegonenai de kai ton hēlion empsychon legousi tou hygrou metaballontos eis pyr noeron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γεγονέναι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἔμψυχον λέγουσι τοῦ ὑγροῦ μεταβάλλοντος εἰς πῦρ νοερόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21889src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21939">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21939src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> i. 532; <i>Cic.</i> l.c.; <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 23, quoting Cleanthes and Macrobius; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 23, 5. Diogenes of Apollonia had already expressed similar views. Further
+particulars as to the courses of the stars without anything very peculiar in <i>Stob.</i> i. 448; 538; <i>Plut.</i> Pl. ii. 15, 2; 16, 1; <i>Diog.</i> 144; <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteor. i. 3. Eclipses are also discussed by <i>Diog.</i> 145; <i>Stob.</i> i. 538; 560; <i>Plut.</i> Fac. Lun. 19, 12, p. 932; Plac. ii. 29, 5; <i>Cleomed.</i> pp. 106 and 115, nor is there anything remarkable. Quite in the ordinary way are
+some observations of Posidonius and Chrysippus given in <i>Stob.</i> i. 518; <i>Achil Tat.</i> Isag. 132, <span class="asc">B</span>; 165, <span class="asc">C</span>. The information—quoted from Posidonius by <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteor. 51; <i>Procl.</i> in Tim. 277, <span class="asc">E</span>; <i>Strabo</i>, ii. 5, 14, p. 119—respecting observations of Canobus have no bearing on our present
+enquiry.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21939src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e21988">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e21988src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> i. 554 (<i>Plut.</i> Pl. ii. 26, 1). This statement, however, appears only to be true of the sun, to which,
+indeed, it is confined by <i>Diog.</i> 144. That the sun is much larger than the earth, Posidonius proved; not only because
+its light extends over the whole heaven, but also because of the spherical form of
+the earth’s shadow in eclipses of the moon. <i>Diog.</i> l.c.; <i>Macrob.</i> Somn. i. 20; <i>Heracl.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 46; <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. ii. 2. According to <i>Cleomed.</i> p. 79, he allowed to it an orbit 10,000 times as large as the circumference of <span class="pageNum" id="pb206n">[<a href="#pb206n">206</a>]</span>the earth, with a diameter of four million stadia. The Stoic, in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 40, 103, only calls the moon half that size; and <i>Cleomed.</i> p. 97, probably following Posidonius, calls it considerably smaller than the earth.
+The other stars, according to Cleomed. p. 96, are some of them as large as, and others
+larger than, the sun. Posidonius, according to <i>Plin.</i> Hist. N. ii. 23, 85, estimated the moon’s distance from the earth at two million,
+and the sun’s distance from the moon at 500 million stadia. He estimated the earth’s
+circumference at 240,000, according to <i>Cleomed.</i>; at 180,000 according to <i>Strabo</i>, ii<span>.</span> 2, 2, p. 95.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e21988src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22024">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22024src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> Conf. <i>Stob.</i> i. 66; 441; 518; 532; 538; 554; Floril. 17, 43; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep 39, 1; 41, 2; C. Not. 46, 2; Plac. ii. 20, 3; <i>Diog<span>.</span></i> 145; <i>Phædr.</i> Nat. De. (<i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri eusebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐσεβείας</span></span>) Col. 3; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 36 and 50; ii. 15, 39 and 42; 16, 43; 21, 54; Acad. ii. 37, 110; <i>Porphyr.</i> l.c.; <i>Achill. Tat.</i> Isag. c. 13, p. 134, <span class="asc">A</span>. Hence, in several of these passages, the sun is called after Cleanthes and Chrysippus
+a <span class="trans" title="noeron anamma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νοερὸν ἄναμμα</span></span> (or <span class="trans" title="examma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔξαμμα</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="ek thalassēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκ θαλάσσης</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22024src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22082">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22082src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. vi. 16, discusses the point at length. See also the quotations on p. 144,
+1, from <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 9, and on p. 151, 1, from <i>Diog.</i> 147.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22082src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22095">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22095src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 152 and 138, mentions a treatise of his, called <span class="trans" title="meteōrologikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μετεωρολογικὴ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="meteōrologikē stoicheiōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μετεωρολογικὴ στοιχείωσις</span></span>; also, vii. 135, a treatise <span class="trans" title="peri meteōrōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μετεώρων</span></span>, in several books. Alexander, in <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 64, 6, speaks of an <span class="trans" title="exēgēsis meteōrologikōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξήγησις μετεωρολογικῶν</span></span>, which, judging by the title, may be a commentary on Aristotle’s meteorology. Geminus
+had made an extract from this book, a long portion of which on the relation of astronomy
+and natural science is there given. Whether these various titles really belong to
+these different treatises is not <span class="pageNum" id="pb207n">[<a href="#pb207n">207</a>]</span>clear. Posidonius is probably the author of most of the later statements about the
+Stoic meteorology. He appears also to be the chief authority for Seneca’s Naturales
+Quæstiones, in which he is frequently named (i. 5, 10; 13; ii. 26, 4; 54, 1; iv. 3,
+2; vi. 21, 2; 24, 6; vii. 20, 2; 4), particularly in his meteorological treatises.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22095src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22138">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22138src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> On the Milky Way, which Posidonius, agreeing with Aristotle, looked upon as a collection
+of fiery vapours, see <i>Stob.</i> i. 576; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iii. 1, 10; <i>Macrob.</i> Somn. Scip. i. 15. On the comets, which are explained in a similar way, <i>Stob.</i> i. 580 (Plac. iii. 2, 8.—Whether the Diogenes mentioned here who looked upon comets
+as real stars is Diogenes the Stoic, or Diogenes of Apollonia, is not clear. The former
+is more probable, Boëthus having been just before mentioned); Arrian, in <i>Stob.</i> i. 584; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 152; and, particularly, <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. vii. We learn from the latter that Zeno held (vii. 19–21; 30, 2), with Anaxagoras
+and Democritus, that comets are formed by several stars uniting; whereas the majority
+of the Stoics—and, amongst their number, Panætius and Posidonius (further particulars
+in Schol. in Arat. v. 1091)—considered them passing phenomena. Even Seneca declared
+for the opinion that they are stars. On the phenomena of light and fire, called <span class="trans" title="pōgōniai, dokoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πωγωνίαι, δοκοὶ</span></span>, etc., see Arrian in <i>Stob.</i> i. 584; <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. i. 1, 14; 15, 4. On <span class="trans" title="selas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σέλας</span></span>, consult <i>Diog.</i> 153; <i>Sen.</i> i. 15; on halo (<span class="trans" title="halōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἅλως</span></span>), <i>Sen.</i> i. 2; <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Meteorol. 116; on the rainbow, <i>Diog.</i> 152; <i>Sen.</i> i. 3–8; on <i lang="la">virgæ</i> and <i lang="la">parhelia</i>, <i>Sen.</i> i. 9–13; Schol. in Arat. v. 880 (Posidonius); on storms, lightning, thunder, summer
+lightning, cyclones, and siroccos, <i>Stob.</i> i. 596; 598 (Plac. iii. 3, 4); <i>Arrian</i>, Ibid. 602; <i>Sen.</i> ii. 12–31; 51–58 (c. 54, the view of Posidonius); ii. 1, 3; <i>Diog.</i> 153; on rain, sleet, hail, snow, <i>Diog.</i> 153; <i>Sen.</i> iv. 3–12; on earthquakes, <i>Diog.</i> 154; Plac. iii. 15, 2; <i>Sen.</i> vi. 4–31 (particularly c. 16; 21, 2); also <i>Strabo</i>, ii. 3, 6, p. 102; on winds, Plac. iii. 7, 2; <i>Sen.</i> v. 1–17; <i>Strabo</i>, i. 2, 21, p. 29; iii. 2, 5, p. 144; on waterspouts, <i>Sen.</i> iii. 1–26; the Nile floods, <i>Ibid.</i> iv. 1; <i>Strabo</i>, xvii. 1, 5, p. 790; <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteor, p. 32; on tides, <i>Strabo</i>, i. 3, 12, p. 55; iii. 3, 3, p. 153; 5, 8, p. 73; on seasons, p. 111, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22138src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22243">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22243src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> Thus colours are explained as <span class="trans" title="prōtoi schēmatismoi tēs hylēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτοι σχηματισμοὶ τῆς ὕλης</span></span> (<i>Stob.</i> i. 364; Plac. i. 15, 5); and sounds are spoken of as undulations in the air by <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 19, 5; <i>Diog.</i> 158.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22243src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22261">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22261src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> Conf. <i>Bake</i>, <span lang="la">Posidonii Rhod. Reliquiæ</span>, pp. 87–184; <i>Müller</i>, Fragm. Hist. Græc. iii. 245.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22261src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22292">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22292src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 81: <span class="trans" title="tōn hēnōmenōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν ἡνωμένων</span></span> (on <span class="trans" title="henōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕνωσις</span></span> see p. 103, 1) <span class="trans" title="sōmatōn ta men hypo psilēs hexeōs synechetai, ta de hypo physeōs, ta de hypo psychēs; kai hexeōs men hōs lithoi kai xyla, physeōs de, kathaper ta phyta, psychēs de ta zōa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σωμάτων τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ ψιλῆς ἕξεως συνέχεται, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ φύσεως, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ ψυχῆς· καὶ ἕξεως
+μὲν ὡς λίθοι καὶ ξύλα, φύσεως δὲ, καθάπερ τὰ φυτὰ, ψυχῆς δὲ τὰ ζῷα</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Virt. Mor. c. 12, p. 451: <span class="trans" title="katholou de tōn ontōn autoi te phasi kai dēlon estin hoti ta men hexei dioikeitai ta de physei, ta de alogō psychē, ta de kai logon echousē kai dianoian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθόλου δὲ τῶν ὄντων αὐτοὶ τέ φασι καὶ δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἕξει διοικεῖται τὰ δὲ
+φύσει, τὰ δὲ ἀλόγῳ ψυχῇ, τὰ δὲ καὶ λόγον ἐχούσῃ καὶ διάνοιαν</span></span>. <i>Themist.</i> De An. 72, b; <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 14; <i>Philo</i>, Qu. De. S. Immut. 298, <span class="asc">D</span>; De Mundo, 1154, <span class="asc">E</span>; Leg. Alleg. 1091, <span class="asc">D</span>; Incorrupt. M. 947, <span class="asc">A</span>; <i>Plotin.</i> Enn. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, <span class="asc">C</span>, Bas. 861, Cr. (Otherwise <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 12, 33. See p. 146, 1). Respecting the difference of <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="psychē, physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ, φύσις</span></span> is said to consist of a moister, colder, and denser <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span> than <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχή</span></span>; but, on this point, see <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 41, 1; Com. Not. 46, 2; <i>Galen</i>, Hipp. et Plat. v. 3. Vol. v. 521. Qu. Animi Mores, c. 4. Vol. iv. 783. In <i>Diog.</i> 139, <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="nous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νοῦς</span></span>, as the <span class="pageNum" id="pb209n">[<a href="#pb209n">209</a>]</span>highest and lowest links in the series, are contrasted. <i>Ibid.</i> 156, there is a definition of <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="pyr technikon hodō badizon eis genesin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον εἰς γένεσιν</span></span>; and (148) another = <span class="trans" title="hexis ex hautēs kinoumenē kata spermatikous logous apotelousa te kai synechousa ta ex hautēs en hōrismenois chronois kai toiauta drōsa aph’ hoiōn apekrithē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις ἐξ αὑτῆς κινουμένη κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους ἀποτελοῦσά τε καὶ συνέχουσα τὰ ἐξ
+αὑτῆς ἐν ὡρισμένοις χρόνοις καὶ τοιαῦτα δρῶσα ἀφ’ οἵων ἀπεκρίθη</span></span>. It hardly need be repeated that the force is one and the same, which at one time
+appears as <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span>, at another as <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span>. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 138; <i>Themist.</i> l.c.; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 84.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22292src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22466">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22466src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> The belief that blood circulates in the veins, spiritus in the arteries (<i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 15, 1), which was shared by the Peripatetics, deserves to be mentioned
+here, <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 15, 1; also the explanations of sleep, death, and age in <i>Plut.</i> Plac. v. 23, 4; 30, 5; the assertion that animals are not only deficient in reason
+(on this point see <i>Plut.</i> Solert. An. 2, 9; 6, 1; 11, 2, pp. 960, 963, 967), but also (according to Chrysippus
+in <i>Galen</i>, Hippoc. et Plat. iii. 3; v. 1, 6. Vol. v., 309, 429, 431, 476) in emotions (or as
+<i>Galen</i> also says in <span class="trans" title="thymos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θυμὸς</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="epithymia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιθυμία</span></span>), even in man the emotions being connected with the rational soul. Posidonius, however,
+denied this statement (<i>Galen</i>, p. 476), and Chrysippus believed that animals had a <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>. (<i>Chalcid.</i> in Tim. p. 148, b.) He even discovered in the scent of dogs traces of an unconscious
+inference. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 69. See also p. 225, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22466src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch9" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1054">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER IX.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE STUDY OF NATURE. MAN.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch9.a">A. <i>The soul.</i><br id="ch9.a.1">(1) <i>Materialistic nature of the soul.</i></span>
+The Stoic teaching becomes peculiarly interesting, when it treats of Man; and the
+line it here follows is decided by the tone of the whole system. On the one hand,
+the Stoic materialism shows itself most unmistakeably in the department of anthropology;
+on the other hand, the conviction that all actions must be referred to active powers,
+and all the several active powers to one original power, can not be held without leading
+to a belief in the oneness and in the regulating capacity of the soul. Not only does
+it follow, as a corollary from the materialistic view of the world, that the soul
+must be in its nature corporeal, but the Stoics took pains to uphold this view by
+special arguments. Whatever, they said, influences the body, and is by it influenced
+in turn, whatever is united with the body and again separated from it, must be corporeal.
+How, then, can the soul be other than corporeal?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22528src" href="#xd33e22528" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb211">[<a href="#pb211">211</a>]</span>Whatever has extension in three dimensions is corporeal; this is the case with the
+soul, since it extends in three directions over the whole body.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22557src" href="#xd33e22557" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> Thought, moreover, and motion are due to animal life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22561src" href="#xd33e22561" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> Animal life is nurtured and kept in health by the breath of life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22567src" href="#xd33e22567" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> Experience proves that mental qualities are propagated by natural generation; they
+must, therefore, be connected with a corporeal substratum.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22584src" href="#xd33e22584" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> As therefore, the mind is nothing but fiery breath, so the human soul is described
+by the Stoics sometimes as fire, sometimes as breath, at other times, more accurately,
+as warm breath, diffused throughout the body, and forming a bond of union for the
+body,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22597src" href="#xd33e22597" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> in the very same way <span class="pageNum" id="pb212">[<a href="#pb212">212</a>]</span>that the soul of the world is diffused throughout the world, and forms a bond of union
+for the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22799src" href="#xd33e22799" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> This warm breath was believed to be connected with the blood; and hence the soul
+was said to be fed by vapours from the blood, just as the stars are fed by vapours
+from the earth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22828src" href="#xd33e22828" title="Go to note 8.">8</a>
+</p>
+<p>The same hypothesis was also used to explain the origin of the soul. One part of the
+soul was believed to be transmitted to the young in the seed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22840src" href="#xd33e22840" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> From <span class="pageNum" id="pb213">[<a href="#pb213">213</a>]</span>the part so transmitted there arises, by development within the womb, first the soul
+of a plant; and this becomes the soul of a living creature after birth by the action
+of the outer air.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22878src" href="#xd33e22878" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> This view led to the further hypothesis that the seat of the soul must be in the
+breast, not in the brain; since not only breath and warm blood, but also the voice,
+the immediate expression of thought, comes from the breast.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22896src" href="#xd33e22896" title="Go to note 11.">11</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch9.a.2">(2) <i>Divisions of the soul.</i></span>
+Nor is this hypothesis out of harmony with the notions otherwise entertained by the
+Stoics as to <span class="pageNum" id="pb214">[<a href="#pb214">214</a>]</span>the nature of man. Plato and Aristotle had already fixed on the heart as the central
+organ of the lower powers; the brain they assigned to reason, with the view of distinguishing
+the rational from the mere animal soul.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22926src" href="#xd33e22926" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> When, therefore, the Stoics assimilated man’s rational activity to the activity of
+the senses, deducing both from one and the same source, it was natural that they would
+depart from Aristotle’s view. Accordingly, the various parts of the soul were supposed
+to discharge themselves from their centre in the heart into the several organs, in
+the form of atmospheric currents. Seven such parts are enumerated, besides the dominant
+part or reason, which was also called <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon, dianoētikon, logistikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν, διανοητικὸν, λογιστικὸν</span></span>, or <span class="trans" title="logismos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λογισμός</span></span>. These seven parts consist of the five senses, the power of reproduction, and the
+power of speech;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e22945src" href="#xd33e22945" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> and, following out their view of the close relation of speech and thought,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23021src" href="#xd33e23021" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb215">[<a href="#pb215">215</a>]</span>great importance is attached to the power of speech.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23026src" href="#xd33e23026" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> At the same time, the Stoics upheld the oneness of the substance of the soul with
+greater vigour than either Plato or Aristotle had done. Reason, or <span class="trans" title="to hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>, is with them the primary power, of which all other powers are only parts, or derivative
+powers.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23066src" href="#xd33e23066" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> Even feeling and desire they derive from it, in direct contradiction to the teaching
+of Plato and Aristotle;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23169src" href="#xd33e23169" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> and this power is <span class="pageNum" id="pb216">[<a href="#pb216">216</a>]</span>declared to be the seat of personal identity, a point on which former philosophers
+had refrained from expressing any opinion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23247src" href="#xd33e23247" title="Go to note 18.">18</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch9.b">B. <i>The individual soul and the soul of the universe.</i></span>
+The individual soul bears the same relation to the soul of the universe that a part
+does to the whole. The human soul is not only a part, as are all other living powers,
+of the universal power of life, but, because it possesses reason, it has a special
+relationship to the Divine Being<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23273src" href="#xd33e23273" title="Go to note 19.">19</a>—a relationship which <span class="pageNum" id="pb217">[<a href="#pb217">217</a>]</span>becomes closer in proportion as we allow greater play to the divine element in ourselves,
+i.e. to reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23357src" href="#xd33e23357" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> On this very account, however, the soul cannot escape the law of the Divine Being,
+in the shape of general necessity, or destiny. It is a mere delusion to suppose that
+the soul possesses a freedom independent of the world’s course. The human will, like
+everything else in the world, is bound into the indissoluble chain of natural causes,
+and that irrespectively of our knowing by what causes the will is decided or not.
+Its freedom consists in this, that, instead of being ruled from without, it obeys
+the call of its own nature, external circumstances concurring.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23364src" href="#xd33e23364" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> To this power of self-determination, however, the greatest value is attached. Not
+only are our actions due to it to such an extent that only because of it can they
+be considered ours,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23367src" href="#xd33e23367" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> but even our judgments are, as the Stoics thought, dependent on it. The soul itself
+being open to truth or error, convictions are quite as much in our power as actions:<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23371src" href="#xd33e23371" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> both are alike the necessary result of the will. And just as the individual soul
+does not possess activity independently of the universal soul, no more can the individual
+soul escape the law of destiny. It, too, at the end of the world’s course, will be
+resolved into the primary substance, the Divine Being. <span class="pageNum" id="pb218">[<a href="#pb218">218</a>]</span>The only point about which the Stoics were undecided was, whether all souls would
+last until that time as separate souls, which was the view of Cleanthes, or only the
+souls of the wise, as Chrysippus held.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23376src" href="#xd33e23376" title="Go to note 24.">24</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb219">[<a href="#pb219">219</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch9.c">C. <i>Freedom and immortality.</i></span>
+The effects of the Stoic principles appear unmistakeably in the above statements.
+They, however, pervade the whole body of the Stoical views on man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23455src" href="#xd33e23455" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> From one point of view, the theory of necessity, and the denial of everlasting life
+after death, seem quite unintelligible in a system the moral tone of which is so high;
+yet the connection of these theories with the Stoic ethics is very intimate. These
+theories commended themselves to the Stoics, as they have done in later times to Spinoza
+and Schleiermacher, because they corresponded with their fundamental view of morality,
+according to which the individual is the instrument of reason in general, and a dependent
+portion of the collective universe. Moreover, since the Stoics admitted a future existence,
+of limited, but yet indefinite, length, the same practical results followed from their
+belief as from the current belief in immortality. The statements of Seneca,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23461src" href="#xd33e23461" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> that this life is a prelude to a better; that the body is a lodging-house, from which
+the soul will return to its own home; his joy in looking forward to the day which
+will rend the bonds of the body asunder, <span class="pageNum" id="pb220">[<a href="#pb220">220</a>]</span>which he, in common with the early Christians, calls the birthday of eternal life;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23473src" href="#xd33e23473" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> his description of the peace of the eternity there awaiting us, of the freedom and
+bliss of the heavenly life, of the light of knowledge which will there be shed on
+all the secrets of nature;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23491src" href="#xd33e23491" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> his language on the future recognition and happy society of souls made perfect;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23523src" href="#xd33e23523" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> his seeing in death a great day of judgment, when sentence <span class="pageNum" id="pb221">[<a href="#pb221">221</a>]</span>will be pronounced on every one;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23538src" href="#xd33e23538" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> his making the thought of a future life the great stimulus to moral conduct here;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23547src" href="#xd33e23547" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> even the way in which he consoles himself for the destruction of the soul by the
+thought that it will live again in another form hereafter<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23555src" href="#xd33e23555" title="Go to note 32.">32</a>—all contain nothing at variance with the Stoic teaching, however near they may approach
+to Platonic or even Christian modes of thought.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23564src" href="#xd33e23564" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb222">[<a href="#pb222">222</a>]</span>Seneca merely expanded the teaching of his School in one particular direction, in
+which it approaches most closely to Platonism; and, of all the Stoics, Seneca was
+the most distinctly Platonic.
+</p>
+<p>Excepting the two points which have been discussed at an earlier time,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23684src" href="#xd33e23684" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> and one other point relating to the origin of ideas and emotions, which will be considered
+subsequently, little is on record relating to the psychological views of the Stoics.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb223">[<a href="#pb223">223</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22528">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22528src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Cleanthes, in <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. p. 33, and <i>Tert.</i> De An. c. 5: <span class="trans" title="ouden asōmaton sympaschei sōmati oude asōmatō sōma alla sōma sōmati; sympaschei de hē psychē tō sōmati nosounti kai temnomenō kai to sōma tē psychē; aischynomenēs goun erythron ginetai kai phoboumenēs ōchron. sōma ara hē psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι· συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ
+ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι νοσοῦντι καὶ τεμνομένῳ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῇ· αἰσχυνομένης γοῦν ἐρυθρὸν
+γίνεται <span class="pageNum" id="pb211n">[<a href="#pb211n">211</a>]</span>καὶ φοβουμένης ὠχρόν. σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή</span></span>. Chrysippus in <i>Nemes.</i> p. 34: <span class="trans" title="ho thanatos esti chōrismos psychēs apo sōmatos; ouden de asōmaton apo sōmatos chōrizetai; oude gar ephaptetai sōmatos asōmaton; hē de psychē kai ephaptetai kai chōrizetai tou sōmatos; sōma ara hē psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ θάνατός ἐστι χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος· οὐδὲν δὲ ἀσώματον ἀπὸ σώματος χωρίζεται·
+οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐφάπτεται σώματος ἀσώματον· ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ καὶ ἐφάπτεται καὶ χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος·
+σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή</span></span>. The same is said by Tertullian.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22528src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22557">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22557src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Nemes.</i> Nat. Hom. c. 2, p. 30.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22557src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22561">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22561src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 157; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 14, 36.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22561src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22567">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22567src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> Zeno, in <i>Tertull</i><span id="xd33e22570">.</span> l.c., and very nearly the same in <i>Chalcid.</i> in Tim<span>.</span> p. 306 Meurs.: <span lang="la">Quo digresso animal emoritur: consito autem spiritu digresso animal emoritur: ergo
+consitus spiritus corpus est, consitus autem spiritus anima est: ergo corpus est anima.</span> Chrysippus in <i>Chalcid.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22567src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22584">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22584src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> Cleanthes, in <i>Nemes.</i> l.c. 32: <span class="trans" title="ou monon homoioi tois goneusi ginometha, kata to sōma, alla kai kata tēn psychēn, tois pathesi, tois ēthesi, tais diathesesi; sōmatos de to homoion kai anomoion, ouchi de asōmaton; sōma ara hē psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ μόνον ὅμοιοι τοῖς γονεῦσι γινόμεθα, κατὰ τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν, τοῖς
+πάθεσι, τοῖς ἤθεσι, ταῖς διαθέσεσι· σώματος δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ ἀνόμοιον, οὐχὶ δὲ ἀσώματον·
+σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή</span></span>. The same in Tertullian, l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22584src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22597">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22597src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> Chrysippus in <i>Galen</i>, Hipp. et Plat. iii. 1. Vol. v. 287: <span class="trans" title="hē psychē pneuma esti symphyton hēmin syneches panti tō sōmati diēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμά ἐστι σύμφυτον ἡμῖν συνεχὲς παντὶ τῷ σώματι διῆκον</span></span>. <i>Zeno. Macrob.</i> Somn. i. 14: <span lang="la">Zenon [dixit animam] concretum corpori spiritum … Boëthos</span> (probably the Stoic, not the Peripatetic of the first century, is meant) <span lang="la">ex aëre et igne [<i>sc.</i> constare].</span> Diog. in <i>Galen</i>, ii. 8, p. 282: <span class="trans" title="to kinoun ton anthrōpon tas kata proairesin kinēseis psychikē tis estin anathymiasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κινοῦν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὰς κατὰ προαίρεσιν κινήσεις ψυχική τίς ἐστιν ἀναθυμίασις</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Nat. D. iii. 14, 36; Tusc. i. 9, 19; 18, 42: Zeno considers the soul to be fire;
+Panætius believes that it is burning air. <i>Diog. L.</i> vii. 156, on the authority of Zeno, Antipater, Posidonius, <span class="pageNum" id="pb212n">[<a href="#pb212n">212</a>]</span>says that it is <span class="trans" title="pneuma symphyton, pneuma enthermon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα σύμφυτον, πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 796 (<i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 3, 3). <i>Cornut.</i> N.&nbsp;D. p. 8: <span class="trans" title="kai gar hai hēmeterai psychai pyr eisi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ γὰρ αἱ ἡμέτεραι ψυχαὶ πῦρ εἰσι</span></span>. Ar. Didymus, in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 20, 1: Zeno calls the soul <span class="trans" title="aisthēsin ē anathymiasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴσθησιν ἢ ἀναθυμίασιν</span></span> (should be <span class="trans" title="aisthētikēn anathymiasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰσθητικὴν ἀναθυμίασιν</span></span>, conf. § 2 and Ps. <i>Plut.</i> Vit<span>.</span> Hom. c. 127: <span class="trans" title="tēn psychēn hoi Stōïkoi horizontai pneuma symphyes kai anathymiasin aisthētikēn anaptomenēn apo tōn en sōmati hygrōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν ψυχὴν οἱ Στωϊκοὶ ὁρίζονται πνεῦμα συμφυὲς καὶ ἀναθυμίασιν αἰσθητικὴν ἀναπτομένην
+ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν σώματι ὑγρῶν</span></span>). Longin. in <i>Eus.</i> Ibid. 21, 1 and 3. <i>Alex.</i> De An. 127. b: <span class="trans" title="hoi apo tēs stoas pneuma autēn legontes einai synkeimenon pōs ek te pyros kai aeros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς πνεῦμα αὐτὴν λέγοντες εἶναι συγκείμενόν πως ἔκ τε πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος</span></span>. Since, however, every <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span> is not a soul, a soul is stated to be <span class="trans" title="pneuma pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα πὼς ἔχον</span></span> (<i>Plotin.</i> Enn. iv. 7, 4, p. 458, <span class="asc">E</span>); and the distinctive quality of the soul-element is its greater warmth and rarity.
+See <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 41, 2, p. 1052: Chrysippus considers the <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ</span></span> to be <span class="trans" title="araioteron pneuma tēs physeōs kai leptomeresteron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀραιότερον πνεῦμα τῆς φύσεως καὶ λεπτομερέστερον</span></span>. Similarly, <i>Galen</i>, Qu. An. Mores, c. 4. Vol. iv. 783: The Stoics say that both <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχὴ</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span>, but that the <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span> is thick and cold in <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span class="corr" id="xd33e22781" title="Source: φύσ.">φύσις</span></span></span>, dry and warm in <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχή</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22597src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22799">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22799src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Chrysippus.</i> See previous note. This diffusion is further explained by <span class="corr" id="xd33e22802" title="Source: Iamb.">Iambl.</span> in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 870 and 874, <i>Themist.</i> De Anim. f. 68, a. <i>Plotin.</i> iv. 7, 8, p. 463, c, as being <span class="trans" title="krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις</span></span>, i.e. an intermingling of elements. That the soul forms the bond of union for the
+body, and not vice versâ, was a point vindicated by the Stoics against the Epicureans.
+Posid. in <i>Achil. Tat.</i> Isag. c. 13, p. 133, <span class="asc">E</span>; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 72.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22799src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22828">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22828src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Galen.</i> Hippocr. et Plat. ii. 8, p. 282, on the authority of Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus,
+and Diogenes; Longin. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 21, 3; <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 33; vi. 15; Ps. <i>Plut.</i> Vit. Hom. 127.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22828src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22840">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22840src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> Zeno described the seed as <span class="trans" title="pneuma meth’ hygrou psychēs meros kai apospasma ... migma tōn tēs psychēs merōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα μεθ’ ὑγροῦ ψυχῆς μέρος καὶ ἀπόσπασμα … μῖγμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν</span></span> (Arius Didymus, in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 20, 1), or as <span class="trans" title="symmigma kai kerasma tōn tēs psychēs dynameōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμμιγμα καὶ κέρασμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> Coh. Ir. 15). Similarly Chrysip., in <i>Diog.</i> 159. Conf. <i>Tertullian</i>, De An. c. 27. According to Sphærus, in <i>Diog.</i> 159, the seed is formed by separation from all parts of the body and can consequently
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb213n">[<a href="#pb213n">213</a>]</span>produce all, as Democritus had already said. Panætius (in <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. i. 31, 79) proves, from the mental similarity, between parents and children,
+that the soul comes into existence by generation. For the mother’s share in producing
+the soul, see <i>Ar. Did.</i> l.c. See above p. 127, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22840src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22878">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22878src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 41, 1 and 8, p. 1052; C. Not. 46, 2, p. 1084. De Primo Frig. 2, 5, p. 946:
+<span class="trans" title="hoi Stōïkoi kai to pneuma legousin en tois sōmasi tōn brephōn tē peripsyxei stomousthai kai metaballon ek physeōs genesthai psychēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα λέγουσιν ἐν τοῖς σώμασι τῶν βρεφῶν τῇ περιψύξει στομοῦσθαι
+καὶ μεταβάλλον ἐκ φύσεως γενέσθαι ψυχήν</span></span>. Similarly, <i>Plotin.</i> Enn. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, c. Conf. <i>Hippolyt.</i> Refut. Hær. c. 21, p. 40; <i>Tertull.</i> De An. c. 25. Plutarch (Plac. v. 16, 2; 17, 1; 24, 1) draws attention to the inconsistency
+of saying that the animal soul, which is warmer and rarer than the vegetable soul,
+has been developed of it there by cooling and condensation.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22878src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22896">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22896src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> On this point, the Stoics were not altogether agreed. Some (not all, as <i>Plut.</i> Pl. Phil. iv. 21, 5, asserts) made the brain the seat of the soul, in proof of which
+they appealed to the story of the birth of Pallas. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 119; Diog. in <i>Phædr.</i> Fragm. De Nat. De. col. 6. Conf. <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forschungen</span>, i. 488, and Chrysipp. in <i>Galen</i>, l.c. iii. 8, p. 349. It appears, however, from <i>Galen</i>, l.c. i. 6, ii. 2 and 5, iii. 1, pp. 185, 214, 241, 287, <i>Tertull.</i> De An. c. 15, that the most distinguished Stoics—Zeno, Chrysippus, Diogenes, and
+Apollodorus—decided in favour of the heart. The chief proof is, that the voice does
+not come from the hollow of the skull, but from the breast. Chrysippus was aware of
+the weakness of this proof, but still did not shrink from using it. <i>Galen</i>, l.c. p. 254, 261. At the same time, he also appealed to the fact (ii. 7, 268; iii.
+1, 290, c. 5, 321, c. 7, 335, 343; iv. 1, 362) that, by universal assent, supported
+by numerous passages from the poets, the motions of the will and the feelings proceed
+from the heart.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22896src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22926">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22926src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> Aristotle had assigned no particular organ of the body to reason.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22926src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e22945">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e22945src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 4, 2. Ibid, c. 21: The Stoics consider the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν</span></span> to be the highest part of the soul; it begets the <span class="trans" title="phantasiai, synkatatheseis, aisthēseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαι, συγκαταθέσεις, αἰσθήσεις</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="hormai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμαὶ</span></span>, and is by them called <span class="trans" title="logismos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λογισμός</span></span>; from it the seven divisions of the soul reach to the body, like the arms of a cuttle-fish,
+and are therefore collectively defined as <span class="trans" title="pneuma diateinon apo tou hēgemonikou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοὺ ἡγεμονικοῦ</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="mechris ophthalmōn, ōtōn, myktērōn, glōttēs, epiphaneias, parastatōn, pharyngos glōttēs kai tōn oikeiōn organōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span class="corr" id="xd33e22992" title="Source: μέχρ ιςὀφθαλμῶν">μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν</span>, ὤτων, μυκτήρων, γλώττης, ἐπιφανείας, <span class="corr" id="xd33e22996" title="Source: παρυστάτων">παραστάτων</span>, φάρυγγος γλώττης καὶ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων</span></span>). <i>Galen</i>, l.c. iii. 1, 287. See p. 215, 2; <i>Diog.</i> 110 and 157; Porphyr. and Iamblich. in <i>Stob.</i> i. 836, 874, and 878; <i>Chalcid.</i> in Tim. 307; Nicomachus, in <i>Iambl.</i> Theol. Arith. p. 50. But there was no universal agreement among the Stoics on this
+subject. According to <i>Tertull.</i> De An. 14, Zeno only admitted three divisions of the soul, whilst some among the
+later Stoics enumerated as many as ten; Panætius only held six, and Posidonius went
+still further away from the view current among the Stoics. The remarks of <i>Stob.</i> i. 828, probably refer to the Peripatetic Aristo.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e22945src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23021">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23021src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> See p. 73, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23021src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23026">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23026src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> Conf. <i>Cleanth.</i> Hymn 4:
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="ek sou gar genos esmen iēs mimēma lachontes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμὲν ἰῆς μίμημα λαχόντες</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="mounoi, hosa zōei te kai herpei thnēt’ epi gaian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μοῦνοι, ὅσα ζώει τε καὶ ἕρπει <span id="xd33e23049">θνήτ’</span> ἐπὶ γαῖαν</span></span>. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23066">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23066src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> See p. 214, 2 and Chrys. in <i>Galen</i>, l.c. iii. 1, p. 287. Conf. p. 211, 5: <span class="trans" title="tautēs oun [tēs psychēs] tōn merōn hekastō diatetagmenon [ōn] moriō, to diēkon autēs eis tēn tracheian artērian phōnēn einai, to de eis ophthalmous opsin, k.t.l. kai to eis orcheis, heteron tin’ echon toiouton logon, spermatikon, eis ho de symbainei panta tauta, en tē kardia einai, meros on autēs to hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ταύτης οὖν [τῆς ψυχῆς] τῶν μερῶν ἑκάστῳ διατεταγμένον [ων] μορίῳ, τὸ διῆκον αὐτῆς
+εἰς τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν <span id="xd33e23074">φωνὴν</span> εἶναι, τὸ δὲ εἰς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὄψιν, κ.τ.λ. καὶ τὸ εἰς ὄρχεις, ἕτερόν τιν’ ἔχον τοιοῦτον
+λόγον, σπερματικὸν, εἰς ὃ δὲ συμβαίνει πάντα ταῦτα, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ εἶναι, μέρος ὂν αὐτῆς
+τὸ ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 4, 2: <span class="trans" title="tou hēgemonikou aph’ hou tauta panta epitetaktai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἀφ’ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέτακται</span></span> [= <span class="trans" title="tatai] dia tōn oikeiōn organōn prospherōs tais tou polypodos plektanais"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span class="corr" id="xd33e23095" title="Source: τατοι">ταται</span>] διὰ τῶν οἰκείων <span id="xd33e23099">ὀργάνων</span> προσφερῶς ταῖς τοῦ πολύποδος πλεκτάναις</span></span>. Conf. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 102. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> (De An. 146) therefore denies the Stoical assertion, that the <span class="trans" title="psychikē dynamis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψυχικὴ δύναμις</span></span> is only one, and that every activity of the soul is only the action of the <span class="trans" title="pōs echon hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πὼς ἔχον ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>. Conversely <i>Tertullian</i>, De An. 14, speaking quite after the manner of a Stoic, says: <span lang="la">Hujusmodi autem non tam partes animæ habebuntur, quam vires et efficaciæ et operæ
+… non enim membra sunt substantiæ animalis, sed ingenia</span> (capacities). Iambl. in <i>Stob.</i> i. 874: The powers of the soul bear, according to the Stoics, the same relation to
+the soul that qualities bear to the substance; their difference is partly owing to
+the diffusion of the <span class="trans" title="pneumata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεύματα</span></span>, of which they consist, in different parts of the body, partly to the union of several
+qualities in one subject-matter, the latter being necessary, for <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν</span></span> to include <span class="trans" title="phantasia, synkatathesis, hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία, συγκατάθεσις, ὁρμὴ</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23066src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23169">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23169src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Virt. Mort. c. 3, p. 441, speaking of Zeno, Aristo, and Chrysippus: <span class="trans" title="nomizousin ouk einai to pathētikon kai alogon diaphora tini kai physei psychēs tou logikou diakekrimenon, alla to auto tēs psychēs meros, ho dē kalousi dianoian kai hēgemonikon, diolou trepomenon kai metaballon en te tois pathesi kai tais kata hexin ē diathesin metabolais kakian te ginesthai kai aretēn kai mēden echein alogon en heautō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἶναι τὸ παθητικὸν καὶ ἄλογον διαφορᾷ τινι καὶ φύσει ψυχῆς τοῦ λογικοῦ
+διακεκριμένον, ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος, ὃ δὴ καλοῦσι διάνοιαν καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν,
+διόλου τρεπόμενον καὶ μεταβάλλον ἐν τε τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ταῖς κατὰ ἕξιν ἢ διάθεσιν μεταβολαῖς
+κακίαν τε γίνεσθαι καὶ ἀρετὴν καὶ μηδὲν ἔχειν ἄλογον ἐν ἑαυτῷ</span></span>. Plac. Phil. iv. 21, 1. <i>Galen</i>, l.c. iv. 1, p. 364: Chrysippus sometimes speaks as if he admitted a distinct <span class="trans" title="dynamis epithymētikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύναμις ἐπιθυμητικὴ</span></span> or <span class="pageNum" id="pb216n">[<a href="#pb216n">216</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="thymoeidēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θυμοειδής</span></span>; at other times, as if he denied it. The latter is clearly his meaning. <i>Ibid.</i> v. 6, 476: <span class="trans" title="ho de Chrysippos outh’ heteron einai nomizei to pathētikon tēs psychēs tou logistikou kai tōn alogōn zōōn aphaireitai ta pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος οὐθ’ ἕτερον εἶναι νομίζει τὸ παθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ λογιστικοῦ καὶ
+τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ἀφαιρεῖται τὰ πάθη</span></span>. See p. 209, 1. Iambl. in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 890; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 159. <i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. v. 47: <span class="trans" title="tous apo tēs stoas arnoumenous to trimeres tēs psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀρνουμένους τὸ τριμερὲς τῆς ψυχῆς</span></span>. Posidonius (in <i>Galen</i>, l.c. 6, 476) endeavours to prove that Cleanthes held a different view, by a passage
+in which he contrasts <span class="trans" title="thymos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θυμὸς</span></span> with <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span>—but this is making a rhetorical flourish do duty for a philosophic statement.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23169src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23247">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23247src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> Chrys. (in <i>Galen</i>, ii. 2, 215): <span class="trans" title="houtōs de kai to egō legomen kata touto"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὕτως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐγὼ λέγομεν κατὰ τοῦτο</span></span> (the primary power in the breast) <span class="trans" title="deiknyntes hautous en tō apophainesthai tēn dianoian einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δεικνύντες αὑτοὺς ἐν τῷ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν εἶναι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23247src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23273">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23273src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Cleanthes</i>, v. 4, p. 215, 1. <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 14, 6: <span class="trans" title="hai psychai synapheis tō theō hate autou moria ousai kai apospasmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱ ψυχαὶ συναφεῖς τῷ θεῷ ἅτε αὐτοῦ μόρια οὖσαι καὶ ἀποσπάσματα</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> ii. 8, 11. <i>M. Aurel.</i> ii. 4, v. 27, calls the soul <span class="trans" title="meros aporroia, apospasma theou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέρος ἀπόρροια, ἀπόσπασμα θεοῦ</span></span>; and, xii. 26, even calls the human <span class="trans" title="nous theos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νοῦς θεός</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 41, 2: <span lang="la">Sacer intra nos spiritus sedet … in unoquoque virorum bonorum, quis Deus incertum
+est, habitat Deus.</span> <i>Id.</i> Ep. 66, 12. <span lang="la">Ratio autem nihil aliud est quam in corpus humanum pars divini spiritus mersa.</span> Consequently, reason, thought, and virtue are of the same nature in the human soul
+as in the soul of the universe, as Iambl. in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 886, states as a Stoic view. From this relationship to God, Posidonius deduces
+in a well-known simile (see p. 84, 1) the soul’s capacity for studying nature, and
+Cicero (De Leg. 1. 8, 24) the universality of a belief in God. All souls, as being
+parts of the divine mind, may be collectively regarded as one soul or reason. <i>Marc. Aurel.</i> ix. 8: <span class="trans" title="eis men ta aloga zōa mia psychē diērētai; eis de ta logika mia logikē psychē memeristai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰς μὲν τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα μία ψυχὴ διῄρηται· εἰς δὲ τὰ λογικὰ μία λογικὴ ψυχὴ μεμέρισται</span></span>. xii. 30: <span class="trans" title="hen phōs hēliou, kan dieirgētai toichois, oresin, allois myriois; mia ousia koinē, kan dieirgētai idiōs poiois sōmasi myriois; mia psychē, kan physesi dieirgētai myriais kai idiais perigraphais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἓν φῶς ἡλίου, κἂν <span class="corr" id="xd33e23334" title="Source: διείρηται">διείργηται</span> τοίχοις, ὄρεσιν, ἄλλοις μυρίοις· μία οὐσία κοινὴ, κἂν <span class="corr" id="xd33e23338" title="Source: διείρηται">διείργηται</span> ἰδίως ποιοῖς σώμασι μυρίοις· μία ψυχὴ, κἂν φύσεσι <span class="corr" id="xd33e23342" title="Source: διείρηται">διείργηται</span> μυρίαις καὶ ἰδίαις περιγραφαῖς</span></span>. This oneness, however, must, as the comparison shows, be understood in the sense
+of the Stoic realism: the <span class="pageNum" id="pb217n">[<a href="#pb217n">217</a>]</span>universal soul, in the sense of ethereal substance, is the element of which individual
+souls consist. See also <i>Marc. Aurel.</i> viii. 54.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23273src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23357">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23357src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> In this sense, <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 31, 11, calls the <span lang="la">animus rectus, bonus, magnus, a Deus in corpore humano hospitans.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23357src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23364">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23364src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> Further particulars, p. 174, 180, 189.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23364src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23367">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23367src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> See p. 179.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23367src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23371">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23371src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> See p. 88, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23371src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23376">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23376src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 156; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Viv. 31. 2, p. 1107; Plac. iv. 7, 2; Ar. Didymus, in <i>Eus.</i> Præp. Ev. xv. 20, 3; <i>Sen.</i> Consol. ad Marc. c. 26, 7; Ep. 102, 22; 117, 6; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. i. 31, 77. Seneca (ad Polyb. 9, 2; Ep. 65, 24; 71, 16; 36, 9, and in <i>Tertull.</i> De An. c. 42; Resurr. Carn. 3. 1) and M. Aurelius (iii. 3; vii. 32; viii. 25, 58)
+are only speaking <span class="trans" title="kat’ anthrōpon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατ’ ἄνθρωπον</span></span>, in seeming to doubt a future life after death, in order to dispel the fear of death
+in every case. It is, however, a mistake of <i>Tiedemann</i> (Sto. Phil. ii. 155) to suppose that they, in many passages (<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 71, 102, <i>M. Aur.</i> ii. 17; v. 4, 13), supposed the immediate dissolution of the soul after death. It
+is, on the contrary, clear, from <i>M. Aurel.</i> iv. 14, 21, that the soul lives some time after death, and is not resolved into the
+world-soul till the general conflagration. But even this is a variation from the ordinary
+view of the Stoics. According to <i>Seneca</i> (Consol. ad Marciam) the souls of the good, as in the doctrine of purgatory, undergo
+a purification, before they are admitted to the ranks of the blessed; and here this
+purification is no doubt required on physical grounds. When the soul is purified,
+both in substance and morals, it rises up to the ether, and there, according to M.
+Aurelius, united to the <span class="trans" title="spermatikos logos tōn holōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπερματικὸς λόγος τῶν ὅλων</span></span>, it lives, according to the common view, until the end of the world. The ether is
+also allotted to the blessed, for their residence, by <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. i. 18, 42; <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. vii. 20; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi. 31, 2, p. 1107. The souls, as Cicero remarks, penetrating the thick
+lower air, mount to heaven, until they reach an atmosphere (the <span lang="la">juncti ex anima tenui et ardore solis temperato ignes</span>) congenial with their own nature. Here they naturally stop, and are fed by the same
+elements as the stars. According to Chrysippus (in <i>Eustath.</i> on Il. xxiii. 65), they there assume the spherical shape of the stars. According
+to <i>Tertull.</i> De An. 54, conf. <i>Lucan.</i> Phars. ix. 5, their place is under the moon. Zeno, in speaking of the islands of
+the blest (<i>Lact.</i> Inst. vii. 7, 20), probably only desired to enlist popular opinion in his own favour.
+The souls of the foolish and bad also last some time after death; only, as being weaker,
+they do not last until the end of the world (<i>Ar. Did.</i>; <i>Theodoret.</i> Cur. Gr. Affec. v. 23, p. 73); and meantime, as it is distinctly asserted by <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 117, 6, <i>Tertullian</i>, and <i>Lactantius</i>, they are punished in the <span class="pageNum" id="pb219n">[<a href="#pb219n">219</a>]</span>nether world. Tertullian in placing a portion of the souls of the foolish in the region
+of the earth, and there allowing them to be instructed by the wise, is probably referring
+to the purification mentioned by Seneca. For the supposed transmigration of souls
+see p. 166, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23376src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23455">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23455src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> The peculiar notion mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 57, 7) as belonging to the Stoics—<span lang="la">animam hominis magno pondere extriti permanere non posse et statim spargi, quia non
+fuerit illi exitus liber</span>—was not required by their principles, as Seneca already observed. It belongs, in
+fact, only to individual members of that School.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23455src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23461">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23461src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> Conf. <i>Baur</i>, <span lang="de">Seneca und Paulus</span>, in Hilgenfeld’s <span lang="de">Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol. i. 2, 221.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23461src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23473">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23473src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> Ep. 102, 22: <span lang="la">Cum venerit dies ille, qui mixtum hoc divini humanique secernat, corpus hic, ubi inveni,
+relinquam, ipse me Dis reddam … per has mortalis vitæ moras illi meliori vitæ longiorique
+proluditur.</span> As a child in its mother’s womb, <span lang="la">sic per hoc spatium, quod ab infantia patet in senectutem, in alium maturescimus partum.</span> All we possess, and the body itself, is only the baggage, which we neither brought
+into the world, nor can carry away with us. <span lang="la">Dies iste, quem tanquam extremum reformidas, æterni natalis est.</span> Ep. 120, 14: The body is <span lang="la">breve hospitium</span>, which a noble soul does not fear to lose. <span lang="la">Scit enim, quo exiturus sit, qui, unde venerit, meminit.</span> Conf. Ep. 65, 16.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23473src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23491">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23491src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> Consol. ad Marc. 24, 3: <span lang="la">Imago dumtaxat filii tui periit … ipse quidem æternus meliorisque nunc status est,
+despoliatus oneribus alienis et sibi relictus.</span> The body is only a vessel, enveloping the soul in darkness: <span lang="la">nititur illo, unde dimissus est; ibi illum æterna requies manet.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 26, 7: <span lang="la">Nos quoque felices animæ et æterna sortitæ.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 19, 6: <span lang="la">Excessit filius tuus terminos intra quos servitur: excepit illum magna et æterna pax.</span> No fear or care, no desire, envy, or compassion disturbs him. <i>Ibid.</i> 26, 5. Consol. ad Polyb. 9, 3, 8: <span lang="la">Nunc animus fratris mei velut ex diutino carcere emissus, tandem sui juris et arbitrii,
+gestit et rerum naturæ spectaculo fruitur … fruitur nunc aperto et libero cœlo … et
+nunc illic libere vagatur omniaque rerum naturæ bona cum summa voluptate perspicit.</span> Ep. 79, 12: <span lang="la">Tunc animus noster habebit, quod gratuletur sibi, cum emissus his tenebris … totum
+diem admiserit, et cœlo redditus suo fuerit.</span> Ep. 102, 28: <span lang="la">Aliquando naturæ tibi arcana retegentur, discutietur ista caligo et lax undique clara
+percutiet,</span> which Seneca then further expands.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23491src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23523">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23523src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> In Consol. ad Marc. 26, 1, Seneca describes how, the time of purification ended, the
+deceased one <span lang="la">inter felices currit animas</span> (the addition: <span lang="la">excepit illum cœtus sacer</span> <i>Hanse</i> rightly treats as a gloss) and how his grandfather shows him the hall of heaven.
+<i>Ibid.</i> 26, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23523src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23538">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23538src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> Ep. 26, 4: <span lang="la">Velut adpropinquet experimentum et ille laturus sententiam de omnibus annis meis dies
+… quo, remotis strophis ac fucis, de me judicaturus sum.</span> Compare the <span lang="la">hora decretoria</span>, Ep. 102, 24.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23538src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23547">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23547src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> Ep. 102, 29: <span lang="la">Hæc cogitatio</span> (that of heaven and a future life) <span lang="la">nihil sordidum animo subsidere sinit, nihil humile, nihil crudele. Deos rerum omnium
+esse testes ait: illis nos adprobari, illis in futurum parari jubet et æternitatem
+menti proponere.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23547src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23555">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23555src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> Ep. 36, 10: <span lang="la">Mors … intermittit vitam, non eripit: veniet iterum qui nos in lucem reponat dies,
+quem multi recusarent, nisi oblitos reduceret. Sed postea diligentius docebo omnia,
+quæ videntur perire, mutari. Æquo animo debet rediturus exire.</span> The souls cannot return, according to the Stoic teaching, until after the general
+conflagration, presuming that the same persons will be found in the future world as
+in the present. See p. 166, 2. As long as the world lasts, the better souls will <span class="corr" id="xd33e23560" title="Source: cont nue">continue</span> to exist, and only the particles of the body are employed for fresh bodies. Accordingly,
+the passage just quoted, and also Ep. 71, 13, must refer to the physical side of death,
+or else to the return of personality after the conflagration of the world.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23555src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23564">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23564src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> Besides the definitions of <span class="trans" title="aisthēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴσθησις</span></span> in <i>Diog.</i> 52, and the remark that impressions are made on the organs of sense, but that the
+seat of feeling is in the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικόν</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 23, 1), the following statements may be mentioned: In the process of seeing,
+the <span class="trans" title="horatikon pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρατικὸν πνεῦμα</span></span>, coming into the eyes from the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>, gives a spherical form to the air before the eye, by virtue of its <span class="trans" title="tonikē kinēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τονικὴ κίνησις</span></span> (on <span class="trans" title="tonos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόνος</span></span>, see p. 128, 2), and, by means of the sphere of air, comes in contact with things;
+and since by this process rays of light emanate from the eye, darkness must be visible.
+<i>Diog.</i> 158; <i>Alex. Aph.</i> De Anim. 149; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 15. The process of hearing is due to the spherical undulations of the air,
+which communicate their motion to the ear. <i>Diog.</i> 158; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 19, 5. On the voice, called also <span class="trans" title="phōnaen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φωνᾶεν</span></span>, see <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 20, 2; <span class="pageNum" id="pb222n">[<a href="#pb222n">222</a>]</span>21, 4; <i>Diog.</i> 55, and above p. 214, 2; 74, 6. Disease is caused by changes in the <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> 158; sleep <span class="trans" title="eklyomenou tou aisthētikou tonou peri to hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκλυομένου τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ τόνου περὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> 158; <i>Tertull.</i> De An. 43; and in a similar way, death <span class="trans" title="eklyomenou tou tonou kai pariemenou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκλυομένου τοῦ τόνου καὶ παριεμένου</span></span> Iambl. (in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 922), who, however, does not mention the Stoics by name. In the case of man,
+the extinguishing of the power of life is only a liberation of rational souls.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23564src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23684">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23684src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> Page 77.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23684src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch10" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1113">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER X.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">ETHICS. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE STOIC ETHICS. ABSTRACT THEORY OF MORALITY.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">Whatever attention the Stoics paid to the study of nature and to logic, the real kernel
+of their system lies, as has been already observed, in their Ethics; even natural
+science, that ‘most divine part of philosophy,’ was only pursued as an intellectual
+preparation for Ethics. In the field of Ethics the true spirit of the Stoic system
+may therefore be expected to appear, and it may be anticipated that this subject will
+be treated by them with special care. Nor is this expectation a vain one; for here
+the springs of information flowing freely give ample data respecting the Stoic doctrine
+of morality. Nevertheless, respecting the formal grouping of these data only vague
+and contradictory statements are forthcoming. Moreover, the Stoics appear to have
+followed such different courses and to have been so little afraid of repetition, that
+it is hardly possible to obtain a complete survey of their whole system by following
+any one of the traditional divisions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23695src" href="#xd33e23695" title="Go to note 1.">1</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb224">[<a href="#pb224">224</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Proceeding to group the materials in such a way as to give the clearest insight into
+the peculiarities <span class="pageNum" id="pb225">[<a href="#pb225">225</a>]</span>and connection of the Stoic principles, the first distinction to be made will be one
+between morality in general and particular points in morality. In considering morality
+in general, those statements which give the abstract theory of morals will be distinguished
+from those which modify it with a view to meet practical wants. The former again may
+be grouped round three points:—the enquiry into the highest good, that into the nature
+of virtue, and that relating to the wise man.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.a">A. <i>The highest good.</i><br id="ch10.a.1">(1) <i>Nature of the highest good.</i></span>
+The enquiry into the destiny and end of man turns, with the Stoics, as it did with
+all moral philosophers since the time of Socrates, about the fundamental conception
+of the good, and the ingredients necessary to make up the highest good or happiness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23909src" href="#xd33e23909" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> Happiness, they consider, can only be sought in rational activity or virtue. Speaking
+more <span class="pageNum" id="pb226">[<a href="#pb226">226</a>]</span>explicitly,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23923src" href="#xd33e23923" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> the primary impulse of every being is towards self-preservation and self-gratification.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e23952src" href="#xd33e23952" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> It follows that every being pursues those things which are most suited to its nature,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24064src" href="#xd33e24064" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> and that such things <span class="pageNum" id="pb227">[<a href="#pb227">227</a>]</span>only have for it a value (<span class="trans" title="axia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξία</span></span>). Hence the highest good—the end-in-chief,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24079src" href="#xd33e24079" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> or happiness—can only be found in what is conformable to nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24110src" href="#xd33e24110" title="Go to note 7.">7</a>—Nothing can be conformable to nature for any individual thing, unless it be in harmony
+with the law of the universe,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24160src" href="#xd33e24160" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> or with the universal reason of the world; nor, in the case of a conscious and reasonable
+being, unless it proceeds from a recognition of this general law—in short, from rational
+intelligence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24174src" href="#xd33e24174" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> In every enquiry into what is conformable <span class="pageNum" id="pb228">[<a href="#pb228">228</a>]</span>to nature, all turns upon agreement with the essential constitution of the being,
+and this essential constitution consists, in the case of a man, simply in reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24255src" href="#xd33e24255" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> One and the same thing, therefore, is always meant, whether, with Zeno, life according
+to nature is spoken of as being in harmony with oneself, or whether, following Cleanthes,
+it is simply said to be the agreement of life with nature, and whether, in the latter
+case, <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> is taken to mean the world at large, or is limited to human nature in particular.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24285src" href="#xd33e24285" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> In every case the meaning is, that the <span class="pageNum" id="pb229">[<a href="#pb229">229</a>]</span>life of the individual approximates to or falls short of the goal of happiness, exactly
+in proportion as it approaches to or departs from the universal law of the world and
+the particular rational nature of man. In a word, a rational life, an agreement with
+the general course of the world, constitutes virtue. The principle of the Stoic morality
+might therefore be briefly expressed in the sentence: Only virtue is good, and happiness
+consists exclusively in virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24468src" href="#xd33e24468" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> If, however, following Socrates, the good is defined as being what is useful,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24526src" href="#xd33e24526" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> then the sentence would <span class="pageNum" id="pb230">[<a href="#pb230">230</a>]</span>run thus: Only Virtue is useful; advantage cannot be distinguished from duty, whilst
+to a bad man nothing is useful,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24540src" href="#xd33e24540" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> since, in the case of a rational being, good and evil does not depend on what happens
+to him, but simply on his own conduct.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24560src" href="#xd33e24560" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> A view of life is here presented to us in which happiness coincides with virtue,
+the good and the useful with duty and reason. There is neither any good independently
+of virtue, nor is there in virtue and for virtue any evil.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.a.2">(2) <i>The good and evil.</i></span>
+The Stoics accordingly refused to admit the ordinary distinction, sanctioned by popular
+opinion and the majority of philosophers, between various kinds and degrees of good;
+nor would they allow bodily advantages and external circumstances to be included among
+good things, together with mental and moral qualities. A certain difference between
+goods they did not indeed deny, and various kinds are mentioned by them in their formal
+division of goods.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24569src" href="#xd33e24569" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> But these differences amount, in the <span class="pageNum" id="pb231">[<a href="#pb231">231</a>]</span>end, to no more than this, that whilst some goods are good and useful in themselves,
+others are only subsidiary to them. The existence of several equally primary goods
+appears to the Stoics to be at variance with the conception of the good. That only
+is a good, according to their view, which has an unconditional value. That which has
+a value only in comparison with something else, or as leading to something else, does
+not deserve to be called a good. The difference between what is good and what is not
+good is not only a difference of degree, but also one of kind; and what is not a good
+per se can never <span class="pageNum" id="pb232">[<a href="#pb232">232</a>]</span>be a good under any circumstances.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24901src" href="#xd33e24901" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> The same remarks apply to evil. That which is not in itself an evil can never become
+so from its relation to something else. Hence only that which is absolutely good,
+or virtue, can be considered a good; and only that which is absolutely bad, or vice,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24916src" href="#xd33e24916" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> can be considered an evil. All other things, however great their influence may be
+on our state, belong to a class of things neither good nor evil, but indifferent,
+or <span class="trans" title="adiaphora"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιάφορα</span></span>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e24942src" href="#xd33e24942" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> Neither health, nor riches, nor honour, not even life itself, is a good; and just
+as little are the opposite states—poverty, sickness, disgrace, and death—evils.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25017src" href="#xd33e25017" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Both are in themselves indifferent, <span class="pageNum" id="pb233">[<a href="#pb233">233</a>]</span>a material which may either be employed for good or else for evil.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25042src" href="#xd33e25042" title="Go to note 21.">21</a>
+</p>
+<p>The Academicians and Peripatetics were most vigorously attacked by the Stoics for
+including among goods external things which are dependent on chance. For how can that
+be a good under any circumstances, which bears no relation to man’s moral nature,
+and is even frequently obtained at the cost of morality?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25105src" href="#xd33e25105" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> If virtue renders a man happy, <span class="pageNum" id="pb234">[<a href="#pb234">234</a>]</span>it must render him perfectly happy in himself, since no one can be happy who is not
+happy altogether. Were anything which is not in man’s power allowed to influence his
+happiness, it would detract from the absolute worth of virtue, and man would never
+be able to attain to that imperturbable serenity of mind without which no happiness
+is conceivable.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25182src" href="#xd33e25182" title="Go to note 23.">23</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb235">[<a href="#pb235">235</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.a.3">(3) <i>Pleasure and the good.</i></span>
+Least of all, can pleasure be considered a good, or be regarded, as it was by Epicurus,
+as the ultimate and highest object in life. He who places pleasure on the throne makes
+a slave of virtue;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25202src" href="#xd33e25202" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> he who considers pleasure a good ignores the real conception of the good and the
+peculiar value of virtue;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25214src" href="#xd33e25214" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> he appeals to feelings, rather than to actions;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25232src" href="#xd33e25232" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> he requires reasonable creatures to pursue <span class="pageNum" id="pb236">[<a href="#pb236">236</a>]</span>what is unreasonable, and souls nearly allied to God to go after the enjoyments of
+the lower animals.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25256src" href="#xd33e25256" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> Pleasure must never be the object of pursuit, not even in the sense that true pleasure
+is invariably involved in virtue. That it no doubt is.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25263src" href="#xd33e25263" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> It is true that there is always a peculiar satisfaction, and a quiet cheerfulness
+and peace of mind, in moral conduct, just as in immoral conduct there is a lack of
+inward peace; and in this sense it may be said that the wise man alone knows what
+true and lasting pleasure is.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25313src" href="#xd33e25313" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> But even the pleasure afforded by moral excellence ought never to be an object, but
+only a natural consequence, of virtuous conduct; otherwise the independent value of
+virtue is impaired.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25317src" href="#xd33e25317" title="Go to note 30.">30</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb237">[<a href="#pb237">237</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Nor may pleasure be placed side by side with virtue, as a part of the highest good,
+or be declared to be inseparable from virtue. Pleasure and virtue are different in
+essence and kind. Pleasure may be immoral, and moral conduct may go hand in hand with
+difficulties and pains. Pleasure is found among the worst of men, virtue only amongst
+the good; virtue is dignified, untiring, imperturbable; pleasure is grovelling, effeminate,
+fleeting. Those who look upon pleasure as a good are its slaves; those in whom virtue
+reigns supreme control pleasure, and hold it in check.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25375src" href="#xd33e25375" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> In no sense can pleasure be allowed to weigh in a question of morals; seeing it is
+not an end-in-itself, but only the result of an action;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25393src" href="#xd33e25393" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> not a good, but something absolutely indifferent. The only point on which the Stoics
+are not unanimous is, whether every pleasure is contrary to nature,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25405src" href="#xd33e25405" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> as the stern Cleanthes, in the <span class="pageNum" id="pb238">[<a href="#pb238">238</a>]</span>spirit of Cynicism, asserted, or whether there is such a thing as a natural and desirable
+pleasure.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25420src" href="#xd33e25420" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> Virtue, on the other hand, needs no extraneous additions, but contains in itself
+all the conditions of happiness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25441src" href="#xd33e25441" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> The reward of virtuous conduct, like the punishment of wickedness, consists only
+in the character of those actions, one being according to nature, the other contrary
+to nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25454src" href="#xd33e25454" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> And so unconditional is this self-sufficiency of virtue,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25567src" href="#xd33e25567" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> that the <span class="pageNum" id="pb239">[<a href="#pb239">239</a>]</span>happiness which it affords is not increased by length of time.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25643src" href="#xd33e25643" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> Rational self-control is here recognised as the only good; thereby man makes himself
+independent of all external circumstances, absolutely free, and inwardly satisfied.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25653src" href="#xd33e25653" title="Go to note 39.">39</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.a.4">(4) <i>Negative character of happiness.</i></span>
+The happiness of the virtuous man—and this is a very marked feature in Stoicism—is
+thus more negative than positive. It consists in independence and peace of mind rather
+than in the enjoyment which moral conduct brings with it. In mental disquietude—says
+Cicero, speaking as a Stoic—consists misery; in composure, happiness. How can he be
+deficient in happiness, he enquires, whom courage preserves from care and fear, and
+self-control guards from passionate pleasure and desire?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25661src" href="#xd33e25661" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> How can he fail to be absolutely happy who is in no way dependent on fortune, but
+simply and solely on himself?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25664src" href="#xd33e25664" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> To be free from disquietude, says Seneca, is the <span class="pageNum" id="pb240">[<a href="#pb240">240</a>]</span>peculiar privilege of the wise;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25669src" href="#xd33e25669" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> the advantage which is gained from philosophy is, that of living without fear, and
+rising superior to the troubles of life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25674src" href="#xd33e25674" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> Far more emphatical than any isolated expressions is the support which this negative
+view of moral aims derives from the whole character of the Stoic ethics, the one doctrine
+of the apathy of the wise man sufficiently proving that freedom from disturbances,
+an unconditional assurance, and self-dependence, are the points on which these philosophers
+lay especial value.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.a.5">(5) <i>The highest good as law.</i></span>
+The Good, in as far as it is based on the general arrangement of the world, to which
+the individual is subordinate, appears to man in the character of <i>Law</i>. Law being, however, the law of man’s own nature, the Good becomes the natural object
+of man’s desire, and meets his natural impulse. The conception of the Good as law
+was a view never unfamiliar to moral philosophy, but it was cultivated by the Stoics
+with peculiar zeal;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25686src" href="#xd33e25686" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> and forms one of the points on which Stoicism subsequently came into contact, partly
+with Roman jurisprudence, partly with the ethics of the Jews and Christians. Moreover,
+as the Stoics considered that the Reason which governs the world <span class="pageNum" id="pb241">[<a href="#pb241">241</a>]</span>is the general Law of all beings,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25696src" href="#xd33e25696" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> so they recognised in the moral demands of reason the positive and negative aspects
+of the Law of God.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25699src" href="#xd33e25699" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> Human law comes into existence when man becomes aware of the divine law, and recognises
+its claims on him.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25824src" href="#xd33e25824" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> Civil and moral law are, therefore, commands absolutely imperative on every rational
+being.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25828src" href="#xd33e25828" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> No man can feel himself to be a rational being without at the same time feeling himself
+pledged to be moral.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25849src" href="#xd33e25849" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb242">[<a href="#pb242">242</a>]</span>Obedience to this law is imposed upon man, not only by external authority, but by
+virtue of his own nature. The good is for him that which deserves to be pursued—the
+natural object of man’s will; on the other hand, evil is that against which his will
+revolts.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e25892src" href="#xd33e25892" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> The former arouses his desire (<span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμή</span></span>), the latter his aversion (<span class="trans" title="aphormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφορμή</span></span>):<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26049src" href="#xd33e26049" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> and thus the demands of <span class="pageNum" id="pb243">[<a href="#pb243">243</a>]</span>morality are called forth by the natural impulse of a reasonable being, and are, at
+the same time, also the object towards which that impulse is naturally directed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26222src" href="#xd33e26222" title="Go to note 52.">52</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.b">B. <i>Emotions and virtue.</i><br id="ch10.b.1">(1) <i>The emotions.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Their nature.</i></span>
+However simple this state of things may be to a purely rational being, it must be
+remembered that man is not purely rational.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26279src" href="#xd33e26279" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> He has, therefore, irrational as well as rational impulses.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26284src" href="#xd33e26284" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> He is not <span class="pageNum" id="pb244">[<a href="#pb244">244</a>]</span>originally virtuous, but he becomes virtuous by overcoming his emotions. Emotion or
+passion<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26376src" href="#xd33e26376" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> is a movement of mind contrary to reason and nature, an impulse transgressing the
+right mean.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26389src" href="#xd33e26389" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> The Peripatetic notion, that certain emotions are in accordance with nature, was
+flatly denied by the Stoics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26450src" href="#xd33e26450" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> The seat of the emotions—and, indeed, of all impulses and every activity of the soul<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26470src" href="#xd33e26470" title="Go to note 58.">58</a>—is man’s reason, the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26481src" href="#xd33e26481" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> Emotion is that state of the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικόν</span></span> in which it is hurried into what is contrary to nature by excess of impulse. Like
+virtue, emotion is due to a change taking place simultaneously, <span class="pageNum" id="pb245">[<a href="#pb245">245</a>]</span>not to the effect of a separate extraneous force.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26497src" href="#xd33e26497" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> Imagination, therefore, alone calls it into being, as it does impulse in general.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26509src" href="#xd33e26509" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> All emotions arise from faults in judgment, from false notions of good and evil,
+and may therefore be called, in so many words, judgments or opinions;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26512src" href="#xd33e26512" title="Go to note 62.">62</a>—avarice, for instance, is a wrong opinion as to the value of money,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26595src" href="#xd33e26595" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> fear is a wrong opinion as regards future, trouble as regards present ills.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26599src" href="#xd33e26599" title="Go to note 64.">64</a> Still, as appears from the general view of the Stoics respecting impulses,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26621src" href="#xd33e26621" title="Go to note 65.">65</a> this language does not imply that emotion is only a theoretical condition. On the
+contrary, the effects of a faulty imagination—the feelings and motions of will, to
+which it gives rise—are expressly included in its <span class="pageNum" id="pb246">[<a href="#pb246">246</a>]</span>conception;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26627src" href="#xd33e26627" title="Go to note 66.">66</a> nor is it credible, as Galenus states,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26751src" href="#xd33e26751" title="Go to note 67.">67</a> that this was only done by Zeno, and not by Chrysippus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26762src" href="#xd33e26762" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> The Stoics, therefore, notwithstanding their <span class="pageNum" id="pb247">[<a href="#pb247">247</a>]</span>theory of necessity, did not originally assent to the Socratic dictum, that no one
+does wrong voluntarily.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26909src" href="#xd33e26909" title="Go to note 69.">69</a> Younger members of the School may have used the dictum as an excuse for human faults,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26922src" href="#xd33e26922" title="Go to note 70.">70</a> fearing lest, in allowing freedom to emotions, they should admit that they were morally
+admissible and give up the possibility of overcoming them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26928src" href="#xd33e26928" title="Go to note 71.">71</a> Nay more, as all <span class="pageNum" id="pb248">[<a href="#pb248">248</a>]</span>that proceeds from the will and impulse is voluntary,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26940src" href="#xd33e26940" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> so too emotions are also in our power; and it is for us to say, in the case of convictions
+out of which emotions arise, as in the case of every other conviction,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26943src" href="#xd33e26943" title="Go to note 73.">73</a> whether we will yield or withhold assent.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26946src" href="#xd33e26946" title="Go to note 74.">74</a> Just as little would they allow that only instruction is needed in order to overcome
+emotions; for all emotions arise, as they say, from lack of self-control,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26957src" href="#xd33e26957" title="Go to note 75.">75</a> and differ from errors in that they assert themselves and oppose our better intelligence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e26971src" href="#xd33e26971" title="Go to note 76.">76</a> How irregular and irrational impulses arise in reason was a point which the Stoics
+never made any serious attempt to explain.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb249">[<a href="#pb249">249</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Varieties of emotion.</i></span>
+Emotions being called forth by imagination, their character depends on the kind of
+imagination which produces them. Now all impulses are directed to what is good and
+evil, and consist either in pursuing what appears to be a good, or in avoiding what
+appears to be an evil.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27003src" href="#xd33e27003" title="Go to note 77.">77</a> This good and this evil is sometimes a present, and sometimes a future object. Hence
+there result four chief classes of faulty imagination, and, corresponding with them,
+four classes of emotions. From an irrational opinion as to what is good there arises
+<i>pleasure</i>, when it refers to things present; <i>desire</i>, when it refers to things future. A faulty opinion of present evils produces <i>care</i>; of future evils, <i>fear</i>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27033src" href="#xd33e27033" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> Zeno had already distinguished these four principal varieties of emotions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27039src" href="#xd33e27039" title="Go to note 79.">79</a> The same division was adopted by his pupil Aristo,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27052src" href="#xd33e27052" title="Go to note 80.">80</a> and afterwards became quite general. Yet the vagueness, already mentioned, appears
+in the Stoic system in the definition of individual emotions. By some, particularly
+by Chrysippus, the essence of emotions is placed in the imagination which causes them;
+by others, in the state of mind which the imagination produces.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27068src" href="#xd33e27068" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> The four principal classes of <span class="pageNum" id="pb250">[<a href="#pb250">250</a>]</span>emotions are again subdivided into numerous subordinate classes, in the enumeration
+of which the Stoic philosophers appear to have been more guided by the use of language
+than by psychology.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27248src" href="#xd33e27248" title="Go to note 82.">82</a>
+</p>
+<p>In treating the subject of emotions in general, far less importance was attached by
+the Stoics to psychological accuracy than to considerations of moral worth. That the
+result could not be very satisfactory, <span class="pageNum" id="pb251">[<a href="#pb251">251</a>]</span>follows from what has been already stated.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27400src" href="#xd33e27400" title="Go to note 83.">83</a> Emotions are impulses, overstepping natural limits, upsetting the proper balance
+of the soul’s powers, contradicting reason—in a word, they are failures, disturbances
+of mental health, and, if indulged in, become chronic diseases of the soul.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27454src" href="#xd33e27454" title="Go to note 84.">84</a> Hence a Stoic <span class="pageNum" id="pb252">[<a href="#pb252">252</a>]</span>demands their entire suppression: true virtue can only exist where this process has
+succeeded. As being contrary to nature and symptoms of disease, the wise man must
+be wholly free from them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27637src" href="#xd33e27637" title="Go to note 85.">85</a> When we have once learnt to value things according to their real worth, and to discover
+everywhere nature’s unchanging law, nothing will induce us to yield to emotion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27647src" href="#xd33e27647" title="Go to note 86.">86</a> Hence the teaching of Plato and Aristotle, requiring emotions to be regulated, but
+not uprooted, was attacked in the most vigorous manner by these philosophers. A moderate
+evil, they say, always remains an evil. What is faulty and opposed to reason, ought
+never to be tolerated, not even in the smallest degree.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27651src" href="#xd33e27651" title="Go to note 87.">87</a> On the other hand, when <span class="pageNum" id="pb253">[<a href="#pb253">253</a>]</span>an emotion is regulated by and subordinated to reason, it ceases to be an emotion,
+the term emotion only applying to violent impulses, which are opposed to reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27679src" href="#xd33e27679" title="Go to note 88.">88</a> The statement of the Peripatetics, that certain emotions are not only admissible,
+but are useful and necessary, appears of course to the Stoics altogether wrong.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27683src" href="#xd33e27683" title="Go to note 89.">89</a> To them, only what is morally good appears to be useful: emotions are, under all
+circumstances, faults; and were an emotion to be useful, virtue would be advanced
+by means of what is wrong.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27690src" href="#xd33e27690" title="Go to note 90.">90</a> The right relation, therefore, towards emotions—indeed, the only one morally tenable—is
+an attitude of absolute hostility. The wise man must be emotionless.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27698src" href="#xd33e27698" title="Go to note 91.">91</a> Pain he may feel, but, not regarding it as an evil, he will suffer no affliction,
+and know no fear.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27722src" href="#xd33e27722" title="Go to note 92.">92</a> He may be slandered and ill-treated, but he cannot be injured or degraded.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27743src" href="#xd33e27743" title="Go to note 93.">93</a> Being <span class="pageNum" id="pb254">[<a href="#pb254">254</a>]</span>untouched by honour and dishonour, he has no vanity. To anger<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27755src" href="#xd33e27755" title="Go to note 94.">94</a> he never yields, nor needs this irrational impulse, not even for valour and the championship
+of right. But he also feels no pity,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27760src" href="#xd33e27760" title="Go to note 95.">95</a> and exercises no indulgence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27769src" href="#xd33e27769" title="Go to note 96.">96</a> For how can he pity others for what he would not himself consider an evil? How can
+he yield to a diseased excitement for the sake of others, which he would not tolerate
+for his own sake? If justice calls for punishment, feelings will not betray him into
+forgiveness. We shall subsequently have an opportunity for learning the further application
+of these principles.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.b.2">(2) <i>Idea of virtue.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Positive and negative aspects.</i></span>
+Virtue is thus negatively defined as the being exempt from emotions, as apathy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27789src" href="#xd33e27789" title="Go to note 97.">97</a> There is also a positive side to supplement this negative view. Looking at the <i>matter</i> of virtuous action, this may be said to consist in subordination to the general law
+of nature; looking at its <i>manner</i>, in rational self-control.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27810src" href="#xd33e27810" title="Go to note 98.">98</a> Virtue is exclusively a matter of reason<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27835src" href="#xd33e27835" title="Go to note 99.">99</a>—in short, it is nothing else but rightly ordered reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27845src" href="#xd33e27845" title="Go to note 100.">100</a> To speak more explicitly, virtue contains <span class="pageNum" id="pb255">[<a href="#pb255">255</a>]</span>in itself two elements—one practical, the other speculative. At the root, and as a
+condition of all rational conduct, lies, according to the Stoics, right knowledge.
+On this point they are at one with the well-known Socratic doctrine, and with the
+teaching of the Cynics and Megarians. Natural virtue, or virtue acquired only by exercise,
+they reject altogether. After the manner of Socrates, they define virtue as knowledge,
+vice as ignorance,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27861src" href="#xd33e27861" title="Go to note 101.">101</a> and insist on the necessity of learning virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27934src" href="#xd33e27934" title="Go to note 102.">102</a> Even the avowed enemy of all speculative enquiry, Aristo of Chios, was on this point
+at one with the rest of the School. All virtues were by him referred to wisdom,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27940src" href="#xd33e27940" title="Go to note 103.">103</a> and, consequently, he denied the claims of most to be virtues at all.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27943src" href="#xd33e27943" title="Go to note 104.">104</a>
+</p>
+<p>However closely the Stoics cling to the idea that all virtue is based on knowledge,
+and is in itself nothing else but knowledge, they are not content with knowledge,
+or with placing knowledge above <span class="pageNum" id="pb256">[<a href="#pb256">256</a>]</span>practical activity, as Plato and Aristotle had done. As we have seen already, knowledge
+with them was only a means towards rational conduct,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27955src" href="#xd33e27955" title="Go to note 105.">105</a> and it is expressly mentioned, as a deviation from the teaching of the School, that
+Herillus of Carthage, Zeno’s pupil, declared knowledge to be the end of life, and
+the only unconditional good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27958src" href="#xd33e27958" title="Go to note 106.">106</a> Virtue may, it is true, be called knowledge, but it is, at the same time, essentially
+health and strength of mind, a right state of the soul agreeing with its proper nature;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e27971src" href="#xd33e27971" title="Go to note 107.">107</a> and it is required of man that he should never cease to labour and contribute towards
+the common good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28046src" href="#xd33e28046" title="Go to note 108.">108</a> Thus, according to Stoic principles, virtue is a combination of theory and practice,
+in which action is invariably based on intellectual knowledge, but, at the same time,
+knowledge finds <span class="pageNum" id="pb257">[<a href="#pb257">257</a>]</span>its object in moral conduct—it is, in short, power of will based on rational understanding.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28055src" href="#xd33e28055" title="Go to note 109.">109</a> This definition must not, however, be taken to imply that moral knowledge precedes
+will, and is only subsequently referred to will, nor conversely that the will only
+uses knowledge as a subsidiary instrument. In the eyes of a Stoic, knowledge and will
+are not only inseparable, but they are one and the same thing. Virtue cannot be conceived
+without knowledge, nor knowledge without virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28058src" href="#xd33e28058" title="Go to note 110.">110</a> The one, quite as much as the other, is a right quality of the soul, or, speaking
+more correctly, is the rightly endowed soul,—reason, when it is as it ought to be.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28061src" href="#xd33e28061" title="Go to note 111.">111</a> Hence virtue may be described, with equal propriety, either as knowledge or as strength
+of mind; and it is irrelevant to enquire which of these two elements is anterior in
+point of time.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>The virtues severally.</i></span>
+But how are we to reconcile with this view the Stoic teaching of a plurality of virtues
+and their mutual relations? As the common root from which they spring, Zeno, following
+Aristotle, regarded understanding, Cleanthes, strength of mind, Aristo, at one time
+health, at another the knowledge of good and evil.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28075src" href="#xd33e28075" title="Go to note 112.">112</a> Later teachers, after the time of Chrysippus, <span class="pageNum" id="pb258">[<a href="#pb258">258</a>]</span>thought that it consisted in knowledge or wisdom, understanding by wisdom absolute
+knowledge, the knowing all things, human and divine.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28133src" href="#xd33e28133" title="Go to note 113.">113</a> From this common root, a multiplicity of virtues was supposed to proceed, which,
+after Plato’s example, are grouped round four principal virtues<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28204src" href="#xd33e28204" title="Go to note 114.">114</a>—intelligence, <span class="pageNum" id="pb259">[<a href="#pb259">259</a>]</span>bravery, justice, self-control.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28226src" href="#xd33e28226" title="Go to note 115.">115</a> Intelligence consists in knowing what is good and bad, and what is neither the one
+nor the other, the indifferent;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28231src" href="#xd33e28231" title="Go to note 116.">116</a> bravery, in knowing what to choose, what to avoid, and what neither to choose nor
+to avoid; or, substituting the corresponding personal attitude for knowledge, bravery
+is fearless obedience to the law of reason, both in boldness and endurance.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28266src" href="#xd33e28266" title="Go to note 117.">117</a> Self-control consists in knowing what to choose, and what to eschew, and what neither
+to choose nor eschew;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28308src" href="#xd33e28308" title="Go to note 118.">118</a> justice, in knowing how to give to everyone what is his due.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28356src" href="#xd33e28356" title="Go to note 119.">119</a> In a corresponding manner, the principal <span class="pageNum" id="pb260">[<a href="#pb260">260</a>]</span>faults are traced back to the conception of ignorance.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28400src" href="#xd33e28400" title="Go to note 120.">120</a> Probably all these definitions belong to Chrysippus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28438src" href="#xd33e28438" title="Go to note 121.">121</a> Other definitions are attributed to his predecessors,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28449src" href="#xd33e28449" title="Go to note 122.">122</a> some more nearly, others more remotely, agreeing with him in their conception of
+virtue. Within these limits, a great number of individual virtues were distinguished,
+their differences and precise shades of meaning being worked out with all the pedantry
+which characterised Chrysippus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28529src" href="#xd33e28529" title="Go to note 123.">123</a> The definitions <span class="pageNum" id="pb261">[<a href="#pb261">261</a>]</span>of a portion of them have been preserved by Diogenes and Stobæus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28645src" href="#xd33e28645" title="Go to note 124.">124</a> In a similar way, too, the Stoics carried their classification of errors into the
+minutest details.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28736src" href="#xd33e28736" title="Go to note 125.">125</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Mutual relation of the several virtues.</i></span>
+The importance attaching to this division of virtues, the ultimate basis on which
+it rests, and the relation which virtues bear, both to one another and to the common
+essence of virtue, are topics upon which Zeno never entered. Plutarch, at least, blames
+him<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28749src" href="#xd33e28749" title="Go to note 126.">126</a> for treating virtues as many, and yet inseparable, and at the same time for finding
+in all virtues only certain manifestations of the understanding. Aristo attempted
+to settle this point more precisely. According to his view, virtue is in itself only
+one; in speaking of many virtues, we only refer to the variety of objects with which
+that one virtue has to <span class="pageNum" id="pb262">[<a href="#pb262">262</a>]</span>do.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28754src" href="#xd33e28754" title="Go to note 127.">127</a> The difference of one virtue from another is not one of inward quality, but depends
+on the external conditions under which they are manifested; it only expresses a definite
+relation to something else, or, in the language of Herbart, an accidental aspect.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28774src" href="#xd33e28774" title="Go to note 128.">128</a> The same view would seem to be implied in the manner in which Cleanthes determines
+the relations of the principal virtues to one another.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28825src" href="#xd33e28825" title="Go to note 129.">129</a> It was, however, opposed by Chrysippus. The assumption of many virtues, he believed,
+rested upon an inward difference;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28829src" href="#xd33e28829" title="Go to note 130.">130</a> each definite virtue, as also each definite fault, becoming what it does by a peculiar
+change in the character of the soul itself;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28848src" href="#xd33e28848" title="Go to note 131.">131</a> in short, for a particular virtue to come into being, it is not enough that the constituent
+element of all virtue should be directed towards a particular object, but <span class="pageNum" id="pb263">[<a href="#pb263">263</a>]</span>to the common element must be superadded a further characteristic element, or <span lang="la">differentia</span>; the several virtues being related to one another, as the various species of one
+genus.
+</p>
+<p>All virtues have, however, one and the same end, which they compass in different ways,
+and all presuppose the same moral tone and conviction,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28890src" href="#xd33e28890" title="Go to note 132.">132</a> which is only to be found where it is to be found perfect, and ceases to exist the
+moment it is deprived of one of its component parts.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28937src" href="#xd33e28937" title="Go to note 133.">133</a> They are, indeed, distinct from one another, each one having its own end, towards
+which it is primarily directed; but, at the same time, they again coalesce, inasmuch
+as none can pursue its own end without pursuing that of the others at the same time.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28946src" href="#xd33e28946" title="Go to note 134.">134</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb264">[<a href="#pb264">264</a>]</span>Accordingly, no part of virtue can be separated from its other parts. Where one virtue
+exists, the rest exist also, and where there is one fault, there all is faulty. Even
+each single virtuous action contains all other virtues, for the moral tone of which
+it is the outcome includes in itself all the rest.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e28989src" href="#xd33e28989" title="Go to note 135.">135</a> What makes virtue virtue, and vice vice, is simply and solely the intention.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29018src" href="#xd33e29018" title="Go to note 136.">136</a> The will, although it may lack the means of execution, is worth quite as much as
+the deed;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29046src" href="#xd33e29046" title="Go to note 137.">137</a> a wicked desire is quite as criminal as the gratification of that desire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29056src" href="#xd33e29056" title="Go to note 138.">138</a> Hence only that action can be called virtuous which is not only good in itself, but
+which proceeds from willing the good; and although, in the <span class="pageNum" id="pb265">[<a href="#pb265">265</a>]</span>first instance, the difference between the discharge and the neglect of duty (<span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="hamartēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἁμάρτημα</span></span>) depends on the real agreement or disagreement of our actions with the moral law,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29103src" href="#xd33e29103" title="Go to note 139.">139</a> yet that alone can be said to be a true and perfect discharge of duty which arises
+from a morally perfect character.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29181src" href="#xd33e29181" title="Go to note 140.">140</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb266">[<a href="#pb266">266</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>d</i>) <i>Unity of virtue.</i></span>
+Such a character, the Stoics held, must either exist altogether, or not at all; for
+virtue is an indivisible whole, which we cannot possess in part, but must either have
+or not have.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29302src" href="#xd33e29302" title="Go to note 141.">141</a> He who has a right intention and a right appreciation of good and evil, is virtuous;
+he who has not these requisites is lacking in virtue; there is no third alternative.
+Virtue admits neither of increase nor diminution,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29305src" href="#xd33e29305" title="Go to note 142.">142</a> and there is no mean between virtue and vice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29419src" href="#xd33e29419" title="Go to note 143.">143</a> This being <span class="pageNum" id="pb267">[<a href="#pb267">267</a>]</span>the case, and the value of an action depending wholly on the intention, it follows,
+necessarily, that virtue admits of no degrees. If the intention must be either good
+or bad, the same must be true of actions; and if a good intention or virtue has in
+it nothing bad, and a bad intention has in it nothing good, the same is true of actions.
+A good action is unconditionally praiseworthy; a bad one, unconditionally blameworthy,
+the former being only found where virtue exists pure and entire; the latter, only
+where there is no virtue at all. All good actions are, on the one hand, according
+to the well-known paradox, equally good; all bad actions, on the other, equally bad.
+The standard of moral judgment is an absolute one; and when conduct does not altogether
+conform to this standard, it falls short of it altogether.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29452src" href="#xd33e29452" title="Go to note 144.">144</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb268">[<a href="#pb268">268</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.c">C. <i>The wise man.</i><br id="ch10.c.1">(1) <i>Wisdom and folly<span>.</span></i></span>
+From what has been said, it follows that there can be but one thoroughgoing moral
+distinction for all mankind, the distinction between the virtuous and the vicious;
+and that within each of these classes there can be no difference in degree. He who
+possesses virtue possesses it whole and entire; he who lacks it lacks it altogether;
+and whether he is near or far from possessing it is a matter of no moment. He who
+is only a hand-breadth below the surface of <span class="pageNum" id="pb269">[<a href="#pb269">269</a>]</span>the water will be drowned just as surely as one who is five hundred fathoms deep;
+he who is blind sees equally little whether he will recover his sight to-morrow or
+never.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29588src" href="#xd33e29588" title="Go to note 145.">145</a> The whole of mankind are thus divided by the Stoics into two classes—those who are
+wise and those who are foolish;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29631src" href="#xd33e29631" title="Go to note 146.">146</a> and these two classes are treated by them as mutually exclusive, each one being complete
+in itself. Among the wise no folly, among the foolish no wisdom of any kind, is possible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29643src" href="#xd33e29643" title="Go to note 147.">147</a> The wise man is absolutely free from faults and mistakes: all that he does is right;
+in him all virtues centre; he has a right opinion on every subject, and never a wrong
+one, nor, indeed, ever what is merely <span class="pageNum" id="pb270">[<a href="#pb270">270</a>]</span>an opinion. The bad man, on the contrary, can do nothing aright; he has every kind
+of vice; he has no right knowledge, and is altogether rude, violent, cruel, and ungrateful.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29661src" href="#xd33e29661" title="Go to note 148.">148</a>
+</p>
+<p>The Stoics delight in insisting upon the perfection of the wise man, and contrasting
+with it the absolute faultiness of the foolish man, in a series of paradoxical assertions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29677src" href="#xd33e29677" title="Go to note 149.">149</a> The wise man only is free, because he only uses his will to control himself;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29682src" href="#xd33e29682" title="Go to note 150.">150</a> he only is beautiful, because only virtue is beautiful and attractive;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29696src" href="#xd33e29696" title="Go to note 151.">151</a> he only is rich and happy (<span class="trans" title="eutychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐτυχὴς</span></span>), because goods of the soul are the most valuable, true riches consisting in being
+independent of wants.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29712src" href="#xd33e29712" title="Go to note 152.">152</a> Nay, more, he is absolutely rich, since he who has a right view of everything has
+everything in his intellectual treasury,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29727src" href="#xd33e29727" title="Go to note 153.">153</a> and he who makes the right use of everything bears to everything the relation of
+owner.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29732src" href="#xd33e29732" title="Go to note 154.">154</a> The wise only know how to obey, and they also only know how to govern; they only
+are therefore kings, generals, pilots;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29738src" href="#xd33e29738" title="Go to note 155.">155</a> they only are orators, <span class="pageNum" id="pb271">[<a href="#pb271">271</a>]</span>poets, and prophets;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29759src" href="#xd33e29759" title="Go to note 156.">156</a> and since their view of the Gods and their worship of the Gods is the true one, only
+amongst them can true piety be found—they are the only priests and friends of heaven;
+all foolish men, on the contrary, are impious, profane, and enemies of the Gods.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29769src" href="#xd33e29769" title="Go to note 157.">157</a> Only the wise man is capable of feeling gratitude, love, and friendship,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29788src" href="#xd33e29788" title="Go to note 158.">158</a> he only is capable of receiving a benefit, nothing being of use or advantage to the
+foolish man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29794src" href="#xd33e29794" title="Go to note 159.">159</a> To sum up, the wise man is absolutely perfect, absolutely free from passion and want,
+absolutely happy;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29802src" href="#xd33e29802" title="Go to note 160.">160</a> as the Stoics conclusively assert, he in no way falls short of the happiness of Zeus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29808src" href="#xd33e29808" title="Go to note 161.">161</a> since time, the only point in which he differs from Zeus, does not augment happiness
+at all.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29832src" href="#xd33e29832" title="Go to note 162.">162</a> On the other hand, the foolish man is altogether foolish, unhappy, and perverse;
+or, in the expressive language of the Stoics, <span class="pageNum" id="pb272">[<a href="#pb272">272</a>]</span>every foolish man is a madman, he being a madman who has no knowledge of himself,
+nor of what most closely affects him.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29854src" href="#xd33e29854" title="Go to note 163.">163</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.c.2">(2) <i>Universal depravity.</i></span>
+This assertion is all the more trenchant because the Stoics recognised neither virtue
+nor wisdom outside their own system or one closely related to it, and because they
+took a most unfavourable view of the moral condition of their fellow-men. That they
+should do so was inevitable from their point of view. A system which sets up its own
+moral idea against current notions so sharply as that of the Stoics can only be the
+offspring of a thorough disapproval of existing circumstances, and must, on the other
+hand, contribute thereto. According to the Stoic standard, by far the majority, indeed,
+almost the whole of mankind, belong to the class of the foolish. If all foolish people
+are equally and altogether bad, mankind must have seemed to them to be a sea of corruption
+and vice, from which, at best, but a few swimmers emerge at spots widely apart.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29878src" href="#xd33e29878" title="Go to note 164.">164</a> Man passes his life—such had already been the complaint of Cleanthes<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29909src" href="#xd33e29909" title="Go to note 165.">165</a>—in wickedness. Only here and there does one, in the <span class="pageNum" id="pb273">[<a href="#pb273">273</a>]</span>evening of life, after many wanderings, attain to virtue. And that this was the common
+opinion among the successors of Cleanthes, is witnessed by their constant complaints
+of the depravity of the foolish, and of the rare occurrence of a wise man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29923src" href="#xd33e29923" title="Go to note 166.">166</a>
+</p>
+<p>No one probably has expressed this opinion more frequently or more strongly than Seneca.
+We are wicked, he says; we have been wicked; we shall be wicked. Our ancestors complained
+of the decline of morals; we complain of their decline; and posterity will utter the
+very same complaint. The limits within which morality oscillates are not far asunder;
+the modes in which vice shows itself change, but its power remains the same.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29950src" href="#xd33e29950" title="Go to note 167.">167</a> All men are wicked; and he who has as yet done nothing wicked is at least in a condition
+to do it. All are thankless, avaricious, cowardly, impious; all are mad.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29953src" href="#xd33e29953" title="Go to note 168.">168</a> We have all done wrong—one in a less, the other in a greater degree; and we shall
+all do wrong to the end of the chapter.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29956src" href="#xd33e29956" title="Go to note 169.">169</a> One drives the other into folly, and the foolish are too numerous to allow the individual
+to improve.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29959src" href="#xd33e29959" title="Go to note 170.">170</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb274">[<a href="#pb274">274</a>]</span>He who would be angry with the vices of men, instead of pitying their faults, would
+never stop. So great is the amount of iniquity!<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29965src" href="#xd33e29965" title="Go to note 171.">171</a>
+</p>
+<p>No doubt the age in which Seneca lived afforded ample occasion for such effusions,
+but his predecessors must have found similar occasions in their own days. Indeed,
+all the principles of the Stoic School, when consistently developed, made it impossible
+to consider the great majority of men as anything else than a mass of fools and sinners.
+From this sweeping verdict, even the most distinguished names were not excluded. If
+asked for examples of wisdom, they would point to Socrates, Diogenes, Antisthenes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29973src" href="#xd33e29973" title="Go to note 172.">172</a> and, in later times, to Cato;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e29995src" href="#xd33e29995" title="Go to note 173.">173</a> but not only would they deny philosophic virtue, as Plato had done before them, to
+the greatest statesmen and heroes of early times, but they would deny to them all
+and every kind of virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30007src" href="#xd33e30007" title="Go to note 174.">174</a> Even the admission that general faults belong to some in a lower degree than <span class="pageNum" id="pb275">[<a href="#pb275">275</a>]</span>to others can hardly be reconciled with their principle of the equality of all who
+are not wise.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30015src" href="#xd33e30015" title="Go to note 175.">175</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch10.c.3">(3) <i>Conversion.</i></span>
+The two moral states being thus at opposite poles, a gradual transition from one to
+the other is, of course, out of the question. There may be a progress from folly and
+wickedness in the direction of wisdom,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30029src" href="#xd33e30029" title="Go to note 176.">176</a> but the actual passage from one to the other must be momentary and instantaneous.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30035src" href="#xd33e30035" title="Go to note 177.">177</a> Those who are still progressing belong, without exception, to the class of the foolish;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30039src" href="#xd33e30039" title="Go to note 178.">178</a> and one who has lately become wise is in the first moment unconscious of his new
+state.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30046src" href="#xd33e30046" title="Go to note 179.">179</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb276">[<a href="#pb276">276</a>]</span>The transition takes place so rapidly, and his former state affords so few points
+of contact with the one on which he has newly entered, that the mind does not keep
+pace with the change, and only becomes conscious of it by subsequent experience.
+</p>
+<p>In this picture of the wise man, the moral idealism of the Stoic system attained its
+zenith. A virtuous will appears here so completely sundered from all outward conditions
+of life, so wholly free from all the trammels of natural existence, and the individual
+has become so completely the organ of universal law, that it may be asked, What right
+has such a being to call himself a person? How can such a being be imagined as a man
+living among fellow-men? Nor was this question unknown to the Stoics themselves. Unless
+they are willing to allow that their theory was practically impossible, and their
+ideal scientifically untenable, how could they escape the necessity of showing that
+it might be reconciled with the wants of human life and the conditions of reality?
+Let the attempt be once made, however, and withal they would be forced to look for
+some means of adapting it to those very feelings and <span class="pageNum" id="pb277">[<a href="#pb277">277</a>]</span>opinions towards which their animosity had formerly been so great. Nor could the attempt
+be long delayed. Daily a greater value was attached to the practical working of their
+system, and to its agreement with general opinion. The original direction of Stoic
+morality aimed at the absolute and unconditional submission of the individual to the
+law of the universe, yet, in developing that theory, the rights of the individual
+asserted themselves unmistakably. From this confluence of opposite currents arose
+a deviation from the rigid type of the Stoic system, some varieties of which, in the
+direction of the ordinary view of life, deserve now further consideration.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb278">[<a href="#pb278">278</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23695">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23695src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> The chief passage in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 84, is as follows: <span class="trans" title="to de ēthikon meros tēs philosophias diairousin eis te ton peri hormēs kai eis ton peri agathōn kai kakōn topon kai ton peri pathōn kai peri aretēs kai peri telous peri te tēs prōtēs axias kai tōn praxeōn kai peri tōn kathēkontōn protropōn te kai apotropōn. kai houtō d’ hypodiairousin hoi peri Chrysippon kai Archedēmon kai Zēnōna ton Tarsea kai Apollodōron kai Diogenēn kai Antipatron kai Poseidōnion; ho men gar Kittieus Zēnōn kai ho Kleanthēs hōs an archaioteroi aphelesteron peri tōn pragmatōn dielabon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ ἠθικὸν μέρος τῆς φιλοσοφίας διαιροῦσιν εἴς τε τὸν περὶ ὁρμῆς καὶ εἰς <span class="pageNum" id="pb224n">[<a href="#pb224n">224</a>]</span>τὸν περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν τόπον καὶ τὸν περὶ παθῶν καὶ περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ περὶ τέλους
+περί τε τῆς πρώτης ἀξίας καὶ τῶν πράξεων καὶ περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων προτροπῶν τε καὶ
+ἀποτροπῶν. καὶ οὕτω δ’ ὑποδιαιροῦσιν οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον καὶ Ἀρχέδημον καὶ Ζήνωνα τὸν
+Ταρσέα καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρον καὶ Διογένην καὶ Ἀντίπατρον καὶ Ποσειδώνιον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κιττιεὺς
+Ζήνων καὶ ὁ Κλεάνθης ὡς ἂν ἀρχαιότεροι ἀφελέστερον περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων διέλαβον</span></span>. There may be doubts as to the punctuation, and, consequently, as to the sense, of
+the first sentence; but the form of expression seems to imply that the five first
+portions contain main divisions, and the six following subdivisions. The ethics of
+Chrysippus and his followers would therefore fall into the following main divisions:
+<span class="trans" title="peri hormēs, peri agathōn kai kakōn, peri pathōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ὁρμῆς, περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν, περὶ παθῶν</span></span>; but it would be hard to assign to these divisions their respective subdivisions.
+The statement of <i>Epictetus</i>, Diss. iii. 2, agrees in part with this division. He distinguishes in his introduction
+to virtue three <span class="trans" title="topoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόποι</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="ho peri tas orexeis kai tas ekkliseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ περὶ τὰς ὀρέξεις καὶ τὰς ἐκκλίσεις</span></span>, called also <span class="trans" title="ho peri ta pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ περὶ τὰ πάθη</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="ho peri tas hormas kai aphormas kai haplōs ho peri to kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ περὶ τὰς <span id="xd33e23748">ὁρμὰς</span> καὶ ἀφορμὰς καὶ ἁπλῶς ὁ περὶ τὸ καθῆκον</span></span>; and, lastly, <span class="trans" title="ho peri tēn anexapatēsian kai aneikaiotēta kai holōs ho peri tas synkatatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ περὶ τὴν <span class="corr" id="xd33e23760" title="Source: ἀναξαπατησίαν">ἀνεξαπατησίαν</span> καὶ ἀνεικαιότητα καὶ <span id="xd33e23764">ὅλως</span> ὁ περὶ τὰς συγκαταθέσεις</span></span>. The first of these divisions would correspond with the third of Diogenes, the second
+with his first; but the division <span class="trans" title="peri agathōn kai kakōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν</span></span> does not harmonise with the third of Epictetus (which, according to what follows,
+rather refers to the critical confirmation of moral principles not specially mentioned
+by Diogenes), but rather with his first division treating of <span class="trans" title="orexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀρέξεις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ekkliseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκκλίσεις</span></span>. Stobæus again differs from either. In his survey of the Stoic ethics (Ecl. ii. c.
+5), he first, p. 90, treats of what is good, evil, and indifferent, of what is desirable
+and detestable, of the end-in-chief, and of happiness, in this section discussing
+at length the doctrine of virtue. He then goes on, p. 158, to consider the <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span>, the impulses, p. 166, and the emotions (<span class="trans" title="pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάθη</span></span>, as being one kind of impulse), appending thereto, p. 186, a discussion on friendship;
+and concluding, p. 192 to 242, with a long treatise on <span class="trans" title="energēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνεργήματα</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="katorthōmata, hamartēmata, oudetera"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατορθώματα, ἁμαρτήματα, οὐδέτερα</span></span>), the greater portion of which is devoted to describing the wise man and the fool.
+Turning to <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 65, it is stated, on the authority of Posidonius, that not only <span lang="la">præceptio</span>, but also <span lang="la">suasio, consolatio,</span> and <span lang="la">exhortatio,</span> and, moreover, <span lang="la">causarum inquisitio</span> (which, however, can hardly have been called <span lang="la">etymologia</span> by Posidonius, as Hanse reads but <span lang="la">ætiologia</span>) and <span lang="la">ethologia</span>, description of moral states, are necessary. In Ep. 89, 14, the parts of moral science
+are more accurately given as three; the first determining the value of things, the
+second treating <span lang="la">de actionibus</span>, <span class="pageNum" id="pb225n">[<a href="#pb225n">225</a>]</span>the third <span lang="la">de impetu</span>, <span class="trans" title="peri hormēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ὁρμῆς</span></span>. Two of these parts coincide indeed with those of Diogenes, but this is not the case
+with the third, which is only one of the subdivisions in Diogenes (<span class="trans" title="peri tōn praxeōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν πράξεων</span></span>); and even Seneca’s first part more nearly agrees with one of these (<span class="trans" title="peri tēs prōtēs axias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῆς πρώτης ἀξίας</span></span>). Unfortunately, Seneca does not mention his authorities; and, accordingly, we are
+not sure whether his division is a genuine Stoic division. A similar division will
+be subsequently met with in the eclectic Academician Eudorus (living under Augustus).
+None of the divisions quoted agree with the three problems proposed by <i>Cic.</i> Off. ii. 5, 18, or the three sections enumerated by <i>Epict.</i> Enchir. c. 51 (76), in which Petersen (Phil. Chrys. Fund. p<span>.</span> 260) recognises Seneca’s three main divisions of Ethics. In the midst of such contending
+authorities, it seems impossible to establish the main division of the Stoic Ethics.
+One thing alone is clear, that they were themselves not agreed on the subject. <i>Petersen’s</i> attempt, l.c. p. 258, appears to me a failure.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23695src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23909">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23909src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 138: <span class="trans" title="telos de phasin einai to eudaimonein, hou heneka panta prattetai, auto de prattetai men, oudenos de heneka"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλος δέ φασιν εἶναι τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν, οὗ ἕνεκα πάντα πράττεται, αὐτὸ δὲ πράττεται μὲν,
+οὐδενὸς δὲ ἕνεκα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23909src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23923">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23923src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 85; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 5; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xii. 5, 7. That the two latter writers follow one and the same authority appears
+partly from their literal agreement with each other, and partly from their adopting
+a uniform method in refuting the Epicurean statement, that the desire for pleasure
+is the primary impulse. That authority is probably the treatise of Chrysippus <span class="trans" title="peri telous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τέλους</span></span>, since it is distinctly referred to by Diogenes. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 12, 4, quotes from it: <span class="trans" title="hōs oikeioumetha pros hautous euthys genomenoi kai ta merē kai ta ekgona heautōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς οἰκειούμεθα πρὸς αὑτοὺς εὐθὺς γενόμενοι καὶ τὰ μέρη καὶ τὰ ἔκγονα ἑαυτῶν</span></span>. The difference mentioned by <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 154—that at one time self-love, at another the preservation of one’s own nature,
+is the impulse—is unimportant.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23923src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e23952">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e23952src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii 85: <span class="trans" title="tēn de prōtēn hormēn phasi to zōon ischein epi to tērein heauto, oikeiousēs hautō [hautō] tēs physeōs ap’ archēs, katha phēsin ho Chrysippos en tō prōtō peri telōn, prōton oikeion einai legōn panti zōō tēn hautou systasin kai tēn tautēs syneidēsin. oute gar allotriōsai eikos ēn autou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν δὲ πρώτην ὁρμήν φασι τὸ ζῷον ἴσχειν ἐπὶ τὸ τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸ, οἰκειούσης αὑτῶ [αὑτῷ]
+τῆς φύσεως ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, καθά φησιν ὁ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ τελῶν, πρῶτον οἰκεῖον
+εἶναι λέγων παντὶ ζῴῳ τὴν αὑτοῦ σύστασιν καὶ τὴν ταύτης συνείδησιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἀλλοτριῶσαι
+εἰκὸς ἦν αὐτοῦ</span></span> [Cobet incorrectly <span class="trans" title="auto"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτὸ</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="to zōon, oute poiēsai an"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ζῷον, οὔτε ποιῆσαι ἂν</span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="poiēsasan"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e23982">ποιήσασαν</span></span></span> sc. <span class="trans" title="tēn physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν φύσιν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="auto mēt’ allotriōsai mēt’ ouk"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτὸ μήτ’ ἀλλοτριῶσαι μήτ’ οὐκ</span></span> [must evidently be struck out] <span class="trans" title="oikeiōsai. apoleipetai toinyn legein systēsamenēn auto oikeiōs pros heauto; houtō gar ta te blaptonta diōtheitai kai ta oikeia prosietai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἰκειῶσαι. ἀπολείπεται τοίνυν λέγειν συστησαμένην αὐτὸ οἰκείως πρὸς ἑαυτό· οὕτω γὰρ
+τά τε βλάπτοντα διωθεῖται καὶ τὰ οἰκεῖα προσίεται</span></span>. Similarly, <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 5, 16. Antisthenes had already reduced the conception of the good to that of
+<span class="trans" title="oikeion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἰκεῖον</span></span>, without the fuller explanation. Here the Academic theory of life according to nature,
+which had been enunciated by Polemo, Zeno’s teacher, is combined therewith. Some difficulty
+was nevertheless caused by the question whether all living creatures possess a consciousness
+(<span class="trans" title="syneidēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνείδησις</span></span>, <span lang="la">sensus</span>) of their own nature; without such a consciousness, natural self-love seemed to the
+Stoics impossible. They thought, however, that this question (according to <i>Sen<span>.</span></i> Ep. 121, 5, conf. <i>Cic.</i> l.c.) could be answered in the affirmative without hesitation, and appealed for evidence
+to the instinctive activities by which children and animals govern their bodily motions,
+guard themselves from dangers, and pursue what is to their interest, without denying
+that the ideas which children and animals have of themselves are very indistinct,
+that they only know their own constitution, but not its true conception (<span lang="la">constitutionis finitio</span>, <i>Sen.</i> p. 11). <span lang="la">Constitutio,</span> or <span class="trans" title="systasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύστασις</span></span>, was defined by the Stoics, <i>Sen.</i>, p. 10. as <span lang="la">principale animi quodam modo se habens erga corpus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e23952src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24064">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24064src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 5, 17; 6, 20.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24064src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24079">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24079src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> The terms are here treated as synonymous, without regard to the hair-splitting with
+which the Stoics distinguished (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 136) three meanings of <span class="trans" title="telos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλος</span></span>, between <span class="trans" title="telos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλος</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="skopos"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e24102">σκοπός</span></span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24079src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24110">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24110src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 134 and 138; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 88; 94; <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 27, 9; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 7, 26; 10, 33; <i>Sen.</i> V. Beat. 3, 3; conf. Ep. 118, 8; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 171; Math. xi. 30. In <i>Stob.</i> ii. 78 and 96, formal definitions are given of <span class="trans" title="agathon, telos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀγαθὸν, τέλος</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="eudaimonia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐδαιμονία</span></span>. The latter is generally paraphrased by <span class="trans" title="euroia biou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὔροια βίου</span></span>, as Zeno had defined it. Various formulæ for the conception of a life according to
+nature are given by Cleanthes, Antipater, Archedemus, Diogenes, Panætius, Posidonius,
+and others in <i>Clem. Alex.</i> Strom. ii. 416; <i>Stob<span>.</span></i> 134; and <i>Diog.</i>, all apparently taken from the same source.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24110src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24160">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24160src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Diog<span>.</span></i> vii. 88: <span class="trans" title="dioper telos ginetai to akolouthōs tē physei zēn; hoper esti kata te tēn hautou kai kata tēn tōn holōn, ouden energountas hōn apagoreuein eiōthen ho nomos ho koinos hosper estin ho orthos logos dia pantōn erchomenos ho autos ōn tō Diï ... einai d’ auto touto tēn tou eudaimonos aretēn kai euroian biou, hotan panta prattētai kata tēn symphōnian tou par’ hekastō daimonos pros tēn tou tōn holōn dioikētou boulēsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διόπερ τέλος γίνεται τὸ ἀκολούθως τῇ φύσει ζῇν· ὅπερ ἐστὶ κατά τε τὴν αὑτοῦ καὶ κατὰ
+τὴν τῶν ὅλων, οὐδὲν ἐνεργοῦντας ὧν ἀπαγορεύειν εἴωθεν ὁ νόμος ὁ κοινὸς ὅσπερ ἐστὶν
+ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος διὰ πάντων ἐρχόμενος ὁ αὐτὸς ὢν τῷ Διΐ … εἶναι δ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ
+εὐδαίμονος ἀρετὴν καὶ εὔροιαν βίου, ὅταν πάντα πράττηται κατὰ τὴν συμφωνίαν τοῦ παρ’
+ἑκάστῳ δαίμονος πρὸς τὴν τοῦ τῶν ὅλων διοικητοῦ βούλησιν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24160src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24174">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24174src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 160 (conf. 158): <span class="trans" title="dittōs theōreisthai tēn te en tois logikois gignomenēn hormēn kai tēn en tois alogois zōois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διττῶς θεωρεῖσθαι τήν τε ἐν τοῖς λογικοῖς γιγνομένην ὁρμὴν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἀλόγοις
+ζῷοις</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 86: Plants are moved by nature without impulse, animals by means of impulse. In the
+case of animals, therefore, <span class="trans" title="to kata tēn physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν</span></span> is the same as <span class="trans" title="to kata tēn hormēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κατὰ τὴν ὁρμήν</span></span>. In rational creatures, reason controls impulse; and accordance with nature means
+accordance with reason. In <i>Galen.</i> Hippoc. et Plat. v. 2, p. 460, Chrysippus says: <span class="trans" title="hēmas oikeiousthai pros monon to kalon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡμᾶς οἰκειοῦσθαι πρὸς μόνον τὸ καλόν</span></span>. <i>M. Aurel.</i> vii. 11: <span class="trans" title="tō logikō zōō hē autē praxis kata physin esti kai kata logon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῷ λογικῷ ζῴῳ ἡ αὐτὴ πρᾶξις κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ λόγον</span></span>. Hence the definition of a virtuous life, or a life according to nature: <span class="trans" title="zēn kat’ empeirian tōn physei symbainontōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῇν κατ’ ἐμπειρίαν τῶν φύσει συμβαινόντων</span></span> (Chrysippus, in <i>Stob.</i> 134; <i>Diog.</i> 87; <i>Clem.</i> l.c.; also Diogenes, <span class="pageNum" id="pb228n">[<a href="#pb228n">228</a>]</span>Antipater, Archedemus, Posidonius); and that of the good: <span class="trans" title="to teleion kata physin logikou hōs logikou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ τέλειον κατὰ φύσιν λογικοῦ ὡς λογικοῦ</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 94).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24174src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24255">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24255src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 121, 14: <span lang="la">Omne animal primum constitutioni suæ conciliari: hominis autem constitutionem rationalem
+esse: et ideo conciliari hominem sibi non tanquam animali sed tanquam rationali. Ea
+enim parte sibi carus est homo, qua homo est.</span> <i>Id.</i> Ep. 92, 1: The body is subservient to the soul, and the irrational part of the soul
+to the rational part. Hence it follows: <span lang="la">In hoc uno positam esse beatam vitam. ut in nobis ratio perfecta sit.</span> Similarly. Ep. 76, 8. <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 44: <span class="trans" title="sympherei de hekastō to kata tēn heautou kataskeuēn kai physin; hē de emē physis logikē kai politikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμφέρει δὲ ἑκάστῳ τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ κατασκευὴν καὶ φύσιν· ἡ δὲ ἐμὴ φύσις λογικὴ
+καὶ πολιτική</span></span>. Conf. viii. 7 and 12.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24255src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24285">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24285src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> According to <i>Stob.</i> ii. 132, <i>Diog.</i> vii. 89, the ancient Stoics were not altogether agreed as to the terms in which they
+would express their theory. Zeno, for instance, is said by Stobæus to have defined
+<span class="trans" title="telos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλος</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="homologoumenōs zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν</span></span>; Cleanthes first added the words <span class="trans" title="tē physei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῇ φύσει</span></span>, and Chrysippus and his followers augmented the formula by several additions. <i>Diog.</i> 87 attributes the words <span class="trans" title="tē physei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῇ φύσει</span></span> to Zeno, adding, however, 89, that Chrysippus understood by <span class="trans" title="physis, tēn te koinēn kai idiōs tēn anthrōpinēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις, τήν τε κοινὴν καὶ ἰδίως τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην</span></span>, whereas Cleanthes understood <span class="trans" title="tēn koinēn monēn ouketi de kai tēn epi merous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν κοίνην μόνην οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ μέρους</span></span>. These differences are, however, not important. The simple expression <span class="trans" title="homologoumenōs zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν</span></span> means, without doubt, <span class="trans" title="akolouthon en biō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ</span></span>, the <span class="trans" title="zēn kath’ hena logon kai symphōnon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῇν καθ’ ἕνα λόγον καὶ σύμφωνον</span></span> (<i>Stob.</i> ii. 132 and 158), the <span class="trans" title="homologia pantos tou biou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁμολογία παντὸς τοῦ βίου</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 89), the <span lang="la">vita sibi concors</span>, the <span lang="la">concordia animi</span> (<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 89, 15; V. Be. 8, 6), the <span lang="la">unum hominem agere</span>, which, according to <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 120, 22, is only found in a wise man—in a word, the even tenour of life and consistency.
+Nevertheless, this consistency is only possible when individual actions accord with
+the requirements of the character of the agent. Accordingly, <i>Stob.</i> ii. 158, places <span class="trans" title="akolouthōs tē heautōn physei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκολούθως τῇ ἑαυτῶν φύσει</span></span> by the side of <span class="trans" title="akolouthon en biō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ</span></span>. Cleanthes, <span class="pageNum" id="pb229n">[<a href="#pb229n">229</a>]</span>therefore, in adding to the expression <span class="trans" title="homologoumenōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁμολογουμένως</span></span> the words <span class="trans" title="tē physei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῇ φύσει</span></span>, which, however, according to <i>Diog.</i> 87, Zeno had done before him, was only going back to the next condition of <span class="trans" title="homologoumenōs zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν</span></span>. We can, however, hardly believe with Diogenes that Cleanthes understood by <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span> only nature in general, but not human nature. He may have alluded in express terms
+to <span class="trans" title="koinē physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὴ φύσις</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="koinos nomos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὸς νόμος</span></span> only, with the praise of which his well-known hymn ends, but it cannot have been
+his intention to exclude human nature, which is only a particular form of nature in
+general. Chrysippus therefore only expanded, but did not contradict, the teaching
+of his master.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24285src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24468">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24468src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 30; 94; 101; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 200; 138; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 169; Math. xi. 184; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. ii. 25, 61; Fin. iv. 16, 45; Acad. i. 10; Parad. 1; <i>Sen.</i> Benef. vii. 2, 1; Ep. 71, 4; 74, 1; 76, 11; 85, 17; 120, 3; 118, 10, where the relation
+of the conceptions <span lang="la">honestum bonum, secundum naturam</span> is specially considered. To prove their position, the Stoics make use of the chain-argument,
+of which they are generally fond. Thus Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 13, 11): <span class="trans" title="to agathon haireton; to d’ haireton areston; to d’ areston epaineton; to d’ epaineton kalon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἀγαθὸν αἱρετόν· τὸ δ’ αἱρετὸν ἀρεστόν· τὸ δ’ ἀρεστὸν ἐπαινετόν· τὸ δ’ ἐπαινετὸν
+καλόν</span></span>. (The same in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 8, 27, and iv. 18, 50, where I would suggest the reading <span lang="la">validius</span> instead of <span lang="la">vitiosius</span>.). Again: <span class="trans" title="to agathon charton; to de charton semnon; to de semnon kalon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἀγαθὸν χαρτόν· τὸ δὲ χαρτὸν σεμνόν· τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν καλόν</span></span> (The same somewhat expanded in <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 15, 43.) <i>Stob.</i> ii. 126: <span class="trans" title="pan agathon haireton einai, areston gar kai dokimaston kai epaineton hyparchein; pan de kakon pheukton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν ἀγαθὸν αἱρετὸν εἶναι, ἀρεστὸν γὰρ καὶ δοκιμαστὸν καὶ ἐπαινετὸν ὑπάρχειν· πᾶν δὲ
+κακὸν φευκτὸν</span></span>. Another sorites of the same kind in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24468src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24526">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24526src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 78; 94; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 94 and 98; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 169; Math. xi. 22, 25, and 30. According to <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 10, 33, Diogenes reconciled this definition with the definition of the
+good and the perfect quoted on p. 227, 4, by observing that the useful is a <span lang="la">motus aut status natura absoluti.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24526src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24540">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24540src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. <i>Stob.</i> ii. 188: <span class="trans" title="mēdena phaulon mēte ōpheleisthai mēte ōphelein. einai gar to ōphelein ischein kat’ aretēn, kai to ōpheleisthai kineisthai kat’ aretēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μηδένα φαῦλον μήτε ὠφελεῖσθαι μήτε ὠφελεῖν. εἶναι γὰρ τὸ ὠφελεῖν ἴσχειν κατ’ ἀρετὴν,
+καὶ τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι κινεῖσθαι κατ’ ἀρετήν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 202; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 12; Com. Not. 20, 1; <i>Cic.</i> Off. ii. 3, 10; iii. 3, 11; 7, 34.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24540src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24560">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24560src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 16.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24560src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24569">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24569src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> See <i>Diog.</i> 94; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 96; 124; 130; 136; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 169; Math. xi. 22; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 16, 55; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 5. Good is here defined to be either <span class="trans" title="ōpheleia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὠφέλεια</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="ouk heteron ōpheleias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἕτερον ὠφελείας</span></span> (inseparably connected with <span class="trans" title="ōpheleia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὠφέλεια</span></span>, the good in itself, just as the virtuous man is connected with virtue, which is
+a part of himself. See <i>Sextus</i> l.c. and above p. 104, 2), or, what is the same thing, <span class="trans" title="aretē ē to metechon aretēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρετὴ ἢ τὸ μετέχον ἀρετῆς</span></span>. (<i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 184.) A distinction is drawn between three kinds of good: <span class="trans" title="to hyph’ hou ē aph’ hou estin ōpheleisthai, to kath’ ho symbainei ōpheleisthai, to hoion te ōphelein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὑφ’ οὗ ἢ ἀφ’ οὗ ἔστιν ὠφελεῖσθαι, τὸ καθ’ ὃ συμβαίνει ὠφελεῖσθαι, τὸ οἷόν τε ὠφελεῖν</span></span>. Under the first head comes virtue, under the second virtuous actions, under the
+third, besides the two others, virtuous <span class="pageNum" id="pb231n">[<a href="#pb231n">231</a>]</span>subjects—men, Gods, and demons. A second division of goods (<i>Diog.</i>, <i>Sext.</i> iii. 181, <i>Stob.</i>) is into goods of the soul, external goods, the possession of virtuous friends and
+a virtuous country, and such as are neither (<span class="trans" title="to auton heautō einai spoudaion kai eudaimona"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι σπουδαῖον καὶ εὐδαίμονα</span></span>, virtue and happiness considered as the relation of the individual to himself, as
+his own possessions). Goods of the soul are then divided into <span class="trans" title="diatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαθέσεις</span></span> (virtues), <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span> (or <span class="trans" title="epitēdeumata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιτηδεύματα</span></span>, as instances of which <i>Stob.</i> ii. 100, 128, quotes <span class="trans" title="mantikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μαντικὴ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="philogeōmetria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φιλογεωμετρία</span></span>, &amp;c.; these are not so unchangeable as peculiarities of character, and are therefore
+only <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span>, p. 103, 1), and those which are neither <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξεις</span></span> nor <span class="trans" title="diatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e24706">διαθέσεις</span></span></span>—actions themselves. A third division of goods (<i>Diog.</i>, <i>Cic.</i> l.c., <i>Stob.</i> 80, 100, 114) distinguishes <span class="trans" title="telika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τελικὰ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="di’ hauta haireta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δι’ αὑτὰ αἱρετὰ</span></span> (moral actions), <span class="trans" title="poiētika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιητικὰ</span></span> (friends and the services they render), <span class="trans" title="telika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τελικὰ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="poiētika"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιητικὰ</span></span> (virtues themselves); fourthly and fifthly, <span class="trans" title="mikta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μικτὰ</span></span> (as <span class="trans" title="euteknia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐτεκνία</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="eugēria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐγηρία</span></span>), and <span class="trans" title="hapla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἁπλᾶ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="amikta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄμικτα</span></span> (such as science), and the <span class="trans" title="aei paronta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀεὶ παρόντα</span></span> (virtues), and <span class="trans" title="ouk aei paronta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἀεὶ παρόντα</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="hoion chara, peripatēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἷον χαρὰ, περιπάτησις</span></span>). The corresponding divisions of evil are given by Diogenes and Stobæus. The latter
+(ii. 126 and 136) enumerates, in addition, the <span class="trans" title="agatha en kinēsei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀγαθὰ ἐν κινήσει</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="chara"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαρὰ</span></span>, &amp;c.) and <span class="trans" title="en schesei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν σχέσει</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="eutaktos hēsychia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὔτακτος ἡσυχία</span></span>, &amp;c.), the latter being partially <span class="trans" title="en hexei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν ἕξει</span></span>; the <span class="trans" title="agatha kath’ heauta"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e24870">ἀγαθὰ</span> καθ’ ἑαυτὰ</span></span> (virtues) and <span class="trans" title="pros ti pōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς τί πως ἔχοντα</span></span> (honour, benevolence, friendship); the goods which are necessary for happiness (virtues),
+and those which are not necessary (<span class="trans" title="chara, epitēdeumata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαρὰ, ἐπιτηδεύματα</span></span>). Seneca’s list is far more limited, although it professes to be more general. He
+mentions, <span lang="la">prima bona, tanquam gaudium, pax, salus patriæ; secunda, in materia infelici expressa,
+tanquam tormentorum patientia; tertia, tanquam modestus incessus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24569src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24901">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24901src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 10, 33: <span lang="la">Ego assentior Diogeni, qui bonum definierit id quod esset natura absolutum [<span class="trans" title="autoteles"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτοτελὲς</span></span>] … hoc autem ipsum bonum non accessione neque crescendo aut cum ceteris comparando
+sed propria vi et sentimus et appellamus bonum. Ut enim mel, etsi dulcissimum est,
+suo tamen proprio genere saporis, non comparatione cum aliis, dulce esse sentitur,
+sic bonum hoc de quo agimus est illud quidem plurimi æstimandum, sed ea æstimatio
+genere valet non magnitudine,</span> &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24901src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24916">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24916src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. vii. 2, 1: <span lang="la">Nec malum esse ullum nisi turpe, nec bonum nisi honestum.</span> <i>Alex. Aph.</i> De Fat. c. 28, p. 88: <span class="trans" title="hē men aretē te kai hē kakia monai kat’ autous hē men agathon hē de kakon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ μὲν ἀρετή τε καὶ ἡ κακία μόναι κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ μὲν ἀγαθὸν ἡ δὲ κακόν</span></span>. See p. 229; 233, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24916src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e24942">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e24942src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 61, after giving two irrelevant definitions of <span class="trans" title="adiaphoron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιάφορον</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="kata triton de kai teleutaion tropon phasin adiaphoron to mēte pros eudaimonian mēte pros kakodaimonian syllambanomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ τρίτον δὲ καὶ τελευταῖον τρόπον φασὶν ἀδιάφορον τὸ μήτε πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν μήτε
+πρὸς κακοδαιμονίαν συλλαμβανόμενον</span></span>. To this category belong external goods, health, &amp;c. <span class="trans" title="hō gar estin eu kai kakōs chrēsthai, tout’ an eiē adiaphoron; dia pantos d’ aretē men kakōs, kakia de kakōs, hygieia de kai tois peri sōmati pote men eu pote de kakōs esti chrēsthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ᾧ γὰρ ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, τοῦτ’ ἂν εἴη ἀδιάφορον· διὰ παντὸς δ’ ἀρετῇ μὲν
+κακῶς, κακίᾳ δὲ κακῶς, ὑγιείᾳ δὲ καὶ τοῖς περὶ σώματι ποτὲ μὲν εὖ ποτὲ δὲ κακῶς ἔστι
+χρῆσθαι</span></span>. Similarly, Pyrrh. iii. 177, and <i>Diog.</i> 102, who defines <span class="trans" title="oudetera"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδέτερα</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="hosa mēt’ ōphelei mēte blaptei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅσα μήτ’ ὠφελεῖ μήτε βλάπτει</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> ii. 142: <span class="trans" title="adiaphoron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιάφορον</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="to mēte agathon mēte kakon, kai to mēte haireton mēte pheukton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε κακὸν, καὶ τὸ μήτε αἱρετὸν μήτε φευκτόν</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 31, 1: <span class="trans" title="hō gar estin eu chrēsasthai kai kakōs touto phasi mēt’ agathon einai mēte kakon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ᾧ γὰρ ἔστιν εὖ χρήσασθαι καὶ κακῶς τοῦτό φασι μήτ’ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι μήτε κακόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e24942src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25017">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25017src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> Zeno (in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 82, 9) proves this of death by a process of reasoning, the accuracy of which
+he appears to have mistrusted: <span lang="la">Nullum malum gloriosum est: mors autem gloriosa est</span> (there is a glorious <span class="pageNum" id="pb233n">[<a href="#pb233n">233</a>]</span>death): <span lang="la">ergo mors non est malum.</span> In general, two considerations are prominent in the Stoic treatment of this subject:
+that what is according to nature cannot be an evil, and that life taken by itself
+is not a good. Other arguments, however, for diminishing the fear of death are not
+despised. See <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 30, 4; 77, 11, 82, 8; Cons. ad. Marc. 19, 3; <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 3; viii. 58. And other passages quoted in <i>Baumhauer’s</i> <span lang="la">Vet. Philosoph. Doctr. De Morte Voluntaria</span>, p. 211.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25017src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25042">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25042src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> Chrysippus (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 15, 4): All virtue is done away with, <span class="trans" title="an ē tēn hēdonēn ē tēn hygieian ē ti tōn allōn, ho mē kalon estin, agathon apolipōmen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἂν ἢ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἢ τὴν ὑγίειαν ἤ τι τῶν ἄλλων, ὃ μὴ καλόν ἐστιν, ἀγαθὸν ἀπολίπωμεν</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> (in <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 5, 2): <span class="trans" title="en tō kat’ aretēn bioun monon esti to eudaimonōs, tōn allōn ouden ontōn pros hēmas oud’ eis touto synergountōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν τῷ κατ’ ἀρετὴν βιοῦν μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ εὐδαιμόνως, τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲν ὄντων πρὸς ἡμᾶς
+οὐδ’ εἰς τοῦτο συνεργούντων</span></span>. Similarly, Sto. Rep. 17, 2. <i>Sen.</i> Vit. Be. 4, 3: The only good is <span lang="la">honestas</span>, the only evil <span lang="la">turpitudo, cetera vilis turba rerum, nec detrahens quicquam beatæ vitæ nec adjiciens.</span> <i>Id.</i> Ep. 66, 14: There is no difference between the wise man’s joy and the firmness with
+which he endures pains, <span lang="la">quantum ad ipsas virtutes, plurimum inter illa, in quibus virtus utraque ostenditur
+… virtutem materia non mutat.</span> Ep. 71, 21: <span lang="la">Bona ista aut mala non efficit materia, sed virtus.</span> Ep. 85, 39: <span lang="la">Tu illum [sapientem] premi putas malis? Utitur.</span> <i>Id.</i> Ep. 44; 120, 3; <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 4, 1; Sto. Rep. 18, 5; 31, 1; Chrysippus, in Ps. <i>Plut.</i> De Nobil. 12, 2; <i>Diog.</i> 102; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 90; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 181; <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 43 and 107.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25042src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25105">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25105src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 61. See above, p. 232, 3. <i>Diog.</i> 103: The good can only do good, and never do harm; <span class="trans" title="ou mallon d’ ōphelei ē blaptei ho ploutos kai hē hygieia; ouk ar’ agathon oute ploutos outh’ hygieia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ μᾶλλον δ’ ὠφελεῖ ἢ βλάπτει ὁ πλοῦτος καὶ ἡ ὑγίεια· οὐκ ἄρ’ ἀγαθὸν οὔτε πλοῦτος
+οὔθ’ ὑγίεια</span></span>. Again: <span class="trans" title="hō estin eu kai kakōs chrēsthai, tout’ ouk estin agathon; ploutō de kai hygieia estin eu kai kakōs chrēsthai, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ᾧ ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, τοῦτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθόν· πλούτῳ δὲ καὶ ὑγιείᾳ ἔστιν εὖ
+καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> In <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 87, 11, instead of the proposition, that nothing is a good except virtue, the
+following arguments are given as traditional among the Stoics (<span lang="la">interrogationes nostrorum</span>), apparently taken from Posidonius (see p. 31, 35, 38): (1) <span lang="la">Quod bonum est, bonos <span class="pageNum" id="pb234n">[<a href="#pb234n">234</a>]</span>facit: fortuita bonum non faciunt: ergo non sunt bona.</span> (Similarly in <i>M. Aurel.</i> ii. 11, iv. 8: Whatever does no moral harm, does no harm to human life.) (2) <span lang="la">Quod contemptissimo cuique contingere ac turpissimo potest, bonum non est; opes autem
+et lenoni et lanistæ contingunt: ergo,</span> &amp;c. (So, too, <i>Marc. Aurelius</i>, v. 10.) (3) <span lang="la">Bonum ex malo non fit: divitiæ fiunt, fiunt autem ex avaritia: ergo,</span> &amp;c. (Conf. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 107: <span class="trans" title="to dia kakou gignomenon ouk estin agathon; ploutos de kai dia pornoboskias kakou ontos ginetai, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ διὰ κακοῦ γιγνόμενον οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθόν· πλοῦτος δὲ καὶ διὰ πορνοβοσκίας κακοῦ ὄντος
+γίνεται, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>) (4) <span lang="la">Quod dum consequi volumus in multa mala incidimus, id bonum non est: dum divitias
+autem consequi volumus, in multa mala incidimus,</span> &amp;c. (5) <span lang="la">Quæ neque magnitudinem animo dant nec fiduciam nec securitatem, contra autem insolentiam,
+tumorem, arrogantiam creant, mala sunt: a fortuitis autem</span> (previously, not only riches but health had been included in this class) <span lang="la">in hæc impellimur: ergo non sunt bona.</span> That riches are not a good is proved by Diogenes (in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 15, 49); that poverty and pain are no evils is proved by the argument,
+quoted in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 30: <span lang="la">Quod malum est nocet: quod nocet deteriorem facit. Dolor et paupertas deteriorem non
+faciunt: ergo mala non sunt.</span> The Stoic proposition is also established from a theological point of view. Nature,
+says <i>M. Aurel.</i> ii. 11, ix. 1, could never have allowed that good and evil should equally fall to
+the lot of the good and the bad; consequently, what both enjoy equally—life and death,
+honour and dishonour, pleasure and trouble, riches and poverty—can neither be good
+nor evil. On the value of fame, see <i>id.</i> iv. 19.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25105src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25182">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25182src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> This view is compared with the Academician in <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 13, 39; 18, 51; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 18; 71, 18; 92, 14. In the last passage, the notion that happiness can be
+increased by external goods, and is consequently capable of degrees, is refuted by
+arguments such as 4, 24: <span lang="la">Quid potest desiderare is, cui omnia honesta contingunt?… et quid stultius turpiusve,
+quam bonum rationalis animi ex irrationalibus nectere?… non intenditur virtus, ergo
+ne beata quidem vita, quæ ex <span class="pageNum" id="pb235n">[<a href="#pb235n">235</a>]</span>virtute est.</span> Conf. Ep. 72, 7: <span lang="la">Cui aliquid accedere potent, id imperfectum est.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25182src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25202">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25202src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> Cleanthes expands this notion, in rhetorical language, in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 21, 69. Conf. <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 2, 2: <span lang="la">[Virtus] non est virtus si sequi potest. Primæ partes ejus sunt: ducere debet, imperare,
+summo loco stare: tu illam jubes signum petere.</span> <i>Id.</i> Vit. Be. 11, 2; 13, 5; 14, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25202src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25214">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25214src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> Compare on this subject the words of Chrysippus on p. 233, 1, quoted by <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 15, and, for their explanation, <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 2, 4: <span lang="la">Non indignor, quod post voluptatem ponitur virtus, sed quod omnino cum voluptate conferatur
+contemptrix ejus et hostis et longissime ab illa resiliens.</span> <i>Id.</i> Vit. Be. 15, 1: <span lang="la">Pars honesti non potest esse nisi honestum, nee summum bonum habebit sinceritatem
+suam, si aliquid in se viderit dissimile meliori.</span> According to <i>Plut.</i> 15, 3; 13, 3, Com. Not. 25, 2, this statement of Chrysippus is at variance with another
+statement of his, in which he says: If pleasure be declared to be a good, but not
+the highest good, justice (the Peripatetic view) might perhaps still be safe, since,
+in comparison with pleasure, it may be regarded as the higher good. Still, this was
+only a preliminary and tentative concession, which Chrysippus subsequently proved
+could not be admitted, inasmuch as it was out of harmony with the true conception
+of the good, and changed the difference in kind (on which see p. 232, 1) between virtue
+and other things into a simple difference in degree. Plutarch (Sto. Rep. 15, 6), with
+more reason, blames Chrysippus for asserting against Aristotle that, if pleasure be
+regarded as the highest good, justice becomes impossible, but not other virtues; for
+how could a Stoic, of all philosophers, make such a distinction between virtues? Evidently
+the zeal of controversy has here carried away the philosopher beyond the point at
+which his own principles would bear him out.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25214src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25232">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25232src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> vi. 15: <span class="trans" title="ho men philodoxos allotrian energeian idion agathon hypolambanei; ho de philēdonos idian peisin; ho de noun echōn idian praxin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ μὲν φιλόδοξος ἀλλοτρίαν ἐνέργειαν ἴδιον ἀγαθὸν ὑπολαμβάνει· ὁ δὲ φιλήδονος ἰδίαν
+πεῖσιν· ὁ δὲ νοῦν <span class="pageNum" id="pb236n">[<a href="#pb236n">236</a>]</span>ἔχων ἰδίαν πρᾶξιν</span></span>. Conf. ix. 16: <span class="trans" title="ouk en peisei, all’ energeia, to tou logikou politikou zōou kakon kai agathon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργείᾳ, τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ πολιτικοῦ ζῴου κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25232src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25256">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25256src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 92, 6–10; Vit. Beat. 5, 4; 9, 4; Posidonius, in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 92, 10.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25256src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25263">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25263src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> Taking the expression in its strict meaning, it is hardly allowed by the Stoics, when
+they speak accurately. Understanding by <span class="trans" title="hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδονὴ</span></span> an emotion, <i>i.e.</i> something contrary to nature and blameworthy, they assert that the wise man feels
+delight (<span class="trans" title="chara"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαρὰ</span></span>, <span lang="la">gaudium</span>), but not pleasure (<span class="trans" title="hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδονὴ</span></span>, <span lang="la">lætitia, voluptas</span>). See <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 59, 2; <i>Diog.</i> 116; <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 96; the last-named giving definitions of <span class="trans" title="chara, hēdonē, terpsis, euphrosynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαρὰ, ἡδονὴ, τέρψις, εὐφροσύνη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25263src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25313">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25313src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 23, 2; 27, 3; 59, 2; 14; 72, 8; Vit. Be. 3, 4; 4, 4; De Ira, ii. 6, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25313src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25317">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25317src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 94: Virtue is a good; <span class="trans" title="epigennēmata de tēn te charan kai tēn euphrosynēn kai ta paraplēsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιγεννήματα δὲ τήν τε χαρὰν καὶ τὴν εὐφροσύνην καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 2, 3: It is a question <span lang="la">utrum virtus summi boni causa sit, an ipsa summum bonum.</span> Seneca, of course, says the latter. Conf. De Vit. Be. 4, 5: The wise man takes pleasure
+in peace of mind and cheerfulness, <span lang="la">non ut bonis, sed ut ex bono suo ortis</span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 9, 1: <span lang="la">Non, si voluptatem præstatura virtus est, ideo propter hanc petitur … voluptas non
+est merces nec causa virtutis, sed accessio, nec quia delectat placet, sed si placet
+et delectat.</span> The highest good consists only in mental perfection and health, <span lang="la">in ipso judicio et habitu optimæ mentis</span>, in the <span lang="la">sanitas et libertas animi</span>, which desires nothing but virtue; <span lang="la">ipsa pretium sui.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 15, 2: <span lang="la">Ne <span class="pageNum" id="pb237n">[<a href="#pb237n">237</a>]</span>gaudium quidem, quod ex virtute oritur, quamvis bonum sit, absoluti tamen boni pars
+est, non magis quam lætitia et tranquillitas … sunt enim ista bona, sed consequentia
+summum bonum, non consummantia.</span> Here, too, belongs the statement in <i>Stob.</i> ii. 184, 188 (conf. <i>M. Aurel.</i> vii. 74): <span class="trans" title="panta ton hontinoun ōphelounta isēn ōpheleian apolambanein par’ auto touto"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα τὸν ὁντινοῦν ὠφελοῦντα ἴσην ὠφέλειαν ἀπολαμβάνειν παρ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο</span></span>, for the reasons stated, p. 230, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25317src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25375">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25375src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Vit. Be. c. 7 and 10–12; <i>M. Aurel.</i> viii. 10. Among the Stoic arguments against identifying pleasure and pain with good
+and evil, may be placed the inference in <i>Clem.</i> Strom. iv. 483, <span class="asc">C</span>, which bears great similarity to the third argument, quoted on p. 233, 2: If thirst
+be painful, and it be pleasant to quench thirst, thirst must be the cause of this
+pleasure: <span class="trans" title="agathou de poiētikon to kakon ouk an genoito, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀγαθοῦ δὲ ποιητικὸν τὸ κακὸν οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25375src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25393">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25393src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 85: <span class="trans" title="ho de legousi tines, pros hēdonēn gignesthai tēn prōtēn hormēn tois zōois, pseudos apophainousin. epigennēma gar phasin, ei ara estin, hēdonēn einai, hotan autē kath’ hautēn hē physis epizētēsasa ta enarmozonta tē systasei apolabē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὃ δὲ λέγουσί τινες, πρὸς ἡδονὴν γίγνεσθαι τὴν πρώτην ὁρμὴν τοῖς ζῷοις, ψεῦδος ἀποφαίνουσιν.
+ἐπιγέννημα γάρ φασιν, εἰ ἄρα ἐστὶν, ἡδονὴν εἶναι, ὅταν αὐτὴ καθ’ αὑτὴν ἡ φύσις ἐπιζητήσασα
+τὰ ἐναρμόζοντα τῇ συστάσει ἀπολάβη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25393src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25405">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25405src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> Taking pleasure in its widest sense. In its more restricted <span class="pageNum" id="pb238n">[<a href="#pb238n">238</a>]</span>sense, they reject <span class="trans" title="hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδονή</span></span>, understanding thereby a particular emotion. See p. 236. 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25405src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25420">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25420src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 73: <span class="trans" title="tēn hēdonēn ho men Epikouros agathon einai phēsin; ho de eipōn ‘maneiēn mallon ē hēstheiēn’"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν ἡδονὴν ὁ μὲν Ἐπίκουρος ἀγαθὸν εἶναί φησιν· ὁ δὲ εἰπὼν ‘μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην’</span></span> (Antisthenes) <span class="trans" title="kakon; hoi de apo tēs stoas adiaphoron kai ou proēgmenon. alla Kleanthēs men mēte kata physin autēn einai mēte axian echein autēn en tō biō, kathaper de to kallyntron kata physin mē einai; ho de Archedēmos kata physin men einai hōs tas en maschalē trichas, ouchi de kai axian echein. Panaitios de tina men kata physin hyparchein tina de para physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κακόν· οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀδιάφορον καὶ οὐ προηγμένον. ἀλλὰ Κλεάνθης μὲν μήτε κατὰ
+φύσιν αὐτὴν εἶναι μήτε ἀξίαν ἔχειν αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ βίῳ, καθάπερ δὲ τὸ κάλλυντρον κατὰ
+φύσιν μὴ εἶναι· ὁ δὲ Ἀρχέδημος κατὰ φύσιν μὲν εἶναι ὡς τὰς ἐν μασχάλῃ τρίχας, οὐχὶ
+δὲ καὶ ἀξίαν ἔχειν. Παναίτιος δὲ τινὰ μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχειν τινὰ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25420src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25441">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25441src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> Accordingly, it is also defined to be <span class="trans" title="technē eudaimonias poiētikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέχνη εὐδαιμονίας ποιητική</span></span>. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 156, b.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25441src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25454">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25454src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 89: <span class="trans" title="tēn t’ aretēn diathesin einai homologoumenēn kai autēn di’ hautēn einai hairetēn, ou dia tina phobon ē elpida ē ti tōn exōthen; en autē t’ einai tēn eudaimonian, hat’ ousē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τήν τ’ ἀρετὴν διάθεσιν εἶναι ὁμολογουμένην καὶ αὐτὴν δι’ αὑτὴν εἶναι αἱρετὴν, οὐ διά
+τινα φόβον ἢ ἐλπίδα ἤ τι τῶν ἔξωθεν· ἐν αὐτῇ τ’ εἶναι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἅτ’ οὔσῃ</span></span> [-<span class="trans" title="ēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ης</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψύχῃ</span></span> [-<span class="trans" title="ēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ης</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="pepoiēmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πεποιημένῃ</span></span> [-<span class="trans" title="ēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ης</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="pros homologian pantos tou biou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς ὁμολογίαν παντὸς τοῦ βίου</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> De Clem. i. 1, 1: <span lang="la">Quamvis enim recte factorum verus fructus sit fecisse, nec ullum virtutum pretium
+dignum illis extra ipsas sit.</span> <i>Id.</i> Ep. 81, 19. Ep. 94, 19: <span lang="la">Æquitatem per se expetendam nec metu nos ad illam cogi nec mercede conduci. Non esse
+justum cui quicquam in hac virtute placet præter ipsam.</span> <i>Id.</i> Ep. 87, 24: <span lang="la">Maximum scelerum supplicium in ipsis est.</span> Benef. iv 12: <span lang="la">Quid reddat beneficium? dic tu mihi, quid reddat justitia, &amp;c.; si quicquam præter
+ipsas, ipsas non expetis.</span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 42: <span class="trans" title="ti gar pleon theleis eu priēsas anthrōpon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τί γὰρ πλέον θέλεις εὖ πριήσας ἄνθρωπον</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="ouk arkē toutō, hoti kata physin tēn sēn ti epraxas, alla toutou misthon zēteis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἀρκῇ τούτῳ, ὅτι κατὰ <span id="xd33e25547">φύσιν</span> τὴν σήν τι ἔπραξας, ἀλλὰ τούτου μισθὸν ζητεῖς</span></span>; When man does good, <span class="trans" title="pepoiēke pros ho kateskeuastai kai echei to heautou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πεποίηκε πρὸς ὃ κατεσκεύασται καὶ ἔχει τὸ ἑαυτοῦ</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> vii. 73; viii. 2. See pp. 230, 1; 236, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25454src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25567">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25567src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 127: <span class="trans" title="autarkē einai tēn aretēn pros eudaimonian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτάρκη εἶναι τὴν ἀρετὴν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Parad. 2; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 74, 1: <span lang="la">Qui omne bonum honesto circumscripsit, intra se felix est.</span> This <span class="trans" title="autarkeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτάρκεια</span></span> is even asserted of individual virtues, by virtue of the connection between them
+all. Of <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span>, for instance, in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 2. it is said: <span lang="la">Qui prudens est, et temperans est. Qui temperans, est et constans. Qui constans est,
+imperturbatus est. Qui imperturbatus est, sine tristitia <span class="pageNum" id="pb239n">[<a href="#pb239n">239</a>]</span>est. Qui sine tristitia est, beatus est. Ergo prudens est beatus, et prudentia ad
+vitam beatam satis est.</span> Similarly in respect of bravery (<i>ibid.</i> 24). This <span class="trans" title="autarkeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτάρκεια</span></span> of virtue was naturally a chief point of attack for an opponent. It is assailed by
+<i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 156, on the ground that neither the things which the Stoics declare to be
+natural and desirable (<span class="trans" title="proēgmena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένα</span></span>), nor, on the other hand, the natural conditions of virtuous action, can be without
+effect on happiness, and that it will not do to speak of the latter as only negative
+conditions (<span class="trans" title="hōn ouk aneu"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὧν οὐκ ἄνευ</span></span>). See <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 4, and 11, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25567src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25643">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25643src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 26; C. Not. 8, 4, where Chrysippus is charged with at one time denying
+that happiness is augmented by length of time, and at another declaring momentary
+wisdom and happiness to be worthless. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 14, 45; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 74, 27; 93, 6; Benef. v. 17, 6; <i>M. Aurel.</i> xii. 35. The Stoics are, on this point, at variance with Aristotle.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25643src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25653">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25653src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> This view is frequently expressed by the Stoics of the Roman period, Seneca, Epictetus,
+and M. Aurelius. Proofs will be found subsequently.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25653src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25661">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25661src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> Tusc. v. 15, 43; 14, 42.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25661src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25664">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25664src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> Parad. 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25664src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25669">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25669src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> De Const. 13, 5; 75, 18: <span lang="la">Expectant nos, si ex hac aliquando fæce in illud evadimus sublime et excelsum, tranquillitas
+animi et expulsis erroribus absoluta libertas. Quæris, quæ sit ista? Non homines timere,
+non Deos. Nec turpia velle nec nimia. In se ipsum habere maximam potestatem: inæstimabile
+bonum est, suum fieri.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25669src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25674">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25674src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> Ep. 29, 12: <span lang="la">Quid ergo … philosophia præstabit? Scilicet ut malis tibi placere, quam populo, …
+ut sine metu Deorum hominumque vivas, ut aut vincas mala aut finias.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25674src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25686">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25686src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> See <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forschungen</span>, 368 and 475.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25686src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25696">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25696src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> See p. 148, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25696src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25699">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25699src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <span class="trans" title="nomos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νόμος</span></span>, according to the Stoic definition (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 190, 204; Floril. 44, 12, and in the fragment of Chrysippus quoted by <i>Marcian</i> in Digest. i. 3, 2, and the Scholiast of Hermogenes in <i>Spengel</i> <span class="trans" title="Synag. techn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συναγ. τεχν</span></span>. 177, <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 475) = <span class="trans" title="logos orthos prostaktikos men tōn poiēteōn, apagoreutikos de tōn ou poiēteōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e25731">λόγος</span> ὀρθὸς προστακτικὸς μὲν τῶν ποιητέων, ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ τῶν οὐ ποιητέων</span></span>. It is therefore <span class="trans" title="spoudaion ti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπουδαῖόν τι</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="asteion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀστεῖον</span></span>, something of moral value, imposing duties on man. The ultimate source of this <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span> must be looked for in the <span class="trans" title="logos koinos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος κοινὸς</span></span>, the divine or world reason. The general law is, according to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 88 (who here, according to the passage quoted from <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 40 on p. 148, 2, is apparently following Chrysippus) = <span class="trans" title="ho orthos logos dia pantōn erchomenos, ho autos ōn tō Diï"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος διὰ πάντων ἐρχόμενος, ὁ αὐτὸς ὦν τῷ Διΐ</span></span>. It is the <span lang="la">ratio summa insita in natura, quæ jubet ea quæ facienda sunt, prohibetque contraria</span> (<i>Cic.</i> Legg. i. 6, 18, conf. the quotation from <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 30, respecting Zeus, on p. 150). According to <i>Cic.</i> Legg. ii. 4, 8 and 10, it is no human creation <span lang="la">sed æternum quiddam, quod universum mundum regeret, imperandi prohibendique sapientia,</span> the <span lang="la">mens omnia ratione aut cogentis aut vetantis Dei</span>, the <span lang="la">ratio recta summi Jovis</span> (conf. Fin. iv. 5, II, in the fragment in <i>Lact.</i> Inst. v. 8). It is accordingly, as Chrysippus l.c. says in the words of Pindar (<i>Plato</i>, <span class="corr" id="xd33e25808" title="Source: Georg.">Gorg.</span> 484, <span class="asc">B</span>), <span class="trans" title="pantōn basileus theiōn te kai anthrōpinōn pragmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντων βασιλεὺς θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25699src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25824">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25824src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Legg. i. 6, 18; ii. 4, 8; 5, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25824src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25828">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25828src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> Or as <i>Stob.</i> ii. 184, expresses it, <span class="trans" title="dikaion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δίκαιον</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="physei kai mē thesei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσει καὶ μὴ θέσει</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25828src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25849">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25849src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> This is proved by <i>Cic.</i> Legg. i. 12, 33, in a chain-argument clearly borrowed from the Stoics: <span lang="la">Quibus ratio a natura data est, iisdem etiam recta ratio data est. Ergo et lex, quæ
+est recta ratio in jubendo et vetando. Si lex, jus quoque. At omnibus ratio. Jus igitur
+datum est omnibus.</span> Upon this conception of law is based the Stoic definition of <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="eunomēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐνόμημα</span></span>, that of <span class="trans" title="hamartēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἁμάρτημα</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="anomēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνόμημα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25849src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e25892">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e25892src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> The good alone, or virtue, is <span class="trans" title="haireton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρετόν</span></span>; evil is <span class="trans" title="pheukton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φευκτόν</span></span>. See p. 229, 1; 238, 3, and <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 202. <span class="trans" title="haireton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρετὸν</span></span> is, however, <i>Ibid.</i> 126, 132, <span class="trans" title="ho hairesin eulogon kinei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὃ αἵρεσιν εὔλογον κινεῖ</span></span>, or, more accurately, <span class="trans" title="to hormēs autotelous kinētikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὁρμῆς αὐτοτελοῦς κινητικόν</span></span>; and <span class="trans" title="haireton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρετὸν</span></span> is accordingly distinguished from <span class="trans" title="lēpton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ληπτόν</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="haireton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρετὸν</span></span> being what is morally good, <span class="trans" title="lēpton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ληπτὸν</span></span> being everything which has value, including external goods. The Stoics make a further
+distinction (according to <i>Stob.</i> ii. 140 and 194) with unnecessary subtlety between <span class="trans" title="haireton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρετὸν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="haireteon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρετέον</span></span>, and similarly between <span class="trans" title="orekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀρεκτὸν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="orekteon, hypomeneton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀρεκτέον, ὑπομενετὸν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="hypomeneteon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπομενετέον</span></span>, using the first form to express the good in itself (for instance, <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span>), the latter to express the possession of the good (for instance, <span class="trans" title="phronein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρονεῖν</span></span>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e25892src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26049">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26049src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span> is defined by <i>Stob.</i> ii. 160, as <span class="trans" title="phora psychēs epi ti; aphormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φορὰ ψυχῆς ἐπί τι· ἀφορμὴ</span></span>, which is contrasted therewith in <i>Epict.</i> Enchirid. 2, 2 Diss. iii. 2, 2, 22, 36, as (according to the most probable correction
+of the text) <span class="trans" title="phora dianoias apo tinos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φορὰ διανοίας ἀπό τινος</span></span>. See p. 243, 3. A further distinction (connecting herewith what may be otherwise
+gathered from the statements of Stobæus respecting the Stoic doctrine of impulses)
+is made between the impulses of reasonable beings and beings devoid of reason. It
+is only in the case of reasonable beings that it can be said that impulse is called
+forth by the idea of a thing as something which has to be done (<span class="trans" title="phantasia hormētikē tou kathēkontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία ὁρμητικὴ τοῦ καθηκόντος</span></span>); that every impulse contains an affirmative judgment in itself (<span class="trans" title="synkatathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκατάθεσις</span></span>), to which has been superadded a <span class="trans" title="kinētikon; synkatathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κινητικόν· συγκατάθεσις</span></span> applying to particular propositions (those in which truth and falsehood consist.
+See p. 110, 3; 83, 2), whereas <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span> applies to <span class="trans" title="katēgorēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατηγορήματα</span></span> (i.e. activities expressed by verbs. See p. 95, 1 and 2), since every impulse and
+every desire aims at the possession of a good. <span class="trans" title="Hormē logikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὁρμὴ λογικὴ</span></span> is defined to be <span class="trans" title="phora dianoias epi ti tōn en tō prattein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φορὰ διανοίας ἐπί τι τῶν ἐν τῷ πράττειν</span></span>, and is also called <span class="trans" title="hormē praktikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ πρακτικὴ</span></span> (only a rational being being capable of <span class="trans" title="praxis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρᾶξις</span></span>). If the <span class="trans" title="phora dianoias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φορὰ διανοίας</span></span> refers to something future, the <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span> becomes an <span class="trans" title="orexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄρεξις</span></span>, for which the text twice reads <span class="trans" title="orousis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄρουσις</span></span>. Among the varieties of <span class="trans" title="hormē praktikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ πρακτικὴ</span></span>, Stob. enumerates <span class="trans" title="prothesis, epibolē, paraskeuē, encheirēsis, hairesis, prothesis, boulēsis, thelēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόθεσις, ἐπιβολὴ, παρασκευὴ, ἐγχείρησις, αἵρεσις, πρόθεσις, βούλησις, θέλησις</span></span>, the definitions of which he gives, passing then to the doctrine of <span class="pageNum" id="pb243n">[<a href="#pb243n">243</a>]</span>emotions, these being also a kind of <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμή</span></span>. It appears, therefore, that activities of feeling and will are included in the conception
+of <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμή</span></span>, as will be subsequently seen more fully in the doctrine of emotions, the conception
+of which likewise includes both.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26049src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26222">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26222src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 116, similarly 108: <span class="trans" title="pantas gar anthrōpous aphormas echein ek physeōs pros aretēn kai hoionei to"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντας γὰρ ἀνθρώπους ἀφορμὰς ἔχειν ἐκ φύσεως πρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ οἱονεὶ τὸ</span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="ton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="tōn hēmiambeiaiōn logon echein kata ton Kleanthēn, hothen ateleis men ontas einai phaulous, teleiōthentas de spoudaious"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν ἡμιαμβειαίων λόγον ἔχειν κατὰ τὸν Κλεάνθην, ὅθεν ἀτελεῖς μὲν ὄντας εἶναι φαύλους,
+τελειωθέντας δὲ σπουδαίους</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 89, see p. 238, 3: The soul rests on the harmony of life with itself (virtue); extraneous
+influences corrupt it, <span class="trans" title="epei hē physis aphormas didōsin adiastrophous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπεὶ ἡ φύσις ἀφορμὰς δίδωσιν ἀδιαστρόφους</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 108, 8: <span lang="la">Facile est auditorem concitare ad cupiditatem recti: omnibus enim natura fundamenta
+dedit semenque virtutis.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26222src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26279">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26279src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> The one point, according to <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 12, 34, which distinguishes man from God is, that God is absolutely rational
+and by nature good and wise.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26279src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26284">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26284src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> Chrysippus (in <i>Galen.</i> De Hippocr. et Plat. iv. 2, vol. v. 368 Kühn): <span class="trans" title="to logikon zōon akolouthētikon physei esti tō logō kai kata ton logon hōs an hēgemona praktikon; pollakis mentoi kai allōs pheretai epi tina kai apo tinōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον ἀκολουθητικὸν φύσει ἐστὶ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ὡς ἂν ἡγεμόνα
+πρακτικόν· πολλάκις μέντοι καὶ ἄλλως φέρεται ἐπί τινα καὶ ἀπό τινων</span></span> (for so we must punctuate, the reference being to <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="aphormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφορμὴ</span></span>, according to the definition, p. 242, 2) <span class="trans" title="apeithōs tō logō ōthoumenon epi pleion, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπειθῶς τῷ λόγῳ ὠθούμενον ἐπὶ πλεῖον, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> From this, it appears that Chrysippus’ definition of <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span> (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 11, 6 = <span class="trans" title="tou anthrōpou logos prostaktikos autō tou poiein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγος προστακτικὸς αὐτῷ τοῦ ποιεῖν</span></span>) must not be understood (as in <i>Baumhauer’s</i> <span lang="la">Vet. Philos. Doct. De morte voluntaria</span>, p. 74) to imply that man has only rational, and no irrational impulses. Chrysippus,
+in the passage quoted, must either be referring to that impulse which is peculiar
+to man, and is according to his nature; or else <span class="trans" title="logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγος</span></span> must be taken in its more extended meaning of notion or idea, for all impulses are
+based on judgments, see p. 242, 2; and it is clear, from <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 7, 23 (‘as our limbs are given to us for a definite purpose, so <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span> is given for some definite object, and not for every kind of use’), that <span class="trans" title="hormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁρμὴ</span></span> <span class="pageNum" id="pb244n">[<a href="#pb244n">244</a>]</span>is not in itself rational, but first becomes rational by the direction given to it
+by man.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26284src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26376">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26376src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> The term emotion is used to express <span class="trans" title="pathos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάθος</span></span>, although the terms of modern psychology are more or less inadequate to express the
+ancient ideas, as <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 10, 35, already observed.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26376src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26389">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26389src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 110: <span class="trans" title="esti de auto to pathos kata Zēnōna hē alogos kai para physin psychēs kinēsis ē hormē pleonazousa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔστι δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος κατὰ Ζήνωνα ἡ ἄλογος καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ψυχῆς κίνησις ἢ ὁρμὴ πλεονάζουσα</span></span>. The same definitions are found in <i>Stob.</i> ii. 36, 166, with this difference, that <span class="trans" title="apeithēs tō hairounti logō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπειθὴς τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ</span></span> stands in place of <span class="trans" title="alogos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄλογος</span></span>, as in <i>Marc. Aurel.</i> ii. 5. <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 11, 24; iv. 6, 11; 21, 47; Chrysippus in <i>Galen.</i> De Hipp. et Plat. iv. 2, 4; v. 2, 4, vol. v<span>.</span> 368, 385, 432, 458 Kühn, and <i>Id.</i> in <i>Plut.</i> Virt. Mor. 10, Schl. p. 450; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 75, 12. A similar definition is attributed to Aristotle by <i>Stob.</i> ii. 36, but it is no longer to be found in his extant writings. If it was in one
+of the lost books (<i>Heeren</i> suggests in the treatise <span class="trans" title="peri pathōn orgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παθῶν ὀργῆς</span></span> <i>Diog.</i> v. 23), was that book genuine?&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26389src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26450">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26450src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 10, 39: <span lang="la">Cumque eas perturbationes [<span class="trans" title="pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάθη</span></span>] antiqui naturales esse dicerent et rationis expertes aliaque in parte animi cupiditatem,
+alia rationem collocarent, ne his quidem assentiebatur [Zeno]. Nam et perturbationes
+voluntarias esse putabat, opinionisque judicio suscipi, et omnium perturbationum arbitrabatur
+esse matrem immoderatam quandam intemperantiam.</span> Fin. iii. 10, 35: <span lang="la">Nec vero perturbationes animorum … vi aliqua naturali moventur.</span> Tusc. iv. 28, 60: <span lang="la">Ipsas perturbationes per se esse vitiosas nec habere quidquam aut naturale aut necessarium.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26450src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26470">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26470src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> See p. 215, 3; 242, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26470src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26481">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26481src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Galen.</i> iii. 7, p. 335; v. 1 and 6, p. 476, and above, p. 215, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26481src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26497">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26497src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> <i>Plut</i>. Virt. Mor. 3, p. 441 (the first part of this passage has been already quoted, p.
+215, 3, the continuation being) <span class="trans" title="legesthai de [to hēgemonikon] alogon, hotan tō pleonazonti tēs hormēs ischyrō genomenō kai kratēsanti pros ti tōn atopōn para ton hairounta logon ekpherētai; kai gar to pathos, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγεσθαι δὲ [τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν] ἄλογον, ὅταν τῷ πλεονάζοντι τῆς ὁρμῆς ἰσχυρῷ γενομένῳ
+καὶ κρατήσαντι πρός τι τῶν ἀτόπων παρὰ τὸν αἱροῦντα λόγον ἐκφέρηται· καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάθος,
+κ.τ.λ.</span></span> See below, note 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26497src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26509">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26509src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> See p. 242, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26509src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26512">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26512src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 111: <span class="trans" title="dokei d’ autois ta pathē kriseis einai, katha phēsi Chrysippos en tō peri pathōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δοκεῖ δ’ αὐτοῖς τὰ πάθη κρίσεις εἶναι, καθά φησι Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ περὶ παθῶν</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Virt. Mor. c. 3, p. 441: <span class="trans" title="to pathos einai logon ponēron kai akolaston ek phaulēs kai diēmartēmenēs kriseōs sphodrotēta kai rhōmēn proslabonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ πάθος εἶναι λόγον πονηρὸν καὶ ἀκόλαστον ἐκ φαύλης καὶ διημαρτημένης κρίσεως σφοδρότητα
+καὶ ῥώμην προσλαβόντα</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> ii. 168: <span class="trans" title="epi pantōn de tōn tēs psychēs pathōn epi doxas auta legousin einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπὶ πάντων δὲ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς παθῶν ἐπὶ δόξας αὐτὰ λέγουσιν εἶναι</span></span> [instead of which read <span class="trans" title="pantōn ... pathōn doxas aitias leg. ein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντων … παθῶν δόξας <span id="xd33e26548">αἰτίας</span> λέγ. εἶν</span></span>.], <span class="trans" title="paralambanesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παραλαμβάνεσθαι</span></span> [add <span class="trans" title="de"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δὲ</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="tēn doxan anti tēs asthenous hypolēpseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν δόξαν ἀντὶ τῆς ἀσθενοῦς ὑπολήψεως</span></span>. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 7, 14: <span lang="la">Sed omnes perturbationes judicio censent fieri et opinione … opinationem autem volunt
+esse imbecillam assensionem.</span> <i>Id.</i> iii. 11, 24: <span lang="la">Est ergo causa omnis in opinione, nec vero ægritudinis solum sed etiam reliquarum
+omnium perturbationum?</span> Fin. iii. 10, 35: <span lang="la">Perturbationes autem nulla naturæ vi commoventur; omniaque ea sunt opiniones ac judicia
+levitatis.</span> Acad. i. 10. See p. 244, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26512src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26595">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26595src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26595src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26599">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26599src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 11, 26; iv. 7, 14. Posidon. (in <i>Galen.</i> iv. 7, p. 416): Chrysippus defined apprehension (<span class="trans" title="asē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄση</span></span>) as <span class="trans" title="doxa prosphatos kakou parousias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δόξα πρόσφατος κακοῦ παρουσίας</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26599src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26621">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26621src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> See p. 242, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26621src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26627">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26627src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 7, 15: <span lang="la">Sed quæ judicia quasque opiniones perturbationum esse dixi, non in eis perturbationes
+solum positas esse dicunt, verum illa etiam, quæ efficiuntur perturbationibus, ut
+ægritudo quasi morsum quendam doloris efficiat: metus recessum quendam animi et fugam:
+lætitia profusam hilaritatem; libido effrenatam appetentiam.</span> <i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. iv. 3, p. 377: (<span class="trans" title="Zēnōni kai pollois allois tōn Stōïkōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζήνωνι καὶ πολλοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν Στωϊκῶν</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="hoi ou tas kriseis autas tēs psychēs, alla kai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἳ οὐ τὰς κρίσεις αὐτὰς τῆς <span id="xd33e26647">ψυχῆς</span>, ἀλλὰ καὶ</span></span> [should perhaps be struck out], <span class="trans" title="tas epi tautais alogous systolas kai tapeinōseis kai deixeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς ἐπὶ ταύταις ἀλόγους συστολὰς καὶ ταπεινώσεις καὶ δείξεις</span></span> [both for <span class="trans" title="deixeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δείξεις</span></span>, and for <span class="trans" title="lēxeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λήξεις</span></span> in the passage about to be quoted from Plutarch, <i>Thurot</i>, Etudes sur Aristote, p. 249, suggests <span class="trans" title="deseis; dēxeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δέσεις· δήξεις</span></span> is more probable, confirmed too by Cicero’s <span lang="la">morsus doloris</span>] <span class="trans" title="eparseis te kai diachyseis hypolambanousin einai ta tēs psychēs pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπάρσεις τε καὶ διαχύσεις ὑπολαμβάνουσιν εἶναι τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς πάθη</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Virt. Mor. 10, p. 449: <span class="trans" title="tas epitaseis tōn pathōn kai tas sphodrotētas ou phasi ginesthai kata tēn krisin, en hē to hamartētikon, alla tas lēxeis [dēxeis] kai tas systolas kai to hētton tō alogō dechomenas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς ἐπιτάσεις τῶν παθῶν καὶ τὰς σφοδρότητας οὔ φασι γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν, ἐν ᾗ
+τὸ ἁμαρτητικὸν, ἀλλὰ τὰς λήξεις [δήξεις] καὶ τὰς συστολὰς καὶ τὸ ἧττον τῷ ἀλόγῳ δεχομένας</span></span>. The same results are involved in the definitions of emotion already given, p. 244,
+2. In reference to this pathological action of representations, one kind of emotions
+was defined (<i>Stob.</i> ii. 170; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 7, 14) as <span class="trans" title="doxa prosphatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δόξα πρόσφατος</span></span>, or <span lang="la">opinio recens boni</span> (or <span lang="la">mali</span>) <span lang="la">præsentis</span>, <span class="trans" title="prosphaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόσφατον</span></span> being <span class="trans" title="kinētikon systolēs alogou ē hyparseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κινητικὸν συστολῆς ἀλόγου ἢ ὑπάρσεως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26627src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26751">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26751src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> De Hipp. et Plat. v. 1, p. 429): <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos men oun en tō prōtō peri pathōn apodeiknynai peiratai, kriseis kinas einai tou logistikou ta pathē, Zēnōn d’ ou tas kriseis autas, alla tas epigignomenas autais systolas kai lyseis, eparseis te kai tas ptōseis tēs psychēs enomizen einai ta pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος μὲν οὖν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ παθῶν ἀποδεικνύναι πειρᾶται, κρίσεις κινὰς εἶναι
+τοῦ λογιστικοῦ τὰ πάθη, Ζήνων δ’ οὐ τὰς κρίσεις αὐτὰς, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἐπιγιγνομένας αὐταῖς
+συστολὰς καὶ λύσεις, ἐπάρσεις τε καὶ τὰς πτώσεις τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνόμιζεν εἶναι τὰ πάθη</span></span>. Conf. iv. 2, p. 367, and 3, p. 377.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26751src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26762">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26762src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 111 (see above, p. 245, 3, and the definition quoted on p. 245, 5) confirms the view
+that, in the passage referred to by Galenus, Chrysippus explained the emotions to
+be <span class="trans" title="kriseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρίσεις</span></span>. Elsewhere Galenus asserts (iv. 2, p. 367) that he called <span class="trans" title="lypē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λύπη</span></span> a <span class="trans" title="meiōsis epi pheuktō dokounti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μείωσις ἐπὶ φευκτῷ δοκοῦντι</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδονὴ</span></span>, an <span class="trans" title="eparsis eph’ hairetō dokounti hyparchein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔπαρσις ἐφ’ αἱρετῷ δοκοῦντι ὑπάρχειν</span></span>; and charges him (iv. 6, p. 403), quoting passages in support of the charge, with
+deducing emotions from <span class="trans" title="atonia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀτονία</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="astheneia psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀσθένεια ψυχῆς</span></span>. That Chrysippus agreed with Zeno in his definition of emotion, has already been
+stated (p. 244, 2). No doubt, too, with an eye to Chrysippus, Stobæus also (ii. 166)
+defines emotion as <span class="trans" title="ptoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πτοία</span></span> (violent mental motion), the words used being <span class="trans" title="pasan ptoian pathos einai kai palin pathos ptoian;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶσαν πτοίαν πάθος εἶναι καὶ πάλιν πάθος πτοίαν·</span></span> and, in Galenus (iv. 5, p. 392), Chrysippus says: <span class="trans" title="oikeiōs de tō tōn pathōn genei apodidotai kai hē ptoia kata to ensesobēmenon touto kai pheromenon eikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἰκείως δὲ τῷ τῶν παθῶν γένει ἀποδίδοται καὶ ἡ πτοία κατὰ τὸ <span class="corr" id="xd33e26842" title="Source: ἐνσεβοβημένον">ἐνσεσοβημένον</span> τοῦτο καὶ φερόμενον εἰκῆ</span></span>. Chrysippus <span class="pageNum" id="pb247n">[<a href="#pb247n">247</a>]</span>even repeatedly insists on the difference between emotion and error—error being due
+to deficient knowledge, emotion to opposition to the claims of reason, to a disturbance
+of the natural relation of the impulses (<span class="trans" title="tēn physikēn tōn hormōn symmetrian hyperbainein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν φυσικὴν τῶν ὁρμῶν συμμετρίαν ὑπερβαίνειν</span></span>). He shows that both Zeno’s definitions come to this (<i>Galen.</i> iv. 2, p. 368, and iv. 4, p. 385; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 170), and elsewhere explains (<i>Plut.</i> Vir. Mor. 10, p. 450) how emotion takes away consideration, and impels to irrational
+conduct. The quotations on p. 246, 1 from Cicero and Stobæus are an explanation of
+positions of Chrysippus, of which Chrysippus is himself the source. And were he not
+directly the source, Galenus (iv. 4, p. 390) observes that the view of Chrysippus
+on the emotions was generally held in the Stoic School after his time. In designating
+the emotions <span class="trans" title="kriseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρίσεις</span></span>, Chrysippus cannot therefore have intended thereby to exclude the emotions of impulse
+and feeling. All that he meant was, that emotions, as they arise in the individual
+soul (we should say as conditions of consciousness), are called forth by imagination.
+This is clear from the fact that the modes in which the pathological character of
+emotions displays itself are appealed to as evidence. See his words in <i>Galen.</i> iv. 6, p. 409. <span class="trans" title="tō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῷ</span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="to"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τό</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="te gar thymō pheresthai kai exestēkenai kai ou par’ heautois oud’ en heautois einai kai panth’ hosa toiauta phanerōs martyrei tō kriseis einai ta pathē kan tē logikē dynamei tēs psychēs synistasthai kathaper kai ta houtōs echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τε γὰρ θυμῷ φέρεσθαι καὶ ἐξεστηκέναι καὶ οὐ παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς οὐδ’ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς εἶναι καὶ
+<span id="xd33e26898">πάνθ’</span> ὅσα τοιαῦτα φανερῶς μαρτυρεῖ τῷ κρίσεις εἶναι τὰ πάθη κἂν τῇ λογικῇ δυνάμει τῆς ψυχῆς
+συνίστασθαι καθάπερ καὶ τὰ οὕτως ἔχοντα</span></span>. On the other hand, Zeno never denied the influence of imagination on emotion, as
+is perfectly clear from the expression of Galenus, quoted pp. 246, 2; 246, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26762src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26909">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26909src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 190 (Floril. 46, 50): The wise man, according to the Stoic teaching, exercises
+no indulgence; for indulgence would suppose <span class="trans" title="ton hēmartēkota mē par’ hauton hēmartēkenai pantōn hamartanontōn para tēn idian kakian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν ἡμαρτηκότα μὴ παρ’ αὑτὸν ἡμαρτηκέναι πάντων ἁμαρτανόντων παρὰ τὴν ἰδίαν κακίαν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26909src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26922">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26922src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 18, 1–7; 28, 1–10; ii. 26; <i>M. Aurel.</i> ii. 1; iv. 3; viii. 14; xi. 18; xii. 12.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26922src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26928">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26928src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> This motive can be best gathered from the passages in Cicero already quoted, p. 244,
+3, and from <i>Sen.</i> De Ira, ii. 2, 1: Anger can do nothing by itself, but only <span lang="la">animo adprobante … nam si invitis nobis <span class="pageNum" id="pb248n">[<a href="#pb248n">248</a>]</span>nascitur, nunquam rationi succumbet. Omnes enim motus qui non voluntate nostra fiunt
+invicti et inevitabiles sunt,</span> &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26928src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26940">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26940src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> See p. 179, 3, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26940src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26943">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26943src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> See p. 88, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26943src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26946">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26946src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 10, 39: <span lang="la">Perturbationes voluntarias esse.</span> Tusc. iv. 7, 14: Emotions proceed from judgment; <span lang="la">itaque eas definiunt pressius, ut intelligatur non modo quam vitiosæ, sed etiam quam
+in nostra sunt potestate,</span> upon which follow the definitions quoted, p. 246, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26946src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26957">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26957src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 9, 22: <span lang="la">Omnium autem affectionum fontem esse dicunt intemperantiam (<span class="trans" title="akrateia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκράτεια</span></span>), quæ est a tota mente et a recta ratione defectio sic aversa a præscriptione rationis
+ut nullo modo adpetitiones anima nec regi nec contineri queant.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26957src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e26971">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e26971src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 170, probably from Chrysippus, of whom similar remarks were quoted, p. 246,
+3: <span class="trans" title="pan gar pathos biastikon estin, hōs kai pollakis horōntas tous en tois pathesin ontas hoti sympherei tode ou poiein hypo tēs sphodrotētos ekpheromenous ... anagesthai pros to poiein auto ... pantes d’ hoi en tois pathesin ontes apostrephontai ton logon, ou paraplēsiōs de tois exēpatēmenois en hotōoun, all’ idiazontōs. hoi men gar ēpatēmenoi ... didachthentes ... aphistantai tēs kriseōs; hoi d’ en tois pathesin ontes, kan mathōsi kan metadidachthōsin, hoti ou dei lypeisthai ē phobeisthai ē holōs en tois pathesin einai tēs psychēs, homōs ouk aphistantai toutōn all’ agontai hypo tōn pathōn eis to hypo toutōn krateisthai tyrannidos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν γὰρ πάθος βιαστικόν ἐστιν, ὡς καὶ πολλάκις ὁρῶντας τοὺς ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντας
+ὅτι συμφέρει τόδε οὐ ποιεῖν ὑπὸ τῆς σφοδρότητος ἐκφερομένους … ἀνάγεσθαι πρὸς τὸ ποιεῖν
+αὐτὸ … πάντες δ’ οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες ἀποστρέφονται τὸν λόγον, οὐ παραπλησίως
+δὲ τοῖς ἐξηπατημένοις ἐν ὁτωοῦν, ἀλλ’ ἰδιαζόντως. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἠπατημένοι … διδαχθέντες
+… ἀφίστανται τῆς κρίσεως· οἱ δ’ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες, κἂν μάθωσι κἂν μεταδιδαχθῶσιν,
+ὅτι οὐ δεῖ λυπεῖσθαι ἢ φοβεῖσθαι ἢ ὅλως ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅμως οὐκ
+ἀφίστανται τούτων ἀλλ’ ἄγονται ὑπὸ τῶν παθῶν εἰς τὸ ὑπὸ τούτων κρατεῖσθαι τυραννίδος</span></span>. A different view is taken by <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 28, 8, who <i>à propos</i> of Medea remarks: <span class="trans" title="exēpatētai; deixon autē enargōs, hoti exēpatētai, kai ou poiēsei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξηπάτηται· δεῖξον αὐτῇ ἐναργῶς, ὅτι ἐξηπάτηται, καὶ οὐ ποιήσει</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e26971src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27003">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27003src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> See p. 242, 2. The same idea is expressed in applying the terms <span class="trans" title="haireton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρετὸν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="pheukton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φευκτὸν</span></span> to good and evil (<i>Stob.</i> ii. 126 and 142; see p. 229, 1, and 232, 3).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27003src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27033">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27033src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 166; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 11; iv. 7, 14; 15, 43; Fin. iii. 10, 35.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27033src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27039">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27039src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 110, this distinction was found in the treatise <span class="trans" title="peri pathōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παθῶν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27039src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27052">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27052src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> In <i>Clem.</i> Strom. ii. 407, <span class="asc">A</span>, the words being <span class="trans" title="pros holon to tetrachordon, hēdonēn, lypēn, phobon, epithymian, pollēs dei tēs askēseōs kai machēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς ὅλον τὸ τετράχορδον, ἡδονὴν, λύπην, φόβον, ἐπιθυμίαν, πολλῆς δεῖ τῆς ἀσκήσεως
+καὶ μάχης</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27052src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27068">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27068src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> The definition of <span class="trans" title="lypē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λύπη</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="asē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄση</span></span> (Cicero <span lang="la">ægritudo</span>) as <span class="trans" title="doxa prosphatos kakou parousias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δόξα πρόσφατος κακοῦ παρουσίας</span></span> is explicitly referred to Chrysippus (more at length in <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 7, 14: <span lang="la">Opinio recens mali præsentis, in quo demitti contrahique <span class="pageNum" id="pb250n">[<a href="#pb250n">250</a>]</span>animo rectum esse videatur</span>), as also the definition of <span class="trans" title="philargyria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φιλαργυρία</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="hypolēpsis tou to argyrion kalon einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπόληψις τοῦ τὸ ἀργύριον καλὸν εἶναι</span></span>. See p. 254, 4, 5. In like manner <span class="trans" title="methē, akolasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέθη, ἀκολασία</span></span>, and the other passions, were, according to <i>Diog.</i> 110, defined. To Chrysippus also belong the definitions—quoted Tusc. iv. 7, 14; iii.
+11, 25—of <span class="trans" title="hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδονὴ</span></span> (<span lang="la">lætitia, voluptas gestiens</span>) = <span lang="la">opinio recens boni præsentis, in quo efferri rectum videatur</span>; of fear = <span lang="la">opinio impendentis mali quod intolerabile esse videatur,</span> agreeing with the <span class="trans" title="prosdokia kakou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσδοκία κακοῦ</span></span> of <i>Diog.</i> 112; of desire (<span lang="la">cupiditas, libido</span>, <span class="trans" title="epithymia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιθυμία</span></span>) = <span lang="la">opinio venturi boni, quod sit ex usu jam præsens esse atque adesse.</span> It is, however, more common to hear <span class="trans" title="lypē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λύπη</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 111; <i>Stob.</i> 172; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 11) described as <span class="trans" title="systolē psychēs apeithēs logō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συστολὴ ψυχῆς ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ</span></span>, more briefly <span class="trans" title="systolē alogos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συστολὴ ἄλογος</span></span>, fear as <span class="trans" title="ekklisis apeithēs logō, hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔκκλισις ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ, ἡδονὴ</span></span> even according to <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> top. 96, as <span class="trans" title="alogos eparsis eph’ hairetō dokounti hyparchein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄλογος ἔπαρσις ἐφ’ αἱρέτῳ δοκοῦντι ὑπάρχειν</span></span>, two different translations of which are given by <i>Cic.</i> l.c. and Fin. ii. 4, 13, <span class="trans" title="epithymia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιθυμία</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="orexis apeithēs logō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄρεξις ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ</span></span>, or <span lang="la">immoderata appetitio opinati magni boni.</span> The latter definitions appear to belong to Zeno. They were probably appropriated
+by Chrysippus, and the additions made which are found in Stobæus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27068src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27248">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27248src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> Further particulars may be gathered from <i>Diog.</i> vii. 111; <i>Stob.</i> ii 174. Both include under <span class="trans" title="lypē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λύπη</span></span> subdivisions as <span class="trans" title="eleos, phthonos, zēlos, zēlotypia, achthos, ania, odynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e27265">ἔλεος</span>, φθόνος, ζῆλος, ζηλοτυπία, ἄχθος, ἀνία, ὀδύνη</span></span>. Diogenes adds <span class="trans" title="enochlēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνόχλησις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύγχυσις</span></span>; Stobæus <span class="trans" title="penthos, achos, asē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πένθος, ἄχος, ἄση</span></span>. Both include under <span class="trans" title="phobos, deima, oknos, aischynē, ekplēxis, thorybos, agōnia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φόβος, δεῖμα, ὄκνος, αἰσχύνη, ἔκπληξις, θόρυβος, ἀγωνία</span></span>; Stobæus adds <span class="trans" title="deos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δέος</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="deisidaimonia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δεισιδαιμονία</span></span>. Under <span class="trans" title="hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδονὴ</span></span>, Diogenes includes <span class="trans" title="kēlēsis, epichairekakia, terpsis, diachysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span class="corr" id="xd33e27334" title="Source: κήγησις">κήλησις</span>, <span class="corr" id="xd33e27338" title="Source: ἐπιχαιρεκακίαι">ἐπιχαιρεκακία</span>, τέρψις, διάχυσις</span></span>; Stobæus, <span class="trans" title="epichairekakiai, asmenismoi, goēteiai kai ta homoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιχαιρεκακίαι, ἀσμενισμοὶ, γοητεῖαι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια</span></span>. Under <span class="trans" title="epithymia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιθυμία</span></span>, Diogenes places <span class="trans" title="spanis, misos, philoneikia, orgē, erōs, mēnis, thymos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπάνις, μῖσος, φιλονεικία, ὀργὴ, ἔρως, μῆνις, θυμός</span></span>; Stobæus, <span class="trans" title="orgē kai ta eidē autēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀργὴ καὶ τὰ εἴδη αὐτῆς</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="thymos, cholos, mēnis, kotos, pikria, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">θυμὸς, χόλος, μῆνις, κότος, πικρία, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="erōtes sphodroi, pothoi, himeroi, philēdoniai, philoploutiai, philodoxiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔρωτες σφοδροὶ, πόθοι, ἵμεροι, φιληδονίαι, φιλοπλουτίαι, φιλοδοξίαι</span></span>. Definitions for all these terms—which, without doubt, belong to Chrysippus—may be
+found in the writers named. Greek lexicographers may obtain many useful hints from
+Stoic definitions.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27248src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27400">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27400src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">83</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Vir. Mor. 10, p. 449: <span class="trans" title="pan men gar pathos hamartia kat’ autous estin kai pas ho lypoumenos ē phoboumenos ē epithymōn hamartanei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν μὲν γὰρ πάθος ἁμαρτία κατ’ αὐτούς ἐστιν καὶ πᾶς ὁ λυπούμενος ἢ φοβούμενος ἢ ἐπιθυμῶν
+ἁμαρτάνει</span></span>. The Stoics are therefore anxious to make a marked distinction in the expressions
+for emotions and the permitted mental affections, between pleasure and joy, see p.
+236, 2, fear and precaution (<span class="trans" title="eulabeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐλαβεία</span></span>), desire and will (<span class="trans" title="boulēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">βούλησις</span></span>, <i>Diog.</i> 116; <span lang="la">cupere et velle</span>, <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 116, 1), <span class="trans" title="aischynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰσχύνη</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="aidōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰδὼς</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> Vit. Pud. c. 2, p. 529).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27400src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27454">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27454src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">84</a></span> On this favourite proposition of the Stoics, consult <i>Diog.</i> 115; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 182; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 10; whose remarkable agreement with Stobæus seems to point to a common
+source of information directly or indirectly drawn upon by both; iii. 10, 23; <i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. v. 2; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 75, 11. According to these passages, the Stoics distinguish between simple emotions
+and diseases of the soul. Emotions, in the language of Seneca, are <span lang="la">motus animi improbabiles soluti et concitati.</span> If they are frequently repeated and neglected, then <span lang="la">inveterata vitia et dura,</span> or diseases, ensue. Disease of the soul is therefore defined as <span class="trans" title="doxa epithymias errhyēkuia eis hexin kai eneskirrhōmenē kath’ hēn hypolambanousi ta mē haireta sphodra haireta einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δόξα ἐπιθυμίας ἐῤῥυηκυῖα εἰς ἕξιν καὶ ἐνεσκιῤῥωμένη καθ’ ἣν ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὰ μὴ αἱρετὰ
+σφόδρα αἱρετὰ εἶναι</span></span> (<i>Stob.</i> translations of the definition in Cicero and Seneca). The opposite of such a <span class="trans" title="doxa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δόξα</span></span>, or a confusion arising from false fear, is an <span lang="la">opinio vehemens inhærens atque insita de re non fugienda tanquam fugienda</span>—such as hatred of womankind, hatred of mankind, &amp;c. If the fault is caused by some
+weakness which prevent our acting up to our better knowledge, the diseased states
+of the soul are called <span class="trans" title="arrhōstēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀῤῥωστήματα</span></span>, <span lang="la">ægrotationes</span> (<i>Diog.</i>; <i>Stob.</i>; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 13, 29); but this distinction is, of course, very uncertain. The same fault
+is at one time classed among <span class="trans" title="nosoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νόσοι</span></span>, at another among <span class="trans" title="arrhōstēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀῤῥωστήματα</span></span>; and Cicero (11, 24; 13, 29) repeatedly observes that the two can only be distinguished
+in thought. Moreover, just as there are certain predispositions (<span class="trans" title="enemptōsiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνεμπτωσίαι</span></span>) for bodily diseases, so within the sphere of mind there are <span class="trans" title="eukataphoriai eis pathos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐκαταφορίαι εἰς πάθος</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i>, <i>Stob.</i>, <i>Cic.</i> 12. The distinction between <span lang="la">vitia</span> and <span lang="la">morbi</span> (<i>Cic.</i> 13) naturally coincides with the distinction between emotions and diseases. The former
+are caused by conduct at variance with principles, by <span lang="la">inconstantia et repugnantia,</span> likewise <span class="pageNum" id="pb252n">[<a href="#pb252n">252</a>]</span><span lang="la">vitiositas</span> in a <span lang="la">habitus in tota vita inconstans</span>; the latter consist in <span lang="la">corruptio opinionum</span>. It is not consistent with this view to call <span class="trans" title="kakiai, diatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κακίαι, διαθέσεις</span></span>; and <span class="trans" title="nosoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νόσοι</span></span>, as well as <span class="trans" title="arrhōstēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀῤῥωστήματα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="eukataphoriai, hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐκαταφορίαι, ἕξεις</span></span> (<i>Stob.</i> ii. 100, on the difference between <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="diathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάθεσις</span></span>, see 102, 1); and, accordingly, Heine suggests (De Font. Tuscul. Dis.: Weimar, 1863,
+p. 18) that, on this point, Cicero may have given inaccurate information. The unwise
+who are near wisdom are free from disease of the soul, but not from emotions (<i>Sen.</i>, <i>Cic.</i>). The points of comparison between diseases of the body and those of the soul were
+investigated by Chrysippus with excessive care. Posidonius contradicted him, however,
+in part (<i>Galen</i>, l.c., <i>Cic.</i> 10, 23; 12, 27); but their differences are not of interest to us.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27454src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27637">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27637src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">85</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 10, 38: <span lang="la">Cumque perturbationem animi illi [superiores] ex homine non tollerent … sed eam contraherent
+in angustumque deducerent: hic omnibus his quasi morbis voluit carere sapientem.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 43, 135. We shall find subsequently that the mental affections, which cause emotions,
+are allowed to be unavoidable.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27637src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27647">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27647src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">86</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 17, 37.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27647src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27651">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27651src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">87</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 10, 22: <span lang="la">Omne enim malum, etiam mediocre, magnum est. Nos autem id agimus, ut id in sapiente
+nullum sit omnino.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> iv. 17, 39: <span lang="la">Modum tu adhibes vitio? An vitium nullum est non parere rationi?</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 18, 42: <span lang="la">Nihil interest, utrum moderatas perturbationes approbent, an moderatam injustitiam,
+&amp;c. Qui enim vitiis modum apponit, is partem suscipit vitiorum.</span> <span class="pageNum" id="pb253n">[<a href="#pb253n">253</a>]</span><i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 5, says that moderation of emotions is equivalent to <span lang="la">modice insaniendum, modice ægrotandum.</span> Ep. 116, 1: <span lang="la">Ego non video, quomodo salubris esse aut utilis possit ulla mediocritas morbi.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27651src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27679">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27679src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">88</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Ira, i. 9, 2; particularly with reference to anger, conf. Ep. 85, 10.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27679src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27683">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27683src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">89</a></span> Full details are given by <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 19–26; Off. i. 25, 88; <i>Sen.</i> De Ira, i. 5, 21; ii. 12; particularly with regard to the use of anger.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27683src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27690">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27690src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">90</a></span> In the same spirit <i>Sen.</i> De Ira, i. 9, 1; 10, 2, meets the assertion that valour cannot dispense with anger
+by saying: <span lang="la">Nunquam virtus vitio adjuvanda est, se contenta … absit hoc a virtute malum, ut unquam
+ratio ad vitia confugiat.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27690src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27698">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27698src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">91</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 117: <span class="trans" title="phasi de kai apathē einai ton sophon, dia to anemptōton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φασὶ δὲ καὶ ἀπαθῆ εἶναι τὸν <span id="xd33e27705">σοφὸν</span>, διὰ τὸ ἀνέμπτωτον</span></span> (faultless) <span class="trans" title="einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι</span></span>. From the apathy of the wise man, absence of feeling and severity, which are faults,
+must be distinguished.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27698src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27722">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27722src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">92</a></span> Chrysippus (in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. vii. 21): <span class="trans" title="algein men ton sophon mē basanizesthai de; mē gar endidonai tē psychē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλγεῖν μὲν τὸν <span id="xd33e27730">σοφὸν</span> μὴ βασανίζεσθαι δέ· μὴ γὰρ ἐνδιδόναι τῇ ψυχῇ</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> De Prov. 6, 6; Ep. 85, 29; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. ii. 12, 29; 25, 61; iii. 11, 25.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27722src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27743">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27743src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">93</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 20, 12; Musonius (in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 19, 16); <i>Sen.</i> De Const. 2; 3; 5; 7; 12. The second title of this treatise is: <span lang="la">nec injuriam nec contumeliam accipere sapientem.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27743src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27755">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27755src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">94</a></span> See 253, 2 and 3 and <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 9, 19.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27755src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27760">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27760src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">95</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 9, 20; <i>Sen.</i> De Clem. ii. 5; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 123.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27760src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27769">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27769src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">96</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 190; Floril. 46, 60; <i>Sen.</i> l.c. 5, 2; 7; <i>Diog.</i> l.c.; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xiv. 4, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27769src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27789">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27789src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">97</a></span> Ps. <i>Plut.</i> Hom. 134: <span class="trans" title="hoi men oun Stōïkoi tēn aretēn tithentai en tē apatheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ μὲν οὖν Στωϊκοὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν <span class="corr" id="xd33e27797" title="Source: δίθενται">τίθενται</span> ἐν τῇ ἀπαθείᾳ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27789src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27810">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27810src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">98</a></span> See p. 193. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 156, b. Virtue consists in <span class="trans" title="eklogē tōn kata physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκλογὴ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 89 (conf. <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Po. c. 6, p. 24): <span class="trans" title="tēn t’ aretēn diathesin einai homologoumenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τήν τ’ ἀρετὴν διάθεσιν εἶναι ὁμολογουμένην</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27810src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27835">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27835src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">99</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 10, 38: <span lang="la">Cumque superiores (<span lang="en">Aristotle and others</span>) non omnem virtutem in ratione esse dicerent, sed quasdam virtutes natura aut more
+perfectas: hic [Zeno] omnes in ratione ponebat.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27835src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27845">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27845src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">100</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 15, 34: <span lang="la">Ipsa virtus brevissime recta ratio dici potest.</span> Conf. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 113, 2: <span lang="la">Virtus autem nihil aliud est quam animus quodammodo <span class="pageNum" id="pb255n">[<a href="#pb255n">255</a>]</span>se habens</span>, and the remarks, p. 128, 1; 129, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27845src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27861">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27861src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">101</a></span> The proof of this will be found subsequently in the Stoic definitions of various virtues
+and vices<span>.</span> Compare preliminarily 254, 6 and <i>Diog.</i> vii. 93: <span class="trans" title="einai d’ agnoias tas kakias, hōn hai aretai epistēmai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι δ’ ἀγνοίας τὰς κακίας, ὧν αἱ ἀρεταὶ ἐπιστῆμαι</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl ii. 108: <span class="trans" title="tautas men oun tas rhētheisas aretas teleias einai legousi peri ton bion kai synestēkenai ek theōrēmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ταύτας μὲν οὖν τὰς ῥηθείσας ἀρετὰς τελείας εἶναι λέγουσι περὶ τὸν βίον καὶ συνεστηκέναι
+ἐκ θεωρημάτων</span></span>. It is not opposed to these statements for <i>Stob.</i> ii. 92 and 110, to distinguish other virtues besides those which are <span class="trans" title="technai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέχναι</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="epistēmai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστῆμαι</span></span>; nor for Hecato (in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 90) to divide virtues into <span class="trans" title="epistēmonikai kai theōrētikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστημονικαὶ καὶ θεωρητικαὶ</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="systasin echousai tōn theōrēmatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύστασιν ἔχουσαι τῶν θεωρημάτων</span></span>) and <span class="trans" title="atheōrētoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀθεώρητοι</span></span>; for by the latter must be understood not the virtuous actions themselves, but only
+the states resulting from them—health of soul, strength of will, and the like. On
+the health of the soul, in its relation to virtue, see <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 13, 30.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27861src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27934">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27934src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">102</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 91 (following Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and others); Ps. <i>Plut.</i> V. Hom. 144.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27934src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27940">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27940src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">103</a></span> See p. 260, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27940src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27943">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27943src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">104</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 7; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 161; <i>Galen</i>, vii. 2, p. 595.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27943src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27955">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27955src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">105</a></span> See p. 56.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27955src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27958">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27958src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">106</a></span> See p. 58, 2. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 165, conf. 37: <span class="trans" title="Hērillos de ho Karchēdonios telos eipe tēn epistēmēn, hoper esti zēn aei panta anapheronta pros to met’ epistēmēs zēn kai mē tē agnoia diabeblēmenon. einai de tēn epistēmēn hexin en phantasiōn prosdexei ametaptōton hypo logou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἥριλλος δὲ ὁ Καρχηδόνιος τέλος εἶπε τὴν ἐπιστήμην, ὅπερ ἐστὶ ζῇν ἀεὶ πάντα ἀναφέροντα
+πρὸς τὸ μετ’ ἐπιστήμης ζῇν καὶ μὴ τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ διαβεβλημένον. εἶναι δὲ τὴν ἐπιστήμην
+ἕξιν ἐν φαντασιῶν προσδέξει ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου</span></span>. On the definition, see p. 82, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27958src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e27971">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e27971src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">107</a></span> Cleanthes (in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 7): When <span class="trans" title="tonos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόνος</span></span>, on which see p. 128, 2, is found in the soul in a proper decree, <span class="trans" title="ischys kaleitai kai kratos; hē d’ ischys hautē kai to kratos hotan men epi tois epiphanesin emmeneteois engenētai enkrateia esti, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰσχὺς καλεῖται καὶ κράτος· ἡ δ’ ἰσχὺς αὕτη καὶ τὸ κράτος ὅταν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐπιφανέσιν
+ἐμμενετέοις ἐγγένηται ἐγκράτειά ἐστι, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> In the same way, Chrysippus (according to <i>Galen</i>, Hipp. et Plat. iv. 6, p. 403) deduced what is good in our conduct from <span class="trans" title="eutonia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐτονία</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ischys"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰσχύς</span></span>; what is bad, from <span class="trans" title="atonia kai astheneia tēs psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀτονία καὶ ἀσθένεια τῆς ψυχῆς</span></span>; and (<i>ibid.</i> vii. 1, p<span>.</span> 590) he referred the differences of individual virtues to changes in quality within
+the soul. By <i>Aristo</i>, p. 220, 1, virtue is defined as health; by <i>Stob.</i> ii. 104, as <span class="trans" title="diathesis psychēs symphōnos autē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάθεσις ψυχῆς σύμφωνος αὐτῇ</span></span>; by <i>Diog.</i> 89, as <span class="trans" title="diathesis homologoumenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάθεσις ὁμολογουμένη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e27971src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28046">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28046src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">108</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Otio, i. (28) 4: <span lang="la">Stoici nostri dicunt; usque ad ultimum vitæ finem in actu erimus, non desinemus communi
+bono operam dare, &amp;c. Nos sumus, apud quos usque eo nihil ante mortem otiosum est,
+ut, si res patitur, non sit ipsa mors otiosa.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28046src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28055">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28055src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">109</a></span> This will appear from the definitions of virtue about to follow.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28055src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28058">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28058src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">110</a></span> See pp. 59, 1; 56, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28058src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28061">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28061src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">111</a></span> See p. 254, 7. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 65, 6, after describing a great and noble soul, adds: <span lang="la">Talis animus virtus est.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28061src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28075">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28075src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">112</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Vir. Mor. 2: <span class="trans" title="Aristōn de ho Chios tē men ousia mian kai autos aretēn epoiei kai hygieian ōnomaze, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀρίστων δὲ ὁ Χῖος τῇ μὲν οὐσίᾳ μίαν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρετὴν ἐποίει καὶ ὑγίειαν ὠνόμαζε, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Id.</i> on Zeno, see p. 260, 3, and Cleanthes, p. 236, 3. According to Galenus, Aristo defined
+the one virtue to be the knowledge of good and evil (Hipp. et Plat. v. 5, p. 468):
+<span class="trans" title="kallion oun Aristōn ho Chios, oute pollas einai tas aretas tēs psychēs apophēnamenos, alla mian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κάλλιον οὖν Ἀρίστων ὁ Χῖος, οὔτε πολλὰς εἶναι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀποφηνάμενος, ἀλλὰ
+μίαν</span></span>, <span class="pageNum" id="pb258n">[<a href="#pb258n">258</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="hēn epistēmēn agathōn te kai kakōn einai phēsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἣν ἐπιστήμην ἀγαθῶν τε καὶ κακῶν εἶναί φησιν</span></span>. vii. 2, p. 595. <span class="trans" title="nomisas goun ho Aristōn, mian einai tēs psychēs dynamin, hē logizometha, kai tēn aretēn tēs psychēs etheto mian, epistēmēn agathōn kai kakōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νομίσας γοῦν ὁ Ἀρίστων, μίαν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμιν, ᾗ λογιζόμεθα, καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν
+τῆς ψυχῆς ἔθετο μίαν, ἐπιστήμην ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν</span></span>. The statement that Aristo made health of soul consist in a right view of good and
+evil agrees with the language of Plutarch. Perhaps Zeno had already defined <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="epistēmē agathōn kai kakōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28075src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28133">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28133src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">113</a></span> Conf. p. 255. 1. <i>Cic.</i> De Off. i. 43, 153: <span lang="la">Princepsque omnium virtutum est illa sapientia, quam <span class="trans" title="sophian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σοφίαν</span></span> Græci vocant: prudentiam enim, quam Græci <span class="trans" title="phronēsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησιν</span></span> dicunt, aliam quandam intelligimus: quæ est rerum expetendarum fugiendarumque scientia.
+Illa autem scientia, quam principem dixi, rerum est divinarum atque humanarum scientia.</span> A similar definition of wisdom, amplified by the words, <span lang="la">nosse divina et humana et horum causas</span>, is found <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 2, 5. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 5; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. Proœm. 2; <i>Strabo</i>, i. 1, 1. It may probably be referred to Chrysippus; and it was no doubt Chrysippus
+who settled the distinction between <span class="trans" title="sophia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σοφία</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span>, in the Stoic school, although Aristo had preceded him in distinguishing them. Explaining
+particular virtues as springing from the essence of virtue, with the addition of a
+differential quality, he needed separate terms to express generic and specific virtue.
+In Zeno’s definition too, as later writers would have it (<i>Plut.</i> Vir. Mat. 2), to <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span> was given the meaning of <span class="trans" title="epistēmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28133src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28204">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28204src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">114</a></span> <span class="trans" title="aretai prōtai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρεταὶ πρῶται</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 92; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 104. In stating that Posidonius counted four—Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Antipater
+more than four—virtues, Diogenes can only mean that the latter enumerated the subdivisions,
+whereas Posidonius confined himself to the four main heads of the four cardinal virtues.
+Besides this division of virtues, another, threefold, division is also met with, see
+p. 56, 2; 57, 1, that into logical, physical, and ethical virtues<span>.</span> In other words, the whole of philosophy and likewise its parts are brought under
+the notion of virtue; but it is not stated how this threefold division is to harmonise
+with the previous fourfold one. A twofold division, made by Panætius and referred
+to by Seneca (Ep. 94, 45)—that into <span class="corr" id="xd33e28219" title="Source: theroretical">theoretical</span> and practical virtues—is an approximation to the ethics of the Peripatetics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28204src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28226">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28226src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">115</a></span> The scheme was in vogue before Zeno’s time. See <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 7, 1, and the quotations, p. 260, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28226src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28231">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28231src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">116</a></span> <span class="trans" title="epistēmē agathōn kai kakōn kai oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων</span></span>, or <span class="trans" title="hekastōn hōn poiēteon kai ou poiēteon kai oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑκάστων ὧν ποιητέον καὶ οὐ ποιητέον καὶ οὐδετέρων</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> 102. Stobæus adds, that the definition needs to be completed by the words, occurring
+in the definition of every virtue, <span class="trans" title="physei politikou zōou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσει πολιτικοῦ ζῴου</span></span>. But this is superfluous, for only in the case of such a being can the terms good
+and evil apply. <i>Diog.</i> 92; <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 170 and 246; <i>Cic.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28231src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28266">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28266src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">117</a></span> <span class="trans" title="epistēmē deinōn kai ou deinōn kai oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη δεινῶν καὶ οὐ δεινῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων</span></span> (<i>Stob.</i> 104); <span class="trans" title="epistēmē hōn haireteon kai hōn eulabēteon kai oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη ὧν αἱρετέον καὶ ὧν εὐλαβητέον καὶ οὐδετέρων</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i>); <span class="trans" title="epistēmē hōn chrē tharrhein ē mē tharrhein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη ὧν χρὴ θαῤῥεῖν ἢ μὴ θαῤῥεῖν</span></span> (<i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. vii. 2, 597). <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 24, 53, conf. v. 14, 41: <span lang="la">(Chrysippus) fortitudo est, inquit, scientia perferendarum rerum, vel affectio animi
+in patiendo ac perferendo, summæ legi parens sine timore.</span> The last-named characteristic appears still more strongly in the definition attributed
+to the Stoics by <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 19, 62: <span lang="la">Virtus propugnans pro æquitate.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28266src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28308">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28308src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">118</a></span> <span class="trans" title="epistēmē hairetōn kai pheuktōn kai oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν <span class="corr" id="xd33e28313" title="Source: παὶ">καὶ</span> οὐδετέρων</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> 102. The definition of <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span> in Cicero is the same, word for word. See p. 258, 1; that of valour in Diogenes is
+not very different. Since all duties refer to <span class="trans" title="poiētea"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιητέα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="ou poiētea"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ ποιητέα</span></span>, the definitions of the remaining virtues must necessarily agree with those of <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28308src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28356">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28356src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">119</a></span> <span class="trans" title="epistēmē aponemētikē tēs axias hekastō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη ἀπονεμητικὴ τῆς ἀξίας ἑκάστῳ</span></span>, in <i>Stob.</i> <i>Id.</i> p. 104, further enumerates the points of difference between the four virtues: intelligence
+refers to <span class="trans" title="kathēkonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθήκοντα</span></span>, self-control to impulses, valour to <span class="trans" title="hypomonai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπομοναὶ</span></span>, justice to <span class="trans" title="aponemēseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπονεμήσεις</span></span>. See also the distinctive peculiarities of the four virtues in <i>Stob.</i> 112. Below, p. 263.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28356src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28400">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28400src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">120</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 93; <i>Stob.</i> 104. The <span class="trans" title="prōtai kakiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶται κακίαι</span></span> are: <span class="trans" title="aphrosynē, deilia, akolasia, adikia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφροσύνη, δειλία, ἀκολασία, ἀδικία</span></span>. The definition of <span class="trans" title="aphrosynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφροσύνη</span></span> is <span class="trans" title="agnoia agathōn kai kakōn kai oudeterōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄγνοια ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων</span></span>. See p. 255, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28400src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28438">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28438src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">121</a></span> This follows from the fact that the conception of <span class="trans" title="epistēmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη</span></span> is the basis in all. See p. 258, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28438src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28449">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28449src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">122</a></span> Of Zeno, <i>Plut.</i> Vir. Mor. 2, p<span>.</span> 441, says<span class="corr" id="xd33e28455" title="Source: ·">:</span> <span class="trans" title="horizomenos tēn phronēsin en men aponemēteois dikaiosynēn; en d’ haireteois sōphrosynēn; en d’ hypomeneteois andrian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁριζόμενος τὴν φρόνησιν ἐν μὲν ἀπονεμητέοις δικαιοσύνην· ἐν δ’ αἱρετέοις σωφροσύνην·
+ἐν δ’ ὑπομενετέοις ἀνδρίαν</span></span>. The like in regard to justice in Sto. Rep. 7, 2<span>.</span> On the other hand valour is here termed <span class="trans" title="phronēsis en energēteois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις ἐν ἐνεργητέοις</span></span>. He also says, p. 440, that, according to Aristo, <span class="trans" title="hē aretē poiētea men episkopousa kai mē poiētea keklētai phronēsis; epithymian de kosmousa kai to metrōn kai to eukairon en hēdonais horizousa, sōphrosynē; koinōnēmasi de kai symbolaiois homilousa tois pros heterous, dikaiosynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ ἀρετὴ ποιητέα μὲν ἐπισκοποῦσα καὶ μὴ ποιητέα κέκληται φρόνησις· ἐπιθυμίαν δὲ κοσμοῦσα
+καὶ τὸ μέτρων καὶ τὸ εὔκαιρον ἐν ἡδοναῖς ὁρίζουσα, σωφροσύνη· κοινωνήμασι δὲ καὶ συμβολαίοις
+ὁμιλοῦσα τοῖς πρὸς ἑτέρους, δικαιοσύνη</span></span>. Further particulars as to Aristo may be found in <i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. vii. 2, p. 595: Since the soul has only one power, the power of thought,
+it can only have one virtue, the <span class="trans" title="epistēmē agathōn kai kakōn. hotan men oun haireisthai te deē tagatha kai pheugein ta kaka, tēn epistēmēn tēnde lalei sōphrosynēn; hotan de prattein men tagatha, mē prattein de ta kaka, phronēsin; andreian de hotan ta men tharrhē, ta de pheugē; hotan de to kat’ axian hekastō nemē, dikaiosynēn; heni de logō, ginōskousa men hē psychē chōris tou prattein tagatha te kai kaka sophia t’ esti kai epistēmē, pros de tas praxeis aphiknoumenē tas kata ton bion onomata pleiō lambanei ta proeirēmena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν. ὅταν μὲν οὖν <span id="xd33e28491">αἱρεῖσθαί</span> τε δέῃ τἀγαθὰ καὶ φεύγειν τὰ κακὰ, τὴν ἐπιστήμην τήνδε λαλεῖ σωφροσύνην· ὅταν δὲ
+πράττειν μὲν τἀγαθὰ, μὴ πράττειν δὲ τὰ κακὰ, φρόνησιν· ἀνδρείαν δὲ ὅταν τὰ μὲν θαῤῥῇ,
+τὰ δὲ φεύγῃ· ὅταν δὲ τὸ κατ’ ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ νέμῃ, δικαιοσύνην· ἑνὶ δὲ λόγῳ, γινώσκουσα
+μὲν ἡ ψυχὴ χωρὶς τοῦ πράττειν τἀγαθά τε καὶ κακὰ σοφία τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπιστήμη, πρὸς
+δὲ τὰς πράξεις ἀφικνουμένη τὰς κατὰ τὸν βίον ὀνόματα πλείω λαμβάνει τὰ προειρημένα</span></span>. We know, from <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 7, 4, see p. 256, 3, that, according to Cleanthes, strength of mind, <span class="trans" title="hotan men epi tois epiphanesin emmeneteois engenētai, enkrateia estin; hotan d’ en tois hypomeneteois, andreia; peri tas axias de, dikaiosynē; peri tas haireseis kai ekkliseis, sōphrosynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅταν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐπιφανέσιν ἐμμενετέοις ἐγγένηται, ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν· ὅταν δ’ ἐν τοῖς
+ὑπομενετέοις, ἀνδρεία· περὶ τὰς ἀξίας δὲ, δικαιοσύνη· περὶ τὰς αἱρέσεις καὶ ἐκκλίσεις,
+σωφροσύνη</span></span>. With him, too, if Plutarch’s account is accurate, <span class="trans" title="enkrateia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐγκράτεια</span></span>, or perseverance, takes the place of <span class="trans" title="phronēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 24, 53, quotes no less than three definitions of bravery given by Sphærus.
+See p. 259, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28449src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28529">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28529src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">123</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Vir. Mor. 2, p. 441, charges him with creating a <span class="trans" title="smēnos aretōn ou synēthes oude gnōrimon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σμῆνος ἀρετῶν οὐ συνῆθες οὐδὲ γνώριμον</span></span>, and forming a <span class="trans" title="charientotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαριεντότης</span></span>, <span class="pageNum" id="pb261n">[<a href="#pb261n">261</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="esthlotēs, megalotēs, kalotēs, epidexiotēs, euapantēsia, eutrapelia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐσθλότης, μεγαλότης, καλότης, ἐπιδεξιότης, εὐαπαντησία, εὐτραπελία</span></span>, after the analogy of <span class="trans" title="praotēs, andreia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρᾳότης, ἀνδρεία</span></span>, &amp;c. In <i>Stob.</i> ii. 118, among the Stoic virtues, is found an <span class="trans" title="erōtikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐρωτικὴ</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="epistēmē neōn thēras euphyōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη νέων θήρας εὐφυῶν</span></span>, &amp;c., and a <span class="trans" title="sympotikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμποτικὴ</span></span> as <span class="trans" title="epistēmē tou pōs dei exagesthai ta symposia kai tou pōs dei sympinein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη τοῦ πῶς δεῖ ἐξάγεσθαι τὰ συμπόσια καὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ συμπίνειν</span></span>. An <span class="trans" title="erōtikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐρωτικὴ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="sympotikē aretē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμποτικὴ ἀρετὴ</span></span> are also mentioned by <i>Philodem.</i> De Mus. col. 15. According to <i>Athen.</i> 162, b (Vol. Herc. i.), Persæus, in his <span class="trans" title="sympotikoi dialogoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμποτικοὶ διάλογοι</span></span>, had discussed <span class="trans" title="sympotikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμποτικὴ</span></span> at length; and since, according to the Stoics (<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 123, 15: <i>Stob.</i> l.c.), none but the wise know how to live aright and how to drink aright, these arts
+belong to a complete treatment of wisdom.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28529src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28645">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28645src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">124</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> 106, includes under <span class="trans" title="phronēsis, euboulia, eulogistia, anchinoia, nounecheia, eumēchania"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φρόνησις, εὐβουλία, εὐλογιστία, ἀγχίνοια, νουνέχεια, εὐμηχανία</span></span>; under <span class="trans" title="sōphrosynē, eutaxia, kosmiotēs, aidēmosynē, enkrateia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σωφροσύνη, εὐταξία, κοσμιότης, αἰδημοσύνη, ἐγκράτεια</span></span>; under <span class="trans" title="andreia, karteria, tharrhaleotēs, megalopsychia, eupsychia, philoponia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνδρεία, καρτερία, <span class="corr" id="xd33e28668" title="Source: θαῤῥαλιότης">θαῤῥαλεότης</span>, μεγαλοψυχία, εὐψυχία, φιλοπονία</span></span>; under <span class="trans" title="dikaiosynē, eusebeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δικαιοσύνη, εὐσέβεια</span></span> (on which <i>Diog.</i> 119), <span class="trans" title="chrēstotēs, eukoinōnēsia, eusynallaxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χρηστότης, εὐκοινωνησία, εὐσυναλλαξία</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 126, is slightly different. Stobæus gives the definitions of all these virtues, and
+Diogenes of some. By Stobæus, they are generally described as <span class="trans" title="epistēmai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστῆμαι</span></span>; by Diogenes, as <span class="trans" title="hexeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e28708">ἕξεις</span></span></span> or <span class="trans" title="diatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαθέσεις</span></span>. Otherwise, the definitions are the same. A definition of <span class="trans" title="eutaxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐταξία</span></span> is given by <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 40, 142.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28645src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28736">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28736src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">125</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 93; <i>Stob.</i> 104.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28736src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28749">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28749src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">126</a></span> Sto. Rep. 7.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28749src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28754">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28754src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">127</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Vir. Mor. 2: <span class="trans" title="Aristōn de ho Chios tē men ousia mian kai autos aretēn epoiei kai hygieian ōnomaze; tō de pros ti diaphorous kai pleionas, hōs ei tis etheloi tēn horasin hēmōn leukōn men antilambanomenēn leukothean kalein, melanōn de melanthean ē ti toiouton heteron. kai gar hē aretē, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀρίστων δὲ ὁ Χῖος τῇ μὲν οὐσίᾳ μίαν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρετὴν ἐποίει καὶ ὑγίειαν ὠνόμαζε· τῷ
+δὲ πρός τι διαφόρους καὶ πλείονας, ὡς εἴ τις ἐθέλοι τὴν ὅρασιν ἡμῶν λευκῶν μὲν ἀντιλαμβανομένην
+λευκοθέαν καλεῖν, μελάνων δὲ μελανθέαν ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον. καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀρετὴ, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> See p. 260, 3. <span class="trans" title="kathaper to machairion hen men estin, allote de allo diairei; kai to pyr energei peri hylas diaphorous mia physei chrōmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθάπερ τὸ μαχαίριον ἓν μέν ἐστιν, ἄλλοτε δὲ ἄλλο διαιρεῖ· καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἐνεργεῖ περὶ
+ὕλας διαφόρους μιᾷ φύσει χρώμενον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28754src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28774">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28774src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">128</a></span> <i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. vii. 1, p. 590: <span class="trans" title="nomizei gar ho anēr ekeinos, mian ousan tēn aretēn onomasi pleiosin onomazesthai kata tēn pros ti schesin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νομίζει γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐκεῖνος, μίαν οὖσαν τὴν ἀρετὴν ὀνόμασι πλείοσιν ὀνομάζεσθαι <span class="corr" id="xd33e28781" title="Source: κα ὰ">κατὰ</span> τὴν πρός τι σχέσιν</span></span>. Conf. note 5 and <i>Diog.</i> vii. 161: <span class="trans" title="aretas t’ oute pollas eisēgen, hōs ho Zēnōn, oute mian pollois onomasi kaloumenēn, hōs hoi Megarikoi, alla kai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρετάς τ’ οὔτε πολλὰς εἰσῆγεν, ὡς ὁ Ζήνων, οὔτε μίαν πολλοῖς ὀνόμασι καλουμένην, ὡς
+οἱ Μεγαρικοὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ</span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="kata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="to pros ti pōs echein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ πρός τί πως ἔχειν</span></span> (scil. <span class="trans" title="pollois onomasi kaloumenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολλοῖς ὀνόμασι καλουμένην</span></span>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28774src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28825">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28825src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">129</a></span> See p. 260, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28825src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28829">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28829src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">130</a></span> Their distinguishing features fall under the category of <span class="trans" title="poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιὸν</span></span>, to use Stoic terms, not under that of <span class="trans" title="pros ti pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρός τί πως ἔχον</span></span>, as Aristo maintained.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28829src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28848">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28848src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">131</a></span> <i>Galenus</i> l<span>.</span>c. continues: <span class="trans" title="ho toinyn Chrysippos deiknysin, ouk en tē pros ti schesei genomenon to plēthos tōn aretōn te kai kakiōn, all’ en tais oikeiais ousiais hypallattomenais kata tas poiotētos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ τοίνυν Χρύσιππος δείκνυσιν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ πρός τι σχέσει γενόμενον τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀρετῶν
+τε καὶ κακιῶν, ἀλλ’ ἐν ταῖς οἰκείαις οὐσίαις ὑπαλλαττομέναις κατὰ τὰς ποιότητος</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 7, 3: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos, Aristōni men enkalōn, hoti mias aretēs scheseis elege tas allas einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος, Ἀρίστωνι μὲν ἐγκαλῶν, ὅτι μιᾶς ἀρετῆς σχέσεις ἔλεγε τὰς ἄλλας εἶναι</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> Vir. Mor. 2: <span class="trans" title="Chrysippos de kata to poion aretēn idia poiotēti synistasthai nomizōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Χρύσιππος δὲ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν ἀρετὴν ἰδίᾳ ποιότητι συνίστασθαι νομίζων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28848src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28890">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28890src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">132</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 110: <span class="trans" title="pasas de tas aretas, hosai epistēmai eisi kai technai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάσας δὲ τὰς ἀρετὰς, ὅσαι ἐπιστῆμαί εἰσι καὶ τέχναι</span></span> (compare on this additions p. 255, 1) <span class="trans" title="koina te theōrēmata echein kai telos, hōs eirētai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινά τε θεωρήματα ἔχειν καὶ τέλος, ὡς εἴρηται</span></span> (p. 108—the same is more fully set forth by Panætius, p. 112), <span class="trans" title="to auto, dio kai achōristous einai; ton gar mian echonta pasas echein, kai ton kata mian prattonta kata pasas prattein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ αὐτὸ, διὸ καὶ ἀχωρίστους εἶναι· τὸν γὰρ μίαν ἔχοντα πάσας ἔχειν, καὶ τὸν κατὰ μίαν
+πράττοντα κατὰ πάσας πράττειν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 125: <span class="trans" title="tas d’ aretas legousin antakolouthein allēlais kai ton mian echonta pasas echein; einai gar autōn ta theōrēmata koina"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς δ’ ἀρετὰς λέγουσιν ἀντακολουθεῖν ἀλλήλαις καὶ τὸν μίαν ἔχοντα πάσας ἔχειν· εἶναι
+γὰρ αὐτῶν τὰ θεωρήματα κοινὰ</span></span>, as Chrysippus, Apollodorus, and Hecato assert. <span class="trans" title="ton gar enareton theōrētikon t’ einai kai praktikon tōn poiēteōn. ta de poiētea kai hairetea esti kai hypomenētea kai aponemētea"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν γὰρ ἐνάρετον θεωρητικόν τ’ εἶναι καὶ πρακτικὸν τῶν ποιητέων. τὰ δὲ ποιητέα καὶ
+αἱρετέα ἐστὶ καὶ ὑπομενητέα καὶ ἀπονεμητέα</span></span>, knowledge and action including all the four principal instincts.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28890src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28937">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28937src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">133</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Parad. 3, 1: <span lang="la">Una virtus est, consentiens cum ratione et perpetua constantia. Nihil huic addi potent,
+quo magis virtus sit; nihil demi, ut virtus nomen relinquatur.</span> Conf. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 9. See p. 267.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28937src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28946">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28946src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">134</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> 112 (conf. <i>Diog.</i> 126): <span class="trans" title="diapherein d’ allēlōn tois kephalaiois. phronēseōs gar einai kephalaia to men theōrein kai prattein ho poiēteon proēgoumenōs, kata de ton deuteron logon to theōrein kai ha dei aponemein, charin tou adiaptōtōs prattein ho poiēteon; tēs de sōphrosynēs idion kephalaion esti to parechesthai tas hormas eustatheis kai theōrein autas proēgoumenōs, kata de ton deuteron logon ta hypo tas allas aretas, heneka tou adiaptōtōs en tais hormais anastrephesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαφέρειν δ’ ἀλλήλων τοῖς κεφαλαίοις. φρονήσεως γὰρ εἶναι κεφάλαια τὸ μὲν θεωρεῖν
+καὶ πράττειν ὃ ποιητέον προηγουμένως, κατὰ δὲ τὸν δεύτερον λόγον τὸ θεωρεῖν καὶ ἃ
+δεῖ ἀπονέμειν, χάριν τοῦ ἀδιαπτώτως πράττειν ὃ ποιητέον· τῆς δὲ σωφροσύνης ἴδιον κεφάλαιόν
+ἐστι τὸ παρέχεσθαι τὰς ὁρμὰς εὐσταθεῖς καὶ θεωρεῖν αὐτὰς προηγουμένως, κατὰ δὲ τὸν
+δεύτερον λόγον τὰ ὑπὸ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρετὰς, ἕνεκα τοῦ ἀδιαπτώτως ἐν ταῖς ὁρμαῖς ἀναστρέφεσθαι</span></span>. Similarly of bravery, which has for its basis <span class="trans" title="pan ho dei hypomenein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν ὃ δεῖ ὑπομένειν</span></span>; and of justice, which has <span class="trans" title="to kat’ axian hekastō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κατ’ ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Alex. Virt. 11: The Stoics teach that <span class="trans" title="mia men aretē prōtagōnistei praxeōs hekastēs, parakalei de tas allas kai synteinei pros to telos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μία μὲν ἀρετὴ πρωταγωνιστεῖ πράξεως ἑκάστης, παρακαλεῖ δὲ τὰς ἄλλας καὶ συντείνει
+πρὸς τὸ τέλος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28946src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e28989">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e28989src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">135</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> 116: <span class="trans" title="phasi de kai panta poiein ton sophon kata pasas tas aretas; pasan gar praxin teleian autou einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φασὶ δὲ καὶ πάντα ποιεῖν τὸν <span id="xd33e28996">σοφὸν</span> κατὰ πάσας τὰς ἀρετάς· πᾶσαν γὰρ πρᾶξιν τελείαν αὐτοῦ εἶναι</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 27, 1, conf. <i>Alex.</i> Virt. l.c.: <span class="trans" title="tas aretas phēsi [Chrysippos] antakolouthein allēlais, ou monon tō ton mian echonta pasas echein, alla kai tō ton kata mian hotioun energounta kata pasas energein; out’ andra phēsi teleion einai ton mē pasas echonta tas aretas, oute praxin teleian, hētis ou kata pasas prattetai tas aretas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς ἀρετάς φησι [Χρύσιππος] ἀντακολουθεῖν ἀλλήλαις, οὐ μόνον τῷ τὸν μίαν ἔχοντα πάσας
+ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ τὸν κατὰ μίαν ὁτιοῦν ἐνεργοῦντα κατὰ πάσας ἐνεργεῖν· οὔτ’ ἄνδρα
+φησὶ τέλειον εἶναι τὸν μὴ πάσας ἔχοντα τὰς ἀρετὰς, οὔτε πρᾶξιν τελείαν, ἥτις οὐ κατὰ
+πάσας πράττεται τὰς ἀρετάς</span></span>. If Chrysippus allowed, as Plutarch states, that the brave man does not always act
+bravely, nor the bad man always like a coward, it was a confession to which he was
+driven by experience, contrary to Stoic principles.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e28989src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29018">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29018src" title="Return to note 136 in text.">136</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 10, 38: <span lang="la">Nec virtutis usum modo [Zeno dicebat] ut superiores</span> (whom the Stoic evidently wrongs), <span lang="la">sed ipsum habitum per se esse præclarum.</span> <i>Id.</i> Parad. 3, 1: <span lang="la">Nec enim peccata rerum eventu sed vitiis hominum metienda sunt.</span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. vi. 11, 3: <span lang="la">Voluntas est, quæ apud nos ponit officium,</span> which Cleanthes then proceeds to illustrate by a parable of two slaves, one of whom
+diligently seeks for the man whom he is sent to find but without success, whilst the
+other taking it easy accidentally comes across him. <i>Ibid.</i> i. 5, 2: A benefaction is only <span lang="la">ipsa tribuentis voluntas.</span> 6, 1: <span lang="la">Non quid fiat aut quid detur refert, sed qua mente.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29018src" title="Return to note 136 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29046">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29046src" title="Return to note 137 in text.">137</a></span> Compare also the paradoxical statement—<span lang="la">Qui libenter beneficium accepit, reddidit</span>—which <i>Sen.</i> l.c. ii. 31, 1, justifies by saying: <span lang="la">Cum omnia ad animum referamus, fecit quisque quantum voluit.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29046src" title="Return to note 137 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29056">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29056src" title="Return to note 138 in text.">138</a></span> Cleanthes, in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 6, 19:
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="hostis epithymōn anechet’ aischrou pragmatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅστις ἐπιθυμῶν ἀνέχετ’ αἰσχροῦ πράγματος</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="houtos poiēsei tout’ ean kairon labē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗτος ποιήσει τοῦτ’ ἐὰν καιρὸν λάβῃ</span></span>. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29103">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29103src" title="Return to note 139 in text.">139</a></span> On the notions of <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="hamartēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἁμάρτημα</span></span>, see <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 11, 1: <span class="trans" title="to katorthōma phasi nomou prostagma einai, to d’ hamartēma nomou apagoreuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κατόρθωμά φασι νόμου προστάγμα εἶναι, τὸ δ’ ἁμάρτημα νόμου ἀπαγόρευμα</span></span>. To a bad man, law only gives prohibitions, and not commands: <span class="trans" title="ou gar dynantai katorthoun"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γὰρ <span class="corr" id="xd33e29135" title="Source: δυναται">δύνανται</span> κατορθοῦν</span></span>. Chrysippus, <i>Ibid.</i> 15, 10: <span class="trans" title="pan katorthōma kai eunomēma kai dikaiopragēma esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν κατόρθωμα καὶ εὐνόμημα καὶ δικαιοπράγημά ἐστι</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> ii. 192: <span class="trans" title="eti de tōn energēmatōn phasi ta men einai katorthōmata, ta d’ hamartēmata, ta d’ oudetera"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἐνεργημάτων φασὶ τὰ μὲν εἶναι κατορθώματα, τὰ δ’ ἁμαρτήματα, τὰ δ’ οὐδέτερα</span></span> (examples of the latter are speaking, giving, &amp;c.) … <span class="trans" title="panta de ta katorthōmata dikaiopragēmata einai kai eunoēmata kai eutaktēmata, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα δὲ τὰ κατορθώματα δικαιοπραγήματα εἶναι καὶ εὐνοήματα καὶ εὐτακτήματα, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <span class="trans" title="ta de hamartēmata ek tōn antikeimenōn adikēmata kai anomēmata kai ataktēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ δὲ ἁμαρτήματα ἐκ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἀδικήματα καὶ ἀνομήματα καὶ ἀτακτήματα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29103src" title="Return to note 139 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29181">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29181src" title="Return to note 140 in text.">140</a></span> It is to this view that the distinction between <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span> refers from the one side. A <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span> (the conceptions of which will be subsequently more fully discussed) is, in general,
+any discharge of duty, or rational action; <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> only refers to a perfect discharge of duty, or to a virtuous course of conduct. Conf.
+<i>Stob.</i> 158: <span class="trans" title="tōn de kathēkontōn ta men einai phasi teleia, ha dē kai katorthōmata legesthai. katorthōmata d’ einai ta kat’ aretēn energēmata ... to de kathēkon teleiōthen katorthōma ginesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δὲ καθηκόντων τὰ μὲν εἶναί φασι τέλεια, ἃ δὴ καὶ κατορθώματα λέγεσθαι. κατορθώματα
+δ’ εἶναι τὰ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἐνεργήματα … τὸ δὲ καθῆκον τελειωθὲν κατόρθωμα γίνεσθαι</span></span>. Similarly, 184: A <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> is a <span class="trans" title="kathēkon pantas epechon tous arithmous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον πάντας ἐπέχον τοὺς ἀριθμούς</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 18, 59: <span lang="la">Quoniam enim videmus esse quiddam, quod recte factum appellemus, id autem est perfectum
+officium; erit autem etiam inchoatum; ut, si juste depositum reddere in recte factis
+sit, in officiis (<span class="trans" title="kathēkonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθήκοντα</span></span>) ponatur depositum reddere.</span> Off. i. 3, 8: <span lang="la">Et medium quoddam officium dicitur et perfectum</span>; the former is called <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span>, the latter <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span>. A virtuous action can only be done by one who has a virtuous intention, i.e. by
+a wise man. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 6, 15: If we understand by a life according to nature, what is rational,
+<span lang="la">rectum est, quod <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> dicebas, contingitque sapienti soli.</span> Off. iii. 3, 14: <span lang="la">Illud autem officium, quod rectum iidem [Stoici] appellant, perfectum atque absolutum
+est, et, ut iidem dicunt, omnes numeros habet, nec præter sapientem, cadere in quenquam
+potest.</span> Off. iii. 4, 16: When the Decii and Scipios are called brave, Fabricius and Aristides
+just, Cato and Lælius wise, the wisdom and virtue of the wise man are not attributed
+to them in the strict sense of the term: <span lang="la">sed ex mediorum officiorum frequentia similitudinem quandam gerebant speciemque sapientum.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29181src" title="Return to note 140 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29302">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29302src" title="Return to note 141 in text.">141</a></span> See p. 263, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29302src" title="Return to note 141 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29305">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29305src" title="Return to note 142 in text.">142</a></span> In <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 61, β (Schol. in Arist. 70, b, 28), the Stoics say: <span class="trans" title="tas men hexeis epiteinesthai dynasthai kai aniesthai; tas de diatheseis anepitatous einai kai anetous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς μὲν ἕξεις ἐπιτείνεσθαι δύνασθαι καὶ ἀνίεσθαι· τὰς δὲ διαθέσεις ἀνεπιτάτους εἶναι
+καὶ ἀνέτους</span></span>. Thus straightness is, for instance, a <span class="trans" title="diathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάθεσις</span></span>, and no mere <span class="trans" title="hexis. houtōsi de kai tas aretas diatheseis einai, ou kata to monimon idiōma, alla kata to anepitaton kai anepidekton tou mallon; tas de technas, ētoi dyskinētous ousas ē mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις. οὑτωσὶ δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς διαθέσεις εἶναι, οὐ κατὰ τὸ μόνιμον ἰδίωμα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ
+τὸ ἀνεπίτατον καὶ ἀνεπίδεκτον τοῦ μᾶλλον· τὰς δὲ τέχνας, ἤτοι δυσκινήτους οὔσας ἢ
+μὴ</span></span> (add <span class="trans" title="ouk"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="einai diatheseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι διαθέσεις</span></span>. Conf. p. 103, 1. <i>Ibid.</i> 72, δ (Schol. 76, a, 12): <span class="trans" title="tōn Stōïkōn, hoitines dielomenoi chōris tas aretas apo tōn mesōn technōn tautas oute epiteinesthai legousin oute aniesthai, tas de mesas technas kai epitasin kai anesin dechesthai phasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν Στωϊκῶν, οἵτινες διελόμενοι χωρὶς τὰς ἀρετὰς ἀπὸ τῶν μέσων τεχνῶν ταύτας οὔτε
+ἐπιτείνεσθαι λέγουσιν οὔτε ἀνίεσθαι, τὰς δὲ μέσας τέχνας καὶ ἐπίτασιν καὶ ἄνεσιν δέχεσθαι
+φασίν</span></span>. Simpl. (73, α. Schol. 76, a, 24) replies: This would be true, if virtue consisted
+only in theoretical conviction: such a conviction must be either true or false, and
+does not admit of more or less truth (for the same line of argument, see p. 267, 1);
+but it is otherwise where it is a matter for exercise. It may be remarked, in passing,
+that a further distinction was made between <span class="trans" title="aretē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρετὴ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="technē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέχνη</span></span>—the one being preceded by an <span class="trans" title="axiologos prokopē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξιόλογος προκοπὴ</span></span>, the other by a simple <span class="trans" title="epitēdeiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιτηδειότης</span></span> (<i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 62, β; Schol. 71, a, 38). There is also a definition of <span class="trans" title="technē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέχνη</span></span> attributed by Olympiodorus, in Gorg. 53 (<span lang="de">Jahrb. für<span id="xd33e29405"></span> Philol.</span> See <span lang="de">Supplementb.</span> xiv. 239), to Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus; to Zeno in <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 241; Math. vii. 109 and 373; more fully in <i>Lucian</i>, Paras. c. 4, Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 7, 22.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29305src" title="Return to note 142 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29419">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29419src" title="Return to note 143 in text.">143</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 127: <span class="trans" title="areskei de autois mēden meson einai aretēs kai kakias; tōn Peripatētikōn metaxy aretēs kai kakias einai legontōn tēn prokopēn; hōs gar dein, phasin, ē orthon einai xylon ē streblon, houtōs ē dikaion ē adikon; oute de dikaioteron oute adikōteron, kai epi tōn allōn homoiōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρέσκει δὲ αὐτοῖς μηδὲν μέσον εἶναι ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας· τῶν Περιπατητικῶν μεταξὺ ἀρετῆς
+καὶ κακίας εἶναι λεγόντων τὴν προκοπήν· ὡς γὰρ δεῖν, φασιν, ἢ <span id="xd33e29426">ὀρθὸν</span> εἶναι ξύλον ἢ στρεβλὸν, οὕτως ἢ δίκαιον ἢ ἄδικον· οὔτε δὲ δικαιότερον οὔτε ἀδικώτερον,
+καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως</span></span>. Similarly, <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 71, 18: <span lang="la">Quod summum bonum est, supra se gradum non habet … hoc nec remitti nec intendi posse,
+non magis, quam regulam, qua rectum probari solet, flectes. Quicquid ex illa mutaveris
+injuria est recti.</span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 116: <span class="trans" title="aretēs de kai kakias ouden einai metaxy"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρετῆς δὲ καὶ κακίας οὐδὲν εἶναι μεταξύ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29419src" title="Return to note 143 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29452">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29452src" title="Return to note 144 in text.">144</a></span> The much-discussed paradox (<i>Cic.</i> Parad. 3; Fin. iv. 27; <i>Diog.</i> 101 and 120; <i>Stob.</i> 218; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 13, 1; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 422; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 5) is this: <span class="trans" title="hoti isa ta hamartēmata kai ta katorthōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι ἴσα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ τὰ κατορθώματα</span></span>. It was, according to <i>Diog.</i>, supported, on the one hand, by the proposition, <span class="trans" title="pan agathon ep’ akron einai haireton kai mēte anesin mēte epitasin dechesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶν ἀγαθὸν ἐπ’ ἄκρον εἶναι αἱρετὸν καὶ μήτε ἄνεσιν μήτε ἐπίτασιν <span id="xd33e29481">δέχεσθαι</span></span></span>; on the other hand, by the remark, to which <i>Sext.</i> and <i>Simpl.</i> in Categ., Schol. in Arist. 76, a, 30, refer: If truth and falsehood admit of no
+difference of degree, the same must be true of the errors of our conduct. A man is
+not at the mark, no matter whether he is one or a hundred stadia away. Similarly,
+Stobæus: The Stoics declare all errors to be <span class="trans" title="isa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἴσα</span></span>, although not <span class="trans" title="homoia; pan gar to pseudos episēs pseudos symbebēken;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅμοια· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐπίσης ψεῦδος συμβέβηκεν·</span></span> (a statement quoted as Stoical by <i>Alex.</i> in Metaph. p. 258, 3 Bon. 667, a, 19 Brand) every <span class="trans" title="hamartia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἁμαρτία</span></span> is the result of a <span class="trans" title="diapseusis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάψευσις</span></span>. It is, however, impossible for <span class="trans" title="katorthōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατορθώματα</span></span> not to be equal to one another, if vices are equal; <span class="trans" title="panta gar esti teleia, dioper out’ elleipein outh’ hyperechein dynait’ an allēlōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα γάρ ἐστι τέλεια, διόπερ οὔτ’ ἐλλείπειν οὔθ’ ὑπερέχειν δύναιτ’ ἂν ἀλλήλων</span></span>. Cicero and Seneca devoted particular attention to this enquiry. The investigations
+of Cicero in the Paradoxa result in bringing him to the passage quoted p. 263, 2,
+from which it follows that nothing can be <span lang="la">recto rectius</span>, nor <span class="pageNum" id="pb268n">[<a href="#pb268n">268</a>]</span><span lang="la">bono melius</span>. The equality of faults is a corollary from the equality of virtues; it also follows
+from the consideration that whatever is forbidden at all is equally forbidden. De
+Fin.: It is said, all faults are equal, <span lang="la">quia nec honesto quidquam honestius nec turpi turpius.</span> Seneca (Ep. 66, 5) raises the question, How, notwithstanding the difference between
+goods (see p. 230, 3 end), can all be equal in value? and at once replies: Is virtue—or,
+what is the same thing, a rightly moulded soul—the only primary good? Virtue, indeed,
+admits of various forms, according to the activities imposed on it, but can neither
+be increased nor diminished; <span lang="la">Decrescere enim summum bonum non potest, nec virtuti ire retro licet.</span> It cannot increase, <span lang="la">quando incrementum maximo non est: nihil invenies rectius recto, non magis quam verius
+vero, quam temperato temperatius.</span> All virtue consists <span lang="la">in modo, in certa mensura. Quid accedere perfecto potest? Nihil, aut perfectum non
+erat, cui accessit: ergo ne virtuti quidem, cui si quid adjici potest, defuit … ergo
+virtutes inter se pares sunt et opera virtutis et omnes homines, quibus illæ contigere
+… una inducitur humanis virtutibus regula. Una enim est ratio recta simplexque. Nihil
+est divino divinius, cœlesti cœlestius. Mortalia minuuntur … crescunt, &amp;c.; divinorum
+una natura est. Ratio autem nihil aliud est, quam in corpus humanum pars divini spiritus
+mersa … nullum porro inter divina discrimen est: ergo nec inter bona.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 32: <span lang="la">Omnes virtutes rationes sunt: rationes sunt rectæ: si rectæ sunt, et pares sunt. Qualis
+ratio est, tales et actiones sunt: ergo omnes pares sunt: ceterum magna habebunt discrimina
+variante materia,</span> etc. On the same ground, <i>Seneca</i>, Ep. 71, defended the equality of all goods and of all good actions, in particular
+p. 18, where to the quotation given, p. 266, 3, the words are added: <span lang="la">Si rectior ipsa [virtus] non potest fieri, nec quæ ab illa quidem fiunt, alia aliis
+rectiora sunt.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29452src" title="Return to note 144 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29588">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29588src" title="Return to note 145 in text.">145</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 10, 4: <span class="trans" title="nai, phasin; alla hōsper ho pēchyn apechōn en thalattē tēs epiphaneias ouden hētton pnigetai tou katadedykotos orguias pentakosias, houtōs oude hoi pelazontes aretē tōn makran ontōn hētton eisin en kakia kai kathaper hoi typhloi typhloi eisi kan oligon hysteron anablepein mellōsin, houtōs hoi prokoptontes achris hou tēn aretēn analabōsin anoētoi kai mochthēroi diamenousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ναὶ, φασίν· ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ ὁ πῆχυν ἀπέχων ἐν θαλάττῃ τῆς ἐπιφανείας οὐδὲν ἧττον πνίγεται
+τοῦ καταδεδυκότος ὀργυίας πεντακοσίας, οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ πελάζοντες ἀρετῇ τῶν μακρὰν ὄντων
+ἧττόν εἰσιν ἐν κακίᾳ καὶ καθάπερ οἱ τυφλοὶ τυφλοί εἰσι κἂν ὀλίγον ὕστερον ἀναβλέπειν
+μέλλωσιν, οὕτως οἱ προκόπτοντες ἄχρις οὗ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀναλάβωσιν ἀνόητοι καὶ μοχθηροὶ
+<span class="corr" id="xd33e29595" title="Source: διαμέ ουσιν">διαμένουσιν</span></span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 127 (see p. 266, 3). <i>Stob.</i> ii. 236: <span class="trans" title="pantōn te tōn hamartēmatōn isōn ontōn kai tōn katorthōmatōn kai tous aphronas episēs pantas aphronas einai tēn autēn kai isēn echontas diathesin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντων τε τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἴσων ὄντων καὶ τῶν κατορθωμάτων καὶ τοὺς ἄφρονας ἐπίσης
+πάντας ἄφρονας εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ ἴσην ἔχοντας διάθεσιν</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 14, 48: <span lang="la">Consentaneum est his quæ dicta sunt, ratione illorum, qui illum bonorum finem quod
+appellamus extremum quod ultimum crescere putent posse, iisdem placere, esse alium
+alio etiam sapientiorem, itemque alium magis alio vel peccare vel recte facere. Quod
+nobis non licet dicere, qui crescere bonorum finem non putamus.</span> Then <span class="corr" id="xd33e29620" title="Source: fo low">follow</span> the same comparisons as in Plutarch. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 10: As all virtues are equal, so are <span lang="la">omnes homines quibus illæ contigere.</span> Ep. 79, 8: What is perfect admits of no increase; <span lang="la">quicunque fuerint sapientes pares erunt et æquales.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29588src" title="Return to note 145 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29631">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29631src" title="Return to note 146 in text.">146</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 198: <span class="trans" title="areskei gar tō te Zēnōni kai tois ap’ autou Stōïkois philosophois, dyo genē tōn anthrōpōn einai, to men tōn spoudaiōn to de tōn phaulōn; kai to men tōn spoudaiōn dia pantos tou biou chrēsthai tais aretais to de tōn phaulōn tais kakiais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀρέσκει γὰρ τῷ τε Ζήνωνι καὶ τοῖς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ Στωϊκοῖς φιλοσόφοις, δύο γένη τῶν ἀνθρώπων
+εἶναι, τὸ μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων τὸ δὲ τῶν φαύλων· καὶ τὸ μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων διὰ παντὸς
+τοῦ βίου χρῆσθαι ταῖς ἀρεταῖς τὸ δὲ τῶν φαύλων ταῖς κακίαις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29631src" title="Return to note 146 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29643">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29643src" title="Return to note 147 in text.">147</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Poet. 7, p. 25: <span class="trans" title="mēte ti phaulon aretē proseinai mēte kakia chrēston axiousin, alla pantōs men en pasin hamartōlon einai ton amathē, peri panta d’ au katorthoun ton asteion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μήτε τι φαῦλον ἀρετῇ προσεῖναι μήτε κακίᾳ χρηστὸν ἀξιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ πάντως μὲν ἐν πᾶσιν
+ἁμαρτωλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἀμαθῆ, περὶ πάντα δ’ αὖ κατορθοῦν τὸν <span id="xd33e29650">ἀστεῖον</span></span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29643src" title="Return to note 147 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29661">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29661src" title="Return to note 148 in text.">148</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 116; 120; 196; 198; 220; 232; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 117; 125; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 10, 38; ii. 20, 66; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 11, 1; <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 26; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 434.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29661src" title="Return to note 148 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29677">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29677src" title="Return to note 149 in text.">149</a></span> Compare the collection of expressions respecting the wise and unwise in <i>Baumhauer</i>, Vet. Phil. Doct. De Mort. Volunt. p. 169.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29677src" title="Return to note 149 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29682">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29682src" title="Return to note 150 in text.">150</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 121; 32; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 44. 136. Parad. 5: <span class="trans" title="hoti monos ho sophos eleutheros kai pas aphrōn doulos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι μόνος ὁ σοφὸς ἐλεύθερος καὶ πᾶς ἄφρων δοῦλος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29682src" title="Return to note 150 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29696">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29696src" title="Return to note 151 in text.">151</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 28, 1; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. l.c.: <i>Sext.</i> Math xi. 170.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29696src" title="Return to note 151 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29712">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29712src" title="Return to note 152 in text.">152</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Parad<span>.</span> 6; Acad. l.c.; Cleanthes, in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 94, 28; <i>Sext.</i> l.c<span>.</span>; <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 79.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29712src" title="Return to note 152 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29727">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29727src" title="Return to note 153 in text.">153</a></span> <span id="xd33e29728"><i>Sen.</i></span> Benef. vii. 3, 2; 6, 3; 8, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29727src" title="Return to note 153 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29732">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29732src" title="Return to note 154 in text.">154</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. l.c.; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 125.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29732src" title="Return to note 154 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29738">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29738src" title="Return to note 155 in text.">155</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c.; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 122; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 206; <i>Plut.</i> Arat. 23. On all the points discussed, <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 3, 2; De Adul. 16, p. 58; Tran. An. 12, p. 472; Ps. <i>Plut.</i> De Nobil. 17, 2; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 22, 75; <i>Hor.</i> Ep. i. 1, 106; Sat. i. 3, 124.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29738src" title="Return to note 155 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29759">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29759src" title="Return to note 156 in text.">156</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Tran. An. 12; <i>Cic.</i> Divin. ii. 63, 129: <i>Stob.</i> ii. 122; conf. Ps. <i>Plut.</i> Vit. Hom. 143.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29759src" title="Return to note 156 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29769">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29769src" title="Return to note 157 in text.">157</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 122 and 216; <i>Diog.</i> 119; <i>Sen.</i> Provid. i. 5. <i>Philodemus</i>, <span class="trans" title="peri theōn diagōgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς</span></span> (Vol. Hercul. vi. 29), quotes a Stoic saying that the wise are the friends of heaven,
+and heaven of the wise.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29769src" title="Return to note 157 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29788">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29788src" title="Return to note 158 in text.">158</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 81, 11; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 118.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29788src" title="Return to note 158 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29794">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29794src" title="Return to note 159 in text.">159</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. v. 12, 3; <i>Plut.</i> Sto<span>.</span> Rep. 12, 1: C. Not. 20, 1; and above, p. 230, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29794src" title="Return to note 159 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29802">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29802src" title="Return to note 160 in text.">160</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 196; <i>Plut.</i> Stoic. Abs. Poët. Dic. 1, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29802src" title="Return to note 160 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29808">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29808src" title="Return to note 161 in text.">161</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 13, 2; Com. Not. 33, 2; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 198. <i>Seneca</i>, Prov. i. 5: <span lang="la">Bonus ipse tempore tantum a Deo differt.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 6, 4: Jupiter says to the virtuous: <span lang="la">Hoc est, quo Deum antecedatis: ille extra patientiam malorum est, vos supra patientiam.</span> Ep. 73, 11; De Const. 8, 2; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 61, 153; <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 12, 26; Man. 15; <i>Horat.</i> Ep. i. l. 106.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29808src" title="Return to note 161 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29832">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29832src" title="Return to note 162 in text.">162</a></span> See p. 239, 1; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 53, 11: <span lang="la">Non multo te Di antecedent … diutius erunt. At <span class="corr" id="xd33e29838" title="Source: mehercule">mehercules</span> magni artificis est <span class="corr" id="xd33e29841" title="Source: clausisse">clusisse</span> totum in exiguo. Tantum sapienti sua, quantum Deo omnis ætas patet.</span> 73, 13: <span lang="la">Jupiter quo antecedit virum bonum? Diutius bonus est: sapiens nihilo se minoris æstimat,
+quod virtutes ejus spatio breviore <span class="corr" id="xd33e29847" title="Source: clauduntur">cluduntur</span>.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29832src" title="Return to note 162 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29854">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29854src" title="Return to note 163 in text.">163</a></span> <span class="trans" title="pas aphrōn mainetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶς ἄφρων μαίνεται</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Parad. 4; Tusc. iii. 5, 10; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 124; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 124; <i>Horat.</i> Sat. ii. 3, 43.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29854src" title="Return to note 163 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29878">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29878src" title="Return to note 164 in text.">164</a></span> The Peripatetic Diogenianus raises the objection (in <i>Eus.</i> Præp. Ev. vi. 8, 10): <span class="trans" title="pōs oun oudena phēs anthrōpon, hos ouchi mainesthai soi dokei kat’ ison Orestē kai Alkmaiōni, plēn tou sophou? hena de ē dyo monous phēs sophous gegonenai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῶς οὖν οὐδένα <span id="xd33e29886">φῂς</span> ἄνθρωπον, ὃς οὐχὶ μαίνεσθαί σοι δοκεῖ κατ’ ἴσον Ὀρέστῃ καὶ Ἀλκμαίωνι, πλὴν τοῦ <span id="xd33e29890">σοφοῦ</span>; <span id="xd33e29894">ἕνα δὲ</span> ἢ δύο μόνους φῂς <span id="xd33e29898">σοφοὺς</span> γεγονέναι</span></span>. Similarly <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 31, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29878src" title="Return to note 164 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29909">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29909src" title="Return to note 165 in text.">165</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 90 in the argument quoted, p. 146, 1: Man can be the most perfect being,
+<span class="trans" title="hoion eutheōs, hoti dia kakias poreuetai ton panta chronon, ei de mē ge, ton pleiston; kai gar ei pote perigenoito aretēs, opse kai pros tais tou biou dysmais periginetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἷον εὐθέως, ὅτι διὰ κακίας πορεύεται τὸν πάντα χρόνον, εἰ δὲ μή γε, τὸν πλεῖστον·
+καὶ γὰρ εἴ ποτε περιγένοιτο ἀρετῆς, ὀψὲ καὶ πρὸς ταῖς τοῦ βίου δυσμαῖς περιγίνεται</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29909src" title="Return to note 165 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29923">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29923src" title="Return to note 166 in text.">166</a></span> This point will be again considered in the next chapter. Compare at present <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 133, who says: <span class="trans" title="eisin ara sophoi; hoper ouk ēreske tois apo tēs Stoas, mechri tou nyn aneuretou ontos kat’ autous tou sophou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰσὶν ἄρα σοφοί· ὅπερ οὐκ ἤρεσκε τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς, μεχρὶ τοῦ νῦν ἀνευρέτου ὄντος
+κατ’ αὐτοὺς τοῦ σοφοῦ</span></span>. <i>Alex. Aphrod.</i> De Fat. 28, p. 90: <span class="trans" title="tōn de anthrōpōn hoi pleistoi kakoi, mallon de agathos men heis ē deuteros hyp’ autōn gegonenai mytheuetai, hōsper ti paradoxon zōon kai para physin, spaniōteron tou Phoinikos ... hoi de pantes kakoi kai episēs allēlois toioutoi, hōs mēden diapherein allon allou, mainesthai de homoiōs pantas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δὲ ἀνθρώπων οἱ πλεῖστοι κακοὶ, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀγαθὸς μὲν εἷς ἢ δεύτερος ὑπ’ αὐτῶν γεγονέναι
+μυθεύεται, ὥσπερ τι παράδοξον ζῷον καὶ παρὰ φύσιν, σπανιώτερον τοῦ Φοίνικος … οἱ δὲ
+πάντες κακοὶ καὶ ἐπίσης ἀλλήλοις τοιοῦτοι, ὡς μηδὲν διαφέρειν ἄλλον ἄλλου, μαίνεσθαι
+δὲ ὁμοίως πάντας</span></span>. <i>Philodem.</i> De Mus. (Vol. Herc. i.), col. 11, 18: The Stoic cannot take his stand upon the opinion
+of the majority (consensus gentium), since he has declared it to be profane and impious.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29923src" title="Return to note 166 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29950">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29950src" title="Return to note 167 in text.">167</a></span> Benef. i. 10, 1–3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29950src" title="Return to note 167 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29953">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29953src" title="Return to note 168 in text.">168</a></span> De Ira, iii. 26, 4; Benef. v. 17, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29953src" title="Return to note 168 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29956">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29956src" title="Return to note 169 in text.">169</a></span> De Clemen. i. 6, 3; De Ira, ii. 28, 1; iii. 27, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29956src" title="Return to note 169 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29959">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29959src" title="Return to note 170 in text.">170</a></span> Ep. 41, 9; Vit. Be. i. 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29959src" title="Return to note 170 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29965">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29965src" title="Return to note 171 in text.">171</a></span> See the pathetic description, De Ira, ii. 8–10, amongst other passages the following:
+<span lang="la">Ferarum iste conventus est: … certatur ingenti quidem nequitiæ certamine: major quotidie
+peccandi cupiditas, minor verecundia est</span>, &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29965src" title="Return to note 171 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29973">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29973src" title="Return to note 172 in text.">172</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 91: <span class="trans" title="tekmērion de tou hyparktēn einai tēn aretēn phēsin ho Poseidōnios en tō prōtō tou ēthikou logō to genesthai en prokopē tous peri Sōkratēn, Diogenēn kai Antisthenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τεκμήριον δὲ τοῦ ὑπαρκτὴν εἶναι τὴν ἀρετήν φησιν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ
+λόγῳ τὸ γενέσθαι ἐν προκοπῇ τοὺς περὶ Σωκράτην, Διογένην καὶ Ἀντισθένην</span></span>. The limitation likewise contained herein will be presently discussed. <i>Epictet.</i> Man. 15, mentions Heraclitus as well as Diogenes as <span class="trans" title="theioi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεῖοι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29973src" title="Return to note 172 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e29995">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e29995src" title="Return to note 173 in text.">173</a></span> See the immoderate language of praise of his admirer <i>Sen.</i> De Const. 7, 1: The wise man is no unreal ideal, although, like everything else that
+is great, he is seldom met with; <span lang="la">ceteram hic ipse M. Cato vereor ne supra nostrum exemplar sit.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 2, 1: <span lang="la">Catonem autem certius exemplar sapientis viri nobis Deos immortales dedisse quam Ulixen
+et Herculem prioribus sæculis.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e29995src" title="Return to note 173 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30007">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30007src" title="Return to note 174 in text.">174</a></span> <i>Plutarch</i>, Prof. in Virt. 2, p. 76; <i>Cic.</i> Off. iii. 4, 16, p. 265, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30007src" title="Return to note 174 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30015">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30015src" title="Return to note 175 in text.">175</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 27, 2: <span lang="la">Itaque errant illi, qui interrogant Stoicos: quid ergo? Achilles timidus est? quid
+ergo? Aristides, cui justitia nomen dedit, injustus est? &amp;c. Non hoc dicimus, sic
+omnia vitia esse in omnibus, quomodo in quibusdam singula eminent: sed malum ac stultum
+nullo vitio vacare … omnia in omnibus vitia sunt, sed non omnia in singulis extant</span> (<i>i.e.</i>, all points are not equally prominent in each one). It hardly requires to be pointed
+out how nearly this view coincides with that of Augustine on the virtues of the heathen,
+how close a resemblance the Stoic doctrine of folly bears to the Christian doctrine
+of the unregenerate, and how the contrast between wisdom and folly corresponds to
+that between the faithful and unbelievers.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30015src" title="Return to note 175 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30029">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30029src" title="Return to note 176 in text.">176</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C.&nbsp;N. 10, 1; Prof. in Virt. 12, p. 82; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 75, 8.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30029src" title="Return to note 176 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30035">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30035src" title="Return to note 177 in text.">177</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 9; Stoic. Abs. Poët. Dic. 2. The Stoics are here ridiculed because, according
+to their view, a man may go to bed ugly, poor, vicious, miserable, and rise the next
+morning wise, virtuous, rich, happy, and a king. In Prof. in Virt. 1, p. 75, a saying
+of Zeno’s is given, that it is possible to tell by a dream whether we are advancing
+in virtue.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30035src" title="Return to note 177 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30039">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30039src" title="Return to note 178 in text.">178</a></span> See p. 266, 3; <i>Plut.</i> Prof. in Virt. 1; Com. Not. 10, 2; see p. 269, 1; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 75, 8.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30039src" title="Return to note 178 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30046">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30046src" title="Return to note 179 in text.">179</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 9, 1: <span class="trans" title="tēs aretēs kai tēs eudaimonias paraginomenēs pollakis oud’ aisthanesthai ton ktēsamenon oiontai dialelēthenai d’ auton hoti mikrō prosthen athliōtatos ōn kai achronestatos nyn homou phronimos kai makarios gegonen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας παραγινομένης πολλάκις οὐδ’ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸν κτησάμενον
+οἴονται διαλεληθέναι δ’ αὐτὸν ὅτι μικρῷ πρόσθεν ἀθλιώτατος ὢν καὶ ἀχρονέστατος νῦν
+ὁμοῦ φρόνιμος καὶ μακάριος γέγονεν</span></span>. So Sto. Rep. 19, 3. In explanation of these words, <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 657, aptly refers to <i>Stob.</i> ii. 234 (<span class="trans" title="gignesthai de kai dialelēthota tina sophon nomizousi kata tous prōtous chronous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γίγνεσθαι δὲ καὶ διαλεληθότα τινὰ σοφὸν νομίζουσι κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους χρόνους</span></span>), and <i>Philo</i>, De Agric. p. 325: Those yet inexperienced <span class="pageNum" id="pb276n">[<a href="#pb276n">276</a>]</span>in wisdom <span class="trans" title="para tois philosophois dialelēthotes einai legontai sophoi; tous gar achri sophias akras elēlakotas kai tōn horōn autēs arti prōton hapsamenous amēchanon eidenai, phasi, tēn heautōn teleiōsin. mē gar kata ton auton chronon amphō synistasthai tēn te pros to peras aphixin kai tēn tēs aphixeōs katalēpsin, all’ einai methorion agnoian, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις διαλεληθότες εἶναι λέγονται σοφοί· τοὺς γὰρ ἄχρι σοφίας ἄκρας
+ἐληλακότας καὶ τῶν ὅρων αὐτῆς ἄρτι πρῶτον ἁψαμένους ἀμήχανον εἰδέναι, φασι, τὴν ἑαυτῶν
+τελείωσιν. μὴ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἄμφω συνίστασθαι τήν τε πρὸς τὸ πέρας ἄφιξιν
+καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀφίξεως κατάληψιν, ἀλλ’ εἶναι μεθόριον ἄγνοιαν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 75, 9, likewise investigates the same point, but ranges those who have not yet
+attained the consciousness of perfection among advancers, but not among the wise.
+<i>Prantl’s</i> conjecture (<span lang="de">Gesch. d. Logik</span>, i. 490, 210), that the <span class="trans" title="sophos dialelēthōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σοφὸς διαλεληθὼς</span></span> is connected with the fallacy known as <span class="trans" title="dialanthanōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαλανθάνων</span></span>, appears to be questionable.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30046src" title="Return to note 179 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch11" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1256">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XI.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE STOIC THEORY OF MORALS AS MODIFIED BY PRACTICAL NEEDS.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch11.a">A. <i>Things to be preferred and eschewed.</i></span>
+The Stoic theory of Ethics is entirely rooted in the proposition, that only virtue
+is a good and only vice an evil. This proposition, however, frequently brought the
+Stoics into collision with current views; nor was it without its difficulties for
+their own system. In the first place, virtue is made to depend for its existence upon
+certain conditions, and to lead to certain results, from which it is inseparable.
+These results, we have already seen,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30124src" href="#xd33e30124" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> were included by the Stoics in the list of goods. Moreover, virtue is said to be
+the only good, because only what is according to nature is a good, and rational conduct
+is for man the only thing according to nature. But can this be so absolutely and unconditionally
+stated? According to the Stoic teaching the instinct of self-preservation being the
+primary impulse, does not this instinct manifestly include the preservation and advancement
+of outward life? The Stoics, therefore, could not help including physical goods and
+activities among things according to nature—for instance, <span class="pageNum" id="pb279">[<a href="#pb279">279</a>]</span>health, a right enjoyment of the senses, and such like.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30129src" href="#xd33e30129" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> Practically, too, the same admission was forced upon them by the consideration<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30169src" href="#xd33e30169" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> that, if there is no difference in value between things in themselves, rational choice—and,
+indeed, all acting on motives—is impossible. At the same time, they reject the notion
+that what is first according to nature must therefore be perfect or good, just as
+in theory they allow that the source of knowledge, but not truth itself, is derived
+from the senses. When man has once recognised the universal law of action, he will,
+according to their view, think little of what is sensuous and individual, and only
+look upon it as an instrument in the service of virtue and reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30200src" href="#xd33e30200" title="Go to note 4.">4</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb280">[<a href="#pb280">280</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch11.a.1">(1) <i>Secondary goods.</i></span>
+Still, there remains the question, How can this be possible? and this is no easy one
+to answer. The contemporary opponents of the Stoics already took exception to the
+way in which the first demands of nature were by them excluded from the aims of a
+life<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30234src" href="#xd33e30234" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> according to nature; and we, too, cannot suppress a feeling of perplexity at being
+told that all duties aim at attaining what is primarily according to nature, but that
+what is according to nature must not be looked upon as the aim of our actions;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30240src" href="#xd33e30240" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> since not that which is simply according to nature, but the rational choice and combination
+of what is according to nature constitutes the good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30246src" href="#xd33e30246" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> Even if the Stoics pretend to dispose of this difficulty, they <span class="pageNum" id="pb281">[<a href="#pb281">281</a>]</span>cannot, at least, fail to see that whatever contributes to bodily well-being must
+have a certain positive value, and must be desirable in all cases in which no higher
+good suffers in consequence; and, conversely, that whatever is opposed to bodily well-being,
+when higher duties are not involved, must have a negative value (<span class="trans" title="apaxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπαξία</span></span>), and, consequently, deserve to be avoided.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30271src" href="#xd33e30271" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> Such objects and actions they would not, however, allow to be included in the class
+of goods which are absolutely valuable.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30281src" href="#xd33e30281" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> It was therefore a blending of Peripatetic with Stoic teaching when Herillus, the
+fellow-student of Cleanthes, enumerated bodily and outward goods as secondary and
+subsidiary aims besides virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30294src" href="#xd33e30294" title="Go to note 10.">10</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch11.a.2">(2) <i>Classes of things indifferent.</i></span>
+Nor were the Stoics minded to follow the contemporary philosopher, Aristo of Chios
+(who in this point, too, endeavoured to place their School on the platform of the
+Cynic philosophy), in denying any difference in value between things morally indifferent<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30349src" href="#xd33e30349" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> and in making the highest aim in life <span class="pageNum" id="pb282">[<a href="#pb282">282</a>]</span>consist in indifference to all external things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30376src" href="#xd33e30376" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> Virtue with them bears, in comparison with the Cynic virtue, a more positive character,
+that of an energetic will; they, therefore, required some definite relation to the
+outward objects and conditions of this activity which should regulate the choosing
+or rejecting—or, in other words, the practical decision. Accordingly, they divided
+things indifferent into three classes. To the first class belong all those things
+which, from a moral or absolute point of view, are neither good nor evil, but yet
+which have a certain value; no matter whether this value belongs to them properly,
+because they are in harmony with human nature, or whether it belongs to them improperly,
+because they are means for advancing moral and natural life, or whether it belongs
+to them on both grounds. The second class includes everything which, either by itself
+or in its relation to higher aims, is opposed to nature and harmful. The third, things
+which, even <span class="pageNum" id="pb283">[<a href="#pb283">283</a>]</span>in this conditional sense, have neither positive nor negative value. The first class
+bears the name of things preferential (<span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span>), or things desirable; the second is the class of things to be eschewed (<span class="trans" title="apoproēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποπροηγμένον</span></span>); the third is the class of things intermediate.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30446src" href="#xd33e30446" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> The last is called, in the strict sense, indifferent, <span class="trans" title="adiaphoron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιάφορον</span></span>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30532src" href="#xd33e30532" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> It includes not only what is really indifferent, but whatever has such a slight negative
+or positive value that it neither enkindles desire nor aversion. Hence the terms <span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="apoproēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποπροηγμένον</span></span> are defined to mean respectively that which has an appreciable positive or negative
+value.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30577src" href="#xd33e30577" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> Under things preferential, the Stoics include partly mental qualities and conditions,
+such as <span class="pageNum" id="pb284">[<a href="#pb284">284</a>]</span>talents and skill, even progress towards virtue, in as far as it is not yet virtue;
+partly bodily advantage—beauty, strength, health, life itself; partly external goods—riches,
+honour, noble birth, relations, &amp;c. Under things to be eschewed, they understand the
+opposite things and conditions; under things indifferent, whatever has no appreciable
+influence on our choice, such as the question whether the number of hairs on the head
+is even or uneven; whether I pick up a piece of waste paper from the floor, or leave
+it; whether one piece of money or another is used in <span class="marginnote" id="ch11.a.3">(3) <i>Collision of modified and abstract theory.</i></span> payment of a debt.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30589src" href="#xd33e30589" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> Yet they drew a sharp distinction between the purely relative value of things preferential,
+and the absolute value of things morally good. Only the latter are really allowed
+to be called good, because they only, under all circumstances, are useful and necessary.
+Of things morally indifferent, on the other hand, the best may, under certain circumstances,
+be bad, and the worst—sickness, poverty, and the like—may, under certain circumstances,
+be useful.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30619src" href="#xd33e30619" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> Just as little would they allow that the independence of the wise man suffered by
+the recognition outside himself of a class of things preferential. For the wise man,
+said Chrysippus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30625src" href="#xd33e30625" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> uses such things <span class="pageNum" id="pb285">[<a href="#pb285">285</a>]</span>without requiring them. Nevertheless, the admission of classes of things to be preferred
+and to be declined obviously undermines their doctrine of the good. Between what is
+good and what is evil, a third group is introduced, of doubtful character; and since
+we have seen the term <span class="trans" title="adiaphoron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιάφορον</span></span> is only applied to this group in its more extended meaning, it became impossible
+for them to refuse to apply the term good to things desirable,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30660src" href="#xd33e30660" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> or to exclude unconditionally from the highest good many of the things which they
+were in the habit of pronouncing indifferent.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30711src" href="#xd33e30711" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Nor was this concession merely the yielding of a term, as will appear when particular
+instances are considered. Not only may Seneca<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30727src" href="#xd33e30727" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> be heard, in Aristotelian manner, defending external possessions as aids to virtue—not
+only Hecato, and even Diogenes, uttering ambiguous sentences as to permitted <span class="pageNum" id="pb286">[<a href="#pb286">286</a>]</span>and forbidden gains<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30733src" href="#xd33e30733" title="Go to note 22.">22</a>—not only Panætius giving expression to much that falls short of Stoic severity<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30737src" href="#xd33e30737" title="Go to note 23.">23</a>—but even Chrysippus avows that in his opinion it is silly not to desire health, wealth,
+and freedom from pain,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30742src" href="#xd33e30742" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> and that a statesman may treat honour and wealth as real goods;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30746src" href="#xd33e30746" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> adding that the whole Stoic School agrees with him in thinking it no disparagement
+for a wise man to follow a profession which lies under a stigma in the common opinion
+of Greece.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30750src" href="#xd33e30750" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> He did not even hesitate to assert that it is better to live irrationally than not
+to live at all.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30772src" href="#xd33e30772" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> It is <span class="pageNum" id="pb287">[<a href="#pb287">287</a>]</span>impossible to conceal the fact that, in attempting to adapt their system to general
+opinion and to the conditions of practical life, the Stoics were driven to make admissions
+strongly at variance with their previous theories. It may hence be gathered with certainty
+that, in laying down those theories, they had overstrained a point.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch11.b">B. <i>Perfect and intermediate duties.</i></span>
+By means of this doctrine of things to be preferred and things to be eschewed, a further
+addition was made to the conception of duty. Under duty, or what is proper,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30792src" href="#xd33e30792" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> we have already seen, the Stoics understand rational action in general, which becomes
+good conduct, or <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span>, by being done with a right intention.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30812src" href="#xd33e30812" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> The conception of duty, therefore, contains in itself the conception of virtuous
+conduct, and is used primarily to express what is good or rational. Duty thus appears
+to have a twofold meaning, in consequence of the twofold characters of things desirable
+and things good. If the good were the only permitted object of desire, there would,
+of course, be but one duty—that of realising the good; and the various actions which
+contribute to this result would only be distinguished by their being employed on a
+different material, but not in respect of their moral value. But if, besides what
+is absolutely good, there are things relatively good, things not to be desired absolutely,
+but only in cases in which they may be pursued without detriment to the absolute good
+or virtue—if, moreover, besides <span class="pageNum" id="pb288">[<a href="#pb288">288</a>]</span>vice, as the absolute evil, there are also relative evils, which we have reason to
+avoid in the same cases—the extent of our duties is increased likewise; a number of
+conditional duties are placed by the side of duties unconditional, differing from
+the latter in that they aim at pursuing things to be preferred, and avoiding things
+to be eschewed. From this platform, all that accords with nature is regarded as proper,
+or a duty in the more extended sense of the term; and the conception of propriety
+is extended to include plants and animals.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30817src" href="#xd33e30817" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> Proper and dutiful actions are then divided into those which are always such and
+those which are only such under peculiar circumstances—the former being called <i>perfect</i>, the latter <i>intermediate</i> duties;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30874src" href="#xd33e30874" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> and it is stated, as a <span class="pageNum" id="pb289">[<a href="#pb289">289</a>]</span>peculiarity of the latter, that, owing to circumstances, a course of conduct may become
+a duty which would not have been a duty without those peculiar circumstances.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30941src" href="#xd33e30941" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> In the wider sense of the term, every action is proper or in accordance with duty
+which consists in the choice of a thing to be preferred (<span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span>) and in avoiding a thing to be eschewed. On the other hand, a perfect duty is only
+fulfilled by virtuous action. A virtuous life and a wish to do good constitute the
+only perfect duty.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e30976src" href="#xd33e30976" title="Go to note 33.">33</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb290">[<a href="#pb290">290</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Some confusion is introduced into this teaching by the fact that in setting up the
+standard for distinguishing perfect from imperfect duties, the Stoics sometimes look
+at the real, sometimes at the personal value, of actions, without keeping these two
+aspects distinct. They therefore use the terms perfect and imperfect sometimes to
+express the difference between conditional and unconditional duties; at other times,
+to express that between morality and law.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31099src" href="#xd33e31099" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> Far worse than the formal defect is the grouping in this division under the conception
+of duty things of the most varied moral character. If once things which have only
+a conditional value are admitted within the circle of duties, what is there to prevent
+their being defended, in the practical application of the Stoic teaching, on grounds
+altogether repugnant to the legitimate consequences of the Stoic principles?
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch11.c">C. <i>Emotions.</i><br id="ch11.c.1">(1) <i>Permitted affections.</i></span>
+In accordance with these admissions, the Stoic system sought in another respect to
+meet facts and practical wants by abating somewhat from the austerity of its demands.
+Consistently carried out, those demands require the unconditional extirpation of the
+whole sensuous nature, such as was originally expressed by the demand for apathy.
+But just as the stricter Stoic theory of the good was modified by the admission of
+<span class="trans" title="proēgmena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένα</span></span>, so this demand was modified in two ways; the first elements of the forbidden emotions
+were allowed under other names; and whilst emotions were still forbidden, <span class="pageNum" id="pb291">[<a href="#pb291">291</a>]</span>certain mental affections were permitted, and even declared to be desirable. Taking
+the first point, it is allowed by the Stoics that the wise man feels pain, and that
+at certain things he does not remain wholly calm.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31136src" href="#xd33e31136" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> This admission shows that their system was not identical with that of the Cynics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31151src" href="#xd33e31151" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> It is not required that men should be entirely free from all mental affections, but
+only that they should refuse assent to them, and not suffer them to obtain the mastery.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31163src" href="#xd33e31163" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> With regard to the other point, they propound the doctrine of <span class="trans" title="eupatheiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐπάθειαι</span></span>, or rational dispositions, which, as distinct from emotions, are to be found in the
+wise man, and in the wise man only. Of these rational dispositions, they distinguish
+three chief besides several subordinate varieties.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31198src" href="#xd33e31198" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> Although this <span class="pageNum" id="pb292">[<a href="#pb292">292</a>]</span>admission was intended to vindicate the absence of emotions in the wise man, since
+the permitted feelings are not emotions, still it made the boundary-line between emotions
+and feelings so uncertain that in practice the sharply-defined contrast between the
+wise and the foolish threatened wellnigh to disappear altogether.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch11.c.2">(2) <i>Modification of apathy.</i></span>
+This danger appears more imminent when we observe the perplexity in which the Stoics
+were placed when asked to point out the wise man in experience. For not only do opponents
+assert that, according to their own confession, no one, or as good as no one, can
+be found in actual history who altogether deserves that high title,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31285src" href="#xd33e31285" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> but even their own admissions agree therewith.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31302src" href="#xd33e31302" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> They describe even Socrates, Diogenes, and Antisthenes as not completely virtuous,
+but only as travellers towards virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31312src" href="#xd33e31312" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> It was of little avail to point to Hercules or Ulysses,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31316src" href="#xd33e31316" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> or, <span class="pageNum" id="pb293">[<a href="#pb293">293</a>]</span>with Posidonius,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31331src" href="#xd33e31331" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> to the mythical golden age, in which the wise are said to have ruled. The pictures
+of those heroes would have to be changed altogether, to bring them into harmony with
+the wise man of the Stoics; and Posidonius might be easily disposed of on Stoic principles,
+by the rejoinder that virtue and wisdom are things of free exercise, and, since free
+exercise was wanting in the case of the first men, their condition can only have been
+a state of unconscious ignorance, and not one of perfection.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31337src" href="#xd33e31337" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> If, in reality, there are no wise men, the division of men into wise and foolish
+falls at once to the ground: all mankind belong to the class of fools; the conception
+of the wise man is an unreal fancy. It becomes, then, difficult to maintain the assertion
+that all fools are equally foolish, and all the wise are equally wise. If, instead
+of producing real wisdom, philosophy can only produce progress towards wisdom, it
+can hardly be expected to take such a modest estimate of its own success as to allow
+that there is no real distinction between a zealous student and a bigoted despiser
+of its doctrines.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch11.c.3">(3) <i>The state of progress.</i></span>
+It was therefore natural that the Stoics, notwithstanding their own maxims, found
+themselves compelled to recognise differences among the bad and <span class="pageNum" id="pb294">[<a href="#pb294">294</a>]</span>differences among the good. In reference to their system these differences were, indeed,
+made to depend in the case of the bad upon the greater or less difficulty of healing
+the moral defects, or, in the case of the good, upon qualities morally indifferent.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31351src" href="#xd33e31351" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> It was also natural that they should so nearly identify the state of <span class="trans" title="proskopē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προσκοπὴ</span></span>—or progress towards wisdom, the only really existing state—with wisdom that it could
+hardly be distinguished therefrom. If there is a stage of progress at which a man
+is free from all emotions, discharges all his duties, knows all that is necessary,
+and is even secure against the danger of relapse,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31381src" href="#xd33e31381" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> such a stage cannot be distinguished from wisdom, either by its want of experience
+or by the <span class="pageNum" id="pb295">[<a href="#pb295">295</a>]</span>absence of a clear knowledge of oneself. For has it not been frequently asserted that
+happiness is not increased by length of time, and that the wise man is at first not
+conscious of his wisdom?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31402src" href="#xd33e31402" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> If, however, the highest stage of approximation to wisdom is supposed still to fall
+short of wisdom, because it is not sure of its continuance, and though free from mental
+diseases, it is not free from emotions,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31405src" href="#xd33e31405" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> how, it may be asked, do these passing emotions differ from the mental affections
+which are found in the wise man? Is there any real distinction between them? If the
+progressing candidate has attained to freedom from diseased mental states, is the
+danger of a relapse very great? Besides, the Stoics were by no means agreed that the
+really wise man is free from all danger. Cleanthes held with the Cynics that virtue
+can never be lost; Chrysippus admitted that, in certain cases, it is defectible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31417src" href="#xd33e31417" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> After all this <span class="pageNum" id="pb296">[<a href="#pb296">296</a>]</span>admission is only one among many traits which prove that the Stoics were obliged to
+abate from the original severity of their demands.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb297">[<a href="#pb297">297</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30124">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30124src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> See p. 230, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30124src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30129">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30129src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 5, 17. <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xii. 5, 7: The primary objects of natural self-love are the <span class="trans" title="prōta kata physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν</span></span>; and self-love consists mainly in this: <span lang="la">Ut omnibus corporis sui commodis gauderet [unusquisque], ab incommodis omnibus abhorreret.</span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 142: Some things are according to nature, others contrary to nature, others
+neither one nor the other. Health, strength, and such like, are among things according
+to nature. <i>Ibid.</i> p. 148: <span class="trans" title="tōn de kata physin adiaphorōn ontōn ta men esti prōta kata physin ta de kata metochēn. prōta men esti kata physin kinēsis ē schesis kata tous spermatikous logous ginomenē, hoion hygieia kai aisthēsis, legō de tēn katalēpsin kai ischyn. kata metochēn de ... hoion cheir artia kai sōma hygiainon kai aisthēseis mē pepērōmenai homoiōs de kai tōn para physin kat’ analogon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἀδιαφόρων ὄντων τὰ μὲν ἐστι πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν τὰ δὲ κατὰ μετοχήν.
+πρῶτα μέν ἐστι κατὰ φύσιν κίνησις ἢ σχέσις κατὰ τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους γινομένη,
+οἷον ὑγιεία καὶ αἴσθησις, λεγὼ δὲ τὴν κατάληψιν καὶ ἰσχύν. κατὰ μετοχὴν δὲ … οἷον
+χεὶρ ἀρτία καὶ σῶμα ὑγιαῖνον καὶ αἰσθήσεις μὴ πεπηρωμέναι ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν παρὰ φύσιν
+κατ’ ἀνάλογον</span></span>. Conf. <i>Ibid.</i> p. 60, where the enumeration of the <span class="trans" title="prōta kata physin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν</span></span> is also in the Stoic sense, and above, p. 225.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30129src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30169">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30169src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 15, 50: <span lang="la">Deinceps explicatur differentia rerum: quam si non ullam esse diceremus, confunderetur
+omnis vita, ut ab Aristone: nec ullum sapientis munus aut opus inveniretur, cum inter
+res eas, quæ ad vitam degendam pertinerent, nihil omnino interesset neque ullum delectum
+adhiberi oporteret.</span> The same argument was used by the Stoa against the theoretical <span class="trans" title="adiaphoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιαφορία</span></span> of the Sceptics (see above, p. 37, 1), with which the practical <span class="trans" title="adiaphoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιαφορία</span></span> of Aristo is most closely connected. It differs only in name from the <span class="trans" title="ataraxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀταραξία</span></span> of the sceptics, Aristo having a leaning towards Scepticism. See p. 61, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30169src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30200">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30200src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 6, 21: <span lang="la">Prima <span class="pageNum" id="pb280n">[<a href="#pb280n">280</a>]</span>est enim conciliatio [<span class="trans" title="oikeiōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἰκείωσις</span></span>] hominis ad ea quæ sunt secundum naturam, simul autem cepit intelligentiam vel notionem
+potius, quam appellant <span class="trans" title="ennoian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔννοιαν</span></span> illi, viditque rerum agendarum ordinem et ut ita dicam concordiam, multo eam pluris
+æstimavit quam omnia ilia quæ primum dilexerat: atque ita cognitione et ratione collegit
+ut statueret in eo collocatum summum illud hominis per se laudandum et expetendum
+bonum … cum igitur in eo sit id bonum, quo referenda sint omnia … quamquam post oritur,
+tamen id solum vi sua et dignitate expetendum est, eorum autem quæ sunt prima naturæ
+propter se nihil expetendum,</span> &amp;c. Similarly <i>Gell.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30200src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30234">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30234src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 4; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 17; v. 24, 72; 29, 89.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30234src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30240">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30240src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 6, 22: <span lang="la">Ut recte dici possit, omnia officia eo referri, ut adipiscamur principia naturæ: nec
+tamen ut hoc sit bonorum ultimum, propterea quod non inest in primis naturæ conciliationibus
+honesta actio. Consequens enim est et post oritur.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30240src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30246">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30246src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 26, 2: <span class="trans" title="ei gar auta men [ta] prōta kata physin agatha mē estin, hē d’ eulogistos eklogē kai lēpsis autōn kai to panta ta par’ heauton poiein hekaston heneka tou tynchanein tōn prōtōn kata physin, k.t.l. eiper gar oiontai, mē stochazomenous mēd’ ephiemenous tou tychein ekeinon to telos echein, all’ hou dei ekeina anapheresthai, tēn toutōn eklogēn, kai mē tauta. telos men gar to eklegesthai kai lambanein ekeina phronimōs; ekeina d’ auta kai to tynchanein autōn ou telos, all’ hōsper hylē tis hypokeitai ton eklektikēn axian echousa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ γὰρ αὐτὰ μὲν [τὰ] πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν ἀγαθὰ μή ἐστιν, ἡ δ’ εὐλόγιστος ἐκλογὴ καὶ λῆψις
+αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ πάντα τὰ παρ’ ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖν ἕκαστον ἕνεκα τοῦ τυγχάνειν τῶν πρώτων κατὰ
+φύσιν, κ.τ.λ. εἴπερ γὰρ οἴονται, μὴ στοχαζομένους μήδ’ ἐφιεμένους τοῦ τυχεῖν ἐκεῖνον
+τὸ τέλος ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ οὗ δεῖ ἐκεῖνα ἀναφέρεσθαι, τὴν τούτων ἐκλογὴν, καὶ μὴ ταῦτα.
+τέλος μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἐκλέγεσθαι καὶ λαμβάνειν ἐκεῖνα φρονίμως· ἐκεῖνα δ’ αὐτὰ καὶ τὸ τυγχάνειν
+αὐτῶν οὐ τέλος, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ὕλη τις ὑπόκειται τὸν ἐκλεκτικὴν ἀξίαν ἔχουσα</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> See p. 279, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30246src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30271">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30271src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 6, 20; <i>Plut.</i> l.c.; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 142: <i>Diog.</i> vii. 105.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30271src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30281">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30281src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> See p. 232. <i>Stob.</i> ii. 132: <span class="trans" title="diapherein de legousin haireton kai lēpton ... kai katholou to agathon tou axian echontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαφέρειν δὲ λέγουσιν αἱρετὸν καὶ ληπτὸν … καὶ καθόλου τὸ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ ἀξίαν ἔχοντος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30281src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30294">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30294src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 165: Herillus taught <span class="trans" title="diapherein telos kai hypotelida;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαφέρειν τέλος καὶ ὑποτελίδα·</span></span> (On this expression compare <i>Stob.</i> ii. 60) <span class="trans" title="tēs men gar kai tous mē sophous stochazesthai, tou de monon ton sophon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῆς μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοὺς μὴ σοφοὺς στοχάζεσθαι, τοῦ δὲ μόνον τὸν σοφόν</span></span>. Hence <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 15, 40, raises the objection, <span lang="la">Facit enim ille duo sejuncta ultima bonorum</span>, because he neither despises external things, nor connects them with the ultimate
+aim. <i>Diog.</i> l.c., however, says that he taught <span class="trans" title="ta metaxy aretēs kai kakias adiaphora einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ μεταξὺ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας ἀδιάφορα εἶναι</span></span>; and <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 2, 6, mentions him, together with Pyrrho and Aristo, as upholders of <span class="trans" title="adiaphoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιαφορία</span></span>. It would appear from these passages that Herillus was not far removed from true
+Stoicism. According to <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 13, 43 (conf. Offic.), he had no followers after the time of Chrysippus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30294src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30349">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30349src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Legg. i. 21, 55: Si, <span lang="la">ut Chius Aristo dixit, solum bonum esse diceret quod honestum esset malumque quod
+turpe, ceteras res omnes plane pares ac ne minimum quidem utrum <span class="pageNum" id="pb282n">[<a href="#pb282n">282</a>]</span>adessent an abessent interesse.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 13, 38. Fin. iv. 17, 47: <span lang="la">Ut Aristonis esset explosa sententia dicentis, nihil differre aliud ab alio nec esse
+res ullas præter virtutes et vitia intra quas quidquam omnino interesset.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 13, 43; iii. 3, 11; 15, 50; iv. 16, 43; 25, 68; v. 25, 73; Acad. ii. 42, 130;
+Offic. Fragm. Hortens. (in <i>Nonn.</i> Præfract.); <i>Diog.</i> vii. 160; <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 64. <i>Cic.</i> usually places Aristo together with Pyrrho.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30349src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30376">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30376src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="telos ephēsen einai to adiaphorōs echonta zēn pros ta metaxy aretēs kai kakias mēde hēntinoun en autois parallagēn apoleiponta all’ episēs epi pantōn echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλος ἔφησεν εἶναι τὸ ἀδιαφόρως ἔχοντα ζῇν πρὸς τὰ μεταξὺ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας μηδὲ ἡντινοῦν
+ἐν αὐτοῖς παραλλαγὴν ἀπολείποντα ἀλλ’ ἐπίσης ἐπὶ πάντων ἔχοντα</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. l.c.: <span lang="la">Huic summum bonum est</span> in his rebus (the morally <span lang="la">adiaphora</span>) <span lang="la">neutram in partem moveri; quæ <span class="trans" title="adiaphoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιαφορία</span></span> ab ipso dicitur.</span> Chrysippus, in <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 27, 2: Indifference to that which is neither good nor bad presupposes the
+idea of the good, and yet, according to Aristo, the good only consists in that state
+of indifference. <i>Stob.</i> i. 920; <i>Clem.</i> Strom. ii. 416, <span class="asc">C</span>. See <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 25, 68, for Chrysippus’ attack on this <span class="trans" title="adiaphoria"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιαφορία</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30376src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30446">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30446src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 105: <span class="trans" title="tōn adiaphorōn ta men legousi proēgmena ta de apoproēgmena. proēgmena men ta echonta axian; apoproēgmena de ta apaxian echonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν ἀδιαφόρων τὰ μὲν λέγουσι προηγμένα τὰ δὲ ἀποπροηγμένα. προηγμένα μὲν τὰ ἔχοντα
+ἀξίαν· ἀποπροηγμένα δὲ τὰ ἀπαξίαν ἔχοντα</span></span>. By <span class="trans" title="axia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξία</span></span>, the three meanings of which are discussed, they understand here <span class="trans" title="mesēn tina dynamin ē chreian symballomenēn pros ton kata physin bion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέσην τινὰ δύναμιν ἢ χρείαν συμβαλλομένην πρὸς τὸν κατὰ φύσιν βίον</span></span>. 107: <span class="trans" title="tōn proēgmenōn ta men di’ hauta proēktai, ta de di’ hetera, ta de di’ hauta kai di’ hetera.... di’ hauta men hoti kata physin esti. di’ hetera de hoti peripoiei chreias ouk oligas. homoiōs de echei kai apoproēgmenon kata ton enantion logon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν προηγμένων τὰ μὲν δι’ αὑτὰ προῆκται, τὰ δὲ δι’ ἕτερα, τὰ δὲ δι’ αὑτὰ καὶ δι’ ἕτερα.…
+δι’ αὑτὰ μὲν ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν ἐστί. δι’ ἕτερα δὲ ὅτι περιποιεῖ χρείας οὐκ ὀλίγας. ὁμοίως
+δὲ ἔχει καὶ ἀποπροηγμένον κατὰ τὸν ἐναντίον λόγον</span></span>. Essentially the same account, only somewhat fuller, in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 142. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 10, 36; Fin. iii. 15, 50; iv. 26, 72; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 191; Math. xi. 60; <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 157. Zeno (in <i>Stob.</i> 156; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 16, 52) explains the conception <span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span>, and its distinction from <span class="trans" title="agathon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀγαθόν</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="proēgmenon d’ einai legousin, ho adiaphoron on eklegometha kata proēgoumenon logon ... ouden de tōn agathōn einai proēgmenon, dia to tēn megistēn axian auta echein. to de proēgmenon, tēn deuteran chōran kai axian echon, synengizein pōs tē tōn agathōn physei oude gar en aulē ton proēgoumenon einai ton basilea, alla ton met’ auton tetagmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον δ’ εἶναι λέγουσιν, ὃ ἀδιάφορον ὂν ἐκλεγόμεθα κατὰ προηγούμενον λόγον …
+οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν εἶναι προηγμένον, διὰ τὸ τὴν μεγίστην ἀξίαν αὐτὰ ἔχειν. τὸ δὲ
+προηγμένον, τὴν <span id="xd33e30515">δευτέραν</span> χώραν καὶ ἀξίαν ἔχον, συνεγγίζειν πως τῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν φύσει οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν αὐλῇ τὸν προηγούμενον
+εἶναι τὸν βασιλέα, ἀλλὰ τὸν μετ’ αὐτὸν τεταγμένον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30446src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30532">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30532src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 142: <span class="trans" title="adiaphora d’ einai legousi ta metaxy tōn agathōn kai tōn kakōn, dichōs to adiaphoron noeisthai phamenoi, kath’ hena men tropon to mēte agathon mēte kakon kai to mēte haireton mēte pheukton; kath’ heteron de to mēte hormēs mēte aphormēs kinētikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιάφορα δ’ εἶναι λέγουσι τὰ μεταξὺ τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ τῶν κακῶν, διχῶς τὸ ἀδιάφορον νοεῖσθαι
+φάμενοι, καθ’ <span id="xd33e30539">ἕνα</span> μὲν τρόπον τὸ μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε κακὸν καὶ τὸ μήτε αἱρετὸν μήτε φευκτόν· καθ’ ἕτερον
+δὲ τὸ μήτε ὁρμῆς μήτε ἀφορμῆς κινητικόν</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="ta kathapax adiaphora"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ καθάπαξ ἀδιάφορα</span></span>. Similarly <i>Diog.</i> vii. 104. <i>Sext.</i> M. vi. 60, distinguishes a third meaning. It is, however, only a subdivision of the
+second.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30532src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30577">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30577src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 144, 156; <i>Sext.</i> P. iii. 191; M. xi. 62.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30577src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30589">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30589src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> xii. 106; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 142; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 15, 51; <i>Sext.</i> l.c<span>.</span>; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 30. The Stoics were not altogether agreed as to whether fame after death
+belongs to things to be desired. According to <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 17, 57, Chrysippus and Diogenes denied it; whereas the younger Stoics,
+pressed by the Academician Carneades, allowed it. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 102, 3, even quotes it as a Stoic maxim that posthumous fame is a good. But probably
+<span lang="la">bonum</span> is here inaccurately used for <span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30589src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30619">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30619src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 10, 34; 16, 52; <i>Sext.</i> M. xi. 62. See p. 232, 3 and 283, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30619src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30625">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30625src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 9, 14: <span lang="la">Sapientem <span class="pageNum" id="pb285n">[<a href="#pb285n">285</a>]</span>nulla re egere [<span class="trans" title="deisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δεῖσθαι</span></span>], et tamen multis illi rebus opus esse [<span class="trans" title="chrēnai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χρῆναι</span></span>].</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30625src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30660">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30660src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 30, 4: <span class="trans" title="en de tō prōtō peri agathōn tropon tina synchōrei kai didōsi tois boulomenois ta proēgmena kalein agatha kai kaka tanantia tautais tais lexesin; esti, ei tis bouletai kata tas toiautas parallagas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span> (with reference to the greatness of the difference between <span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="apoproēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποπροηγμένον</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="to men agathon autōn legein to de kakon ... en men tois sēmainomenois ou diapiptontos autou d’ alla stochazomenou tēs kata tas onomasias synētheias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μὲν ἀγαθὸν αὐτῶν λέγειν τὸ δὲ κακὸν … ἐν μὲν τοῖς σημαινομένοις οὐ διαπίπτοντος
+αὐτοῦ δ’ ἄλλα στοχαζομένου τῆς κατὰ τὰς ὀνομασίας συνηθείας</span></span>. See p. 284, 1; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 25, 68, and the previous remarks on the division of goods, p. 230, 3. <i>Diog.</i> 103, says that Posidonius included bodily and external advantages among the <span class="trans" title="agatha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀγαθά</span></span>. In <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 87, 35, he, however, expressly proves that they are not goods.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30660src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30711">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30711src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 5: <span lang="la">Antipater quoque inter magnos sectæ hujus auctores aliquid se tribuere dicit externis</span> (namely for the perfection of the highest good), <span lang="la">sed exiguum admodum.</span> Seneca here declaims, in the spirit of strict Stoicism, against such a heresy, but
+he himself says (De Vit. Be. 22, 5): <span lang="la">Apud me divitiæ aliquem locum habent</span>, only not <span lang="la">summum et postremum.</span> But what philosopher would have said they had this?&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30711src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30727">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30727src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> De Vit. Bea. 21.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30727src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30733">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30733src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30733src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30737">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30737src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> Off. ii. 14, 51, he would allow an attorney to ignore truth, provided his assertions
+were at least probable.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30737src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30742">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30742src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 30, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30742src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30746">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30746src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30746src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30750">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30750src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> According to <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 20, 3 and 7 and 10; 30, 3, <i>Diog.</i> vii. 188, <i>Stob.</i> 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 <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 30): <span class="trans" title="kai kybistēsein tris epi toutō labonta talanton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ κυβιστήσειν τρὶς ἐπὶ τούτῳ λαβόντα τάλαντον</span></span>. Chrysippus himself (in <i>Diog.</i>) 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30750src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30772">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30772src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 18, 1 and 3. Com. Not. 12, 4: <span class="trans" title="lysitelei zēn aphrona mallon ē mē bioun kan mēdepote mellē phronēsein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λυσιτελεῖ ζῇν ἄφρονα μᾶλλον ἢ μὴ βιοῦν κἂν μηδέποτε μέλλῃ φρονήσειν</span></span>; 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30772src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30792">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30792src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span>, an expression introduced by Zeno, according to <i>Diog.</i> 108.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30792src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30812">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30812src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> See p. 265.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30812src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30817">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30817src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 107: <span class="trans" title="kathēkon phasin einai ho prachthen eulogon tin’ ischei apologismon hoion to akolouthon en tē zōē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον φασὶν εἶναι ὃ πραχθὲν εὔλογόν τιν’ ἴσχει ἀπολογισμὸν οἷον τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐν
+τῇ <span class="corr" id="xd33e30824" title="Source: δωῇ">ζωῇ</span></span></span> (the same in Cicero), <span class="trans" title="hoper kai epi ta phyta kai zōa diateinei; horasthai gar kapi toutōn kathēkonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα διατείνει· ὁρᾶσθαι γὰρ κἀπὶ τούτων καθήκοντα</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> 158: <span class="trans" title="horizetai de to kathēkon to akolouthon en zōē, ho prachthen eulogon apologian echei; para to kathēkon de enantiōs. touto diateinei kai eis ta aloga tōn zōōn, energei gar ti kakeina akolouthōs tē heautōn physei; epi de tōn logikōn zōōn houtōs apodidotai, to akolouthon en biō. kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span> is, in general, what is according to nature, with which <span class="trans" title="akolouthon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκόλουθον</span></span> coincides. (See p. 228, 2.) See <i>Diog.</i> 108: <span class="trans" title="energēma d’ auto [to kathēkon] einai tais kata physin kataskeuais oikeion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνέργημα δ’ αὐτὸ [τὸ καθῆκον] εἶναι ταῖς κατὰ φύσιν κατασκευαῖς οἰκεῖον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30817src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30874">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30874src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 109: <span class="trans" title="tōn kathēkontōn ta men aei kathēkei ta de ouk aei; kai aei men kathēkei to kat’ aretēn zēn; ouk aei de to erōtan to apokrinesthai kai peripatein kai ta homoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 17, 58: <span lang="la">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,</span> &amp;c. (see p. 265, 2) … <span lang="la">quoniamque non dubium est, quin in iis quæ media dicimus sit aliud sumendum aliud
+rejiciendum, quidquid ita fit aut dicitur communi officio continetur.</span> Also Off. i. 3, 8. Acad. i. 10, 37. Corresponding to <span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="apoproēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποπροηγμένον</span></span>, Zeno placed <span lang="la">officium</span> and <span lang="la">contra officium</span>, as <span lang="la">media quædam</span> between <span lang="la">recte factum</span> and <span lang="la">peccatum</span>. <i>Stob.</i> ii. 158: <span class="trans" title="tōn de kathēkontōn ta men einai phasi teleia, ha dē kai katorthōmata legesthai ... ouk einai de katorthōmata ta mē houtōs echonta, ha dē oude teleia, kathēkonta prosagoreuousin, alla mesa, hoion to gamein, to presbeuein, to dialegesthai, ta toutois homoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δὲ καθηκόντων τὰ μὲν εἶναί φασι <span class="pageNum" id="pb289n">[<a href="#pb289n">289</a>]</span>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</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30874src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30941">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30941src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> 160. <i>Diog.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="ta men einai kathēkonta aneu peristaseōs, ta de peristatika. kai aneu men peristaseōs tade, hygeias epimeleisthai kai aisthētēriōn kai ta homoia; kata peristasin de to pēroun heauton kai tēn ktēsin diarrhiptein. analogon de kai tōn para to kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ μὲν εἶναι καθήκοντα ἄνευ περιστάσεως, τὰ δὲ περιστατικά. καὶ ἄνευ μὲν περιστάσεως
+τάδε, ὑγείας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὰ ὅμοια· κατὰ <span class="corr" id="xd33e30950" title="Source: παρίστασιν">περίστασιν</span> δὲ τὸ πηροῦν ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὴν κτῆσιν διαῤῥιπτεῖν. ἀνάλογον δὲ καὶ τῶν παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον</span></span>. This distinction, of course, only applies to <span class="trans" title="meson kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέσον καθῆκον</span></span>. The unconditional duty of virtuous life cannot be abrogated by any circumstances.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30941src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e30976">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e30976src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> Compare, on this point, besides the quotations on p. 265, 2, <i>Diog.</i> 108: <span class="trans" title="tōn gar kath’ hormēn energoumenōn ta men kathēkonta einai, ta de para to kathēkon, ta d’ oute kathēkonta oute para to kathēkon. kathēkonta men oun einai hosa ho logos hairei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span> (demands; see p. 244, 2, the <span class="trans" title="hairōn logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἱρῶν λόγος</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="poiein, hōs echei to goneis timan, adelphous, patrida, symperipheresthai philois; para to kathēkon de hosa mē hairei logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιεῖν, ὡς ἔχει τὸ γονεῖς τιμᾷν, ἀδελφοὺς, πατρίδα, συμπεριφέρεσθαι φίλοις· παρὰ τὸ
+καθῆκον δὲ ὅσα μὴ αἱρεῖ λόγος</span></span>, e<span>.</span>g. neglect of parents; <span class="trans" title="oute de kathēkonta oute para to kathēkon, hosa outh’ hairei logos prattein out’ apagoreuei, hoion karphos anelesthai, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε δὲ καθήκοντα οὔτε παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον, ὅσα οὔθ’ αἱρεῖ λόγος πράττειν οὔτ’ ἀπαγορεύει,
+οἷον κάρφος ἀνελέσθαι, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Combining with this the passage previously quoted, it appears that <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span> includes not only actions which aim at a moral good, but those which aim at a simple
+<span class="trans" title="proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένον</span></span>; and, in view of the latter, <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span> is included among things intermediate, or <span class="trans" title="adiaphora"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιάφορα</span></span> in its more extended meaning. <i>Cic.</i>; see p. 288, 2. <i>Stob.</i> 158, says that those <span class="trans" title="kathēkonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθήκοντα</span></span> which are at the same time <span class="trans" title="katorthōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατορθώματα</span></span>, are <span class="trans" title="oude teleia, alla mesa ... parametreisthai de to meson kathēkon adiaphorois tisi kaloumenois de para physin kai kata physin, toiautēn d’ euphyïan prospheromenois, hōst’ ei mē lambanoimen auta ē diōthoumetha aperispastōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span> (if, without particular occasion, or as <i>Diog.</i> 109 observes, <span class="trans" title="aneu peristaseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνευ περιστάσεως</span></span>—see previous note—we despise or reject them) <span class="trans" title="mē eudaimonein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ εὐδαιμονεῖν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e30976src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31099">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31099src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> In the latter sense <span class="trans" title="kathēkon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθῆκον</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατόρθωμα</span></span> have been already discussed, p. 264.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31099src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31136">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31136src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Ira, i. 16, 7: When the wise man sees anything revolting, <span lang="la">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.</span> <i>Id.</i> ii. 2; Ep. 57, 3; De Const. 10, 4; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 7, 21; <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 25, 5; Epictet. in <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. xix. 1, 17. Conf. p. 253, 5, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31136src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31151">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31151src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Brevit. Vit. c. 14, 2: <span lang="la">Hominis naturam cum Stoicis vincere, cum Cynicis excedere.</span> Similarly Ep. 9, 3: <span lang="la">Hoc inter nos et illos (<span lang="en">Stilpo and the Cynics in general</span>) interest: noster sapiens vincit quidem incommodum omne, sed sentit: illorum ne sentit
+quidem.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31151src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31163">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31163src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> Conf. <i>Sen.</i> De Ira, ii. 2–4, particularly the quotation in <i>Gell.</i> from Epictetus: Even the wise man is apt, at terrible occurrences, <span lang="la">paulisper moveri et contrahi et pallescere, non opinione alicujus mali percepta, sed
+quibusdam motibus rapidis et inconsultis, officium mentis atque rationis prævertentibus.</span> But what distinguishes him from the foolish man is that only the foolish man and
+not the wise man assents (<span class="trans" title="synkatatithetai, prosepidoxazei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκατατίθεται, προσεπιδοξάζει</span></span>) to such impressions (<span class="trans" title="phantasiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασίαι</span></span>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31163src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31198">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31198src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 115: <span class="trans" title="einai de kai eupatheias phasi treis, charan, eulabeian, boulēsin; kai tēn men charan enantian phasin einai tē hēdonē ousan eulogon eparsin; tēn de eulabeian tō phobō ousan eulogon ekklisin; tē de epithymia enantian phasin einai tēn boulēsin ousan eulogon orexin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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 <span class="pageNum" id="pb292n">[<a href="#pb292n">292</a>]</span>ἐναντίαν φασὶν εἶναι τὴν βούλησιν οὖσαν εὔλογον ὄρεξιν</span></span>. Subdivisions of <span class="trans" title="boulēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">βούλησις</span></span> are: <span class="trans" title="eunoia, eumeneia, aspasmos, agapēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὔνοια, εὐμένεια, ἀσπασμὸς, ἀγάπησις</span></span>; of <span class="trans" title="eulabeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐλάβεια</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="aidōs, hagneia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰδὼς, <span id="xd33e31239">ἁγνεία</span></span></span>; of <span class="trans" title="chara"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαρά</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="terpsis, euphrosynē, euthymia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέρψις, εὐφροσύνη, εὐθυμία</span></span>. The same three <span class="trans" title="eupatheiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐπάθειαι</span></span> are mentioned by <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 6, 12, with the remark that they only belong to the wise. See <i>Stob.</i> 92, and <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 59, 14; 72, 4 and 8, respecting the wise man’s cheerfulness.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31198src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31285">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31285src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> Besides the quotations, p. 271, see <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 31, 5: <span class="trans" title="kai mēn outh’ hauton ho Chrysippos apophainei spoudaion, oute tina tōn hautou gnōrimōn ē kathēgemonōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μὴν οὔθ’ αὑτὸν ὁ Χρύσιππος ἀποφαίνει σπουδαῖον, οὔτε τινὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ γνωρίμων ἢ
+καθηγεμόνων</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 47, 145; <i>Quintil.</i> Inst. xii. 1. 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31285src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31302">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31302src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Tranq. An. 7, 4: <span lang="la">Ubi enim istum invenies, quem tot seculis quærimus?</span> (the wise man.) Ep. 42, 1: <span lang="la">Scis quem nunc virum bonum dicam? Hujus secundæ notæ. Nam ille alter fortasse tanquam
+phœnix semel anno quingentesimo nascitur,</span> see p. 273, 1, just as everything great is rare. But compare p. 274, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31302src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31312">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31312src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 20, 56, and p. 274, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31312src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31316">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31316src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <span lang="la">Hos enim</span> (says <i>Sen.</i> De Const. 2, 1, of the two named) <span lang="la">Stoici nostri sapientes pronuntiaverunt, invictos laboribus,</span> etc. Further particulars in <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 33 and 70.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31316src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31331">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31331src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> 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’ (<i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 28), who say that they introduced belief in the Gods.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31331src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31337">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31337src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> l.c. 44: <span lang="la">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,</span> &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31337src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31351">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31351src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 236: <span class="trans" title="isōn de ontōn tōn hamartēmatōn einai tinas en autois diaphoras, kathoson ta men autōn apo sklēras kai dysiatou diatheseōs gignetai, ta d’ ou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἴσων δὲ ὄντων τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων εἶναι τινας ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφορὰς, καθόσον τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν
+ἀπὸ σκληρᾶς καὶ δυσιάτου διαθέσεως γίγνεται, τὰ δ’ οὒ</span></span>. (See p. 251, 2, for the difference between emotion and disease of the soul.) <span class="trans" title="kai tōn spoudaiōn ge allous allōn protreptikōterous gignesthai kai pistikōterous eti de kai anchinousterous, kata ta mesa ta emperilambanomena tōn epitaseōn symbainousōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τῶν σπουδαίων γε ἄλλους ἄλλων προτρεπτικωτέρους γίγνεσθαι καὶ πιστικωτέρους ἔτι
+δὲ καὶ ἀγχινουστέρους, κατὰ τὰ μέσα τὰ ἐμπεριλαμβανόμενα τῶν ἐπιτάσεων συμβαινουσῶν</span></span>, 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 <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 20, 56, and p. 275, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31351src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31381">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31381src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Serm. 7, 21: <span class="trans" title="ho d’ ep’ akron, phēsi [Chrysippos] prokoptōn hapanta pantōs apodidōsi ta kathēkonta kai ouden paraleipei; ton de toutou bion ouk einai pō phēsin eudaimona all’ epigignesthai autō tēn eudaimonian hotan hai mesai praxeis hautai proslabōsi to bebaion kai hektikon kai idian pēxin tina labōsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>. Chrysippus was probably the author of the division of <i>progressers</i> into three classes, which is discussed by <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 75, 8. Of those who have reached the highest stage it is said, <span lang="la">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.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31381src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31402">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31402src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> See pp. 239, 1; 271, 7.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31402src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31405">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31405src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 75, 10: <span lang="la">Quidam hoc proficientium genus de quo locutus sum ita complectuntur, ut illos dicant
+jam effugisse morbos animi, affectus nondum</span> (on this distinction, see p. 251, 2), <span lang="la">et adhuc in lubrico stare, quia nemo sit extra periculum malitiæ nisi qui totam eam
+excussit.</span> The same view is upheld by <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 72, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31405src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31417">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31417src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 127: <span class="trans" title="tēn aretēn Chrysippos men apoblētēn, Kleanthēs de anapoblēton; ho men, apoblētēn, dia methēn kai melancholian; ho de, anapoblēton, dia bebaious katalēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν ἀρετὴν Χρύσιππος μὲν ἀποβλητὴν, Κλεάνθης δὲ ἀναπόβλητον· ὁ μὲν, ἀποβλητὴν, διὰ
+μέθην καὶ μελαγχολίαν· ὁ δὲ, ἀναπόβλητον, διὰ βεβαίους καταλήψεις</span></span>. 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. <i>Sen.</i> 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, <i>Simpl.</i> 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, <span class="trans" title="en kairois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν καιροῖς</span></span> (the reading <span class="trans" title="karois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κάροις</span></span> is better) <span class="trans" title="kai melancholiais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μελαγχολίαις</span></span>, virtue, together with the whole rational life (<span class="trans" title="logikē hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λογικὴ ἕξις</span></span>), is lost, and succeeded, not indeed by vice, <span class="pageNum" id="pb296n">[<a href="#pb296n">296</a>]</span>but by a <span class="trans" title="hexis mesē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις μέση</span></span>. A similar question is, Whether the wise man can become mad? which is answered in
+the negative by <i>Diog.</i> vii. 118, though not without some modifying clauses. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 156, b, also combats the view that the wise man will act virtuously when in
+a frenzy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31417src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch12" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1359">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">APPLIED MORAL SCIENCE.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">All that has hitherto been stated has regard to the general principles only of the
+Stoics touching the end and the conditions of moral action. Whether the mere exposition
+of principles be enough, or whether the practical application of these principles
+to the special relations of life does not also form part of moral science—is a question
+as to which the Stoic School was not originally unanimous. Aristo, a Cynic on this
+as on other points, was of opinion that this whole branch of moral science is useless
+and unnecessary; the philosopher must confine himself exclusively to things which
+have a practical value, the fundamental ground of morality.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31491src" href="#xd33e31491" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> Within the Stoic School, however, this view did not gain much <span class="pageNum" id="pb298">[<a href="#pb298">298</a>]</span>support. Even Cleanthes, who otherwise agreed with Aristo, did not deny the value
+of the application of theory to details, provided the connection of details with general
+principles were not lost sight of.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31562src" href="#xd33e31562" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> Nor can there be any doubt that, after the time of Chrysippus, details engrossed
+much of the attention of the Stoic philosophers. Posidonius enumerates, as belonging
+to the province of moral philosophy, precept, exhortation, and advice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31569src" href="#xd33e31569" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> His teacher, Panætius, had discussed the hortatory side of morality<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31572src" href="#xd33e31572" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> in three books on duties, which are imitated in Cicero’s well-known treatise.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31589src" href="#xd33e31589" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> The division of ethics attributed to Diogenes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31599src" href="#xd33e31599" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> and by him referred to Chrysippus, leaves place for such discussions;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31602src" href="#xd33e31602" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> and, not to mention Aristo’s opposition, which supposes the existence of applied
+moral science, the example of his fellow-student Persæus, whose precepts for a science
+of banqueting<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31621src" href="#xd33e31621" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> have been already referred to, proves <span class="pageNum" id="pb299">[<a href="#pb299">299</a>]</span>how early practical ethics had obtained a footing within the Stoic School. Moreover,
+the elaborate theory of virtue propounded by Chrysippus and his followers<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31626src" href="#xd33e31626" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> can hardly have failed to include many of the principal occurrences in life. Thus
+a number of particular precepts are known to us, which are partly quoted by other
+writers as belonging to the Stoics, and are partly to be found in the pages of Seneca,
+Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, and in Cicero’s treatise on duties. Indeed, the Stoics
+were the first who went at all deeply into the subject of casuistry.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31630src" href="#xd33e31630" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> At a later epoch, when more general questions had been settled by Chrysippus, the
+preference for particular enquiries within the domain of applied moral science appears
+to have increased among the Stoics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31637src" href="#xd33e31637" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> Probably none but the later members of the School advanced the unscientific assertion<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31654src" href="#xd33e31654" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> that we ought to confine ourselves to <span class="pageNum" id="pb300">[<a href="#pb300">300</a>]</span>precepts for particular cases, since only these have any practical value.
+</p>
+<p>In this extension of the moral theory, besides the desire for scientific completeness,
+the endeavour may also be observed to subordinate all sides of human activity to moral
+considerations. In the virtuous man, as the Stoics held, everything becomes virtue;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31662src" href="#xd33e31662" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> and hence everything is included in moral philosophy. Thereby, without doubt, the
+Stoic School contributed in no small degree towards settling and defining moral ideas,
+not only for its immediate contemporaries, but also for all subsequent times. Nevertheless,
+the more the teaching of the School entered into the details of every-day life, the
+more impossible it became to prevent practical considerations from overriding the
+natural severity of Stoic principles, or to keep the strictness of scientific procedure
+from yielding to considerations of experience.
+</p>
+<p>The order and division which the Stoics adopted for discussing details in the hortatory
+part of moral science are not known to us; nor, indeed, is it known whether that order
+was uniform in all cases.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31692src" href="#xd33e31692" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> It <span class="pageNum" id="pb301">[<a href="#pb301">301</a>]</span>will be most convenient for the purpose of our present description to distinguish,
+in the first place, those points which refer to the moral activity of the individual
+as such, and afterwards to go on to those which relate to social life. Subsequently,
+the teaching of the Stoics on the relation of man to the course of the world and to
+necessity will engage our attention.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.a">A. <i>The individual.</i><br id="ch12.a.1">(1) <i>Importance attached to the individual.</i></span>
+It was in keeping with the whole tone of the Stoic system to devote, in ethics, more
+attention to the conduct and duties of the individual than had been done by previous
+philosophy. Not that previous philosophers had altogether ignored this side. Indeed,
+Aristotle, in his investigations into individual virtue, had been led to enquire carefully
+into individual morality. Still, with Aristotle, the influence of classic antiquity
+on the border-land of which he stands was sufficiently strong to throw the individual
+into the background as compared with the community, and to subordinate ethics to politics.
+In the post-Aristotelian philosophy, this relation was exactly reversed. With the
+decline of public life in Greece, intellectual interest in the state declined also;
+and, in equal degree, the personality of the individual and circumstances of private
+life came into prominence. This feature may be already noticed in some of the older
+Schools, for instance, in the Academy and Peripatetic School. The Peripatetic, in
+particular, had, in the time of its first adherents, travelled far on the road which
+the founder had struck out. Among the Stoics, the same <span class="pageNum" id="pb302">[<a href="#pb302">302</a>]</span>feature was required by the whole spirit of their system. If happiness depends upon
+man’s internal state and nothing external has power to affect it, the science which
+professes to lead man to happiness must primarily busy itself with man’s moral nature.
+It can only consider human society in as far as action for society forms part of the
+moral duty of the individual. Hence, in the Stoic philosophy, researches into the
+duties of the individual occupy a large space, and there is a corresponding subordination
+of politics. These duties form the subject of by far the greater part of the applied
+moral science of the Stoics; and it has been already set forth<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31709src" href="#xd33e31709" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> how minutely they entered in that study into possible details. At the same time,
+the scientific harvest resulting from these researches is by no means in proportion
+to their extent.
+</p>
+<p>Confining our attention to the two first books of Cicero’s work, <span lang="la">De Officiis</span>, to form some idea of the treatise of Panætius on duties, we find, after a few introductory
+remarks, morality as such (<span lang="la">honestum</span>) described, according to the scheme of the four cardinal virtues (i. 5–42). In discussing
+the first of these, intelligence, love of research is recommended, and useless subtlety
+is deprecated. Justice and injustice are next discussed, <span class="pageNum" id="pb303">[<a href="#pb303">303</a>]</span>in all their various forms, due regard being had to the cases of ordinary occurrence
+in life. Liberality, kindness, and benevolence are treated as subdivisions of justice;
+and this leads to a consideration of human society in all its various forms (c. 16–18,
+60). Turning next to bravery (18, 61), the philosopher draws attention to the fact
+that bravery is inseparably connected with justice. He then describes it partly as
+it appears in the forms of magnanimity and endurance, regardless of external circumstances,
+partly in the form of energetic courage; and, in so doing, he discusses various questions
+which suggest themselves, such as the nature of true and false courage, military and
+civil courage, and the exclusion of anger from valour. Lastly, the object of the fourth
+chief virtue (c. 27) is described, in general terms, as what is proper (decorum, <span class="trans" title="prepon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρέπον</span></span>), and the corresponding state as propriety, both in controlling the impulses of the
+senses, in jest and play, and in the whole personal bearing. The peculiar demands
+made by individual nature, by time of life, by civil position, are discussed. Even
+outward proprieties—of speech and conversation, of domestic arrangement, tact in behaviour,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31742src" href="#xd33e31742" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> honourable and dishonourable modes of life—do not escape attention.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31756src" href="#xd33e31756" title="Go to note 17.">17</a>
+</p>
+<p>In the second book of his work, Cicero considers the relation of interest to duty;
+and having proved, <span class="pageNum" id="pb304">[<a href="#pb304">304</a>]</span>at length,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31763src" href="#xd33e31763" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> that most that is advantageous and disadvantageous is brought on us by other men,
+he turns to the means by which we may gain the support of others, and by which affection,
+trust, and admiration may be secured. He reviews various kinds of services for individuals
+and the state, and embraces the opportunity to give expression to his abhorrence of
+despotism and republican servility to the people. The principles on which this review
+is conducted are such that objection can rarely be taken to them from the platform
+of modern morality. Yet the Stoic bias is unmistakeably present in the conception
+and support of the rules of life, and particularly in the definitions of various virtues;
+few of the moral judgments, however, are other than might have been expressed from
+the platform of the Platonic and Aristotelian ethics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31766src" href="#xd33e31766" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> The same remark holds good of some other recorded points by means of which the Stoics
+gave a further expansion to their picture of the wise man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31769src" href="#xd33e31769" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Revolting as their tenets at times appear, there is yet little in their application
+that deviated from the moral ideas generally current.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb305">[<a href="#pb305">305</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.a.2">(2) <i>Cynicism of the Stoics.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Connection of Stoics with Cynics.</i></span>
+More peculiar, and at the same time more startling, is another feature about the Stoics.
+Let not too much be made of the fact that they, under certain circumstances, permitted
+a lie.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31859src" href="#xd33e31859" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> Were not Socrates and Plato, at least, of the same opinion? And, to be frank, we
+must admit that, although in this respect moral theories are strict enough, yet practice
+is commonly far too lax now. Very repulsive, however, are many assertions attributed
+to the Stoics, respecting the attitude of the wise man to the so-called intermediate
+things. Was not the very independence of externals, the indifference to everything
+but the moral state, which found expression in the doctrine of things indifferent
+and of the wise <span class="pageNum" id="pb306">[<a href="#pb306">306</a>]</span>man’s apathy, at the root of that imperfection of life and principle which is so prominent
+in the Cynic School, the parent School of the Stoics? Granting that in the Stoic School
+this imperfection was toned down and supplemented by other elements, still the tendency
+thereto was too deeply rooted from its origin, and too closely bound up with its fundamental
+view of life, to be ever properly eradicated. It did not require, indeed, a Cynic
+life from its members; nay, more, it avowed that, except in rare cases, such a life
+ought not to be followed;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31939src" href="#xd33e31939" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> still the Cynic’s life was its ideal; and when it asserted that it was not necessary
+for a wise man to be a Cynic, it implied that, if once a Cynic, he would always be
+a Cynic.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31946src" href="#xd33e31946" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> Stoicism took for its patterns<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e31993src" href="#xd33e31993" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> Antisthenes and Diogenes quite as much as Socrates; even those who held, with Seneca,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32003src" href="#xd33e32003" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> that a philosopher ought to accommodate himself to prevailing customs, and, from
+regard to others, do what he would not himself approve, did not therefore cease to
+bestow their highest admiration on Diogenes’s independence of wants, notwithstanding
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb307">[<a href="#pb307">307</a>]</span>his eccentricities.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32010src" href="#xd33e32010" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> More consistent thinkers even approximated to Cynicism in their moral precepts,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32015src" href="#xd33e32015" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> and in later times a School of younger Cynics actually grew out of the Stoic School.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Instances of Cynicism.</i></span>
+Bearing, as the Stoics did, this close relationship to the Cynics, it cannot astonish
+us to find amongst them many instances of the most revolting traits in Cynicism. Their
+contempt for cultured habits and violation of right feelings fully justify the righteous
+indignation of their opponents. Chrysippus regarded many things as perfectly harmless
+in which the religious feeling of Greece saw pollution,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32025src" href="#xd33e32025" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> and pleaded in defence of his opinion the example of animals, to show that they were
+according to nature. The care for deceased relatives he not only proposed to limit
+to the simplest mode of burial, but would have it altogether put aside; and he made
+the horrible suggestion, which he even described in full, of using for purposes of
+nourishment the flesh of amputated limbs and the corpses of the nearest relatives.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32029src" href="#xd33e32029" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> Great offence, too, was given by <span class="pageNum" id="pb308">[<a href="#pb308">308</a>]</span>the Stoics, and, in particular, by Chrysippus, in their treatment of the relation
+of the sexes to each other; nor can it be denied that some of their language on this
+subject sounds exceedingly offensive. The Cynic assertion, that anything which is
+in itself allowed may be mentioned plainly and without a periphrasis, is also attributed
+to the Stoics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32047src" href="#xd33e32047" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> By his proposals for the dress of women, Zeno offended against propriety and modesty,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32053src" href="#xd33e32053" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> and both he and Chrysippus advocated community of wives in their state of wise men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32066src" href="#xd33e32066" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> It is, moreover, asserted that the Stoics raised no objection to the prevalent profligacy
+and the trade in unchastity,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32070src" href="#xd33e32070" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> nor to the still worse vice of unnatural crime.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32074src" href="#xd33e32074" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> Marriage among the nearest relatives was held to be consonant to nature by the leaders
+of the School;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32082src" href="#xd33e32082" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> and the atrocious shamelessness of Diogenes found supporters in Chrysippus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32090src" href="#xd33e32090" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> perhaps, too, in Zeno.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32096src" href="#xd33e32096" title="Go to note 37.">37</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Cynicism a theoretical consequence of Stoic principles.</i></span>
+It would, however, be doing the Stoics a great injustice to take these statements
+for more than theoretical conclusions drawn from the principles <span class="pageNum" id="pb309">[<a href="#pb309">309</a>]</span>to which they were pledged. The moral character of Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus
+is quite above suspicion. It seems, therefore, strange that they should have felt
+themselves compelled to admit in theory what strikes the natural feeling with horror.
+It cannot, however, be unconditionally accepted that the statements laid to their
+charge as they used them imply all that historians find in them. Far from it; of some
+of their statements it may be said not only that they do not justify conduct recognised
+to be immoral, but that they are directed against actions customarily allowed, the
+argument being, that between such actions and actions admittedly immoral there is
+no real difference. This remark applies, in particular, to Zeno’s language on unnatural
+vice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32116src" href="#xd33e32116" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> It was not, therefore, in opposition to the older Stoics, or a denial of their maxim
+that love is permitted to a wise man,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32180src" href="#xd33e32180" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> for the younger Stoics to condemn most explicitly any and every form of unchastity,
+and, in particular, the worst form of all, unnatural vice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32183src" href="#xd33e32183" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb310">[<a href="#pb310">310</a>]</span>In the same way, the language permitting marriage between those nearest of kin, when
+examined, is very much milder than it seems.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32254src" href="#xd33e32254" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> And Zeno’s proposition for a community of wives may be fairly laid to the charge
+of Plato, and excused by all the charitable excuses of which Plato is allowed the
+benefit.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32275src" href="#xd33e32275" title="Go to note 42.">42</a>
+</p>
+<p>Taking the most unprejudiced view of the Stoic propositions, there are enough of them
+to arouse extreme dislike, even if they could, without difficulty, be deduced from
+the fundamental principles of the system. A moral theory which draws such a sharp
+distinction between what is without and what is within, that it regards the latter
+as alone essential, the former as altogether indifferent, which attaches <span class="pageNum" id="pb311">[<a href="#pb311">311</a>]</span>no value to anything except virtuous intention, and places the highest value in being
+independent of everything—such a moral theory must of necessity prove wanting, whenever
+the business of morality consists in using the senses as instruments for expressing
+the mind, and in raising natural impulses to the sphere of free will. If its prominent
+features allow less to the senses than naturally belongs to them, there is a danger
+that, in particular cases in which intentions are not so obvious, the moral importance
+of actions will often be ignored, and such actions treated as indifferent.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.b">B. <i>Social relations.</i></span>
+The same observation will have to be made with regard to the positions which the Stoics
+laid down in reference to social relations. Not that it was their intention to detach
+man from his natural relation <span class="marginnote" id="ch12.b.1">(1) <i>Origin and use of society.</i></span> to other men. On the contrary, they hold that the further man carries the work of
+moral improvement <span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>Origin of social claims.</i></span> in himself, the stronger he will feel drawn to society. But by the introduction of
+the idea of society, opposite tendencies arise in their ethics—one towards individual
+independence, the other in the direction of a well-ordered social life. The former
+tendency is the earlier one, and continues to predominate throughout; still, the latter
+was not surreptitiously introduced—nay, more, it was the logical result of the Stoic
+principles, and to the eye of an Epicurean must have seemed a distinctive feature
+of Stoicism. In attributing absolute value only to rational thought and will, Stoicism
+had declared man to be independent of anything external, and, consequently, of <span class="pageNum" id="pb312">[<a href="#pb312">312</a>]</span>his fellow-men. But since this value only attaches to <i>rational</i> thought and intention, the freedom of the individual also involves the recognition
+of the community, and brings with it the requirement that everyone must subordinate
+his own wishes to the wishes and needs of others. Rational conduct and thought can
+only then exist when the conduct of the individual is in harmony with general law.
+General law is the same for all rational beings. All rational beings must therefore
+aim at the same end, and recognise themselves subject to the same law. All must feel
+themselves portions of one connected whole. Man must not live for himself, but for
+society.
+</p>
+<p>This connection between the individual and society is clearly set forth by the Stoics.
+The desire for society, they hold, is immediately involved in reason. By the aid of
+reason, man feels himself a part of a whole, and, consequently, is bound to subordinate
+his private interests to the interests of the whole.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32309src" href="#xd33e32309" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> As like always attracts like, this remark holds true of everything endowed with reason,
+since the rational soul is in all cases identical. From the consciousness of this
+unity, the desire for society at once arises in individuals endowed with reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32315src" href="#xd33e32315" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> They <span class="pageNum" id="pb313">[<a href="#pb313">313</a>]</span>are all in the service of reason; there is, therefore, for all, but one right course
+and one law,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32328src" href="#xd33e32328" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> and they all contribute to the general welfare in obeying this law. The wise man,
+as a Stoic expresses it, is never a private man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32354src" href="#xd33e32354" title="Go to note 46.">46</a>
+</p>
+<p>At other times, social relations were explained by the theory of final causes.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32360src" href="#xd33e32360" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> Whilst everything else exists for the sake of what is endowed with reason, individual
+beings endowed with reason exist for the sake of each other. Their social connection
+is therefore a direct natural command.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32372src" href="#xd33e32372" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> Towards animals we never stand in a position to exercise justice, nor yet towards
+ourselves.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32409src" href="#xd33e32409" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> Justice can only be exercised towards other men and towards God.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32424src" href="#xd33e32424" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> On the <span class="pageNum" id="pb314">[<a href="#pb314">314</a>]</span>combination of individuals and their mutual support rests all their power over nature.
+A single man by himself would be the most helpless of creatures.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32434src" href="#xd33e32434" title="Go to note 51.">51</a>
+</p>
+<p>The consciousness of this connection between all rational beings finds ample expression
+in Marcus Aurelius, the last of the Stoics. The possession of reason is, with him,
+love of society (vi. 14; x. 2). Rational beings can only be treated on a social footing
+(<span class="trans" title="koinōnikōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινωνικῶς</span></span>) (vi. 23), and can only feel happy themselves when working for the community (viii.
+7); for all rational beings are related to one another (iii. 4), all form one social
+unit (<span class="trans" title="politikon systēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολιτικὸν σύστημα</span></span>), of which each individual is an integral part (<span class="trans" title="symplērōtikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπληρωτικός</span></span>) (ix. 23); one body, of which every individual is an organic member (<span class="trans" title="melos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέλος</span></span>) (ii. 1; vii. 13). Hence the social instinct is a primary instinct in man (vii. 55),
+every manifestation of which contributes, either directly or indirectly, to the good
+of the whole (ix. 23). Our fellow-men ought to be loved from the heart. They ought
+to be benefited, not for the sake of outward decency, but because the benefactor is
+penetrated with the joy of benevolence, and thereby benefits himself.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32472src" href="#xd33e32472" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> Whatever hinders union with others has a tendency <span class="pageNum" id="pb315">[<a href="#pb315">315</a>]</span>to separate the members from the body, from which all derive their life (viii. 34);
+and he who estranges himself from one of his fellow-men voluntarily severs himself
+from the stock of mankind (xi. 8). We shall presently see that the language used by
+the philosophic emperor is quite in harmony with the Stoic principles.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.b.2">(2) <i>Justice and mercy.</i></span>
+In relation to our fellow-men, two fundamental points are insisted on by the Stoics—the
+duty of justice and the duty of mercy. Cicero, without doubt following Panætius,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32492src" href="#xd33e32492" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> describes these two virtues as the bonds which keep human society together,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32495src" href="#xd33e32495" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> and, consequently, gives to each an elaborate treatment.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32503src" href="#xd33e32503" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> In expanding these duties, the Stoics were led by the fundamental principles of their
+system to most distracting consequences. On the one hand, they required from their
+wise men that strict justice which knows no pity and can make no allowances;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32506src" href="#xd33e32506" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> hence their ethical system had about it an air of austerity, and an appearance of
+severity and cruelty. On the other hand, their principle of the natural connection
+of all mankind imposed on them the practice of the most extended and unreserved charity,
+of beneficence, gentleness, meekness, of an unlimited benevolence, and a readiness
+to forgive <span class="pageNum" id="pb316">[<a href="#pb316">316</a>]</span>in all cases in which forgiveness is possible. This last aspect of the Stoic teaching
+appears principally in the later Stoics—in Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and
+Musonius;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32512src" href="#xd33e32512" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> and it is quite possible that they may have given more prominence to it than their
+predecessors. But the fact is there, that this aspect is due, not only to the peculiar
+character of these individuals, but is based on the spirit and tone of the whole system.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32517src" href="#xd33e32517" title="Go to note 58.">58</a>
+</p>
+<p>The question then naturally arises, how these two opposites may be reconciled—how
+stern justice may be harmonised with forgiveness and mercy. Seneca, who investigated
+the question fully, replies: Not severity, but only cruelty, is opposed to mercy;
+for no one virtue is opposed to another: a wise man will always help another in distress,
+but without sharing his emotion, without feeling misery or compassion; he will not
+indulge, but he will spare, advise, and improve; he will not remit punishments in
+cases in which he knows them to be deserved, but, from a sense of justice, he will
+take human weakness into consideration in allotting punishments, and make every possible
+allowance for circumstances.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32524src" href="#xd33e32524" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> Every difficulty is not, indeed, removed by these statements; still, those which
+remain apply more to the Stoic demand for apathy than to the reconciliation of <span class="pageNum" id="pb317">[<a href="#pb317">317</a>]</span>the two virtues which regulate our relations to our fellow-men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32529src" href="#xd33e32529" title="Go to note 60.">60</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.b.3">(3) <i>Friendship.</i></span>
+The society for which all rational beings are intended will naturally be found to
+exist principally among those who have become alive to their rational nature and destiny—in
+other words, among the wise. All who are wise and virtuous are friends, because they
+agree in their views of life, and because they all love one another’s virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32539src" href="#xd33e32539" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> Thus every action of a wise man contributes to the well-being of every other wise
+man—or, as the Stoics pointedly express it, if a wise man only makes a rational movement
+with his finger, he does a service to all wise men throughout the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32556src" href="#xd33e32556" title="Go to note 62.">62</a> On the other hand, only a wise man knows how to love properly; true friendship only
+exists between wise men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32562src" href="#xd33e32562" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> Only the wise man possesses the art of making friends,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32580src" href="#xd33e32580" title="Go to note 64.">64</a> since love <span class="pageNum" id="pb318">[<a href="#pb318">318</a>]</span>is only won by love.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32590src" href="#xd33e32590" title="Go to note 65.">65</a> If, however, true friendship is a union between the good and the wise, its value
+is thereby at once established; and hence it is distinctly enumerated among goods
+by the Stoics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32597src" href="#xd33e32597" title="Go to note 66.">66</a>
+</p>
+<p>On this point, difficulties reappear. How can this need of society be reconciled with
+the wise man’s freedom from wants? If the wise man is self-sufficient, how can another
+help him? How can he stand in need of such help? The answers given by Seneca are not
+satisfactory. To the first question, he replies, that none but a wise man can give
+the right inducement to a wise man to call his powers into exercise.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32647src" href="#xd33e32647" title="Go to note 67.">67</a> He meets the second by saying, that a wise man suffices himself for happiness, but
+not for life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32650src" href="#xd33e32650" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> Everywhere the wise man finds inducements to virtuous action; if friendship is not
+a condition of happiness, it is not a good at all. Nor are his further observations
+more satisfactory. The wise man, he says,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32655src" href="#xd33e32655" title="Go to note 69.">69</a> does not <i>wish</i> to be without friends, but still <span class="pageNum" id="pb319">[<a href="#pb319">319</a>]</span>he <i>can</i> be without friends. But the question is not whether he <i>can</i> be, but whether he can be without loss of happiness. If the question so put is answered
+in the negative, it follows that the wise man is not altogether self-sufficing; if
+in the affirmative—and a wise man, as Seneca affirms, will bear the loss of a friend
+with calmness, because he comforts himself with the thought that he can have another
+at any moment—then friendship is not worth much. Moreover, if a wise man can help
+another by communicating to him information and method, since no wise man is omniscient,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32667src" href="#xd33e32667" title="Go to note 70.">70</a> is not a wise man, if not in possession of all knowledge, at least in possession
+of all knowledge contributing to virtue and happiness? If it be added, that what one
+learns from another he learns by his own powers, and in consequence of himself helping
+himself, does not this addition still overlook the fact that the teacher’s activity
+is the condition of the learner’s? True and beautiful as is the language of Seneca:
+Friendship has its value in itself alone; every wise man must wish to find those like
+himself; the good have a natural love for the good; the wise man needs a friend, not
+to have a nurse in sickness and an assistant in trouble, but to have some one whom
+he can tend and assist, and for whom he can live and die<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32671src" href="#xd33e32671" title="Go to note 71.">71</a>—nevertheless, this language does not meet the critical objection, that one who requires
+the help of another, be it only to have an object for his moral activity, cannot be
+wholly dependent on himself. If friendship, according to a <span class="pageNum" id="pb320">[<a href="#pb320">320</a>]</span>previously quoted distinction,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32676src" href="#xd33e32676" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> belongs to external goods, it makes man, in a certain sense, dependent on externals.
+If its essence is placed in an inward disposition of friendliness, such a disposition
+depends on the existence of those for whom it can be felt. Besides, it involves the
+necessity of being reciprocated, and of finding expression in outward conduct, to
+such an extent that it is quite subversive of the absolute independence of the individual.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.b.4">(4) <i>The family and political life.</i></span>
+Nor is the friendship of the wise the only form of society which appeared to the Stoics
+necessary and essential. If man is intended<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32684src" href="#xd33e32684" title="Go to note 73.">73</a> to associate with his fellow-men in a society regulated by justice and law, how can
+he withdraw from the most common institution—the state? If virtue does not consist
+in idle contemplation, but in action, how dare he lose the opportunity of promoting
+good and repressing evil by taking part in political life?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32704src" href="#xd33e32704" title="Go to note 74.">74</a> If laws <span class="pageNum" id="pb321">[<a href="#pb321">321</a>]</span>further the well-being and security of the citizens, if they advance virtue and happiness,
+how can the wise man fail to regard them as beautiful and praiseworthy?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32755src" href="#xd33e32755" title="Go to note 75.">75</a> For the same reason, matrimony will command his respect. He will neither deny himself
+a union so natural and intimate, nor will he deprive the state of relays of men nor
+society of the sight of well-ordered family life<span>.</span><a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32761src" href="#xd33e32761" title="Go to note 76.">76</a> Hence, in their writings and precepts, the Stoics paid great attention to the state
+and to domestic life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32802src" href="#xd33e32802" title="Go to note 77.">77</a> In marriage they required chastity and moderation. Love was to be a matter of reason,
+not of emotion—not a yielding to personal attractions, nor a seeking sensual gratification.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32831src" href="#xd33e32831" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> As <span class="pageNum" id="pb322">[<a href="#pb322">322</a>]</span>to their views on the constitution of a state, we know<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32849src" href="#xd33e32849" title="Go to note 79.">79</a> that they prefer a mixed constitution, compounded of the three simple forms, without
+objecting to other forms of government. The wise man, according to Chrysippus, will
+not despise the calling of a prince, if his interest so require, and, if he cannot
+govern himself, will reside at the court and in the camp of princes, particularly
+of good princes.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32853src" href="#xd33e32853" title="Go to note 80.">80</a>
+</p>
+<p>The ideal of the Stoics, however, was not realised in any one of the existing forms
+of government, but in that polity of the wise which Zeno described, undoubtedly when
+a Cynic,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32859src" href="#xd33e32859" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> but which was fully set forth by Chrysippus<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32863src" href="#xd33e32863" title="Go to note 82.">82</a>—a state without marriage, or family, or temples, or courts, or public schools, or
+coins<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32867src" href="#xd33e32867" title="Go to note 83.">83</a>—a state excluding no other states, because all differences of nationality have been
+merged in a common brotherhood of all men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32881src" href="#xd33e32881" title="Go to note 84.">84</a> Such an ideal may show that, for the Stoic philosophers, there could be no hearty
+sympathy with the state or the family, their ideal state being, in truth, no longer
+a state. Indeed, <span class="pageNum" id="pb323">[<a href="#pb323">323</a>]</span>the whole tone of Stoicism, and still more, the circumstances of the times to which
+it owed its rise and growth, were against such a sympathy. If Plato could find no
+place for a philosopher in the political institutions of his time, how could a Stoic,
+who looked for happiness more exclusively in seclusion from the world, who contrasted,
+too, the wise man more sharply with the multitude of fools, and lived for the most
+part under political circumstances far less favourable than Plato? To him the private
+life of a philosopher must have seemed beyond compare more attractive than a public
+career. An intelligent man, taking advice from Chrysippus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32888src" href="#xd33e32888" title="Go to note 85.">85</a> avoids business; he withdraws to peaceful retirement; and, though he may consider
+it his duty not to stand aloof from public life, still he can only actively take a
+part in it in states which present an appreciable progress towards perfection.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32903src" href="#xd33e32903" title="Go to note 86.">86</a> But where could such states be found? Did not Chrysippus state it as his conviction
+that a statesman must either displease the Gods or displease the people?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32915src" href="#xd33e32915" title="Go to note 87.">87</a> And did not later Stoics accordingly advise philosophers not to intermeddle at all
+in civil matters?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32943src" href="#xd33e32943" title="Go to note 88.">88</a> Labour <span class="pageNum" id="pb324">[<a href="#pb324">324</a>]</span>for the commonwealth is only then a duty when there is no obstacle to such labour;
+but, as a matter of fact, there is always some obstacle, and in particular, the condition
+of all existing states.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32953src" href="#xd33e32953" title="Go to note 89.">89</a> A philosopher who teaches and improves his fellow-men benefits the state quite as
+much as a warrior, an administrator, or a civil functionary.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32974src" href="#xd33e32974" title="Go to note 90.">90</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Practical aversion to political life.</i></span>
+Following out this idea,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32986src" href="#xd33e32986" title="Go to note 91.">91</a> Epictetus dissuades from matrimony and the begetting of children. Allowing that the
+family relation may be admitted in a community of wise men, he is of opinion that
+it is otherwise under existing circumstances; for how can a true philosopher engage
+in connections and actions which withdraw him from the service of God? The last expression
+already implies that unfavourable times were not the only cause deterring the Stoics
+from caring for family or the state, but that the occupation in itself seemed to them
+a subordinate and limited one. This is stated in plain terms by <span class="pageNum" id="pb325">[<a href="#pb325">325</a>]</span>Seneca and Epictetus: He who feels himself a citizen of the world finds in an individual
+state a sphere far too limited, and prefers devoting himself to the universe;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e32991src" href="#xd33e32991" title="Go to note 92.">92</a> man is no doubt intended to be active, but the highest activity is intellectual research.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33026src" href="#xd33e33026" title="Go to note 93.">93</a> On the subject of civil society, opinions were likely to vary, according to the peculiarities
+and circumstances of individuals. The philosopher on the throne was more likely than
+the freedman Epictetus to feel himself a citizen of Rome as well as a citizen of the
+world,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33030src" href="#xd33e33030" title="Go to note 94.">94</a> and to lower the demands made on a philosophic statesman.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33051src" href="#xd33e33051" title="Go to note 95.">95</a> At the same time, the line taken by the Stoic philosophy cannot be ignored. A philosophy
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb326">[<a href="#pb326">326</a>]</span>which attaches moral value to the cultivation of intentions only, and considers all
+external circumstances as indifferent, can hardly produce a taste or a skill for overcoming
+those outward interests and circumstances with which a politician is chiefly concerned.
+A system which regards the mass of men as fools, which denies to them every healthy
+endeavour and all true knowledge, can hardly bring itself unreservedly to work for
+a state, the course and institutions of which depend upon the majority of its members,
+and are planned with a view to their needs, prejudices, and customs. Undoubtedly,
+there were able statesmen among the Stoics of the Roman period; but Rome, and not
+Stoicism, was the cause of their statesmanship. Taken alone, Stoicism could form excellent
+men, but hardly excellent statesmen. And, looking to facts, not one of the old masters
+of the School ever had or desired to have any public office. Hence, when their opponents
+urged that retirement was a violation of their principles,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33065src" href="#xd33e33065" title="Go to note 96.">96</a> Seneca could with justice meet the charge by replying, that the true meaning of their
+principles ought to be gathered from their actual conduct.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33069src" href="#xd33e33069" title="Go to note 97.">97</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>Citizenship of the world.</i></span>
+The positive substitute wherewith the Stoics thought to replace the ordinary relations
+of civil society was by a citizenship of the world. No preceding system had been able
+to overcome the difficulty of nationalities. Even Plato and Aristotle shared the prejudice
+of the Greeks against foreigners. <span class="pageNum" id="pb327">[<a href="#pb327">327</a>]</span>The Cynics alone appear as the precursors of the Stoa, attaching slight value to the
+citizenship of any particular state, in comparison with citizenship of the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33081src" href="#xd33e33081" title="Go to note 98.">98</a> With the Cynics, this idea had not attained to the historical importance which afterwards
+belonged to it; nor was it used so much with a positive meaning, to express the essential
+oneness of all mankind, as, in a negative sense, to imply the philosopher’s independence
+of country and home. From the Stoic philosophy it first received a definite meaning,
+and was generally pressed into service. The causes of this change may be sought, not
+only in the historical surroundings amongst which Stoicism grew up, but also in the
+person of its founder. It was far easier for philosophy to overcome national dislikes,
+after the genial Macedonian conqueror had united the vigorous nationalities comprised
+within his monarchy, not only under a central government, but also in a common culture.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33084src" href="#xd33e33084" title="Go to note 99.">99</a> Hence the Stoic citizenship of the world may be appealed to, to prove the assertion,
+that philosophic Schools reflect the existing facts of history. On the other hand,
+taking into account the bias given to a philosopher’s teaching by his personal circumstances,
+Zeno, being only half a Greek, would be more ready to underestimate the distinction
+of Greek and barbarian than any one of his predecessors.
+</p>
+<p>However much these two causes—and, in particular, <span class="pageNum" id="pb328">[<a href="#pb328">328</a>]</span>the first—must have contributed to bring about the Stoic ideal of a citizenship of
+the world, nevertheless the connection of this idea with the whole of their system
+is most obvious. If human society, as we have seen, has for its basis the identity
+of reason in individuals, what ground have we for limiting this society to a single
+nation, or feeling ourselves more nearly related to some men than to others? All men,
+apart from what they have made themselves by their own exertions, are equally near,
+since all equally participate in reason. All are members of one body; for one and
+the same nature has fashioned them all from the same elements for the same destiny.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33091src" href="#xd33e33091" title="Go to note 100.">100</a> Or, as Epictetus expresses it in religious language,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33097src" href="#xd33e33097" title="Go to note 101.">101</a> all men are brethren, since all have in the same degree God for their father. Man,
+therefore, who and whatever else he may be, is the object of our solicitude, simply
+as being man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33100src" href="#xd33e33100" title="Go to note 102.">102</a> No hostility and ill-treatment should quench our benevolence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33113src" href="#xd33e33113" title="Go to note 103.">103</a> No <span class="pageNum" id="pb329">[<a href="#pb329">329</a>]</span>one is so low but that he has claims on the love and justice of his fellow-men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33141src" href="#xd33e33141" title="Go to note 104.">104</a> Even the slave is a man deserving our esteem, and able to claim from us his rights.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33147src" href="#xd33e33147" title="Go to note 105.">105</a>
+</p>
+<p>In their recognition of the universal rights of mankind the Stoics did not go so far
+as to disapprove of slavery. Attaching in general little value to external circumstances,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33161src" href="#xd33e33161" title="Go to note 106.">106</a> they cared the less to throw <span class="pageNum" id="pb330">[<a href="#pb330">330</a>]</span>down the gauntlet to the social institutions and arrangements of their time. Still,
+they could not wholly suppress a confession that slavery is unjust,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33166src" href="#xd33e33166" title="Go to note 107.">107</a> nor cease to aim at mitigating the evil both in theory and practice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33178src" href="#xd33e33178" title="Go to note 108.">108</a> If all men are, as rational beings, equal, all men together form one community. Reason
+is the common law for all, and those who owe allegiance to one law are members of
+one state.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33200src" href="#xd33e33200" title="Go to note 109.">109</a> If the Stoics, therefore, compared the world, in its more extended sense, to a society,
+because of the connection of its parts,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33213src" href="#xd33e33213" title="Go to note 110.">110</a> they must, with far more reason, have allowed that the world, in the narrower sense
+of the term, including all rational beings, forms one community,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33244src" href="#xd33e33244" title="Go to note 111.">111</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb331">[<a href="#pb331">331</a>]</span>to which individual communities are related, as the houses of a city are to the city
+collectively.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33281src" href="#xd33e33281" title="Go to note 112.">112</a> Wise men, at least, if not others, will esteem this great community, to which all
+men belong, far above any particular community in which the accident of birth has
+placed them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33293src" href="#xd33e33293" title="Go to note 113.">113</a> They, at least, will direct their efforts towards making all men feel themselves
+to be citizens of one community; and, instead of framing exclusive laws and constitutions,
+will try to live as one family, under the common governance of reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33338src" href="#xd33e33338" title="Go to note 114.">114</a> The platform of social propriety receives hereby a universal width. Man, by withdrawing
+from the outer world into the recesses of his own intellectual and moral state, becomes
+enabled to recognise everywhere the same nature as his own, and to feel himself one
+with the universe, by sharing with it the same nature and the same destiny.
+</p>
+<p>But, as yet, the moral problem is not exhausted. <span class="pageNum" id="pb332">[<a href="#pb332">332</a>]</span><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.c">C. <i>Man and the course of the world.</i></span> Reason, the same as man’s, rules pure and complete in the universe; and if it is
+the business of man to give play to reason in his own conduct, and to recognise it
+in that of others, it is also his duty to subordinate himself to collective reason,
+and to the course of the world, over which it presides. In conclusion, therefore,
+the relation of man to the course of the world must be considered.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch12.c.1">(1) <i>Submission to the course of nature.</i></span>
+Firmly as the principles of the Stoic ethics insist upon moral conduct, those ethics,
+judged by their whole tone, cannot rest short of requiring an absolute resignation
+to the course of the universe. This requirement is based quite as much upon the historical
+surroundings of their system as upon its intellectual principles. How, in an age in
+which political freedom was crushed by the oppression of the Macedonian and subsequently
+of the Roman dominion, and the Roman dominion was itself smothered under the despotism
+of imperialism, in which Might, like a living fate, crushed every attempt at independent
+action—how, in such an age, could those aiming at higher objects than mere personal
+gratification have any alternative but to resign themselves placidly to the course
+of circumstances which individuals and nations were alike powerless to control? In
+making a dogma of fatalism, Stoicism was only following the current of the age. At
+the same time, as will be seen from what has been said, it was only following the
+necessary consequences of its own principles. All that is individual in the world
+being only the result of a general connection of cause and effect—<span class="pageNum" id="pb333">[<a href="#pb333">333</a>]</span>only a carrying out of a universal law—what remains possible, in the face of this
+absolute necessity, but to yield unconditionally? How can yielding be called a sacrifice,
+when the law to which we yield is nothing less than the expression of reason? Hence
+resignation to the world’s course was a point chiefly insisted upon in the Stoic doctrine
+of morality. The verses of Cleanthes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33368src" href="#xd33e33368" title="Go to note 115.">115</a> in which he submits without reserve to the leading of destiny, are a theme repeatedly
+worked out by the writers of this School. The virtuous man, they say, will honour
+God by resigning his will to the divine will; the divine will he will think better
+than his own will; he will remember that under all circumstances we must follow destiny,
+but that it is the wise man’s prerogative to follow of his own accord; that there
+is only one way to happiness and independence—that of willing nothing except what
+is in the nature of things, and what will realise itself independently of our will.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33421src" href="#xd33e33421" title="Go to note 116.">116</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb334">[<a href="#pb334">334</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Similar expressions are not wanting amongst other philosophers. Nevertheless, by the
+Stoic philosophy, the demand is pressed with particular force, and is closely connected
+with its whole view of the world. In resignation to destiny, the Stoic picture of
+the wise man is completed. Therewith is included that peace and happiness of mind,
+that gentleness and benevolence, that discharge of all duties, and that harmony of
+life, which together make up the Stoic definition of virtue.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33489src" href="#xd33e33489" title="Go to note 117.">117</a> Beginning by recognising the existence of a general law, morality ends by unconditionally
+submitting itself to the ordinances of that law.
+</p>
+<p>The one case in which this resignation would give <span class="pageNum" id="pb335">[<a href="#pb335">335</a>]</span>place to active resistance to destiny is when man is placed in circumstances calling
+for unworthy action or endurance.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33500src" href="#xd33e33500" title="Go to note 118.">118</a> Strictly speaking, the first case can<span class="marginnote" id="ch12.c.2">(2) <i>Suicide.</i></span> never arise, since, from the Stoic platform, no state of life can be imagined which
+might not serve as an occasion for virtuous conduct. It does, however, seem possible
+that even the wise man may be placed by fortune in positions which are for him unendurable;
+and in this case he is allowed to withdraw from them by suicide.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33512src" href="#xd33e33512" title="Go to note 119.">119</a> The importance of this point in the Stoic ethics will become manifest from the language
+of Seneca, who asserts that the wise man’s independence of externals depends, among
+other things, on his being able to leave life at pleasure.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33555src" href="#xd33e33555" title="Go to note 120.">120</a> To Seneca, the deed of the younger Cato appears not only praiseworthy, <span class="pageNum" id="pb336">[<a href="#pb336">336</a>]</span>but the crowning act of success over destiny, the highest triumph of the human will.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33580src" href="#xd33e33580" title="Go to note 121.">121</a> By the chief teachers of the Stoic School this doctrine was carried into practice.
+Zeno, in old age, hung himself, because he had broken his finger; Cleanthes, for a
+still less cause, continued his abstinence till he died of starvation, in order to
+traverse the whole way to death; and, in later times, the example of Zeno and Cleanthes
+was followed by Antipater.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33583src" href="#xd33e33583" title="Go to note 122.">122</a>
+</p>
+<p>In these cases suicide appears not only as a way of escape, possible under circumstances,
+but absolutely as the highest expression of moral freedom. Whilst all are far from
+being advised to adopt this course,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33588src" href="#xd33e33588" title="Go to note 123.">123</a> everyone is required to embrace the opportunity of dying with glory, when no higher
+duties bind him to life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33598src" href="#xd33e33598" title="Go to note 124.">124</a> Everyone is urged, in case of need, to receive death at his own hand, as a pledge
+of his independence. Nor are cases of need decided by what really makes a man unhappy—moral
+vice or folly. Vice and folly must be met by other means. Death is no deliverance
+from them, since it makes the bad no better. The one satisfactory reason which the
+Stoics recognised for taking leave of life is, when <span class="pageNum" id="pb337">[<a href="#pb337">337</a>]</span>circumstances over which we have no control make continuance in life no longer desirable.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33613src" href="#xd33e33613" title="Go to note 125.">125</a>
+</p>
+<p>Such circumstances may be found in the greatest variety of things. Cato committed
+suicide because of the downfall of the republic; Zeno, because of a slight injury
+received. According to Seneca, it is a sufficient reason for committing suicide to
+anticipate merely a considerable disturbance in our actions and peace of mind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33627src" href="#xd33e33627" title="Go to note 126.">126</a> The infirmity of age, incurable disease, a weakening of the powers of the mind, a
+great degree of want, the tyranny of a despot from which there is no escape, justify
+us—and even, under circumstances, oblige us—to have recourse to this remedy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33668src" href="#xd33e33668" title="Go to note 127.">127</a> Seneca, indeed, maintains that a philosopher should never commit suicide in order
+to escape suffering, but only to withdraw from restrictions in following out the aim
+of life; but he is nevertheless of opinion that anyone may rightly choose an easier
+mode of death instead of a more painful one in prospect, thus avoiding a freak of
+destiny and the cruelty of man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33671src" href="#xd33e33671" title="Go to note 128.">128</a> Besides pain and sickness, Diogenes also mentions a case in which suicide becomes
+a duty, for the sake of others.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33674src" href="#xd33e33674" title="Go to note 129.">129</a> According to another <span class="pageNum" id="pb338">[<a href="#pb338">338</a>]</span>authority,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33680src" href="#xd33e33680" title="Go to note 130.">130</a> five cases are enumerated by the Stoics in which it is allowed to put oneself to
+death; if, by so doing, a real service can be rendered to others, as in the case of
+sacrificing oneself for one’s country; to avoid being compelled to do an unlawful
+action; otherwise, on the ground of poverty, chronic illness, or incipient weakness
+of mind.
+</p>
+<p>In nearly all these cases, the things referred to belong to the class of things which
+were reckoned as indifferent by the Stoics; and hence arises the apparent paradox,
+with which their opponents immediately twitted them, that not absolute and moral evils,
+but only outward circumstances, are admitted as justifying suicide.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33687src" href="#xd33e33687" title="Go to note 131.">131</a> The paradox, however, loses its point when it is remembered that, to the Stoics,
+life and death are quite as much indifferent as all other external things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33707src" href="#xd33e33707" title="Go to note 132.">132</a> To them, nothing really good <span class="pageNum" id="pb339">[<a href="#pb339">339</a>]</span>appears to be involved in the question of suicide, but a choice between two things
+morally indifferent—one of which, life, is only preferable to the other, death, whilst
+the essential conditions for a life according to nature are satisfied.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33728src" href="#xd33e33728" title="Go to note 133.">133</a> The philosopher, therefore, says Seneca,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33748src" href="#xd33e33748" title="Go to note 134.">134</a> chooses his mode of death just as he chooses a ship for a journey or a house to live
+in. He leaves life as he would leave a banquet—when it is time. He lays aside his
+body when it no longer suits him, as he would lay aside worn-out clothes; and withdraws
+from life as he would withdraw from a house no longer weather-proof.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33752src" href="#xd33e33752" title="Go to note 135.">135</a>
+</p>
+<p>A very different question, however, it is, whether life can be treated in this way
+as something indifferent, and whether it is consistent with an unconditional resignation
+to the course of the world, to evade by personal interposition what destiny with its
+unalterable laws has decreed for us. Stoicism may, indeed, allow this course of action.
+But in so <span class="pageNum" id="pb340">[<a href="#pb340">340</a>]</span>doing does it not betray its ill-success in the attempt to combine, without contradiction,
+two main tendencies so different as that of individual independence and that of submission
+to the universe?
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb341">[<a href="#pb341">341</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31491">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31491src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Further particulars have been already given, p. 61. Seneca (Ep. 95, 1) calls the subject
+of applied ethics, which Aristo rejected, <span lang="la">parænetice</span>, or <span lang="la">pars præceptiva</span>. Sextus speaks of two <span class="trans" title="topoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόποι</span></span>—a <span class="trans" title="parainetikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παραινετικὸς</span></span> and a <span class="trans" title="hypothetikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποθετικός</span></span>. Both terms, however, appear to denote the same thing; for <span class="trans" title="hypothetikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑποθετικὸς</span></span> is defined by Muson. in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 117, 8, as <span class="trans" title="parainetikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παραινετικός</span></span>. He who is himself insufficiently educated will do well <span class="trans" title="zētōn logōn akouein hypothetikōn para tōn pepoiēmenōn ergon eidenai tina men blabera tina de ōphelima anthrōpois. hypothetikos topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζητῶν λόγων ἀκούειν ὑποθετικῶν παρὰ τῶν πεποιημένων ἔργον εἰδέναι τίνα <span id="xd33e31546">μὲν</span> βλαβερὰ τίνα δὲ ὠφέλιμα ἀνθρώποις. ὑποθετικὸς τόπος</span></span> is therefore identical with the <span lang="la">suasio</span> of Posidonius (in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 65). See p. 223, note 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31491src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31562">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31562src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 94, 4: <span lang="la">Cleanthes utilem quidem judicat et hanc partem, sed imbecillam nisi ab universo fluit,
+nisi decreta ipsa philosophiæ et capita cognovit</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31562src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31569">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31569src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> See p. 223, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31569src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31572">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31572src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> See <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 2, 7; 3, 9; iii. 2, 7. Cicero himself said that he chiefly followed Panætius
+(<span class="trans" title="peri tōn kathēkontōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων</span></span>), not as a mere translator, but <span lang="la">correctione quadam adhibita.</span> See p. 300, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31572src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31589">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31589src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 3, 7: <span lang="la">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.</span> He would devote his attention to <span lang="la">officia, quorum præcepta traduntur</span>. 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31589src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31599">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31599src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> See p. 223, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31599src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31602">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31602src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> Particularly in the portions treating <span class="trans" title="peri tōn kathēkontōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="peri protropōn te kai apotropōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ προτροπῶν τε καὶ ἀποτροπῶν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31602src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31621">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31621src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> See p. 260, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31621src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31626">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31626src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> See p. 260, 4, and 261, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31626src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31630">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31630src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> 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<span>.</span> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31630src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31637">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31637src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> 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 (<i>Cic.</i> Off. ii. 24, 86); and Hecato, in his treatise on duties, had added further casuistical
+investigations (<i>Cic.</i> iii. 28, 89). Brutus, too, who, like his teacher Antiochus, was devoted to a moderate
+Stoicism, and of whom <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 45, reports that he had laid down rules for the relations of parents, children,
+and brothers in his treatise <span class="trans" title="peri tou kathēkontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος</span></span>, may have followed Panætius.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31637src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31654">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31654src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 94, 1; 95, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31654src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31662">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31662src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 128: <span class="trans" title="en hexei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν ἕξει</span></span> (not only <span class="trans" title="en schesei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν σχέσει</span></span>, see p. 230) <span class="trans" title="de ou monas einai tas aretas alla kai tas allas technas tas tō spoudaiō andri, alloiōtheisas hypo tēs aretēs kai genomenas ametaptōtous, hoionei gar aretas gignesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31662src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31692">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31692src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> The treatise of Panætius—we learn from <i>Cic.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31692src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31709">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31709src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> See pp. 260, 298. Amongst other things, as we learn from the fragment in <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 555, a, Chrysippus discussed the question of shaving; and <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 26, quotes, in illustration of the useless enquiries of the Stoics, <span class="trans" title="en tois peri kathēkontōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν τοῖς περὶ καθηκόντων</span></span>, 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31709src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31742">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31742src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <span class="trans" title="eutaxia, eukairia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐταξία, εὐκαιρία</span></span>, <span lang="la">talis ordo actionum ut in vita omnia sint apta inter se et convenientia.</span> i. 40, 142; 144.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31742src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31756">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31756src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> i. 43. We omit Cicero’s treatise, this section not being found in Panætius.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31756src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31763">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31763src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> Panætius still more diffusively, 5, 16.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31763src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31766">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31766src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31766src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31769">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31769src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 117 says: The <span class="trans" title="sophos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σόφος</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="spoudaios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπουδαῖος</span></span> is free from vanity (<span class="trans" title="atypos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄτυπος</span></span>), is earnest (<span class="trans" title="austēros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐστηρὸς</span></span>), frank (<span class="trans" title="akibdēlos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκίβδηλος</span></span>), and with no inclination to pretence. He stands aloof from the affairs of life (<span class="trans" title="apragmōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπράγμων</span></span>), lest he should do anything contrary to duty. See p. 323, 1. <i>Stob.</i> ii. 240, says: The wise man is gentle (<span class="trans" title="praos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρᾶος</span></span>), quiet (<span class="trans" title="hēsychios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡσύχιος</span></span>), and considerate (<span class="trans" title="kosmios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμιος</span></span>), never exciting angry feelings against others, never putting off what he has to
+do.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31769src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31859">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31859src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 47, 1: <span class="trans" title="blapsousin hoi sophoi pseudeis phantasias empoiountes, an hai phantasiai poiōsin autotelōs tas synkatatheseis; pollakis gar hoi sophoi pseudei chrōntai pros tous phaulous kai phantasian paristasi pithanēn, ou mēn aitian tēs synkatatheseōs; epei kai tēs hypolēpseōs aitia tēs pseudous estai kai tēs apatēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>. Stob. ii. 230: <span class="trans" title="mē pseudesthai ton sophon all’ en pasin alētheuein; ou gar en tō legein ti pseudos to pseudesthai hyparchein, all’ en tō diapseustōs to pseudos legein kai epi apatē tōn plēsion. tō mentoi pseudei pote synchrēsasthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span> [l. -<span class="trans" title="sesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σεσθαι</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="nomizousin auton kata pollous tropous aneu synkatatheseōs; kai gar kata stratēgian pros tōn antipalōn, kai kata tēn tou sympherontos proorasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νομίζουσιν αὐτὸν κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους ἄνευ συγκαταθέσεως· καὶ γὰρ κατὰ στρατηγίαν
+πρὸς τῶν ἀντιπάλων, καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ συμφέροντος προόρασιν</span></span> (which, however, may not be translated as <i>Ritter</i> iii. 662 does ‘for the sake of advantage’; it rather refers to such cases as those
+mentioned by <i>Xen.</i> Mem. iv. 2, 17, and <i>Plato</i>, Rep. ii. 382, <span class="asc">C</span><span>,</span> 389, <span class="asc">B</span>; iv. 459, <span class="asc">C</span>, in which the interests of another or of the community require deception) <span class="trans" title="kai kat’ allas oikonomias tou biou pollas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ κατ’ ἄλλας οἰκονομίας τοῦ βίου πολλάς</span></span>. In accordance with this passage, too, the statement of Procl. in <i>Alcib.</i> (Op. ed. Cous. iii. 64)—that the Stoics differ from their predecessors in that they
+reject all lies—must be explained: <span class="trans" title="oute gar exapatan esti dikaiōs kat’ autous oute biazesthai oute aposterein, all’ hekastē tōn praxeōn toutōn apo mochthēras proeisin hexeōs kai adikos estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε γὰρ ἐξαπατᾷν ἔστι δικαίως κατ’ αὐτοὺς οὔτε βιάζεσθαι οὔτε ἀποστερεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἑκάστη
+τῶν πράξεων τούτων ἀπὸ μοχθηρᾶς πρόεισιν <span id="xd33e31928">ἕξεως</span> καὶ ἄδικός ἐστιν</span></span>. 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31859src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31939">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31939src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 20. 68: <span lang="la">Cynicorum autem rationem atque vitam alii cadere in sapientem dicunt, si quis ejusmodi
+forte casus inciderit, ut id faciendum sit, alii nullo modo.</span> The latter must, however, have been in a minority.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31939src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31946">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31946src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 121: <span class="trans" title="kyniein t’ auton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κυνιεῖν τ’ αὐτὸν</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="ton sophon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν σοφόν</span></span>]· <span class="trans" title="einai gar ton kynismon syntomon ep’ aretēn hodon, hōs Apollodōros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶναι γὰρ τὸν κυνισμὸν σύντομον ἐπ’ ἀρετὴν ὁδὸν, ὡς Ἀπολλόδωρος</span></span> [on whom, see p. 51, 1] <span class="trans" title="en tē ēthikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν τῇ ἠθικῇ</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> 238: <span class="trans" title="kyniein te ton sophon legousin, ison tō epimenein tō kynismō, ou mēn sophon ont’ an arxasthai tou kynismou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κυνιεῖν τε τὸν σοφὸν λέγουσιν, ἴσον τῷ ἐπιμένειν τῷ κυνισμῷ, οὐ μὴν σοφὸν ὄντ’ ἂν
+ἄρξασθαι τοῦ κυνισμοῦ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31946src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e31993">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e31993src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> See p. 274, 2. According to the epigrams of Timon, in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 16, <i>Athen.</i> iv. 158, a, <i>Sext.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e31993src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32003">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32003src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> Ep. 5, 1; 103, 5; Fr. 19, in <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. iii. 15.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32003src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32010">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32010src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> See, on this point, Tranq. An. 8, 4; Benef. v. 4, 3; 6, 1; Ep. 90, 14. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 29, 1, does not, however, agree with the Stoic custom of sowing exhortations
+broadcast.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32010src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32015">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32015src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> As may be seen in Musonius and Epictetus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32015src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32025">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32025src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32025src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32029">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32029src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> Besides <i>Diog.</i> vii. 188, and <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 207, see Chrysippus’s own words, in <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 247 (Math. xi. 193). The majority of the Stoics appear to have limited
+cannibalism to cases of extreme necessity. See <i>Diog.</i> 121. Chrysippus had probably been speaking, in the context, of the different modes
+of treating the dead among various nations <span class="pageNum" id="pb308n">[<a href="#pb308n">308</a>]</span>(<i>Cic.</i> Tusc. i. 45, 108), intending to prove that no uniformity of practice prevailed.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32029src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32047">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32047src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 35, 128, with the limitation: <span lang="la">Cynici aut si qui fuerunt Stoici pæne Cynici.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32047src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32053">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32053src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 33: <span class="trans" title="kai esthēti de tē autē keleuei chrēsthai kai andras kai gynaikas kai mēden morion apokekryphthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἐσθῆτι δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ κελεύει χρῆσθαι καὶ ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ μηδὲν μόριον ἀποκεκρύφθαι</span></span>. The latter act is only conditional, and allowed in certain cases, such as for purposes
+of gymnastics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32053src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32066">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32066src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 33; 131.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32066src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32070">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32070src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 201.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32070src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32074">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32074src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 200; 245; Math<span>.</span> xi. 190; <i>Clement.</i> Homil. v. 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32074src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32082">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32082src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 160; iii. 205; 246; Math. xi. 191; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 22; <i>Clement.</i> Homil. v. 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32082src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32090">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32090src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> l<span>.</span>c. 21, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32090src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32096">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32096src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> Sextus, however (Pyrrh. iii. 206), attributes to him, as the representative of the
+School, what properly only belongs to Chrysippus: <span class="trans" title="to te aischrourgein ... ho Zēnōn ouk apodokimazei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τό τε αἰσχρουργεῖν … ὁ Ζήνων οὐκ ἀποδοκιμάζει</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32096src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32116">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32116src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> His words (<i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 190; Pyrrh. iii. 245; <i>Plut.</i> Qu. Con. iii. 6, 1, 6) are as follows: <span class="trans" title="diamērizein de mēden mallon mēde hēsson paidika ē mē paidika mēde thēlea ē arsena; ou gar alla paidikois ē mē paidikois oude thēleiais ē arrhesin alla ta auta prepei te kai preponta esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>; and: <span class="trans" title="diamemērikas ton erōmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαμεμήρικας τὸν ἐρώμενον</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="ouk egōge; poteron oun epethymēsas auton diamērisai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἔγωγε· πότερον οὖν ἐπεθύμησας αὐτὸν διαμηρίσαι</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="kai mala. alla epethymēsas paraschein soi auton ē ephobēthēs keleusai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μάλα. ἀλλὰ ἐπεθύμησας παρασχεῖν σοι αὐτὸν ἢ ἐφοβήθης κελεῦσαι</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="ma Di’. all’ ekeleusas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὰ Δί’. ἀλλ’ ἐκέλευσας</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="kai mala. eit’ ouch hypēretēse soi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μάλα. εἶτ’ οὐχ ὑπηρέτησέ σοι</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="ou gar"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γάρ</span></span>. 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32116src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32180">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32180src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> See the following note.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32180src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32183">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32183src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> Musonius, in <i>Stob.</i> Serm. 6, 61 (conf. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 20, 68): <span lang="la">Ne amores quidem sanctos alienos a sapiente esse volunt.</span> According to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 129, <i>Stob.</i> ii. 238, love is only directed to beauty of soul. By <i>Diog.</i>, <span class="pageNum" id="pb310n">[<a href="#pb310n">310</a>]</span><i>Stob.</i>, <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 75, and <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 34, 72, it is defined to be <span class="trans" title="epibolē philopoiïas dia kallos emphainomenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιβολὴ φιλοποιΐας διὰ κάλλος ἐμφαινόμενον</span></span>; and, according to <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 28, <span class="trans" title="emphasis kallous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔμφασις κάλλους</span></span> 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 <i>Plat.</i> Sym. 203, <span class="asc">E</span>, that the Stoics nevertheless stated <span class="trans" title="tous erasthentas aischrōn pauesthai kalōn genomenōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοὺς ἐρασθέντας αἰσχρῶν παύεσθαι καλῶν γενομένων</span></span>. Love is excited by a sensation of <span class="trans" title="euphuia pros aretēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐφυία πρὸς ἀρετὴν</span></span>, its object is to <span class="corr" id="xd33e32247" title="Source: develope">develop</span> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32183src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32254">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32254src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> Conf. <i>Orig.</i> 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: <span class="trans" title="eipon oun en tō peri adiaphorōn topō hoti tō idiō logō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἶπον οὖν ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀδιαφόρων τόπῳ ὅτι τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ</span></span> (the action taken by itself) <span class="trans" title="thygatrasi mignysthai adiaphoron estin, ei kai mē chrē en tais kathestōsais politeiais to toiouton poiein. kai hypotheseōs charin ... pareilēphasi ton sophon meta tēs thygatros monēs kataleleimmenon pantos tou tōn anthrōpōn genous diephtharmenou, kai zētousin ei kathēkontōs ho patēr syneleusetai tē thygatri hyper tou mē apolesthai ... to pan tōn anthrōpōn genos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32254src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32275">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32275src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> How strictly he respected chastity and modesty in women is proved by the fragment,
+preserved by <i>Clem.</i> Pædag. iii. 253, <span class="asc">C</span>, respecting the dress and conduct of maidens.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32275src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32309">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32309src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 19, 64: <span lang="la">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.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32309src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32315">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32315src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 9; xii. 30. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 52: The whole world is a unit; <span lang="la">membra sumus corporis magni. Natura nos cognatos edidit.</span> Hence mutual love, love of society, justice, and fairness. Ep. 48, 2: <span lang="la">Alteri vivas oportet, si vis tibi vivere. Hæc societas … nos homines hominibus miscet
+et judicat aliquod esse commune jus generis humani.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32315src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32328">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32328src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Legg. 12, 33: <span lang="la">Quibus enim ratio a natura data est, iisdem etiam recta ratio data est: ergo et lex,
+quæ est recta ratio in jubendo et vetando</span> (see p. 241, 2): <span lang="la">si lex, jus quoque. At omnibus ratio. Jus igitur datum est omnibus.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 7, 23: <span lang="la">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.</span> Ps. <i>Plut.</i> V. Hom. 119: The Stoics teach <span class="trans" title="hena men einai ton kosmon, sympoliteuesthai de en autō theous kai anthrōpous, dikaiosynēs metechontas physei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕνα μὲν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, συμπολιτεύεσθαι δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ θεοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπους, δικαιοσύνης
+μετέχοντας φύσει</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32328src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32354">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32354src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 23, 51.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32354src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32360">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32360src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 20, 67; Off. i. 7, 22; <i>Sen.</i> Clement. i. 3, 2; Benef. vii. 1, 7; <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 16, 30; vii. 55; viii. 59; ix. 1; xi. 18; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 129; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 131.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32360src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32372">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32372src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> Hence, according to <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 21, 69, not only <span class="trans" title="ōphelēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὠφελήματα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="blammata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">βλάμματα</span></span> (moral good and evil), but <span class="trans" title="euchrēstēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐχρηστήματα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="dyschrēstēmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δυσχρηστήματα</span></span> (other advantages and disadvantages) are common to all men.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32372src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32409">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32409src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> According to <i>Plut.</i> 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 <span class="trans" title="adikein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδικεῖν</span></span>, which sometimes means ‘to wrong,’ sometimes simply ‘to harm.’ Strictly speaking,
+a relation involving justice can only exist towards another. See <i>Cic.</i> on p. 315, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32409src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32424">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32424src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> Towards the Gods, man stands, according to the above <span class="pageNum" id="pb314n">[<a href="#pb314n">314</a>]</span>passages, in a relation involving justice. There is, therefore (<i>Sext.</i> ix. 131), a justice towards the Gods, of which piety (see p. 261, 1) is only a part.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32424src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32434">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32434src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32434src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32472">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32472src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> vii. 13: If you only consider yourself a part, and not a member, of human society,
+<span class="trans" title="oupō apo kardias phileis tous anthrōpous; oupō se katalēptikōs euphrainei to euergetein; eti hōs prepon auto psilon poieis; oupō hōs hauton eu poiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔπω ἀπὸ καρδίας φιλεῖς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· οὔπω σε καταληπτικῶς εὐφραίνει τὸ εὐεργετεῖν·
+ἔτι ὡς πρέπον αὐτὸ ψιλὸν ποιεῖς· οὔπω ὡς αὑτὸν εὖ ποιῶν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32472src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32492">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32492src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> See p. 298, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32492src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32495">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32495src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> Off. i. 7, 20: <span lang="la">De tribus autem reliquis [virtutibus, <span lang="en">the three others besides understanding</span>] 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.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32495src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32503">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32503src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> Off. i. 7–13; ii. 14–17.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32503src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32506">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32506src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> See p. 254, 2, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32506src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32512">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32512src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> 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): <span lang="la">Nullam ex omnibus virtutibus magis homini convenire, cum sit nulla humanior.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32512src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32517">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32517src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> Conf. Panætius, in <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 25, 88.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32517src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32524">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32524src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> De Clem. ii. 5–8.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32524src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32529">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32529src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> Among the points characteristic of Stoicism, the censure deserves notice which <i>Sen.</i> (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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32529src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32539">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32539src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 184: <span class="trans" title="tēn te homonoian epistēmēn einai koinōn agathōn, dio kai tous spoudaious pantas homonoein allēlois dia to symphōnein en tois kata ton bion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τήν τε ὁμόνοιαν ἐπιστήμην εἶναι κοινῶν ἀγαθῶν, διὸ καὶ τοὺς σπουδαίους πάντας ὁμονοεῖν
+ἀλλήλοις διὰ τὸ συμφωνεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 44, 121: <span lang="la">Censent autem [Stoici] sapientes sapientibus etiam ignotis esse amicos, nihil est
+enim virtute amabilius. Quam qui adeptus erit, ubicumque erit gentium, a nobis diligetur.</span> See Off. i. 17, 55. Conf. p. 309, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32539src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32556">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32556src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 22, 2. The same thought is expressed in the statement (<i>ibid.</i> 33, 2) that the wise man is as useful to deity (the universe) as deity is to him.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32556src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32562">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32562src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. vii. 12, 2; Ep. 81, 11; 123, 15; 9, 5; <i>Stob.</i> ii. 118; see p. 271, 3. <i>Diog.</i> 124. According to <i>Diog.</i> 32, Zeno, like Socrates, was blamed for asserting that only the good (<span class="trans" title="spoudaioi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπουδαῖοι</span></span>) among themselves are fellow-citizens, friends, and relations; whilst all the bad
+are enemies and strangers.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32562src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32580">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32580src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> He is, as <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 9, 5, puts it, <span lang="la">faciendarum amicitiarum artifex.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32580src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32590">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32590src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> <span lang="la">Si vis amari, ama</span>, says Hecato, in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 9, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32590src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32597">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32597src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> We have already encountered friendship in the Stoic list of goods. See p. 230, 3.
+<i>Stob.</i> 186 says, more accurately, that friendship, for the sake of the commonwealth, is
+not a good, <span class="trans" title="dia to mēden ek diestēkotōn agathon einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἐκ διεστηκότων ἀγαθὸν εἶναι</span></span>; 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, <i>Sen.</i> 99, 3. Friendship is defined as <span class="trans" title="koinōnia biou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινωνία βίου</span></span> (<i>Stob.</i> 130); <span class="trans" title="koinōnia tōn kata ton bion, chrōmenōn hēmōn tois philois hōs heautois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινωνία τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον, χρωμένων ἡμῶν τοῖς φίλοις ὡς ἑαυτοῖς</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 124). Similar definitions are given by <i>Stob.</i> of varieties of friendship: <span class="trans" title="gnōrimotēs, synētheia, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">γνωριμότης, συνήθεια, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> On the absolute community of goods among friends, see <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 47, 2; 3, 2; Benef. vii. 4, 1; 12, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32597src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32647">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32647src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> Ep. 109, 3 and 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32647src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32650">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32650src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> Ep. 9, 13: <span lang="la">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.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32650src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32655">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32655src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> Ep. 9, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32655src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32667">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32667src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 109, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32667src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32671">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32671src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> Ep. 109, 13; 9, 8; 10, 12; 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32671src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32676">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32676src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> See p. 318, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32676src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32684">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32684src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 208: <span class="trans" title="ton gar nomon einai, kathaper eipomen, spoudaion, homoiōs de kai tēn polin. hikanōs de kai Kleanthēs peri to spoudaion einai tēn polin logon ērōtēse touton; polis men ei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span> (wrongly struck out by Meineke) <span class="trans" title="estin oikētērion kataskeuasma eis ho katapheugontas esti dikēn dounai kai labein, ouk asteion dē polis estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔστιν οἰκητήριον κατασκεύασμα εἰς ὃ καταφεύγοντας ἔστι δίκην δοῦναι καὶ λαβεῖν, οὐκ
+ἀστεῖον δὴ πόλις ἐστιν</span></span>; Floril. 44, 12. See pp. 223; 241, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32684src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32704">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32704src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 2, 3: Chrysippus recommends political life, placing <span class="trans" title="bios scholastikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">βίος σχολαστικὸς</span></span> on the same footing with <span class="trans" title="bios hēdonikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">βίος ἡδονικός</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 121: <span class="trans" title="politeuesthai phasin ton sophon an mē ti kōlyē, hōs phēsi Chrysippos en prōtō peri biōn; kai gar kakian ephexein kai ep’ aretēn ephormēsein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολιτεύεσθαί φασιν τὸν σοφὸν ἂν μή τι κωλύῃ, ὥς φησι Χρύσιππος ἐν πρώτῳ περὶ βίων·
+καὶ γὰρ κακίαν ἐφέξειν καὶ ἐπ’ ἀρετὴν ἐφορμήσειν</span></span><span>.</span> Sen. De Ot. 3, 2: <span lang="la">Epicurus ait: non accedet ad rempublicam sapiens, nisi si quid intervenerit. Zenon
+ait: accedet ad rempublicam, nisi si quid impedierit.</span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 20, 68: Since man exists for the sake of other men, <span lang="la">consentaneum est huic naturæ, ut sapiens velit gerere et administrare rempublicam:
+atque, ut e natura vivat, uxorem adjungere et velle ex ea liberos procreare.</span> <i>Stob.</i> ii. 184: <span class="trans" title="to te dikaion phasi physei einai kai mē thesei. hepomenon de toutois hyparchein kai to politeuesthai ton sophon ... kai to nomothetein te kai paideuein anthrōpous, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">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.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32704src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32755">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32755src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Legg. ii. 5, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32755src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32761">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32761src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> <i>Ibid.</i>: <span class="trans" title="kai gamēsein, hōs ho Zēnōn phēsin en politeia, kai paidopoiēsesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ γαμήσειν, ὡς ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν ἐν πολιτείᾳ, καὶ παιδοποιήσεσθαι</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 120: The Stoics consider love of children, parents, and kindred to be according to
+nature. Chrysippus (in <i>Hieron.</i> Ad. Jovin. i. 191): The wise man will marry, lest he offend Zeus <span class="trans" title="Gamēlios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Γαμήλιος</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="Genethlios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Γενέθλιος</span></span>. Antipater (whether the well-known pupil of Diogenes of Seleucia, or the younger
+Stoic Antipater of Tyre mentioned by <i>Cic.</i> Off. ii. 24, 86, is not stated) in <i>Stob.</i> 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
+(<i>Ibid.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32761src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32802">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32802src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 2, 1: <span class="trans" title="epei toinyn polla men, hōs en logois, autō Zēnōni, polla de Kleanthei, pleista de Chrysippō gegrammena tynchanei peri politeias kai tou archesthai kai archein kai dikazein kai rhētoreuein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>. Conf. the titles in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 4; 166; 175; 178. Diogenes’s list contains no political writings of Chrysippus.
+It is, however, known to be incomplete; for <i>Diog.</i> vii. 34; 131, quotes Chrysippus’s treatise <span class="trans" title="peri politeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ πολιτείας</span></span>, a treatise also quoted by <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 21 (1, 3, 5). According to <i>Cic.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32802src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32831">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32831src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> Conf. the fragment of <i>Sen.</i> De Matrimonio, in <i>Hieron.</i> Ad. <span class="pageNum" id="pb322n">[<a href="#pb322n">322</a>]</span>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 <i>Quintil.</i> Inst. i. 11, 17; 1, 4 and 16; 3, 14; 10, 32; <i>Baguet</i>, De Chrys. (Annal. Lovan. iv. p. 335). He is reproached by Posidonius (<i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. v. 1, p. 465) for neglecting the first germs of education, particularly
+those previous to birth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32831src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32849">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32849src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 131.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32849src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32853">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32853src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 20, 3–5; 7; 30, 3; C. Not. 7, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32853src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32859">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32859src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32859src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32863">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32863src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 131.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32863src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32867">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32867src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">83</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 33: <span class="trans" title="koinas te gar gynaikas dogmatizein homoiōs en tē Politeia kai kata tous diakosious stichous, mēth’ hiera mēte dikastēria mēte gymnasia en tais polesin oikodomeisthai ... nomisma d’ out’ allagēs heneken oiesthai dein kataskeuazein out’ apodēmias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 131.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32867src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32881">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32881src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">84</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Alex. Virt. i. 6, p. 329.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32881src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32888">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32888src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">85</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 20, 1: <span class="trans" title="oimai gar egōge ton phronimon kai apragmona einai kai oligopragmona kai ta autou prattein, homoiōs tēs te autopragias kai oligopragmosynēs asteiōn ontōn ... tō gar onti phainetai ho kata tēn hēsychian bios akindynon te kai asphales echein, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">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 <span id="xd33e32895">ἀκίνδυνόν</span> τε καὶ ἀσφαλὲς ἔχειν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32888src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32903">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32903src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">86</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 186: <span class="trans" title="politeuesthai ton sophon kai malista en tais toiautais politeiais tais emphainousais tina prokopēn pros tas teleias politeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολιτεύεσθαι τὸν σοφὸν καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις πολιτείαις ταῖς ἐμφαινούσαις
+τινὰ προκοπὴν πρὸς τὰς τελείας πολιτείας</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32903src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32915">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32915src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">87</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 45, 29: In answer to the question, why he withdrew from public life, he replied:
+<span class="trans" title="dioti ei men ponēra politeuetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διότι εἰ μὲν πονηρὰ πολιτεύεται</span></span> [-<span class="trans" title="setai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σεται</span></span>], <span class="trans" title="tois theois aparesei, ei de chrēsta, tois politais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπαρέσει, εἰ δὲ χρηστὰ, τοῖς πολίταις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32915src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32943">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32943src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">88</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 29, 11: <span lang="la">Quis enim placere potest populo, cui placet virtus? Malis artibus popularis <span class="pageNum" id="pb324n">[<a href="#pb324n">324</a>]</span>favor quæritur. Similem te illis facias oportet … conciliari nisi turpi ratione amor
+turpium non potest.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32943src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32953">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32953src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">89</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Ot. 3, 3, p<span>.</span> 320, 3: It needs a special cause for devoting oneself to private life. <span lang="la">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.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 8, 1: <span lang="la">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?</span> (So we ought to punctuate.) <span lang="la">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.</span> Similarly Athenodorus, in <i>Sen.</i> Tranq. An. 3, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32953src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32974">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32974src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">90</a></span> <i>Athenodor.</i> l.c. 3, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32974src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32986">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32986src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">91</a></span> Diss. iii. 22, 67.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32986src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e32991">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e32991src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">92</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Otio, 4, 1: <span lang="la">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.</span> Does it not seem like reading Augustin’s <span lang="la">De Civitate Dei</span>? Some serve the great, others the small state; some serve both. <span lang="la">Majori reipublicæ et in otio deservire possumus, immo vero nescio an in otio melius.</span> Ep. 68, 2: <span lang="la">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,</span> &amp;c. <i>Epict.</i> 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? <span class="trans" title="tēlikautēn politeian politeusamenou anthrōpou, sy moi pynthanē, ei politeusetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τηλικαύτην πολίτειαν πολιτευσαμένου ἀνθρώπου, σύ μοι πυνθάνῃ, εἰ πολιτεύσεται</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="pythou mou kai, ei arxei; palin erō soi; mōre, poian archēn meizona hēs archei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πυθοῦ μου καὶ, εἰ ἄρξει· πάλιν ἐρῶ σοι· μωρὲ, ποίαν ἀρχὴν μείζονα ἧς ἄρχει</span></span>;&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e32991src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33026">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33026src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">93</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Otio, 5, 1; 7; 6, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33026src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33030">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33030src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">94</a></span> <i>Marcus Aurelius</i>, vi. 44: <span class="trans" title="polis kai patris hōs men Antōniō moi hē Rhōmē, hōs de anthrōpō ho kosmos. ta tais polesin oun tautais ōphelima mona esti moi agatha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πόλις καὶ πατρὶς ὡς μὲν Ἀντωνίῳ μοι ἡ Ῥώμη, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώπῳ ὁ κόσμος. τὰ ταῖς πόλεσιν
+οὖν ταύταις ὠφέλιμα μόνα ἐστί μοι ἀγαθά</span></span>. ii. 5: <span class="trans" title="pasēs hōras phrontize stibarōs hōs Rhōmaios kai arrēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάσης ὥρας φρόντιζε στιβαρῶς ὡς Ῥωμαῖος καὶ ἄρρην</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33030src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33051">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33051src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">95</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> ix. 29: <span class="trans" title="hormēson ean didōtai kai mē periblepou ei tis eisetai mēde tēn Platōnos politeian elpize, alla arkou ei to brachytaton proeisi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅρμησον ἐὰν διδῶται καὶ μὴ περιβλέπου εἴ τις εἴσεται μηδὲ τὴν Πλάτωνος πολίτειαν ἔλπιζε,
+ἀλλὰ ἀρκοῦ εἰ τὸ βραχύτατον πρόεισι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33051src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33065">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33065src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">96</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 2, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33065src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33069">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33069src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">97</a></span> De Otio, 6, 5; Tranq. An. 1, 10.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33069src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33081">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33081src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">98</a></span> See Socrates and Socratic Schools, p. 324.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33081src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33084">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33084src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">99</a></span> This connection is already indicated by Plutarch’s grouping the Stoics and Alexander
+together.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33084src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33091">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33091src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">100</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 52; <i>M. Aurel.</i> See p. 312, 2; 313.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33091src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33097">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33097src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">101</a></span> Diss. i. 13, 3. See p. 331, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33097src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33100">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33100src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">102</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 52, continues after the quotation in p. 312, 2: <span lang="la">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.</span> V. Be. 24, 3: <span lang="la">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.</span> De Clem. i. 1, 3: <span lang="la">Nemo non, cui alia desint, hominis nomine apud me gratiosus est.</span> De Ira, i. 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33100src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33113">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33113src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">103</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Otio, i. 4: see p. 256, 4: <span lang="la">Stoici nostri dicunt … non desinemus communi bono operam dare, adjuvare singulos,
+opem ferre etiam inimicis.</span> We shall subsequently meet with similar explanations from Musonius, Epictetus, and
+Marcus Aurelius<span>.</span> In particular, Seneca’s treatise, De Ira, deserves to be mentioned here, and especially
+i. 5, 2: <span lang="la">Quid homine aliorum amantius? quid ira infestius? Homo in adjutorium mutuum genitus
+est, ira in exitium. <span class="pageNum" id="pb329n">[<a href="#pb329n">329</a>]</span>Hic congregari vult, illa discedere. Hic prodesse, illa nocere. Hic etiam ignotis
+succurrere, illa etiam carissimos perdere.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 32, 1: It is not so praiseworthy to return injury for injury, as benefit for
+benefit. <span lang="la">Illic vinci turpe est, hic vincere. Inhumanum verbum est … ultio et talio. Magni animi
+est injurias despicere.</span> Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 25, 88: Violent anger towards enemies must be blamed: <span lang="la">nihil enim laudabilius, nihil magno et præclaro viro dignius placabilitate atque clementia.</span> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33113src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33141">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33141src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">104</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 95, 52. See p. 328, 3. <i>Cic.</i> Off. i. 13, 41.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33141src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33147">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33147src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">105</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c.: Even towards slaves, justice must be observed. Here, too, belongs the question,
+discussed in full by <i>Sen.</i> 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 <span lang="la">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.</span> 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: <span lang="la">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,</span> &amp;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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33147src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33161">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33161src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">106</a></span> Only the wise man is really free; all who are not wise are fools.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33161src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33166">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33166src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">107</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 122, at least, calls <span class="trans" title="despoteia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δεσποτεία</span></span>, the possession and government of slaves, something bad.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33166src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33178">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33178src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">108</a></span> According to <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iii. 22, 1, <i>Cic.</i> l.c., Chrysippus had defined a slave, <span lang="la">perpetuus mercenarius</span>; and hence inferred that he ought to be treated as such: <span lang="la">operam exigendam, justa præbenda.</span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 47, expresses a very humane view of treating slaves, contrasting a man with a
+slave: <span lang="la">servi sunt; immo homines.</span> He regards a slave as a friend of lower rank, and, since all men stand under the
+same higher power, speaks of himself as <span lang="la">conservus</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33178src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33200">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33200src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">109</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> iv. 4: <span class="trans" title="ei to noeron hēmin koinon, kai ho logos kath’ hon logikoi esmen koinos; ei touto, kai ho prostaktikos tōn poiēteōn ē mē logos koinos; ei touto, kai ho nomos koinos. ei touto, politai esmen; ei touto, politeumatos tinos metechomen; ei touto, ho kosmos hōsanei polis esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33200src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33213">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33213src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">110</a></span> See pp. 312, 1, 3; 325, 3, and <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 34, 6, who makes the Stoics assert: <span class="trans" title="ton kosmon einai polin kai politas tous asteras"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν κόσμον εἶναι πόλιν καὶ πολίτας τοὺς ἀστέρας</span></span>. <i>M. Aurel.</i> x. 15: <span class="trans" title="zēson ... hōs en polei tō kosmō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῆσον … ὡς ἐν πόλει τῷ κόσμῳ</span></span>. iv. 3: <span class="trans" title="ho kosmos hōsanei polis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ κόσμος ὡσανεὶ πόλις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33213src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33244">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33244src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">111</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> iv. 4, and ii. 16. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 20, 67: Chrysippus asserts that men exist for the sake of each other; <span lang="la">quoniamque ea natura esset hominis ut ei cum genere humano quasi civile jus intercederet,
+qui id conservaret, eum justum, qui migraret, injustum fore.</span> Therefore, in the sequel: <span lang="la">in urbe mundove communi<span>.</span></span> See <span class="corr" id="xd33e33256" title="Not in source">p. </span>331, 2 and p. 312, 2. <i>Sen.</i> De Ira, ii. 31, 7: <span lang="la">Nefas est nocere patriæ: ergo civi quoque … ergo et homini, nam hic in majore tibi
+urbe civis est.</span> Musonius (in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 40, 9): <span class="trans" title="nomizei [ho epieikēs] einai politēs tēs tou Dios poleōs hē synestēken ex anthrōpōn te kai theōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νομίζει [ὁ ἐπιεικὴς] εἶναι πολίτης τῆς τοῦ Διὸς πόλεως ἣ συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τε
+καὶ θεῶν</span></span>. <i>Epict.</i> Diss. iii. 5, 26; Ar. Didym. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33244src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33281">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33281src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">112</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> iii. 11: <span class="trans" title="anthrōpon politēn onta poleōs tēs anōtatēs hēs hai loipai poleis hōsper oikiai eisin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄνθρωπον πολίτην ὄντα πόλεως τῆς ἀνωτάτης ἧς αἱ λοιπαὶ πόλεις ὥσπερ οἰκίαι εἰσίν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33281src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33293">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33293src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">113</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Ot. 4; Ep. 68, 2. See p. 325, 1. Vit. B. 20, 3 and 5: <span lang="la">Unum me donavit omnibus [natura rerum] et uni mihi omnis … patriam meam esse mundum
+sciam et præsides Deos.</span> Tranq. An. 4, 4: <span lang="la">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.</span> <i>Epict.</i> Diss. iii. 22, 83. <i>Ibid.</i> i. 9: If the doctrine that man is related to God is true, man is neither an Athenian
+nor a Corinthian, but simply <span class="trans" title="kosmios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κόσμιος</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="huios Theou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">υἱὸς Θεοῦ</span></span>. <i>Muson.</i> l.c.: Banishment is no evil, since <span class="trans" title="koinē patris anthrōpōn hapantōn ho kosmos estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κοινὴ πατρὶς ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων ὁ κόσμος ἐστίν</span></span>. It is, says <i>Cic.</i> Parad. 2, no evil for those <span lang="la">qui omnem orbem terrarum unam urbem esse ducunt.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33293src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33338">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33338src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">114</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Alex. M. Virt. i. 6, p. 329: <span class="trans" title="kai mēn hē poly thaumazomenē politeia tou tēn Stōïkōn hairesin kataballomenou Zēnōnos eis hen touto synteinei kephalaion, hina mē kata poleis mēde kata dēmous oikōmen, idiois hekastoi diōrismenoi dikaiois, alla pantas anthrōpous hēgōmetha dēmotas kai politas, heis de bios ē kai kosmos, hōsper agelēs synnomou nomō koinō trephomenēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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
+<span id="xd33e33345">ἕκαστοι</span> διωρισμένοι δικαίοις, ἀλλὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἡγώμεθα δημότας καὶ πολίτας, εἷς δὲ βίος
+ἦ καὶ κόσμος, ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συννόμου νόμῳ κοίνῳ τρεφομένης</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33338src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33368">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33368src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">115</a></span> In <i>Epictet.</i> Man. c. 53: more fully, <i>Ibid.</i> Diss. iv. 1, 131; 4, 34; and translated by <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 107, 11. See p. 182, 1. The verses are:
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="agou de m’ ō Zeu kai syg’ hē Peprōmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄγου δέ μ’ ὦ Ζεῦ καὶ σύγ’ ἡ Πεπρωμένη</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="hopoi poth’ hymin eimi diatetagmenos;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅποι ποθ’ ὑμῖν εἰμι διατεταγμένος·</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="hōs hepsomai g’ akonos; ēn de mē thelō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς ἑψομαί γ’ ἄκονος· ἢν δὲ μὴ <span id="xd33e33404">θέλω</span></span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="kakos genomenos ouden hētton hepsomai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κακὸς γενόμενος οὐδὲν ἧττον ἕψομαι</span></span>. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33421">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33421src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">116</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Prov. 5, 4 and 8: <span lang="la">Boni viri laborant, impendunt, impenduntur, et volentes quidem, non trahuntur a fortuna,
+etc.… Quid est boni viri? Præbere se fato.</span> Vit. Be. 15, 5: <span lang="la">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.</span> Ep. 97, 2: <span lang="la">Non pareo Deo, sed adsentior. Ex animo illum, non quia necesse est, sequor,</span> etc. Ep. 74, 20; 76, 23; 107, 9. <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. ii. 16, 42: <span class="trans" title="tolmēson anablepsas pros ton theon eipein, hoti chrō moi loipon eis ho an thelēs; homognōmonō soi, sos eimi. ouden paraitoumai tōn soi dokountōn; hopou theleis, age"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόλμησον ἀναβλέψας πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι χρῶ μοι λοιπὸν εἰς ὃ ἂν θέλῃς· ὁμογνωμονῶ
+σοι, σός εἰμι. οὐδὲν παραιτοῦμαι <span class="pageNum" id="pb334n">[<a href="#pb334n">334</a>]</span>τῶν σοι δοκούντων· ὅπου θέλεις, ἄγε</span></span>. i. 12, 7: The virtuous man submits his will to that of God, as a good citizen obeys
+the law. iv. 7. 20: <span class="trans" title="kreitton gar hēgoumai ho ho theos ethelei, ē [ho] egō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρεῖττον γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι ὃ ὁ θεὸς ἐθέλει, ἢ [ὃ] ἐγώ</span></span>. iv. 1, 131, in reference to the verses of Cleanthes: <span class="trans" title="hautē hē hodos ep’ eleutherian agei, hautē monē apallagē douleias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὕτη ἡ ὁδὸς ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίαν ἄγει, αὕτη μόνη ἀπαλλαγὴ δουλείας</span></span>. Man. 8: <span class="trans" title="thele ginesthai ta ginomena hōs ginetai kai euroēseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θέλε γίνεσθαι τὰ γινόμενα ὡς γίνεται καὶ εὐροήσεις</span></span>. Similarly Fragm. 134, in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 108, 60. <i>M. Aurel.</i> x. 28: <span class="trans" title="monō tō logikō zōō dedotai to hekousiōs hepesthai tois ginomenois; to de hepesthai psilon pasin anankaion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μόνῳ τῷ λογικῷ ζῴῳ δέδοται τὸ ἑκουσίως ἕπεσθαι τοῖς γινομένοις· τὸ δὲ ἕπεσθαι ψιλὸν
+πᾶσιν ἀναγκαῖον</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> viii. 45; x. 14.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33421src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33489">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33489src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">117</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 120, 11, investigates the question, How does mankind arrive at the conception
+of virtue? and replies, By the sight of virtuous men. <span lang="la">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,</span> &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33489src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33500">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33500src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">118</a></span> Conf. <i>Baumhauer</i>, <span lang="la">Vet. Phil. præcipue Stoicorum Doct. de Mor. Volunt.</span>: Ut. 1842, p. 220.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33500src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33512">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33512src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">119</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 130: <span class="trans" title="eulogōs te phasin exagein heauton tou biou ton sophon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐλόγως τέ φασιν ἐξάγειν ἑαυτὸν τοῦ βίου τὸν σοφὸν</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="exagōgē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξαγωγὴ</span></span> is the standing expression with the Stoics for suicide. Full references for this
+and other expressions are given by <i>Baumhauer</i>, p. 243). <span class="trans" title="kai hyper patridos kai hyper philōn kan en sklērotera genētai algēdoni ē pērōsesin ē nosois aniatois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ὑπὲρ πατρίδος καὶ ὑπὲρ φίλων κἂν ἐν σκληροτέρᾳ γένηται ἀλγηδόνι ἢ πηρώσεσιν ἢ
+νόσοις ἀνιάτοις</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 226. Conf. the comœdian Sopater, in <i>Athen.</i> iv. 160, who makes a master threaten to sell his slave to Zeno <span class="trans" title="ep’ exagōgē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπ’ ἐξαγωγῇ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33512src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33555">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33555src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">120</a></span> Ep. 12, 10: <span lang="la">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 <span class="corr" id="xd33e33559" title="Source: nacessitates">necessitates</span> licet.</span> <i>Id.</i> Prov. c. 5, 6, makes the deity say: <span lang="la">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,</span> &amp;c. Conf. Ep. 70, 14: He who denies the right of committing suicide <span lang="la">non videt se libertatis viam eludere. Nil melius æterna lex fecit, quam quod unum
+introitum nobis ad vitam dedit, exitus multos.</span> Ep. 65, 22; 117, 21; 120, 14; <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 29; viii. 47; x. 8 and 32; iii. 1; <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 24, 20; iii. 24, 95.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33555src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33580">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33580src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">121</a></span> De Prov. 2, 9; Ep. 71, 16.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33580src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33583">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33583src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">122</a></span> In the passages already quoted, pp. 40, 2; 41, 1; 50, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33583src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33588">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33588src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">123</a></span> 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 <i>Plato</i>, Phæd. 61, <span class="asc">E</span>.) to resign oneself to the will of God. ii. 15, 4. Conf. <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 10.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33588src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33598">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33598src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">124</a></span> Muson. in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 7, 24, says: <span class="trans" title="harpaze to kalōs apothnēskein hote exesti, mē meta mikron to men apothnēskein soi parē, to de kalōs mēketi exē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἅρπαζε τὸ καλῶς ἀποθνήσκειν ὅτε ἔξεστι, μὴ μετὰ μικρὸν τὸ μὲν ἀποθνήσκειν σοι παρῇ,
+τὸ δὲ καλῶς μηκέτι ἐξῇ</span></span>; 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33598src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33613">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33613src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">125</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 29: Even here you may live as though you were free from the body: <span class="trans" title="ean de mē epitrepōsi, tote kai tou zēn exithi; houtōs mentoi, hōs mēden kakon paschōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπιτρέπωσι, τότε καὶ τοῦ ζῇν ἔξιθι· οὕτως μέντοι, ὡς μηδὲν κακὸν πάσχων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33613src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33627">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33627src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">126</a></span> Ep. 70. See p. 338, 3. <i>Clem.</i> Strom. iv. 485, <span class="asc">A</span>, likewise calls the restriction of rational action sufficiently decisive reason:
+<span class="trans" title="autika eulogon exagōgēn tō spoudaiō synchōrousi kai hoi philosophoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτίκα εὔλογον ἐξαγωγὴν τῷ σπουδαίῳ συγχωροῦσι καὶ οἱ φιλόσοφοι</span></span> (i.e. the Stoics), <span class="trans" title="ei tis tou prassein auton houtōs tērēseien"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἴ τις τοῦ πράσσειν αὐτὸν οὕτως τηρήσειεν</span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="houtō sterēseien"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὕτω στερήσειεν</span></span>], <span class="trans" title="hōs mēketi apoleleiphthai autō mēde elpida tēs praxeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς μηκέτι ἀπολελεῖφθαι αὐτῷ μηδὲ ἐλπίδα τῆς πράξεως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33627src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33668">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33668src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">127</a></span> Ep. 58, 33; 98, 16; 17, 9; De Ira, iii. 15, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33668src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33671">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33671src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">128</a></span> See Ep. 58, 36, and 70, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33671src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33674">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33674src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">129</a></span> See p. 335, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33674src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33680">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33680src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">130</a></span> Olympiod. in <i>Phædr.</i> 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.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33680src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33687">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33687src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">131</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 11, 1: <span class="trans" title="para tēn ennoian estin, anthrōpon hō panta tagatha paresti kai mēden endei pros eudaimonian kai to makarion, toutō kathēkein exagein heauton; eti de mallon, hō mēthen agathon esti mēd’ estai ta de deina panta kai ta dyscherē kai kaka paresti kai parestai dia telous, toutō mē kathēkein apolegesthai ton bion an mē ti nē Dia tōn adiaphorōn autō prosgenētai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστιν, ἄνθρωπον ᾧ πάντα τἀγαθὰ πάρεστι καὶ <span class="corr" id="xd33e33694" title="Source: μη δὲν">μηδὲν</span> 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</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 22, 7; 33, 3; Sto. Rep. 14, 3; <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 156, b; 158, b.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33687src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33707">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33707src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">132</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 18, 5: <span class="trans" title="all’ oud’ holōs, phasin, oietai dein Chrysippos oute monēn en tō biō tois agathois, out’ exagōgēn tois kakois parametrein, alla tois mesois kata physin. dio kai tois eudaimonousi ginetai pote kathēkon exagein heautous, kai menein authis en tō zēn tois kakodaimonousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 14, 3. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 70, 5: <span lang="la">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.</span> Conf. 77, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33707src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33728">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33728src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">133</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 18, 60: <span lang="la">Sed cum ab his [<span lang="en">the media</span>] 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.</span> <i>Stob.</i> 226: The good may have reasons for leaving life, the bad for continuing in life,
+even though they never should become wise: <span class="trans" title="oute gar tēn aretēn katechein en tō zēn, oute tēn kakian ekballein; tois de kathēkousi kai tois para to kathēkon metreisthai tēn te zōēn kai ton thanaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33728src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33748">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33748src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">134</a></span> Ep. 70, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33748src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33752">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33752src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">135</a></span> Teles. in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 5, 67, p. 127 Mein.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33752src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch13" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1482">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XIII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE RELATION OF THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY TO RELIGION.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.a">A. <i>General connection of Stoicism and religion.</i></span>
+It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the Stoics without
+treating of their theology; for no early system is so closely connected with religion
+as that of the Stoics. Founded as is their whole view of the world upon the idea of
+one Divine Being, begetting from Himself and containing in Himself all finite creatures,
+upholding them by His might, ruling them according to an unalterable law, and thus
+manifesting Himself everywhere, their philosophy bears a decidedly religious character.
+Indeed, there is hardly a single prominent feature in the Stoic system which is not,
+more or less, connected with theology. A very considerable portion of that system,
+moreover, consists of strictly theological questions; such as arguments for the existence
+of deity, and for the rule of Providence; investigations into the nature of God, His
+government, and presence in the world; the relation of human activity to the divine
+ordinances; and all the various questions connected with the terms freedom and necessity.
+The natural science of the Stoics begins by evolving things from God; it ends with
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb342">[<a href="#pb342">342</a>]</span>resolving them again into God. God is thus the beginning and end of the world’s development.
+In like manner, their moral philosophy begins with the notion of divine law, which,
+in the form of eternal reason, controls the actions of men; and ends by requiring
+submission to the will of God, and resignation to the course of the universe. A religious
+sanction is thus given to all moral duties. All virtuous actions are a fulfilment
+of the divine will and the divine law. That citizenship of the world, in particular,
+which constitutes the highest point in the Stoic morality, is connected with the notion
+of a common relationship of all men to God. Again, that inward repose of the philosopher,
+those feelings of freedom and independence, on which so much stress is laid, rest
+principally on the conviction that man is related to God. In a word, Stoicism is not
+only a system of philosophy, but also a system of religion. As such it was regarded
+by its first adherents, witness the fragments of Cleanthes;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33775src" href="#xd33e33775" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> and as such it afforded, in later times, together with Platonism, to the best and
+most cultivated men, whenever the influence of Greek culture extended, a substitute
+for declining natural religion, a satisfaction for religious cravings, and a support
+for moral life.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb343">[<a href="#pb343">343</a>]</span></p>
+<p>This philosophic religion is quite independent of the traditional religion. The Stoic
+philosophy contains no feature of importance which we can pronounce with certainty
+to be taken from the popular faith. The true worship of God, according to their view,
+consists only in the mental effort to know God, and in a moral and pious life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33795src" href="#xd33e33795" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> A really acceptable prayer can have no reference to external goods; it can only have
+for its object a virtuous and devout
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.a.1">(1) <i>Connection of Stoicism, with popular faith.</i></span>
+mind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33824src" href="#xd33e33824" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> Still, there were reasons which led the Stoics to seek a closer union with the popular
+faith. A system which attached so great an importance to popular opinion, particularly
+in proving the existence of God,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33841src" href="#xd33e33841" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> could not, without extreme danger to itself, declare the current opinions respecting
+the Gods to be erroneous. And again, the ethical platform of the Stoic philosophy
+imposed on its adherents the duty of upholding rather than overthrowing the popular
+creed—that creed forming a barrier against the <span class="pageNum" id="pb344">[<a href="#pb344">344</a>]</span>violence of human passions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33848src" href="#xd33e33848" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> The practical value of the popular faith may, then, be the cause of their theological
+orthodoxy. Just as the Romans, long after all faith in the Gods had been lost under
+the influence of Greek culture,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33856src" href="#xd33e33856" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> still found it useful and necessary to uphold the traditional faith, so the Stoics
+may have feared that, were the worship of the people’s Gods to be suspended, that
+respect for God and the divine law on which they depended for the support of their
+own moral tenets would at the same time be exterminated.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.a.2">(2) <i>Free criticism of popular belief.</i></span>
+Meantime, they did not deny that much in the popular belief would not harmonise with
+their principles; and that both the customary forms of religious worship, and also
+the mythical representations of the Gods, were altogether untenable. So little did
+they conceal their strictures, that it is clear that conviction, and not fear (there
+being no longer occasion for fear), was the cause of their leaning towards tradition.
+Zeno spoke with contempt of the erection of sacred edifices; for how can a thing be
+sacred which is erected by builders and labourers?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33866src" href="#xd33e33866" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> Seneca denies the good of prayer.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33872src" href="#xd33e33872" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> He considers it absurd to <span class="pageNum" id="pb345">[<a href="#pb345">345</a>]</span>entertain fear for the Gods, who are ever-beneficent beings.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33885src" href="#xd33e33885" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> God he would have worshipped, not by sacrifices and ceremonies, but by purity of
+life; not in temples of stone, but in the shrine of the heart.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33891src" href="#xd33e33891" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> Of images of the Gods, and the devotion paid to them, he speaks with strong disapprobation;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33903src" href="#xd33e33903" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> of the <span class="pageNum" id="pb346">[<a href="#pb346">346</a>]</span>unworthy fables of mythology, with bitter ridicule;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33917src" href="#xd33e33917" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> and he calls the popular Gods, without reserve, creations of superstition, whom the
+philosopher only invokes because it is the custom so to do.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33930src" href="#xd33e33930" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> Moreover, the Stoic in Cicero, and the elder authorities quoted by him, allow that
+the popular beliefs and the songs of the poets are full of superstition and foolish
+legends.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33939src" href="#xd33e33939" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Chrysippus is expressly said to have declared the distinction of sex among the Gods,
+and other features in which they resemble men, to be childish fancies;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33954src" href="#xd33e33954" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb347">[<a href="#pb347">347</a>]</span>Zeno to have denied any real existence to the popular deities, and to have transferred
+their names to natural objects;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33971src" href="#xd33e33971" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> and Aristo<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33976src" href="#xd33e33976" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> is charged with having denied shape and sensation to the Deity.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e33985src" href="#xd33e33985" title="Go to note 18.">18</a>
+</p>
+<p>The Stoics were, nevertheless, not disposed to let the current beliefs quite fall
+through. Far from it, they thought to discover real germs of truth in these beliefs,
+however inadequate they were in form. They accordingly made it their business to give
+a relative vindication to the existing creed. Holding that the name of God belongs,
+in its full and original sense, only to the one primary Being, they did not hesitate
+to apply it, in a limited and derivative sense, to all those objects by means of which
+the divine power is especially manifested. Nay, more, in consideration of man’s relationship
+to God, they found it not unreasonable to deduce from the primary Being Gods bearing
+a resemblance to men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34004src" href="#xd33e34004" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> Hence they distinguished, as Plato had done, between the eternal <span class="pageNum" id="pb348">[<a href="#pb348">348</a>]</span>and immutable God and Gods created and transitory,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34037src" href="#xd33e34037" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> between God the Creator and Sovereign of the world, and subordinate Gods;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34041src" href="#xd33e34041" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> in other words, between the universal divine power as a Unity working in the world,
+and its individual parts and manifestations.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34057src" href="#xd33e34057" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> To the former they gave the name Zeus; to the latter they applied the names of the
+other subordinate Gods.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.a.3">(3) <i>The truth in Polytheism.</i></span>
+In this derivative sense, divinity was allowed to many beings by the Stoics, and,
+in particular, to the stars, which Plato had called created Gods, which Aristotle
+had described as eternal divine beings, and the worship of which lay so near to the
+ancient cultus of nature. Not only by their lustre and effect on the senses, but far
+more by the regularity of their motions, do these stars prove that the material of
+which they consist is the purest, and that, of all created objects, they have the
+largest share in the divine reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34066src" href="#xd33e34066" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> And so seriously was this belief held by the Stoics, that a philosopher of the unwieldy
+piety of Cleanthes so far forgot himself as to charge Aristarchus of Samoa, the discoverer
+of the earth’s motion round the sun, the Galilæo of antiquity, with impiety for wishing
+to remove the hearth of the universe from its proper place.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34069src" href="#xd33e34069" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> This deification of the stars prepares us to find years, months, and <span class="pageNum" id="pb349">[<a href="#pb349">349</a>]</span>seasons called Gods,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34075src" href="#xd33e34075" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> as was done by Zeno, or at least by his School. Yet, it must be remembered, that
+the Stoics referred these times and seasons to heavenly bodies, as their material
+embodiments.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34079src" href="#xd33e34079" title="Go to note 26.">26</a>
+</p>
+<p>As the stars are the first manifestation, so the elements are the first particular
+forms of the Divine Being, and the most common materials for the exercise of the divine
+powers. It is, however, becoming that the all-pervading divine mind should not only
+be honoured in its primary state, but likewise in its various derivate forms, as air,
+water, earth, and elementary fire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34084src" href="#xd33e34084" title="Go to note 27.">27</a>
+</p>
+<p>All other things, too, which, by their utility to man, display in a high degree the
+beneficent power of God, appeared to the Stoics to deserve divine honours, such honours
+not being paid to the things themselves, but to the powers active within them. They
+did not, therefore, hesitate to give the names of Gods to fruits and wine, and other
+gifts of the Gods.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34092src" href="#xd33e34092" title="Go to note 28.">28</a>
+</p>
+<p>How, then, could they escape the inference that among other beneficent beings, the
+heroes of antiquity in particular deserve religious honours, seeing that in these
+benefactors of mankind, whom legend commemorates, the Divine Spirit did not show Himself
+under the lower form of a <span class="trans" title="hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕξις</span></span>, as in the elements, <span class="pageNum" id="pb350">[<a href="#pb350">350</a>]</span>nor yet as simple <span class="trans" title="physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις</span></span>, as in plants, but as a rational soul? Such deified men had, according to the Stoic
+view—which, on this point, agrees with the well-known theory of Euemerus—greatly helped
+to swell the number of the popular Gods; nor had the Stoics themselves any objection
+to their worship.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34123src" href="#xd33e34123" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> Add to this the personification of human qualities and states of mind,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34136src" href="#xd33e34136" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> and it will be seen what ample opportunity <span class="pageNum" id="pb351">[<a href="#pb351">351</a>]</span>the Stoics had for recognising everywhere in nature and in the world of man divine
+agencies and powers, and, consequently, Gods in the wider sense of the term.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34226src" href="#xd33e34226" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> When once it is allowed that the name of God may be diverted from the Being to whom
+it properly belongs and applied, in a derivative sense, to what is impersonal and
+a mere manifestation of divine power, the door is opened to everything; and, with
+such concessions, the Stoic system could graft into itself even exceptional forms
+of polytheism.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.a.4">(4) <i>Doctrine of demons.</i></span>
+With the worship of heroes is also connected the doctrine of demons.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34244src" href="#xd33e34244" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> The soul, according to the Stoic view already set forth, is of divine origin, a part
+of and emanation from God. Or, distinguishing more accurately in the soul one part
+from the rest, divinity belongs to reason only, as the governing part. Now, since
+reason alone protects man from evil and conducts him to happiness—this, too, was the
+popular belief—reason may be described as the guardian spirit, or demon, in man. Not
+only by the younger members of the Stoic School, by Posidonius, Seneca, Epictetus,
+and Antoninus, are the popular notions of demons, as by Plato aforetime,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34252src" href="#xd33e34252" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb352">[<a href="#pb352">352</a>]</span>explained in this sense,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34260src" href="#xd33e34260" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> but the same method is pursued by Chrysippus, who made <span class="trans" title="eudaimonia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐδαιμονία</span></span>, or happiness, consist in a harmony of the demon in man (which, in this case, can
+only be his own will and understanding) with the will of God.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34340src" href="#xd33e34340" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> Little were the Stoics aware that, by such explanations, they were attributing to
+popular notions a meaning wholly foreign to them. But it does not therefore follow
+that they shared the popular belief in guardian spirits.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34355src" href="#xd33e34355" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> Their system, however, left room for <span class="pageNum" id="pb353">[<a href="#pb353">353</a>]</span>believing that, besides the human soul and the spirits of the stars, other rational
+souls might exist, having a definite work to perform in the world, subject to the
+law of general necessity, and knit into the chain of cause and effect. Nay, more,
+such beings might seem to them necessary for the completeness of the universe.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34367src" href="#xd33e34367" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> What reason have we, then, to express doubt, when we are told that the Stoics believed
+in the existence of demons, playing a part in man and caring for him?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34382src" href="#xd33e34382" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> Is there anything extraordinary, from the Stoic platform, in holding that some of
+these demons are by nature inclined to do harm, and that these tormentors are used
+by the deity for the punishment of the wicked,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34423src" href="#xd33e34423" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> especially <span class="pageNum" id="pb354">[<a href="#pb354">354</a>]</span>when in such a strict system of necessity these demons could only work, like the powers
+of nature, conformably with the laws of the universe and without disturbing those
+laws, occupying the same ground as lightning, earthquakes, and drought? And yet the
+language of Chrysippus, when speaking of evil demons who neglect the duties entrusted
+to them,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34458src" href="#xd33e34458" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> sounds as though it were only figurative and tentative language, not really meant.
+Besides, the later Stoics made themselves merry over the Jewish and Christian notions
+of demons and demoniacal possession.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34462src" href="#xd33e34462" title="Go to note 41.">41</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.b">B. <i>The Allegorising Spirit.</i></span>
+Even without accepting demons, there were not wanting in the Stoic system points with
+which the popular beliefs could be connected, if it was necessary to find in these
+beliefs some deeper meaning. It mattered not that these beliefs were often so distorted
+in the process of accommodation as to be no
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.b.1">(1) <i>Allegorical interpretation of myths.</i></span>
+longer recognised. The process required a regular code of interpretation by means
+of which a philosophic mind could see its own thoughts in the utterances of commonplace
+thinkers. By the Stoics, as by their Jewish and Christian followers, this code of
+interpretation was found in the method of allegorical interpretation—a method which
+received a most extended <span class="pageNum" id="pb355">[<a href="#pb355">355</a>]</span>application, in order to bridge over the gulf between the older and the more modern
+types of culture.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34480src" href="#xd33e34480" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> Zeno, and still more Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and their successors, sought to discover
+natural principles and moral ideas—the <span class="trans" title="logoi physikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι φυσικοὶ</span></span>, or <span lang="la">physicæ rationes</span>,—in the Gods of popular belief and the stories of these Gods,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34522src" href="#xd33e34522" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> and supposed that such principles and ideas were represented in these stories in
+a sensuous form.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34527src" href="#xd33e34527" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> In this attempt, they clung to the poems of <span class="pageNum" id="pb356">[<a href="#pb356">356</a>]</span>Homer and Hesiod, the Bible of the Greeks,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34565src" href="#xd33e34565" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> without, however, excluding other mythology from the sphere of their investigation.
+One chief instrument which they, and modern lovers of the symbolical following in
+their footsteps, employed was a capricious playing with etymologies of which so many
+instances are on record.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34606src" href="#xd33e34606" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> Like most allegorisers, they also laid down certain principles of interpretation
+sensible enough theoretically,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34610src" href="#xd33e34610" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> but proving, by the use which was made of them, that their scientific appearance
+was only a blind to conceal the most capricious vagaries. Approaching in some of their
+explanations to the original bases of mythological formation, they were still unable
+to shake off the <span class="pageNum" id="pb357">[<a href="#pb357">357</a>]</span>curious notion that the originators of myths, fully conscious of all their latent
+meanings, had framed them as pictures to appeal to the senses;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34629src" href="#xd33e34629" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> and, in innumerable cases, they resorted to explanations so entirely without foundation
+that they would have been impossible to anyone possessing a sound view of nature and
+the origin of legends. To make theory tally with practice, the founder of the School—following
+Antisthenes, and setting an example afterwards repeated by both Jews and Christians—maintained
+that Homer only in some places expressed himself according to truth, in others according
+to popular opinion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34637src" href="#xd33e34637" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> Thus did Stoicism surround itself with the necessary instruments for the most extended
+allegorical and dogmatic interpretation.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.b.2">(2) <i>Interpretation of the myths respecting the gods.</i></span>
+Proceeding further to enquire how this method was applied to particular stories, the
+first point which attracts attention is the contrast which they draw between Zeus
+and the remaining Gods. From their belief in one divine principle everywhere at work,
+it followed as a corollary that this contrast, which elsewhere in Greek mythology
+is only a difference of degree, was raised to a specific and absolute difference.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb358">[<a href="#pb358">358</a>]</span>Zeus was compared to other Gods as an incorruptible God to transitory divine beings.
+To the Stoics, as to their predecessor Heraclitus, Zeus is the one primary Being,
+who has engendered, and again absorbs into himself, all things and all Gods. He is
+the universe as a unity, the primary fire, the ether, the spirit of the world, the
+universal reason, the general law or destiny.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34664src" href="#xd33e34664" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> All other Gods, as being parts of the world, are only parts and manifestations of
+Zeus—only special names of the one God who has many names.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34772src" href="#xd33e34772" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> That part of Zeus which goes over into air is called Here (<span class="trans" title="aēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀήρ</span></span>); and its lower strata, full of vapours, Hades; that which becomes elementary fire
+is called Hephæstus; that which becomes water, Poseidon; that which becomes earth,
+Demeter, Hestia, and Rhea; lastly, that portion which remains in the upper region
+is called Athene in the more restricted sense. And since, according to the Stoics,
+the finer elements are the same as spirit, Zeus is not only the soul of the universe,
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb359">[<a href="#pb359">359</a>]</span>but Athene, Reason, Intelligence, Providence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34799src" href="#xd33e34799" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> The same Zeus appears in other respects as Hermes, Dionysus, Hercules.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34866src" href="#xd33e34866" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> The Homeric story of the binding and liberation of Zeus<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34875src" href="#xd33e34875" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> points to the truth, already established in Providence, that the order of the world
+rests on the balance of the elements. The rise and succession of the elements is symbolised
+in the hanging of Here;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34879src" href="#xd33e34879" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> the arrangement of the spheres of the universe, in the golden chain by which the
+Olympians thought to pull down Zeus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34883src" href="#xd33e34883" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> The lameness of Hephæstus goes partly to prove the difference of the <span class="pageNum" id="pb360">[<a href="#pb360">360</a>]</span>earthly from the heavenly fire, and partly implies that earthly fire can as little
+do without wood as the lame can do without a wooden support; and if, in Homer, Hephæstus
+is hurled down from heaven, the meaning of the story is, that in ancient times men
+lighted their fires by lightning from heaven and the rays of the sun.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34890src" href="#xd33e34890" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> The connection of Here with Zeus<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34900src" href="#xd33e34900" title="Go to note 58.">58</a> points to the relation of the ether to the air surrounding it; and the well-known
+occurrence on Mount Ida was referred to the same event.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34903src" href="#xd33e34903" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> The still more offensive scene in the Samian picture was expounded by Chrysippus
+as meaning that the fertilising powers (<span class="trans" title="logoi spermatikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι σπερματικοὶ</span></span>) of God are brought to bear upon matter.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34917src" href="#xd33e34917" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> A similar meaning is found by Heraclitus in the story of Proteus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34931src" href="#xd33e34931" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> and in that of the shield of Achilles. If Hephæstus intended this shield to be a
+representation of this world, what else is thereby meant but that, by the influence
+of primary fire, matter has been shaped into a world?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34935src" href="#xd33e34935" title="Go to note 62.">62</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb361">[<a href="#pb361">361</a>]</span></p>
+<p>In a similar way, the Homeric theomachy was explained by many to mean a conjunction
+of the seven planets, which would involve the world in great trouble.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34941src" href="#xd33e34941" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> Heraclitus, however, gives the preference to an interpretation, half physical and
+half moral, which may have been already advanced by Cleanthes.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34947src" href="#xd33e34947" title="Go to note 64.">64</a> Ares and Aphrodite, rashness and profligacy, are opposed by Athene, or prudence;
+Leto, forgetfulness, is attacked by Hermes, the revealing word;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34978src" href="#xd33e34978" title="Go to note 65.">65</a> Apollo, the sun, by Poseidon, the God of the water, with whom, however, he comes
+to terms, because the sun is fed by the vapours of the water; Artemis, the moon, is
+opposed by Here, the air, through which it passes, and which often obscures it; Fluvius,
+or earthly water, by Hephæstus, or earthly fire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34981src" href="#xd33e34981" title="Go to note 66.">66</a> That Apollo is the sun, and Artemis the moon, no one doubts;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e34984src" href="#xd33e34984" title="Go to note 67.">67</a> nor did it cause any difficulty to these <span class="pageNum" id="pb362">[<a href="#pb362">362</a>]</span>mythologists to find the moon also in Athene.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35033src" href="#xd33e35033" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> Many subtle discussions were set on foot by the Stoics respecting the name, the form,
+and the attributes of these Gods, particularly by Cleanthes, for whom the sun had
+particular importance,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35039src" href="#xd33e35039" title="Go to note 69.">69</a> as being the seat of the power which rules the world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35042src" href="#xd33e35042" title="Go to note 70.">70</a> The stories of the birth of the Lotoides and the defeat of the dragon Pytho are,
+according to Antipater, symbolical of events which took place at the formation of
+the world, and the creation of the sun and moon.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35136src" href="#xd33e35136" title="Go to note 71.">71</a> Others find in the descent of two Gods from <span class="pageNum" id="pb363">[<a href="#pb363">363</a>]</span>Leto the simpler thought, that sun and moon came forth out of darkness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35146src" href="#xd33e35146" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> In the same spirit, Heraclitus, without disparaging the original meaning of the story,
+sees in the swift-slaying arrows of Apollo a picture of devastating pestilence;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35158src" href="#xd33e35158" title="Go to note 73.">73</a> but then, in an extraordinary manner, misses the natural sense, in gathering from
+the Homeric story of Apollo’s reconciliation (Il. i. 53) the lesson, that Achilles
+stayed the plague by the medical science which Chiron had taught him.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35165src" href="#xd33e35165" title="Go to note 74.">74</a>
+</p>
+<p>Far more plausible is the explanation given of the dialogue of Athene with Achilles,
+and of Hermes with Ulysses. These dialogues are stated to be simply soliloquies of
+the two heroes respectively.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35170src" href="#xd33e35170" title="Go to note 75.">75</a> But the Stoic skill in interpretation appears in its fullest glory in supplying the
+etymological meanings of the various names and epithets which are attributed to Athene.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35174src" href="#xd33e35174" title="Go to note 76.">76</a> We learn, for instance, that the name <span class="trans" title="Tritogeneia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Τριτογένεια</span></span> refers to the three divisions of philosophy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35312src" href="#xd33e35312" title="Go to note 77.">77</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb364">[<a href="#pb364">364</a>]</span>Heraclitus discovers the same divisions in the three heads of Cerberus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35328src" href="#xd33e35328" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> Chrysippus, in a diffuse manner, proves that the coming forth of the Goddess from
+the head of Zeus is not at variance with his view of the seat of reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35331src" href="#xd33e35331" title="Go to note 79.">79</a> It has been already observed that Dionysus means wine, and Demeter fruit;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35362src" href="#xd33e35362" title="Go to note 80.">80</a> but, just as the latter was taken to represent the earth and its nutritious powers,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35367src" href="#xd33e35367" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> so Dionysus was further supposed to stand for the principle of natural life, the
+productive and sustaining breath of life;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35421src" href="#xd33e35421" title="Go to note 82.">82</a> and since this breath comes from the sun, according to Cleanthes, it was not difficult
+to find the sun represented by the God of wine.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35433src" href="#xd33e35433" title="Go to note 83.">83</a> Moreover, the stories of the birth of Dionysus, his being torn to pieces by Titans,
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb365">[<a href="#pb365">365</a>]</span>his followers,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35460src" href="#xd33e35460" title="Go to note 84.">84</a> no less than the rape of Proserpine,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35466src" href="#xd33e35466" title="Go to note 85.">85</a> and the institution of agriculture,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35489src" href="#xd33e35489" title="Go to note 86.">86</a> and the names of the respective Gods, afforded ample material for the interpreting
+tastes of the Stoics.
+</p>
+<p>The Fates (<span class="trans" title="moirai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μοῖραι</span></span>), as their name already indicates, stand for the righteous and invariable rule of
+destiny;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35502src" href="#xd33e35502" title="Go to note 87.">87</a> the Graces (<span class="trans" title="charites"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χάριτες</span></span>), as to whose names, number, and qualities Chrysippus has given the fullest discussion,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35529src" href="#xd33e35529" title="Go to note 88.">88</a> represent the virtues of benevolence and gratitude;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35537src" href="#xd33e35537" title="Go to note 89.">89</a> the Muses, the divine origin of culture.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35563src" href="#xd33e35563" title="Go to note 90.">90</a> Ares is war;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35579src" href="#xd33e35579" title="Go to note 91.">91</a> Aphrodite, unrestrained <span class="pageNum" id="pb366">[<a href="#pb366">366</a>]</span>passion, or, more generally, absence of control.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35587src" href="#xd33e35587" title="Go to note 92.">92</a> Other interpreters, and among them Empedocles, consider Ares to represent the separating,
+Aphrodite the uniting, power of nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35591src" href="#xd33e35591" title="Go to note 93.">93</a> The stories of the two deities being wounded by Diomedes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35629src" href="#xd33e35629" title="Go to note 94.">94</a> of their adulterous intrigues, and their being bound by Hephæstus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35661src" href="#xd33e35661" title="Go to note 95.">95</a> are explained in various ways—morally, physically, technically, and historically.
+</p>
+<p>In the case of another God, Pan, the idea of the Allnear was suggested simply by the
+name. His shaggy goat’s feet were taken to represent the solid earth, and the human
+form of his upper limbs implied that the sovereign power in the world resides above.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35688src" href="#xd33e35688" title="Go to note 96.">96</a> To the Stoic without a misgiving as to these and similar explanations,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35697src" href="#xd33e35697" title="Go to note 97.">97</a> it was a matter of small <span class="pageNum" id="pb367">[<a href="#pb367">367</a>]</span>difficulty to make the Titan <span class="trans" title="Iapetos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἰάπετος</span></span> stand for language or <span class="trans" title="Iaphetos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἰάφετος</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="Koios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κοῖος</span></span> for quality or <span class="trans" title="poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιότης</span></span>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35743src" href="#xd33e35743" title="Go to note 98.">98</a> Add to this the many more or less ingenious explanations of the well-known stories
+of Uranos and Cronos,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35749src" href="#xd33e35749" title="Go to note 99.">99</a> and we are still far from having exhausted the resources of the Stoic explanations
+of mythology. The most important attempts of this kind have, however, been sufficiently
+noticed.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.b.3">(3) <i>Allegory applied to heroic myths.</i></span>
+Besides the legends of the Gods, the legends of the heroes attracted considerable
+attention in the Stoic Schools. Specially were the persons of Hercules <span class="pageNum" id="pb368">[<a href="#pb368">368</a>]</span>and Ulysses singled out for the sake of illustrating the ideal of the wise man.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35796src" href="#xd33e35796" title="Go to note 100.">100</a> But here, too, various modes of interpretation meet and cross. According to Cornutus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35801src" href="#xd33e35801" title="Go to note 101.">101</a> the God Hercules must be distinguished from the hero of the same name—the God being
+nothing less than Reason, ruling in the world without a superior;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35804src" href="#xd33e35804" title="Go to note 102.">102</a> and the grammarian makes every effort to unlock with this key his history and attributes.
+Nevertheless, with all his respect for Cleanthes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35820src" href="#xd33e35820" title="Go to note 103.">103</a> he could not accept that Stoic’s explanation of the twelve labours of Hercules. Heraclitus
+has probably preserved the chief points in this explanation. Hercules is a teacher
+of mankind, initiated into the heavenly wisdom. He overcomes the wild boar, the lion,
+and the bull, i.e. the lusts and passions of men; he drives away the deer, i.e. cowardice;
+he purifies the stall of Augeas from filth, i.e. he purifies the life of men from
+extravagances; he frightens away the birds, i.e. empty hopes; and burns to ashes the
+many-headed hydra of pleasure. He brings the keeper of the nether world to light,
+with his three heads—these heads representing the three chief divisions of philosophy.
+In the same way, the wounding of Here and Hades by Hercules is explained. Here, the
+Goddess of the air, represents the fog of ignorance, the three-barbed arrow <span class="pageNum" id="pb369">[<a href="#pb369">369</a>]</span>undeniably (so thought the Stoics) pointing to philosophy, with its threefold division,
+in its heavenly flight. The laying prostrate of Hades by that arrow implies that philosophy
+has access even to things most secret.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35827src" href="#xd33e35827" title="Go to note 104.">104</a> The Odyssey is explained by Heraclitus in the same strain, nor was he apparently
+the first so to do.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35839src" href="#xd33e35839" title="Go to note 105.">105</a> In Ulysses you behold a pattern of all virtues, and an enemy of all vices.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35842src" href="#xd33e35842" title="Go to note 106.">106</a> He flees from the country of the Lotophagi, i.e. from wicked pleasures; he stays
+the wild rage of the Cyclopes; he calms the winds, having first secured a prosperous
+passage by his knowledge of the stars; the attractions of pleasure in the house of
+Circe he overcomes, penetrates into the secrets of Hades, learns from the Sirens the
+history of all times, saves himself from the Charybdis of profligacy and the Scylla
+of shamelessness, and, in abstaining from the oxen of the sun, overcomes sensuous
+desires. Such explanations may suffice to show how the whole burden of the myths was
+resolved into allegory by the Stoics, how little they were conscious of foisting in
+foreign elements, and how they degraded to mere symbols of philosophical ideas those
+very heroes on whose real existence they continually insisted.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.c">C. <i>Prophetic powers.</i></span>
+The Stoic theology has engaged a good deal of our attention, not only because it is
+instructive to compare their views, in general and in detail, with similar views advanced
+nowadays, but also because <span class="pageNum" id="pb370">[<a href="#pb370">370</a>]</span>it forms a very characteristic and important part of their entire system. To us, much
+of it appears to be a mere worthless trifling; but, to the Stoics, these explanations
+were solemnly earnest. To them they seemed to be the only means of rescuing the people’s
+faith, of meeting the severe charges brought against tradition and the works of the
+poets, on which a Greek had been fed from infancy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35852src" href="#xd33e35852" title="Go to note 107.">107</a> Unable to break entirely with these traditions, they still would not sacrifice to
+them their scientific and moral convictions. Can we, then, wonder that they attempted
+the impossible, and sought to unite contradictions? or that such an attempt landed
+them in forced and artificial methods of interpretation?
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.c.1">(1) <i>Divination.</i></span>
+Illustrative of the attitude of the Stoics towards positive religion are their views
+on divination.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35862src" href="#xd33e35862" title="Go to note 108.">108</a> The importance attached by them to the prophetic art appears in the diligence which
+the chiefs of this School devoted to discussing it. The ground for the later teaching
+having been prepared by Zeno and Cleanthes, Chrysippus gave the finishing touch to
+the Stoic dogmas on the subject.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35867src" href="#xd33e35867" title="Go to note 109.">109</a> Particular treatises <span class="pageNum" id="pb371">[<a href="#pb371">371</a>]</span>respecting divination were drawn up by Sphærus, Diogenes, Antipater, and, last of
+all, by Posidonius.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35953src" href="#xd33e35953" title="Go to note 110.">110</a> The subject was also fully treated by Boëthus, and by Panætius from a somewhat different
+side.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e35993src" href="#xd33e35993" title="Go to note 111.">111</a> The common notions as to prognostics and oracles could not commend themselves to
+these philosophers, nor could they approve of common soothsaying. In a system so purely
+based on nature as theirs,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36007src" href="#xd33e36007" title="Go to note 112.">112</a> the supposition that God works for definite ends after the manner of men, exceptionally
+announcing to one or the other a definite result—in short, the marvellous—was out
+of place. But to infer thence—as their <span class="pageNum" id="pb372">[<a href="#pb372">372</a>]</span>opponents, the Epicureans, did—that the whole art of divination is a delusion, was
+more than the Stoics could do. The belief in an extraordinary care of God for individual
+men was too comforting an idea for them to renounce;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36034src" href="#xd33e36034" title="Go to note 113.">113</a> they not only appealed to divination as the strongest proof of the existence of Gods
+and the government of Providence,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36057src" href="#xd33e36057" title="Go to note 114.">114</a> but they also drew the converse conclusion, that, if there be Gods, there must also
+be divination, since the benevolence of the Gods would not allow them to refuse to
+mankind so inestimable a gift.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36073src" href="#xd33e36073" title="Go to note 115.">115</a> The conception <span class="pageNum" id="pb373">[<a href="#pb373">373</a>]</span>of destiny, too, and the nature of man, appeared to Posidonius to lead to the belief
+in divination;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36136src" href="#xd33e36136" title="Go to note 116.">116</a> if all that happens is the outcome of an unbroken chain of cause and effect, there
+must be signs indicating the existence of causes, from which certain effects result;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36142src" href="#xd33e36142" title="Go to note 117.">117</a> and if the soul of man is in its nature divine, it must also possess the capacity,
+under circumstances, of observing what generally escapes its notice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36146src" href="#xd33e36146" title="Go to note 118.">118</a> Lest, however, the certainty of their belief should suffer from lacking the support
+of experience, the Stoics had collected a number of instances of verified prophecies;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36150src" href="#xd33e36150" title="Go to note 119.">119</a> but with so little discrimination, that we should only wonder at their credulity,
+did we not know the low state of historical criticism in their time, and the readiness
+with which, in all ages, men believe whatever agrees with their prejudices.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36153src" href="#xd33e36153" title="Go to note 120.">120</a>
+</p>
+<p>In what way, then, can the two facts be combined<span class="pageNum" id="pb374">[<a href="#pb374">374</a>]</span>—the belief in prophecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the denial of unearthly
+omens arising <span class="marginnote" id="ch13.c.2">(2) <i>Prophecy explained by a reference to natural causes</i>.</span> from an immediate divine influence? In answering this question, the Stoics adopted
+the only course which their system allowed. The marvellous, which, as such, they could
+not admit, was referred to natural laws,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36189src" href="#xd33e36189" title="Go to note 121.">121</a> from which it was speculatively deduced. The admirable Panætius is the only Stoic
+who is reported to have maintained the independence of his judgment by denying omens,
+prophecy, and astrology.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36192src" href="#xd33e36192" title="Go to note 122.">122</a> Just as in modern times Leibnitz and so many others both before and after him thought
+to purge away from the marvellous all that is accidental and superhuman, and to find
+in wonders links in the general chain of natural causes, so, too, the Stoics, by assuming
+a natural connection between the token and its fulfilment, made an effort to rescue
+omens and divination, and to explain portents as the natural symptoms of certain occurrences.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36205src" href="#xd33e36205" title="Go to note 123.">123</a> Nor did they <span class="pageNum" id="pb375">[<a href="#pb375">375</a>]</span>confine themselves to cases in which the connection between the prophecy and the event
+can be proved.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36235src" href="#xd33e36235" title="Go to note 124.">124</a> They insisted upon divination in cases in which it cannot possibly be verified. The
+flight of birds and the entrails of victims are stated to be natural indications of
+coming events; and there is said to be even a formal connection between the positions
+of the stars and the individuals born under those positions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36238src" href="#xd33e36238" title="Go to note 125.">125</a> If it is urged, that in this case omens must be far more numerous than they are supposed
+to be, the Stoics answered, that omens are countless, but that only the meaning of
+a few is known to men.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36246src" href="#xd33e36246" title="Go to note 126.">126</a> If the question is asked, how is it that, in public sacrifices, the priest should
+always offer those very animals whose entrails contain omens, Chrysippus and his followers
+did not hesitate to affirm that the same sympathy which exists between objects and
+omens also guides the sacrificer in the choice of a victim.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36250src" href="#xd33e36250" title="Go to note 127.">127</a> And yet so bald was this hypothesis, <span class="pageNum" id="pb376">[<a href="#pb376">376</a>]</span>that they had, at the same time, a second answer in reserve, viz. that the corresponding
+change in the entrails did not take place until the victim had been chosen.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36262src" href="#xd33e36262" title="Go to note 128.">128</a> In support of such views, their only appeal was to the almighty power of God; but,
+in making this appeal, the deduction of omens from natural causes was at an end.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36272src" href="#xd33e36272" title="Go to note 129.">129</a>
+</p>
+<p>The Stoics could not altogether suppress a suspicion that an unchangeable predestination
+of all events has rendered individual activity superfluous,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36278src" href="#xd33e36278" title="Go to note 130.">130</a> nor meet the objection<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36281src" href="#xd33e36281" title="Go to note 131.">131</a> that, on the hypothesis of necessity, divination itself is unnecessary.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36289src" href="#xd33e36289" title="Go to note 132.">132</a> They quieted themselves, however, with the thought that divination, and the actions
+resulting from divination, are included among the causes foreordained by destiny.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36296src" href="#xd33e36296" title="Go to note 133.">133</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb377">[<a href="#pb377">377</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch13.c.3">(3) <i>Causes of divination.</i></span>
+Divination, or soothsaying, consists in the capacity to read and interpret omens;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36323src" href="#xd33e36323" title="Go to note 134.">134</a> and this capacity is, according to the Stoics, partly a natural gift, and partly
+acquired by art and study.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36361src" href="#xd33e36361" title="Go to note 135.">135</a> The natural gift of prophecy is based, as other philosophers had already laid down,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36384src" href="#xd33e36384" title="Go to note 136.">136</a> on the relationship of the human soul to God.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36387src" href="#xd33e36387" title="Go to note 137.">137</a> Sometimes it manifests itself in sleep, at other times in ecstasy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36418src" href="#xd33e36418" title="Go to note 138.">138</a> A taste for higher revelations will be developed, in proportion as the soul is withdrawn
+from the world of sense, and from all thought respecting things external.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36427src" href="#xd33e36427" title="Go to note 139.">139</a> The actual cause of the prophetic gift was referred to influences coming to <span class="pageNum" id="pb378">[<a href="#pb378">378</a>]</span>the soul partly from God or the universal spirit diffused throughout the world,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36442src" href="#xd33e36442" title="Go to note 140.">140</a> and partly from the souls which haunt the air or demons.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36452src" href="#xd33e36452" title="Go to note 141.">141</a> External causes, however, contribute to put people in a state of enthusiasm.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36478src" href="#xd33e36478" title="Go to note 142.">142</a>
+</p>
+<p>Artificial prophesying, or the art of foretelling the future, depends upon observation
+and guess-work.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36487src" href="#xd33e36487" title="Go to note 143.">143</a> One who could survey all causes in their effects on one another would need no observation.
+Such a one would be able to deduce the whole series of events from the given causes.
+But God alone is able to do this. Hence men must gather the knowledge of future events
+from the indications by which their coming is announced.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36491src" href="#xd33e36491" title="Go to note 144.">144</a> These indications may be of every variety; and hence all possible forms of foretelling
+the future were allowed by the Stoics; the <span class="pageNum" id="pb379">[<a href="#pb379">379</a>]</span>inspection of entrails, divination by lightning and other natural phenomena, by the
+flight of birds, and omens of every kind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36497src" href="#xd33e36497" title="Go to note 145.">145</a> Some idea of the mass of superstition which the Stoics admitted and encouraged may
+be gathered from the first book of Cicero’s treatise on divination. The explanation
+of these omens being, however, a matter of skill, individuals in this, as in every
+other art, may often go wrong in their interpretation.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36544src" href="#xd33e36544" title="Go to note 146.">146</a> To make sure against mistakes tradition is partly of use, since it establishes by
+manifold experiences the meaning of each omen;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36549src" href="#xd33e36549" title="Go to note 147.">147</a> and the moral state of the prophet is quite as important for scientifically foretelling
+the future as for the natural gift of divination. Purity of heart is one of the most
+essential conditions of prophetic success.
+</p>
+<p>In all these questions the moral character of Stoic piety is ever to the fore, and
+great pains were taken by the Stoics to bring their belief in prophecy into harmony
+with their philosophic view of the world. Nevertheless, it is clear that success could
+not be theirs either in making this attempt, or indeed in dealing with any other parts
+of the popular belief. Struggling with <span class="pageNum" id="pb380">[<a href="#pb380">380</a>]</span>indefatigable zeal in an attempt so hopeless, they proved at least the sincerity of
+their wish to reconcile religion and philosophy; but they also disclosed by these
+endeavours a misgiving that science, which had put on so bold a face, was not in itself
+sufficient, but needed support from the traditions of religion, and from a belief
+in divine revelations.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36557src" href="#xd33e36557" title="Go to note 148.">148</a> Probably we shall not be far wrong in referring to this practical need the seeming
+vagaries of men like Chrysippus, who, with the clearest intellectual powers, could
+be blind to the folly of the methods they adopted in defending untenable and antiquated
+opinions. These vagaries show in Stoicism practical interests preponderating over
+science. They also establish the connection of Stoicism with Schools which doubted
+altogether the truth of the understanding, and thought to supplement it by divine
+revelations. Thus the Stoic theory of divination leads directly to the Neopythagorean
+and Neoplatonic doctrine of revelation.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb381">[<a href="#pb381">381</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33775">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33775src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> The well-known hymn to Zeus, in <i>Stob.</i> 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 <i>Philodem.</i> De Mus<span>.</span> Vol. Herc. i. col. 28: <span class="trans" title="ameinona ge einai ta poiētika kai mousika paradeigmata kai tou logou tou tēs philosophias, hikanōs men exangellein dynamenou ta theia kai anthrōpina, mē echontos de psilou tōn theiōn megethōn lexeis oikeias. ta metra kai ta melē kai tous rhythmous hōs malista prosikneisthai pros tēn alētheian tēs tōn theiōn theōrias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">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</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33775src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33795">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33795src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> Compare the celebrated dictum of the Stoic in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 28, 71: <span lang="la">Cultus autem Deorum est optimus idemque castissimus plenissimusque pietatis, ut eos
+semper pura integra incorrupta et mente et voce veneremur</span>; and more particularly <i>Epict.</i> Man. 31, 1: <span class="trans" title="tēs peri tous theous eusebeias isthi hoti to kyriōtaton ekeino estin, orthas hypolēpseis peri autōn echein ... kai sauton eis touto katatetachenai, to peithesthai autois kai eikein en pasi ginomenois, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῆς περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσεβείας ἴσθι ὅτι τὸ κυριώτατον ἐκεῖνό ἐστιν, ὀρθὰς ὑπολήψεις
+περὶ αὐτῶν <span class="corr" id="xd33e33808" title="Source: ἔχε ν">ἔχειν</span> … καὶ σαυτὸν εἰς τοῦτο κατατεταχέναι, τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ εἴκειν ἐν πᾶσι γινομένοις,
+κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Id.</i> Diss. ii. 18, 19. Further particulars on p. 345, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33795src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33824">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33824src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 40: We ought not to pray the Gods to give us something, or to protect us from
+something, but only to pray<span id="xd33e33827">:</span> <span class="trans" title="didonai autous to mēte phobeisthai ti toutōn mēte epithymein tinos toutōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διδόναι αὐτοὺς τὸ μήτε φοβεῖσθαί τι τούτων μήτε ἐπιθυμεῖν τινος τούτων</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 124: We ought, in fact, only to pray for what is good.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33824src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33841">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33841src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> See p. 144, 2. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 28, says that Rome of the younger Stoics (perhaps Posidonius, whose views
+on the primitive condition have been already mentioned, p. 293, 1) traced the belief
+in Gods back to the golden age.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33841src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33848">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33848src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> In this spirit, <i>Epict.</i> Diss. ii. 20, 32, blames those who throw doubts on the popular Gods, not considering
+that by so doing they deprive many of the preservatives from evil, the very same <span lang="la">argumentum ab utili</span> which is now frequently urged against free criticism.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33848src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33856">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33856src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> Characteristic are the utterances of the sceptic pontifex Cotta, in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 22, 61; iii. 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33856src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33866">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33866src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 6, 1; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 33. See p. 322, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33866src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33872">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33872src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> Ep. 41, 1: <span lang="la">Non sunt ad cœlum elevandæ manus nec exorandus ædituus, ut nos ad aures simulacri,
+quasi magis exaudiri possimus, admittat: prope est a te Deus, tecum est, intus est.</span> Nat. Qu. ii. 35, 1: <span class="pageNum" id="pb345n">[<a href="#pb345n">345</a>]</span>What is the meaning of expiations, if fate is unchangeable? They are only <span lang="la">ægræ mentis solatia</span>. See p. 343, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33872src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33885">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33885src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> Benef. iv. 19, 1: <span lang="la">Deos nemo sanus timet. Furor est enim metuere salutaria nee quisquam amat quos timet.</span> Not only do the Gods not wish to do harm, but such is their nature that they cannot
+do harm. De Ira, ii. 27, 1; Benef. vii. 1, 7; Ep. 95, 49. It hardly needs remark,
+how greatly these statements are at variance with the Roman religion, in which fear
+holds such a prominent place.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33885src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33891">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33891src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> Ep. 95, 47: <span lang="la">Quomodo sint Di colendi, solet præcipi: accendere aliquem lucernas sabbatis prohibeamus,
+quoniam nec lumine Di egent et ne homines quidem delectantur fuligine. Vetemus salutationibus
+matutinis fungi et foribus adsidere templorum: humana ambitio istis officiis capitur:
+Deum colit, qui novit. Vetemus lintea et strigiles ferre et speculum tenere Junoni:
+non quærit ministros Deus. Quidni? Ipse humano generi ministrat, ubique et omnibus
+præsto est.… Primus est Deorum cultus Deos credere. Deinde reddere illis majestatem
+suam, reddere bonitatem, &amp;c. Vis Deos propitiare? Bonus esto. Satis illos coluit,
+quisquis imitatus est.</span> Fr. 123 (in <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. vi. 25, 3): <span lang="la">Vultisne vos Deum cogitare magnum et placidum … non immolationibus et sanguine multo
+colendum—quæ enim ex trucidatione immerentium voluptas est?—sed mente pura, bono honestoque
+proposito. Non templa illi congestis in altitudinem saxis extruenda sunt: in suo cuique
+consecrandus est pectore.</span> Conf. Benef. vii. 7, 3: The only worthy temple of God is the universe.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33891src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33903">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33903src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> In Fr. 120 (in <i>Lact.</i> ii. 2, 14), Seneca shows how absurd it is to pray and kneel before images, the makers
+of which are thought little of in their own profession. On this point he expressed
+his opinion with great severity in the treatise, De Superstitione, fragments of which
+<i>Augustin.</i> Civ. D. vi. 10, communicates (Fr. 31 Haase). The immortal Gods, he there says, are
+transformed into lifeless elements. They are clothed in the shape of men and beasts,
+and other most extraordinary appearances; and are honoured as Gods, though, were they
+alive, they would be designated monsters. The manner, too, in which these Gods are
+honoured is most foolish and absurd; such as by mortification and mutilation, stupid
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb346n">[<a href="#pb346n">346</a>]</span>and immoral plays, &amp;c. The wise man can only take part in such acts <span lang="la">tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam Diis grata.</span> This view of worship had been previously set forth by Heraclitus, who otherwise was
+so much admired by the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33903src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33917">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33917src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> Fr. 119 (in <i>Lact.</i> i. 16, 10): <span lang="la">Quid ergo est, quare apud poetas salacissimus Jupiter desierit liberos tollere? Utrum
+sexagenarius factus est, et illi lex Papia fibulam imposuit? An impetravit jus trium
+liberorum? An … timet, ne quis sibi faciat, quod ipse Saturno?</span> Similarly Fr. 39 (in <i>Augustin.</i> l.c.); Brevit. Vit. 16, 5; Vit. Be. 26, 6, the <span lang="la">ineptiæ poetarum</span> which, as in the stories of Jupiter’s many adulteries, give free rein to sins.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33917src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33930">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33930src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Augustin.</i> l.c. Fr. 33: <span lang="la">Quid ergo tandem? Veriora tibi videntur T. Tatii aut Romuli aut Tulli Hostilii somnia?
+Cloacinam Tatius dedicavit Deam, Picum Tiberinumque Romulus, Hostilius Pavorem atque
+Pallorem, teterrimos hominum adfectus.… Hæc numina potius credes et cœlo recipies?</span> Fr. 39: <span lang="la">Omnem istam ignobilem Deorum turbam, quam longo ævo longa superstitio congessit, sic
+adorabimus ut meminerimus cultum ejus magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33930src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33939">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33939src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 24, 63: <span lang="la">Alia quoque ex ratione et quidem physica fluxit multitudo Deorum; qui induti specie
+humana fabulas poetis suppeditaverunt hominum autem vitam superstitione omni referserunt.
+Atque hic locus a Zenone tractatus post a Cleanthe et Chrysippo pluribus verbis explicatus
+est … physica ratio non inelegans inclusa est in impias fabulas.</span> Still stronger language is used by the Stoic, c. 28, 70, respecting the <span lang="la">commentitii et ficti Dei</span>, the <span lang="la">superstitiones pæne aniles</span>, the <span lang="la">futilitas summaque levitas</span> of their anthropomorphic legends.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33939src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33954">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33954src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Phædrus</i> (Philodemus), col. 2 of his fragment, according to Petersen’s restoration. Conf.
+<i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 17, 45; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 147; both of whom assert that the Stoics do not think of the <span class="pageNum" id="pb347n">[<a href="#pb347n">347</a>]</span>Gods as human in form; and <i>Lactant.</i> De Ir. D. c. 18: <span lang="la">Stoici negant habere ullam formam Deum.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33954src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33971">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33971src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> The Epicurean in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 36.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33971src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33976">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33976src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 37. Conf. <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forschung.</span> i. 406 and 415.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33976src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e33985">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e33985src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Clem.</i>, indeed, says (Strom. vii. 720, <span class="asc">D</span>): <span class="trans" title="oude aisthēseōn autō [tō theō] dei, kathaper ērese tois Stōῑkois, malista akoēs kai opseōs; mē gar dynasthai pote heterōs antilambanesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲ αἰσθησέων αὐτῷ [τῷ θεῷ] δεῖ, καθάπερ ἤρεσε τοῖς Στωῑκοῖς, μάλιστα ἀκοῆς καὶ ὄψεως·
+μὴ γὰρ δύνασθαί ποτε ἑτέρως ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι</span></span>. But, according to all accounts, this must be a misapprehension. Clement confounds
+what Stoic writers have conditionally asserted, for the purpose of disproving it,
+with their real opinion. Conf. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 139.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e33985src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34004">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34004src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 6, 16, in a description of the Stoic theology, evidently borrowed from a
+good source: The Gods have been represented as being like men: <span class="trans" title="dioti tōn men hapantōn to theion kyriōtaton, tōn de zōōn anthrōpos kalliston kai kekosmēmenon aretē diaphorōs kata tēn tou nou systasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διότι τῶν μὲν ἁπάντων τὸ θεῖον κυριώτατον, τῶν δὲ ζῴων ἄνθρωπος κάλλιστον καὶ κεκοσμημένον
+ἀρετῇ διαφόρως κατὰ τὴν τοῦ νοῦ <span class="corr" id="xd33e34011" title="Source: συνίστασιν">σύστασιν</span></span></span>, (<span class="trans" title="to kratiston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ κράτιστον</span></span>—probably these words should be struck out), <span class="trans" title="tois oun aristeuousi to kratiston homoiōs kai kalōs echein dienoēthēsan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς οὖν ἀριστεύουσι τὸ κράτιστον ὁμοίως καὶ καλῶς ἔχειν διενοήθησαν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34004src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34037">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34037src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 38, 5; C. Not. 31, 5; Def. Orac. 19, p. 420.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34037src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34041">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34041src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> The <span lang="la">numina, quæ singula adoramus et colimus,</span> which are dependent on the <span lang="la">Deus omnium Deorum</span>, and whom <span lang="la">ministros regni sui genuit.</span> <i>Sen.</i> Fr. 26, 16 (in <i>Lact.</i> Inst. i. 5, 26).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34041src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34057">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34057src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 147.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34057src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34066">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34066src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> See p. 206, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34066src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34069">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34069src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> De Fac. Lun. 6, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34069src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34075">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34075src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 14, 36.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34075src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34079">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34079src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> See p. 131.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34079src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34084">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34084src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 39; ii. 26; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 147.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34084src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34092">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34092src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> De Is. c. 66; <i>Cic.</i> l.c. ii. 23, 60; i. 15, 38, where this view is attributed, in particular, to Zeno’s
+pupil Persæus. <i>Krische</i> (<span lang="de">Forschung.</span> i. 442) reminds, with justice, of the assertion of Prodicus, that the ancients deified
+everything which was of use to man.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34092src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34123">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34123src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Phædr.</i> (Philodemus), Nat. De. col. 3, and <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 38, attribute this assertion specially to Persæus and Chrysippus. <i>Id.</i> ii. 24, 64, after speaking of the deification of Hercules, Bacchus, Romulus, &amp;c.,
+continues: <span lang="la">Quorum cum remanerent animi atque æternitate fruerentur, Dii rite sunt habiti, cum
+et optimi essent et æterni.</span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 151. See p. 351, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34123src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34136">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34136src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> This is done in <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 6, 9. Belief in the Gods, it is there said, is held in three forms—the physical,
+the mythical, and the form established by law (<span lang="la">theologia civilis</span>). All the gods belong to seven classes, <span class="trans" title="eidē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἴδη</span></span>: (1) <span class="trans" title="to ek tōn phainomenōn kai meteōrōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων καὶ μετεώρων</span></span>: the observation of the stars, and their regularity of movement, the changes of season,
+&amp;c., has conducted many to faith; and, accordingly, heaven and earth, sun and moon,
+have been honoured. (2 and 3) <span class="trans" title="to blapton kai ōpheloun"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ βλάπτον καὶ ὠφελοῦν</span></span>: beneficent Beings are Zeus, Here, Hermes, Demeter: baleful Beings are the Erinnyes,
+Ares, &amp;c. (4 and 5) <span class="trans" title="pragmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πράγματα</span></span>, such as <span class="trans" title="Elpis, Dikē, Eunomia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐλπὶς, Δίκη, Εὐνομία</span></span>; and <span class="trans" title="pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάθη</span></span>, such as <span class="trans" title="Erōs, Aphroditē, Pothos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἔρως, Ἀφροδίτη, Πόθος</span></span>. (6) <span class="trans" title="to hypo tōn poiētōn peplasmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν πεπλασμένον</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="to mythikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μυθικὸν</span></span>), such as the Gods invented by Hesiod for the purpose of his genealogies—Coios, Hyperion,
+&amp;c. (7) Men who are honoured for their services to mankind—Hercules, the Dioscuri,
+Dionysus. This list includes not only things which deserve divine honours, but all
+things to which they have been actually given: hence it includes, besides the purely
+mythical Gods, things which the Stoics can never have regarded as Gods, such as the
+baleful Gods and emotions, on which see p. 345, 1; 346, 2. On the other hand, they
+could raise no objection to the worship of personified virtues. In the above list
+the elementary Gods, such as Here, are grouped, together with the Gods of fruits,
+under the category of useful. Another grouping was that followed by Dionysius (whether
+the well-known pupil of Zeno—see p. 44, 1—or some later Stoic, is unknown), who, according
+to Tertullian (Ad Nat. ii. 2, conf. c. 14), divided Gods into three classes: the visible—the
+sun and moon, for instance; the invisible, or powers of nature, such as Neptune (that
+is, natural forces as they <span class="pageNum" id="pb351n">[<a href="#pb351n">351</a>]</span>make themselves felt in the elements and in planets); and those <i lang="la">facti</i>, or deified men.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34136src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34226">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34226src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Com. Not. 31, 5: <span class="trans" title="alla Chrysippos kai Kleanthēs, empeplēkotes, hōs epos eipein, tō logō theōn ton ouranon, tēn gēn, ton aera, tēn thalattan, oudena tōn tosoutōn aphtharton oud’ aïdion apoleloipasi plēn monou tou Dios, eis hon pantas katanaliskousi tous allous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ Χρύσιππος καὶ Κλεάνθης, ἐμπεπληκότες, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, τῷ λόγῳ θεῶν τὸν οὐρανὸν,
+τὴν γῆν, τὸν ἀέρα, τὴν θάλατταν, οὐδένα τῶν τοσούτων ἄφθαρτον οὐδ’ ἀΐδιον ἀπολελοίπασι
+πλὴν μόνου τοῦ Διὸς, εἰς ὃν πάντας καταναλίσκουσι τοὺς ἄλλους</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34226src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34244">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34244src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> Conf. <i>Wachsmuth</i>, <span lang="de">Die Ansichten der Stoiker über Mantik und Dämonen</span> (Berl. 1860), pp. 29–39.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34244src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34252">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34252src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> Tim. 90, <span class="asc">A</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34252src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34260">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34260src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> Posid. in <i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. v. 6, p. 469: <span class="trans" title="to dē tōn pathōn aition, toutesti tēs te anomologias kai tou kakodaimonos biou, to mē kata pan hepesthai tō en hautō daimoni syngenei te onti kai tēn homoian physin echonti tō ton holon kosmon dioikounti, tō de cheironi kai zōōdei pote synekklinontas pheresthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὴ τῶν παθῶν αἴτιον, τουτέστι τῆς τε ἀνομολογίας καὶ τοῦ κακοδαίμονος βίου, τὸ
+μὴ κατὰ πᾶν <span id="xd33e34268">ἕπεσθαι</span> τῷ ἐν αὑτῷ δαίμονι συγγενεῖ τε ὄντι καὶ τὴν ὁμοίαν φύσιν ἔχοντι τῷ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον
+διοικοῦντι, τῷ δὲ χείρονι καὶ ζῳώδει ποτὲ συνεκκλίνοντας φέρεσθαι</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 41, 2, according to the quotation, p. 344, 4: <span lang="la">Sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos.
+Hic prout a nobis tractatus est, ita nos ipse tractat.</span> Ep. 31, 11: <span lang="la">Quid aliud voces hunc [animus rectus, bonus, magnus] quam Deum in corpore humano hospitantem?</span> Just as Kant calls the moral idea, a primary notion which mankind has embraced, the
+moral tone a good spirit governing us. <i>Epict.</i> Diss. i. 14, 12: <span class="trans" title="epitropon [ho Zeus] hekastō parestēse ton hekastou daimona, kai paredōke phylassein auton autō kai touton akoimēton kai aparalogiston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπίτροπον [ὁ Ζεὺς] ἑκάστῳ παρέστησε τὸν ἑκάστου δαίμονα, καὶ παρέδωκε φυλάσσειν αὐτὸν
+αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦτον ἀκοίμητον καὶ ἀπαραλόγιστον</span></span>. He who retires within himself is not alone, <span class="trans" title="all’ ho theos endon esti kai ho hymeteros daimōn esti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλ’ ὁ θεὸς ἔνδον ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ὑμέτερος δαίμων ἐστί</span></span>. To him each one has taken an oath of allegiance, as a soldier has to his sovereign,
+but <span class="trans" title="ekei men omnyousin, autou mē protimēsein heteron; entautha d’ hautous hapantōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκεῖ μὲν ὀμνύουσιν, αὐτοῦ μὴ προτιμήσειν ἕτερον· ἐνταῦθα δ’ αὑτοὺς ἁπάντων</span></span>; so that the demon is lost in the <span class="trans" title="autos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτὸς</span></span> within. <i>M. Aurel.</i> v. 27: <span class="trans" title="ho daimōn, hon hekastō prostatēn kai hēgemona ho Zeus edōken, apospasma heautou. houtos de estin ho hekastou nous kai logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δαίμων, ὃν ἑκάστῳ προστάτην καὶ ἡγεμόνα ὁ Ζεὺς ἔδωκεν, ἀπόσπασμα ἑαυτοῦ. οὗτος δέ
+ἐστιν ὁ ἑκάστου νοῦς καὶ λόγος</span></span>. See ii. 13 and 17; iii. 3; Schl. 5, 6, 7, 12, 16; v. 10; viii. 45.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34260src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34340">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34340src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> See the passage quoted from <i>Diog.</i> vii. 88, on p. 227, 3. (<i>Diogenes</i> had only just before named Chrysippus <span class="trans" title="peri telous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τέλους</span></span>, as source), which receives its explanation (if it needs one) from the above words
+of Posidonius.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34340src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34355">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34355src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> In this sense, the words of <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 110, 1, must be understood: <span lang="la">Sepone in præsentia quæ quibusdam placent, unicuique nostrum pædagogum dari Deum,
+non quidem ordinarium, sed hunc inferioris notæ … ita tamen hoc seponas volo, ut memineris,
+majores nostros, qui crediderunt, Stoicos <span class="pageNum" id="pb353n">[<a href="#pb353n">353</a>]</span>fuisse: singulis enim et Genium et Junonem dederunt</span>, i.e., the old Romans, not the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34355src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34367">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34367src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> Conf. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 86. Amongst other things, quoted p<span>.</span> 146, 1, it is there said: If living beings exist on the earth and in the sea, there
+must be <span class="trans" title="noera zōa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νοερὰ ζῷα</span></span> in the air, which is so much purer; and these are the demons.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34367src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34382">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34382src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 151: <span class="trans" title="phasi d’ einai kai tinas daimonas anthrōpōn sympatheian echontas, epoptas tōn anthrōpeiōn pragmatōn; kai hērōas tas hypoleleimmenas tōn spoudaiōn psychas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φασὶ δ’ εἶναι καί τινας δαίμονας ἀνθρώπων συμπάθειαν ἔχοντας, ἐπόπτας τῶν ἀνθρωπείων
+πραγμάτων· καὶ ἥρωας τὰς ὑπολελειμμένας τῶν σπουδαίων ψυχάς</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> De Is. 25, p. 360: Plato, Pythagoras, Xenocrates, and Chrysippus hold, with the old
+theologians (amongst whom Wachsmuth, p. 32, 40, rightly thinks of the Orphics), that
+the demons are stronger than men, from which the language used of them by Chrysippus
+does not follow. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: The Stoics believe demons to be mortal. Plac.
+i. 8, 2: <span class="trans" title="Thalēs, Pythagoras, Platōn, hoi Stōïkoi, daimonas hyparchein ousias psychikas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Θαλῆς, Πυθαγόρας, Πλάτων, οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, δαίμονας ὑπάρχειν οὐσίας ψυχικάς</span></span>. A special treatise <span class="trans" title="peri hērōōn kai daimonōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ἡρώων καὶ δαιμόνων</span></span> proceeded from the pen of Posidonius, probably, as was his wont, containing more
+learned than dogmatic statements, an extract from which is given by <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 23, containing the etymology of <span class="trans" title="daimōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δαίμων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34382src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34423">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34423src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Quæst. Rom. 51, p. 277: <span class="trans" title="kathaper hoi peri Chrysippon oiontai philosophoi phaula daimonia perinostein, hois hoi theoi dēmiois chrōntai kalastais epi tous anosious kai adikous anthrōpous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθάπερ οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον οἴονται φιλόσοφοι φαῦλα δαιμόνια περινοστεῖν, οἷς οἱ θεοὶ
+δημίοις χρῶνται καλασταῖς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνοσίους καὶ ἀδίκους ἀνθρώπους</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> Def. Orac. 17, p. 419: <span class="trans" title="phaulous ... daimonas ouk Empedoklēs monon ... apelipen, alla kai Platōn kai Xenokratēs kai Chrysippos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαύλους … δαίμονας οὐκ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μόνον … ἀπέλιπεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ξενοκράτης
+καὶ Χρύσιππος</span></span>—a statement which, particularly as it is extended to Plato, would prove little. The
+baleful Gods of mythology (p. <span class="pageNum" id="pb354n">[<a href="#pb354n">354</a>]</span>350, 2) were explained as being evil demons by those who did not deny their existence
+altogether. Those demons, however, which purify the soul in another world (<i>Sallust.</i> De Mund. c. 19, p. 266, and whom <i>Villoisin</i> on Cornutus, p. 553, reminds of), are not borrowed from Stoicism, but from Plato
+(Rep. x. 615, <span class="asc">E</span>) and the Neoplatonists.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34423src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34458">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34458src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 37, 2. See p. 191, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34458src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34462">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34462src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Tertull.</i> Test. An. 3, after speaking of demons, adds: <span lang="la">Aliqui Chrysippi sectator illudit ea.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34462src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34480">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34480src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> The Stoics are not the first who resorted to allegorical explanations of myths. Just
+as, before philosophy had broken away from mythology, a Pherecydes, an Empedocles,
+the Pythagoreans had, whether consciously or unconsciously, veiled their thoughts
+in the language of legend, and even subsequently Plato had used a veil of poetry;
+so, now that the breach between the two was open, many attempts were made to conceal
+its breadth, and individual beliefs were represented as the real meaning of popular
+beliefs, it being always supposed that the original framers had an eye to this meaning.
+Thus a twofold method of treating the myths resulted—that by natural explanation,
+and that by allegorical interpretation. The former method referred them to facts of
+history, the latter to general truths, whether moral or scientific. Both methods agreed
+in looking for a hidden meaning besides the literal one. This method of treating myths
+had been already met with among the older teachers, such as Democritus, Metrodorus
+of Lampsacus, and other followers of Anaxagoras (according to <i>Hesych.</i> even Agamemnon was explained to be the ether). It appears to have been a favourite
+one in the time of the Sophists (<i>Plato</i>, Theæt. 153, <span class="asc">C</span>; Rep. ii<span id="xd33e34489">.</span> 378, <span class="asc">D</span>; Phædr. 229, <span class="asc">C</span>; Crat. 407, <span class="asc">A</span>, to 530, <span class="asc">C</span>; Gorg. 493, <span class="asc">A</span>; <i>Xen.</i> Sym. 3, 6), as appears from Euripides and Herodotus. It follows naturally from the
+view of Prodicus on the origin of belief in the Gods. Plato disapproved of it. Aristotle
+occasionally appealed to it to note glimmers of truth in popular notions without attributing
+to it any higher value. The founder of Cynicism and his followers pursued it zealously.
+From the Cynics the Stoics appear to have taken it. They carried it much further than
+any of their predecessors, and they, too, exercised a greater influence on posterity
+than the Cynics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34480src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34522">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34522src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. 24, 63; iii. 24, 63, see p. 346, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34522src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34527">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34527src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> The definition of allegory: <span class="trans" title="ho gar alla men agoreuōn tropos, hetera de hōn legei sēmainōn, epōnymōs allēgoria kaleitai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ γὰρ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος, ἕτερα δὲ ὧν λέγει σημαίνων, ἐπωνύμως ἀλληγορία καλεῖται</span></span> (<i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 5, p. 6). <span class="pageNum" id="pb356n">[<a href="#pb356n">356</a>]</span>Accordingly, it includes every kind of symbolical expression. In earlier times, according
+to <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Po. c. 4, p. 19, it was termed <span class="trans" title="hyponoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπόνοια</span></span>, which term is found in <i>Plato</i>, Rep. ii. 378, <span class="asc">D</span>, conf. Io. 530, <span class="asc">D</span>; <i>Xen.</i> Symp. 3, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34527src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34565">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34565src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> In this way Zeno treated all the poems of Homer and Hesiod (<i>Dio Chrysost.</i> Or. 53, p. 275; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 4; <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 393), and so did Cleanthes (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 175; <i>Phædr.</i> [Philodem.] De Nat. De. col. 3; <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Po. 11, p. 31; De Fluv. 5, 3, p. 1003; <i>Krische</i>, 433) and Persæus. Chrysippus explained the stories in Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, and
+Musæus (<i>Phæd.</i> col. 3; <i>Galen.</i> Hipp. et Plat. iii. 8, vol. v. 349, <i>Krische</i>, 391 and 479), and was followed by Diogenes (<i>Phæd.</i> col. 5; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 15, 41). Compare also <i>Plut.</i> Def. Orac. 12, p. 415, and respecting the theological literature of the Stoics <i>Villoisin</i> on Cornutus, p. xxxix. Among the Romans, the same method was followed by Varro (<i>Preller</i>, <span lang="de">Röm. Myth.</span> 29), and from his writings Heraclitus (living under Augustus) derived the material
+for his Homeric Allegories (edited by Mehler), and Cornutus for his work on the nature
+of the Gods edited by Osann from Villoisin’s papers.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34565src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34606">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34606src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 24, 63.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34606src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34610">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34610src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> <i>Corn.</i> c. 17, p. 80: <span class="trans" title="dei de mē synchein tous mythous, mēd’ ex heterou ta onomata eph’ heteron metapherein, mēd’ ei ti proseplasthē tais kat’ autous paradidomenais genealogiais hypo tōn mē synentōn ha ainittontai kechrēmenōn d’ autois hōs tois plasmasin, alogōs tithesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δεῖ δὲ μὴ συγχεῖν τοὺς <span class="corr" id="xd33e34617" title="Source: μύθου">μύθους</span>, μήδ’ ἐξ ἑτέρου τὰ ὀνόματα ἐφ’ ἕτερον μεταφέρειν, μηδ’ εἴ τι προσεπλάσθη ταῖς κατ’
+αὐτοὺς παραδιδομέναις γενεαλογίαις ὑπὸ τῶν μὴ συνέντων ἃ αἰνίττονται κεχρημένων δ’
+αὐτοῖς ὡς τοῖς πλάσμασιν, ἀλόγως τίθεσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34610src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34629">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34629src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> Proofs may be found in abundance in Heraclitus and Cornutus. Conf. <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 45, 1: The ancients did not believe that Jupiter hurled his thunderbolts
+broadcast; <span lang="la">sed eundem, quem nos Jovem intelligunt, rectorem custodemque universi, animum ac spiritum
+mundi,</span> &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34629src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34637">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34637src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> <i>Dio Chrysost.</i> Or. 53, p. 276, R. speaking of Zeno’s commentaries on Homer, says: <span class="trans" title="ho de Zēnōn ouden tōn tou Homērou legei, alla diēgoumenos kai didaskōn, hoti ta men kata doxan, ta de kata alētheian gegraphen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ Ζήνων οὐδὲν τῶν τοῦ Ὁμήρου λέγει, ἀλλὰ διηγούμενος καὶ διδάσκων, ὅτι τὰ μὲν κατὰ
+δόξαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν γέγραφεν</span></span>.… <span class="trans" title="ho de logos houtos Antistheneios esti proteron ... all’ ho men ouk exeirgasato auton oude kata tōn epi merous edēlōsen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δὲ λόγος οὗτος Ἀντισθένειός ἐστι πρότερον … ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν οὐκ ἐξειργάσατο αὐτὸν οὐδὲ
+κατὰ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ἐδήλωσεν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34637src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34664">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34664src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> Special references are hardly necessary after those already quoted, p. 148, 1; 153,
+2; 164, 2: 165, 5. Conf. the hymn of <i>Cleanthes</i>; Chrysippus, in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 48; <i>Arat.</i> Phæn. Begin.; <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Poët. c. 11, p. 31; Varro, in <i>August.</i> Civ. D. vii. 5; 6; 9; 28; Servius, in Georg. i. 5; <i>Heraclit.</i> c. 15, p. 31; c. 23, 49; c. 24, 50; <i>Corn.</i> pp. 7; 26; 35; 38, where <span class="trans" title="Zeus"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ζεὺς</span></span> is derived from <span class="trans" title="zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῇν</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="zeein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζέειν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="Dios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διὸς</span></span> from <span class="trans" title="dia, hoti di’ auton ta panta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὰ, ὅτι δι’ αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα</span></span>; conf. Villoisin and Osann on the passage of Cornutus, who give further authorities
+in their notes on the respective passages. The same on Cornutus, p. 6, discuss the
+derivation of <span class="trans" title="theos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεὸς</span></span> from <span class="trans" title="theein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θέειν</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="tithenai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τιθέναι</span></span>; of <span class="trans" title="aithēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰθὴρ</span></span> from <span class="trans" title="aithein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴθειν</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="aei theein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀεὶ θέειν</span></span>. A portion of these etymologies is well known to be Platonic.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34664src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34772">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34772src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <span class="trans" title="Polyōnymos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πολυώνυμος</span></span>, as he is called by Cleanthes<span id="xd33e34781">,</span> v. 1. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 147; <i>Corn.</i> c. 9 and 26. The further expansion of this idea may be found in the Neoplatonic doctrine.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34772src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34799">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34799src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> See <i>Diog.</i> l.c.; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 26, 66; <i>Phæd.</i> (Philodem.), Fragm. col. 2–5; <i>Heracl.</i> c. 25, p. 53. On Here, consult <i>Heracl.</i> c. 15 and 41, p. 85; <i>Corn.</i> c. 3; on Hephæstus, <i>Heracl.</i> c. 26, 55; 43, 91; <i>Corn.</i> c. 19, p. 98; <i>Plut.</i> De Is. c. 66, p. 377 (<i>Diog.</i> l.c. perhaps confounds as <i>Krische</i>, p. 399, supposes, common fire with <span class="trans" title="pyr technikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πῦρ τεχνικὸν</span></span>, but it is also possible that the artificial God of mythology may have been explained
+now one way now another in the Stoic School, which is not always uniform in its interpretations);
+on Poseidon, <i>Heracl.</i> c. 7, 15; c. 18, 77; c. 46, 117; <i>Corn.</i> c. 12; <i>Plut.</i> De Is. c. 40, Schl. p. 367; on Hades, whom Cicero l.c. makes the representative of
+<span lang="la">terrena vis</span>; <i>Heracl.</i> c. 23, p. 50; c. 41, 87; <i>Corn.</i> 5; on Demeter and Hestia, <i>Corn.</i> c. 28, p. 156; <i>Plut.</i> l.c.; on Athene, <i>Heracl.</i> c. 19, 39; c. 28, 59; c. 61, 123; <i>Corn.</i> c. 20, 103. It is only by a forced interpretation of a passage in Homer, that (<i>Heraclit.</i> 25, 53) Athene is made to be earth. That even Zeno treated individual Gods in this
+way, as parts of one general divine power or Zeus, is rendered probable by <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 399, by a comparison of <i>Phædr.</i> col. 5, with the passages quoted from Cicero and Diogenes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34799src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34866">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34866src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 8, 1: <span lang="la">Hunc [Jovem] et Liberum patrem et Herculem et Mercurium nostri putant. Liberum patrem,
+quia omnium parens sit.… Herculem, quia vis ejus invicta sit, quandoque lassata fuerit
+operibus editis, in ignem recessura. Mercurium, quia ratio penes illum est numerusque
+et ordo et scientia.</span> The solution of Helios into Zeus (<i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 23) appears also to be of Stoic origin.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34866src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34875">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34875src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> <i>Heracl.</i> c. 25, 52. Conf. Il. i. 395.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34875src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34879">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34879src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> <i>Heracl.</i> c. 40, 83; Il. xv. 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34879src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34883">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34883src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> c. 37, 73; Il. viii. 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34883src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34890">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34890src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> <i>Heracl.</i> c. 26, 54, who applies the same method of interpretation to the legend of Prometheus
+(otherwise interpreted by <i>Corn.</i> c. 18, 96), <i>Corn.</i> c. 19, 98. On the lameness of Hephæstus, <i>Plut.</i> Fac. Lun. 5, 3, p. 922.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34890src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34900">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34900src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> According to Eustath. in Il. p. 93, 46, probably following a Stoic interpretation,
+Here is the spouse of Zeus, because the air is surrounded by the ether; but does not
+agree with him, because the two elements are opposed to each other.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34900src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34903">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34903src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> <i>Heracl.</i> c. 39, 78 (conf. <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Po. p. 19), where this explanation is given very fully. The occurrence on Mount
+Ida is said to represent the passage of winter into spring. Here’s tresses are the
+foliage of trees, &amp;c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34903src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34917">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34917src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> See <i>Diog.</i> vii. 187; Proœm. 5; <i>Orig.</i> con. Cels. iv. 48; <i>Theophil.</i> ad Autol. iii. 8, p. 122, <span class="asc">C</span>; <i>Clement.</i> Homil. v. 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34917src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34931">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34931src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> c. 64. Proteus, according to this explanation, denotes unformed matter; the forms
+which he assumes denote the four elements&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34931src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34935">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34935src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> See the description. Alleg. Hom. 43–51, p. 90, of which the above is a meagre abstract.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34935src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34941">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34941src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> According to <i>Heraclit.</i> 53, 112<span>.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34941src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34947">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34947src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> We learn from Ps. <i>Plut.</i> De Fluv. 5, 3, p. 1003, that Cleanthes wrote a <span class="trans" title="theomachia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεομαχία</span></span>, a small fragment of which, containing a portion or the Prometheus legend in a later
+and evidently apologetically moulded form, is there preserved. The theomachy described
+by Cleanthes (the Stoic Cleanthes seems to be meant) is, however, not the Homeric
+theomachy, but the struggle of the Gods with the Giants and Titans, described in the
+book <span class="trans" title="peri gigantōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ γιγάντων</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 175). Perhaps on this occasion he may have discussed the other. At any rate
+the moral interpretation given by Heraclitus to Homer’s <span class="trans" title="theomachia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεομαχία</span></span> is quite in the style of the interpretation of the legend of Hercules, and was probably
+borrowed from Cleanthes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34947src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34978">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34978src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> Further particulars on Hermes, Alleg. Hom. c. 72, 141.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34978src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34981">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34981src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> Alleg. Hom. c. 54.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34981src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e34984">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e34984src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> Conf. <i>Heracl.</i> c. 6, p. 11; <i>Corn.</i> 32, p. 191; 34, 206; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 27, 68; <i>Phædr.</i> (Philodem.) Nat. De. col. 5 and 2. In <i>Phædrus</i>, too, col. 2 (<span class="trans" title="tous de ton Apollō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοὺς δὲ τὸν Ἀπόλλω</span></span>), if <span class="trans" title="hēlion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἥλιον</span></span> seems too wild, perhaps <span class="trans" title="phōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φῶς</span></span> should be substituted for <span class="trans" title="tous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τούς</span></span>, for Apollo cannot well symbolise the earth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e34984src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35033">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35033src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Fac. Lun<span>.</span> 5, 2, p. 922. The Stoics address the moon as Artemis and Athene.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35033src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35039">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35039src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> See p. 147, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35039src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35042">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35042src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> The name Apollo is explained by Cleanthes, in <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 17, <span class="trans" title="hōs ap’ allōn kai allōn topōn tas anatolas poioumenou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς ἀπ’ ἄλλων καὶ ἄλλων τόπων τὰς ἀνατολὰς ποιουμένου</span></span>; by Chrysippus, as derived from α privative and <span class="trans" title="polys, hōs ouchi tōn pollōn kai phaulōn ausiōn tou pyros onta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολὺς, ὡς οὐχὶ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ φαύλων αὐσιῶν τοῦ πυρὸς ὄντα</span></span>. The latter explanation is quoted by <i>Plotin.</i> v. 5, 6, p. 525, as Pythagorean, and Chrysippus may have taken it from Pythagoras,
+or the later Pythagoreans from Chrysippus. Cicero, in imitation, makes his Stoic derive
+<i lang="la">sol</i> from <i lang="la">solus</i>. The epithet of Apollo, Loxias, is referred by Cleanthes to the <span class="trans" title="helikes loxai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἕλικες λοξαὶ</span></span> of the sun’s course, or the <span class="trans" title="aktines loxai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκτῖνες λοξαὶ</span></span> of the sun; and by Œnopides, to the <span class="trans" title="loxos kyklos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λοξὸς κύκλος</span></span> (the ecliptic). The epithet <span class="trans" title="Lykios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λύκιος</span></span> is explained by Cleanthes, <span lang="la">quod veluti lupi pecora rapiunt, ita ipse quoque humorem eripit radiis</span>; Antipater, <span class="trans" title="apo tou leukainesthai panta phōtizontos hēliou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπὸ τοῦ λευκαίνεσθαι πάντα φωτίζοντος ἡλίου</span></span>. In the same author Macrobius found the derivation of <span class="trans" title="pythios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πύθιος</span></span> from <span class="trans" title="pythein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πύθειν</span></span> (because the sun’s heat produces decay). Other explanations of these as well as of
+other epithets of Apollo, of the name of Artemis and her epithets, of the attributes
+and symbols of these Gods, are to be found in abundance in <i>Cornutus</i>, c. 32, 34, and in <i>Macrobius</i>, l.c., who probably got most of them from Stoic sources.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35042src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35136">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35136src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> The first of these stories is explained by <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 17, down to the most minute details, in the sense of the cosmical views already
+given, p. 162, 2, and likewise the story of the slaying of the Pytho, the dragon being
+taken to represent the heavy vapours of the marshy earth, which were overcome by the
+sun’s heat (the arrows of Apollo). This interpretation being expressly attributed
+to Antipater by Macrobius, it appears probable that the first one came from the same
+source. Another likewise quoted by him, according <span class="pageNum" id="pb363n">[<a href="#pb363n">363</a>]</span>to which the dragon represents the sun’s course, is perhaps also Stoical.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35136src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35146">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35146src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> <i>Cornutus</i>, c. 2, p. 10, points to this in explaining Leto as <span class="trans" title="Lēthō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ληθὼ</span></span>, and referring it to night, because everything is forgotten in sleep at night.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35146src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35158">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35158src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> c. 8, especially p. 16, 22, 28. <i>Ibid.</i> c<span>.</span> 12, p. 24, 28, the clang of Apollo’s arrows is explained to be the harmony of the
+spheres.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35158src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35165">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35165src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> c. 15, p. 31.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35165src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35170">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35170src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> c. 19, 72, p. 39, 141.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35170src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35174">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35174src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> See <i>Corn.</i> c. 20, 105, and <i>Villoisin’s</i> notes on the passage. The most varied derivations of Athene are given: from <span class="trans" title="athrein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀθρεῖν</span></span> by <i>Heracl.</i> c. 19, 40; Tzetz. in <i>Hesiod.</i> <span class="trans" title="Er. kai Hēme"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐρ. καὶ Ἡμε</span></span>. 70; Etymol. Mag. <span class="trans" title="Athēna"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀθηνᾶ</span></span>—from <span class="trans" title="thēlys"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θῆλυς</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="thēlazein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θηλάζειν</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="Athēnē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀθήνη</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="athēlē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀθήλη</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="athēla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀθηλᾶ</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="hē mē thēlazousa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ μὴ θηλάζουσα</span></span>), by <i>Phædr.</i> Nat. D. col. 6; <i>Athenag.</i> Leg. pro Christ. c. 17, p. 78—from <span class="trans" title="theinō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θείνω</span></span>, because virtue never allows itself to be beaten—from <span class="trans" title="aithēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰθὴρ</span></span> + <span class="trans" title="naiō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ναίω</span></span>, so that <span class="trans" title="Athēnaia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀθηναία</span></span> = <span class="trans" title="Aitheronaia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Αἰθεροναῖα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35174src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35312">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35312src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> This explanation had been already given by Diogenes, according to <i>Phædr.</i> col. 6. Cornutus also mentions it (20, 108), but he prefers the derivation from <span class="trans" title="trein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τρεῖν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35312src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35328">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35328src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> c. 33, p. 69.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35328src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35331">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35331src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> It is to be found in <i>Galen</i>. Hipp. et Plat. iii. 8, pp. 349–353, but, according to <i>Phædr.</i> (<i>Philodem.</i>) l.c., conf. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D.&nbsp;I. 15, 41, was already put forward by Diogenes<span>.</span> For himself, he prefers the other explanation, according to which Athene comes forth
+from the head of Jupiter, because the air which she represents occupies the highest
+place in the universe. <i>Cornut.</i> c. 20, 103, leaves us to choose between this explanation and the assumption that
+the ancients regarded the head as the seat of the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>. <i>Heracl.</i> c. 19, 40, states the latter, <i>Eustath.</i> in Il. 93, 40, the <span class="corr" id="xd33e35358" title="Source: fo mer">former</span>, as the reason.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35331src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35362">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35362src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> p. 349, 4, <i>Corn.</i> 30, p. 172.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35362src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35367">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35367src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> See p. 359, 1, <i>Plut.</i> De Is. c. 40, Schl. p. 367: Demeter and Core are <span class="trans" title="to dia tēs gēs kai tōn karpōn diēkon pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ διὰ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν κάρπων διῆκον πνεῦμα</span></span>. <i>Phædr.</i> col<span>.</span> 2: <span class="trans" title="tēn Dēmētra gēn ē to en autē goneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν Δήμητρα γῆν ἢ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γόνευμα</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="gonimon pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γόνιμον πνεῦμα</span></span>]. On Demeter as <span class="trans" title="gē mētēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γῆ μήτηρ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="Dēō mētēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Δηὼ μήτηρ</span></span>, see <i>Corn.</i> c. 28, p. 156, and <i>Villoisin</i> on the passage.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35367src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35421">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35421src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> l.c.: Dionysus is <span class="trans" title="to gonimon pneuma kai trophimon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ γόνιμον πνεῦμα καὶ τρόφιμον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35421src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35433">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35433src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">83</a></span> <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 18: Cleanthes derived the name Dionysus from <span class="trans" title="dianysai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διανύσαι</span></span>, because the sun daily completes his course round the world. It is well known that,
+before and after his time, the identification of Apollo with Dionysus was common,
+and it is elaborately proved by Macrobius. <i>Servius</i>, too, on Georg. i. 5, says that the Stoics believed the sun, Apollo, and Bacchus—and
+likewise the moon, Diana, Ceres, Juno, and Proserpine—to be identical. Other etymologies
+of <span class="trans" title="Dionysos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διόνυσος</span></span> are given by <i>Corn.</i> c. 30, 173.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35433src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35460">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35460src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">84</a></span> <i>Corn.</i> 30, discusses the point at large, referring both the story and the attributes of
+Dionysus to wine. He, and also <i>Heracl.</i> c. 35, p. 71, refer the story of Dionysus and Lycurgus to the vintage.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35460src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35466">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35466src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">85</a></span> <i>Corn.</i> c. 28, p. 163, who also refers the legend and worship of Demeter, in all particulars,
+to agriculture; and the rape of Persephone, to the sowing of fruits. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 26, 66. According to <i>Plut.</i> De Is. 66, p. 377, Cleanthes had already called <span class="trans" title="Persephonē, to dia tōn karpōn pheromenon kai phoneuomenon pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Περσεφόνη, τὸ διὰ τῶν καρπῶν φερόμενον καὶ φονευόμενον πνεῦμα</span></span>. A somewhat different explanation of the rape of Persephone is given in a passage
+of Mai’s Mythograph<span id="xd33e35481">,</span> vii. 4, p<span>.</span> 216, quoted by <i>Osann.</i> on Cornutus, p. 343.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35466src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35489">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35489src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">86</a></span> The legend of Triptolemus is explained by Cornutus, l.c. p. 161, as referring to the
+discovery of agriculture by Triptolemus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35489src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35502">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35502src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">87</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Stob.</i> i. 180; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. vi. 8, 7 (<i>Theodoret.</i> Cur. Gr. Aff. vi. 14, p. 87), see p. 171, 1. Conf. <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 47, 5; <i>Corn.</i> c. 13, p. 38; and <i>Plato</i>, Rep. x. 617, <span class="asc">C</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35502src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35529">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35529src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">88</a></span> According to <i>Sen.</i> Benef. i. 3, 8; 4, 4, he had filled a whole book, probably of a treatise not otherwise
+mentioned on kind deeds, with these <span lang="la">ineptiæ—ita ut de ratione dandi accipiendi reddendique beneficii pauca admodum dicat,
+nee his fabulas, sed hæc fabulis inserit.</span> A portion of these was made use of by Hecato in his work on this subject.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35529src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35537">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35537src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">89</a></span> Chrysippus, in <i>Phædr.</i> (Philodemus), col. 4. Further particulars in <i>Sen.</i> l.c., and <i>Corn.</i> 15, 55. Somewhat similar is the explanation of <span class="trans" title="Litai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λιταί</span></span> (<i>Corn.</i> 12<span>,</span> 37; <i>Heracl.</i> 37, 75), which at best are only casual personifications.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35537src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35563">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35563src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">90</a></span> <i>Corn.</i> 14, 43, who, at the same time, mentions their names and number; <i>Philodem.</i> De Mus. Vol. Herc. i. col. 15; Erato indicates the importance of music for <span class="trans" title="erōtikē aretē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐρωτικὴ ἀρετή</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 10, 33, on the Erinnyes; 29, 171, on the Horoi.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35563src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35579">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35579src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">91</a></span> <i>Heracl.</i> 31, 63; <i>Plut.</i> Am. 13, 15, p. 757.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35579src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35587">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35587src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">92</a></span> <i>Heracl.</i> 28, 60; 30, 62, and above, p. 360.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35587src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35591">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35591src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">93</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 69, 136. In this sense, Aphrodite might be identified with Zeus, which was really
+done by <i>Phædr.</i> Nat. De. col. 1: <span class="trans" title="analogon eun ... thai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνάλογον εὐν … θαι</span></span> [Petersen suggests <span class="trans" title="eunomeisthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐνομεῖσθαι</span></span>, but probably it should be <span class="trans" title="onomazesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὀνομάζεσθαι</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="ton Dia kai tēn koinēn pantōn physin kai heimarmenēn kai anankēn kai tēn autēn einai kai Eunomian kai Dikēn kai Homonoian kai Eirēnēn kai Aphroditēn kai to paraplēsion pan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν Δία καὶ τὴν κοινὴν πάντων φύσιν καὶ εἱμαρμένην καὶ ἀνάγκην καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι
+καὶ Εὐνομίαν καὶ Δίκην καὶ Ὁμόνοιαν καὶ Εἰρήνην καὶ Ἀφροδίτην καὶ τὸ παραπλήσιον πᾶν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35591src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35629">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35629src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">94</a></span> The story of Ares, <span class="trans" title="neiaton es keneōna"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νείατον ἐς κενεῶνα</span></span>, means, according to <i>Heracl.</i> 31, 64, that Diomedes, <span class="trans" title="epi ta kena tēs tōn antepalōn taxeōs pareiselthōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπὶ τὰ κενὰ τῆς τῶν ἀντεπάλων τάξεως παρεισελθὼν</span></span>, defeated the enemy; that of Aphrodite (<span class="trans" title="aphrosynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφροσύνη</span></span>, <i>ibid.</i> 30, 62), that, by his experience in war, he overcame the inexperienced troops of
+barbarians.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35629src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35661">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35661src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">95</a></span> In <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Po. c. 4, p. 19, the connection of Ares and Aphrodite is explained as meaning
+a conjunction of the two planets. <i>Heracl.</i> 69, 136, gives the alternative of referring this connection to the union of <span class="trans" title="philia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φιλία</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="neikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νεῖκος</span></span>, which produces harmony, or to the fact that brass (Ares) is moulded in the fire
+(Hephæstus) into objects of beauty (Aphrodite). The latter interpretation is given
+by <i>Corn.</i> 19, 102, who also explains the relation of Ares to Aphrodite to mean the union of
+strength and beauty.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35661src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35688">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35688src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">96</a></span> <i>Corn.</i> 27, 148; <i>Plut.</i> Krat. 408, <span class="asc">C</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35688src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35697">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35697src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">97</a></span> His lewdness was said to indicate the fulness of the <span class="trans" title="spermatikoi logoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπερματικοὶ λόγοι</span></span> in nature; his sojourn in the wilderness, the solitariness of the world.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35697src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35743">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35743src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">98</a></span> <i>Corn.</i> 17, 91. Conf. <i>Osann</i> ad locum, who points out similar interpretations, probably of Stoic origin, in the
+Scholia to the theogony, and also in Etymol. M.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35743src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35749">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35749src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">99</a></span> Besides the etymologies of <span class="trans" title="ouranos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐρανὸς</span></span> in <i>Corn.</i> c. 1, and the observation of <i>Plut.</i> Pl. i. 6, 9, that heaven is the father of all things, because of its fertilising
+rains, and earth the mother, because she brings forth everything, the words in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 24, 63, on which <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 397, comments, deserve notice. It is there said, probably after Zeno: Uranos is the
+Ether, and was deprived of his vitality, because he did not need it for the work of
+begetting things. Cronos is Time (the same is said by <i>Heraclit.</i> c. 41, 86, who sees in Rhea the ever flowing motions), and consumes his children,
+just as Time does portions of time. Cronos was bound by Zeus, the unmeasured course
+of time having been bound by the courses of the stars. A second explanation is given
+by <i>Corn.</i> 7, 21, after making (c. 3, 10) vain attempts at etymological interpretations of Cronos
+and Rhea. Cronos (from <span class="trans" title="krainein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κραίνειν</span></span>) stands for the order of nature, putting an end to the all too-violent atmospheric
+currents on earth, by diminishing the vapour-masses (compare the quotation from Chrysippus
+on p. 161, 2), and he is bound by Zeus, to represent that change in nature is limited.
+<i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 8 (who betrays that he is following a Stoic example by quoting Chrysippus’s
+definition of time: <span lang="la">certa dimensio quæ ex cœli conversione colligitur</span>, conf. p. 197, 2), gives another explanation: Before the separation of elements,
+time was not; after the seeds of all things had flowed from heaven down to the earth
+in sufficient quantity, and the elements had come into being, the process came to
+an end, and the different sexes were left to propagate animal life.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35749src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35796">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35796src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">100</a></span> See p. 292, 4, and <i>Sen.</i> Benef. i. 13, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35796src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35801">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35801src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">101</a></span> C. 31, 187.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35801src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35804">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35804src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">102</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> De Is. 44, Schl. p. 367: He is <span class="trans" title="to plēktikon kai diairetikon pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ πληκτικὸν καὶ διαιρετικὸν πνεῦμα</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 8, 1. See above, p. 359, 2, and what <i>Villoisin</i> quotes on Cornutus, p. 366. from Schol. Apollon. Among the natural philosophers,
+i.e. the Stoics, Hercules symbolises strength and intelligence.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35804src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35820">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35820src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">103</a></span> <i>Pers.</i> Sat. v. 63.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35820src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35827">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35827src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">104</a></span> <i>Heraclit.</i> c. 33, p. 67, who, in the introduction, expressly refers to <span class="trans" title="dokimōtatoi Stōïkōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δοκιμώτατοι Στωϊκῶν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35827src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35839">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35839src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">105</a></span> C. 70–75.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35839src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35842">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35842src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">106</a></span> C. 70–73, p. 137.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35842src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35852">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35852src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">107</a></span> Conf. the way in which <i>Heraclitus</i>, 74, 146, expresses himself as to Plato’s and Epicurus’s attacks upon Homer.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35852src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35862">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35862src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">108</a></span> Conf. <i>Wachsmuth’s</i> treatise mentioned above, p. 351, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35862src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35867">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35867src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">109</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 3, 6. He there mentions two books of Chrysippus on divination, which are
+also referred to (as <i>Wachsmuth</i>, p. 12, shows) by <i>Diog.</i> vii. 149; <i>Varro</i> (in <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. i. 6, 9); <i>Phot.</i> Amphiloch. Quæst. (<i>Montfaucon</i>, Bibl. Coisl. p. 347); <i>Philodemus</i>, <span class="trans" title="peri theōn diagōgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς</span></span>, Vol. Herc. vi. 49, col. 7, 33; and from which Cicero has borrowed Divin. i. 38,
+82; ii<span>.</span> 17, 41; 49, 101; 15, 35; 63<span id="xd33e35895">,</span> 130; and perhaps De Fato, 7<span>.</span> Chrysippus also wrote a book<span id="xd33e35900">,</span> <span class="trans" title="peri chrēsmōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ χρησμῶν</span></span> (<i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 19<span id="xd33e35912">,</span> 37; ii. 56, 115; 65, 134; <i>Suid<span>.</span></i> <span class="pageNum" id="pb371n">[<a href="#pb371n">371</a>]</span><span class="trans" title="neottos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νεοττός</span></span>); and one <span class="trans" title="peri oneirōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ὀνείρων</span></span> (<i>Cic.</i> Divin<span>.</span> i. 20, 39; ii. 70, 144; 61, 126; 63, 130; i. 27, 66: <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="timōrountos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τιμωροῦντος</span></span>). In the former, he collected oracular responses; in the latter, prophetic dreams.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35867src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35953">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35953src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">110</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 178, mentions a treatise of Sphærus <span class="trans" title="peri mantikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μαντικῆς</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> (Divin. i. 3, 6; i. 38, 83; ii. 17, 41; 43, 90; 49, 101) mentions a treatise having
+the same title as that of Diogenes of Seleucia, and two books of Antipater <span class="trans" title="peri mantikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μαντικῆς</span></span>, in which many interpretations of dreams were given. The same writer (Divin. i. 3,
+6; 20, 39; 38, 83; 54, 123; ii. 70, 144; 15, 35; 49, 101) mentions a treatise of Posidonius
+<span class="trans" title="peri mantikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μαντικῆς</span></span> in five books, <i>Diog.</i> vii. 149; <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 3, 6; 30, 64; 55, 125; 57, 130; ii. 15, 35; 21, 47; De Fato, 3; <i>Boëth.</i> <span lang="la">De Diis et Præsens</span> (in Orelli’s Cicero, v. 1) p. 395.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35953src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e35993">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e35993src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">111</a></span> Boëthus, in his commentary on Aratus, attempted to determine and explain the indications
+of a storm. <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 8, 14; ii. 21, 47. On Panætius’s objections to <span class="trans" title="mantikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μαντικὴ</span></span> a word will be presently said.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e35993src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36007">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36007src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">112</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 52, 118: <span lang="la">Non placet Stoicis, singulis jecorum fissis aut avium cautibus interesse Deum; neque
+enim decorum est, nec Diis dignum, nec fieri ullo pacto potest.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 58, 132: <span lang="la">Nunc illa testabor, non me sortilegos, neque eos, qui quæstus causa hariolentur, ne
+psychomantia quidem … agnoscere.</span> Similarly in <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 32, 2 (see p. 374, 3), the difference between the Stoic view and the
+ordinary one is stated to be this, that, according to the Stoics, <span lang="la">auguries non quia significatura sunt fiant</span>, but <span lang="la">quia facta sunt significent</span>. In c. 42, it is said to be an absurd belief that Jupiter should hurl bolts which
+as often hit the innocent as the guilty<span id="xd33e36027">,</span> an opinion invented <span lang="la">ad coercendos animos imperitorum.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36007src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36034">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36034src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">113</a></span> Conf. Diogenian, in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. iv. 3, 5: <span class="trans" title="to chreiōdes autēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ χρειῶδες αὐτῆς</span></span> (divination) <span class="trans" title="kai biōpheles, di’ ho kai malista Chrysippos dokei hymnein tēn mantikēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ βιωφελὲς, δι’ ὃ καὶ μάλιστα Χρύσιππος δοκεῖ ὑμνεῖν τὴν μαντικήν</span></span>; and <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 27; God shows his care for the wicked by means of prophecies and by dreams.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36034src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36057">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36057src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">114</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 5, 13, where among the four reasons from which Cleanthes deduced belief
+in Gods, the first is <span lang="la">præsensio rerum futurarum</span>, extraordinary natural phenomena—pestilence, earthquakes, monsters, meteors, &amp;c.,
+being the third. <i>Ibid.</i> 65, 105: The Stoic says of divination: <span lang="la">Mihi videtur vel maxime confirmare, Deorum providentia consuli rebus humanis,</span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 132: If there were no Gods, all the varieties of divination would be unmeaning;
+these are nevertheless universally admitted. <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 6, and the quotations on p. 175, 3, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36057src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36073">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36073src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">115</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 5, 9: <span lang="la">Ego enim sic existimo: si sint ea genera divinandi vera, de quibus accepimus quæque
+colimus, esse Deos, vicissimque si Dii sint, esse qui divinent. Arcem tu quidem Stoicorum,
+inquam, Quinte, defendis.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 38, 82: Stoic proof of divination: <span lang="la">Si sunt Dii neque ante declarant hominibus quæ futura sunt, aut non diligunt homines,
+aut quid eventurum sit ignorant, aut existimant nihil interesse hominum, scire quid
+futurum sit, aut non censent esse suæ majestatis præsignificare hominibus quæ sunt
+futura, aut ea ne ipsi quidem Dii præsignificare possunt. At neque non diligunt nos,
+&amp;c. Non igitur sunt Dii nee significant futura</span> (<span class="trans" title="ouk ara eisi men theoi ou prosēmainousi de"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἄρα εἰσὶ μὲν θεοὶ οὐ προσημαίνουσι δὲ</span></span>—the well-known expression of Chrysippus for <span class="trans" title="ei theoi eisin, ou prosēmainousi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ θεοί εἰσιν, οὐ προσημαίνουσι</span></span>, conf. p. 114, 1); <span lang="la">sunt autem Dii: significant ergo: et non, si significant, nullas vias dant nobis ad
+significationis scientiam, frustra enim significarent: nec, si dant vias, non est
+divinatio. Est igitur divinatio.</span> This proof, says Cicero, was used by Chrysippus, Diogenes, Antipater. <span class="pageNum" id="pb373n">[<a href="#pb373n">373</a>]</span>It may be easily recognised as belonging to Chrysippus. <i>Cic.</i> ii. 17, 41; 49, 101, again reverts to the same proof. Conf. <i>id.</i> i. 46, 104: <span lang="la">Id ipsum est Deos non putare, quæ ab iis significantur, contemnere.</span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 149: <span class="trans" title="kai mēn kai mantikēn hyphestanai pasan phasin, ei kai pronoian einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μὴν καὶ μαντικὴν ὑφεστάναι πᾶσάν φασιν, εἰ καὶ πρόνοιαν εἶναι</span></span>. Some read <span class="trans" title="hē kai pronoian einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ᾗ καὶ πρόνοιαν εἶναι</span></span>, in which case the argument would be reversed, not from providence to divination,
+but from divination to providence.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36073src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36136">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36136src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">116</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Div. i. 55, 125: <span lang="la">Primum mihi videtur, ut Posidonius facit, a Deo … deinde a fato, deinde a natura vis
+omnis divinandi ratioque repetenda.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36136src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36142">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36142src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">117</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 55, 126.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36142src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36146">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36146src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">118</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 57, 129.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36146src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36150">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36150src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">119</a></span> See p. 370, 3; 371, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36150src" title="Return to note 119 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36153">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36153src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">120</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 27, 56 (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="timōrountos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τιμωροῦντος</span></span>), ii. 65, 135 (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="neottos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">νεοττός</span></span>), ii. 70, 144, quoting from Chrysippus; i. 54, 123, quoting from Antipater; i. 30,
+64, De Fat. 3, 5, from Posidonius—gives instances of stories to which the Stoics attached
+great value, whilst their opponents either pronounced the stories to be false, or
+the prophecies to be deceptive, or their fulfilment to be accidental (<i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 19, 37; ii. 11, 27; 56, 115; De Fato, 3, 5).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36153src" title="Return to note 120 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36189">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36189src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">121</a></span> Aristotle, in a somewhat different sense, had explained the marvellous by a reference
+to natural causes, even allowing the existence of presentiments within certain limits.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36189src" title="Return to note 121 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36192">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36192src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">122</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 3, 6, after the passage quoted: <span lang="la">Sed a Stoicis vel princeps ejus disciplinæ Posidonii doctor discipulus Antipatri degeneravit
+Panætius, nec tamen ausus est negate vim esse divinandi, sed dubitare se dixit.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> i. 7, 12; ii. 42, 88; Acad. ii. 33, 107; <i>Diog.</i> vii. 149; <i>Epiphan.</i> Adv. Hær. Cicero appears to have borrowed from Panætius, as Wachsmuth rightly observes,
+this denial of Astrology (Divin. ii. 42–46), and he allows, c. 42, 88; 47, 97, that
+Panætius was the only Stoic who rejected it.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36192src" title="Return to note 122 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36205">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36205src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">123</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 32, 3: <span lang="la">Nimis illum [Deum] otiosum et pusillæ rei ministrum facis, si aliis somnia aliis exta,
+disponit. Ista nihilominus divina ope geruntur. Sed non a Deo pennæ avium reguntur
+nec pecudum viscera sub securi formantur. Alia ratione fatorum series explicatur …
+quicquid fit alicujus rei futuræ signum est … cujus rei ordo est etiam prædictio est,</span> &amp;c. <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 52, 118, after <span class="pageNum" id="pb375n">[<a href="#pb375n">375</a>]</span>the passage quoted, p. 371, 3: <span lang="la">Sed ita a principio inchoatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa præcurrerent,
+alia in extis, alia in avibus,</span> &amp;c. Posidonius, <i>ibid.</i> 55, 125 (see p. 373, 2). Nor was the meaning otherwise, when portents (according
+to <i>Cic.</i> Divin. ii. 15, 33; 69, 142) were based on a <span class="trans" title="sympatheia tēs physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπάθεια τῆς φύσεως</span></span> (on which see p. 183, 2), an opponent not without reason doubting whether it existed,
+for instance, between a rent in the liver of a victim and an advantageous business,
+or between an egg in a dream and treasure trove.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36205src" title="Return to note 123 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36235">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36235src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">124</a></span> As in the passage quoted from Boëthus on p. 371, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36235src" title="Return to note 124 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36238">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36238src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">125</a></span> Conf. p. 374, 2; 379, 1, and <i>Cic.</i> Div. ii. 43, 90, according to whom Diogenes of Seleucia conceded so much to astrology
+as to allow that, from the condition of the stars at birth, it might be known <span lang="la">quali quisque natura et ad quam quisque maxime rem aptus futurus sit.</span> More he would not allow, because twins often differ widely in their course of life
+and destiny.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36238src" title="Return to note 125 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36246">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36246src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">126</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 32, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36246src" title="Return to note 126 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36250">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36250src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">127</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. ii. 15, 35: Chrysippus, Antipater, and Posidonius <span class="pageNum" id="pb376n">[<a href="#pb376n">376</a>]</span>assert: <span lang="la">Ad hostiam deligendam ducem esse vim quandam sentientem atque divinam, quæ tota confusa
+mundo sit,</span> as was explained i. 52, 118.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36250src" title="Return to note 127 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36262">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36262src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">128</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> ii. 15, 35: <span lang="la">Illud vero multum etiam melius, quod … dicitur ab illis</span> (conf. i. 52, 118): <span lang="la">cum immolare quispiam velit, tum fieri extorum mutationem, ut aut absit aliquid, aut
+supersit: Deorum enim numini parere omnia.</span> See p. 374, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36262src" title="Return to note 128 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36272">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36272src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">129</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> i. 53, 120, defends auguries somewhat similarly by arguing: If an animal can move
+its limbs at pleasure, must not God have greater power over His? (his body according
+to them being the whole world).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36272src" title="Return to note 129 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36278">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36278src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">130</a></span> See p. 181.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36278src" title="Return to note 130 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36281">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36281src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">131</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. ii. 8, 20; Diogenian, in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. iv. 3, 5; <i>Alex. Aph.</i> De Fat. 31, p. 96.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36281src" title="Return to note 131 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36289">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36289src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">132</a></span> Upon the use of divination depends the whole argument for its reality, based on the
+divine kindness<span>.</span> <i>Cic.</i> i. 38, 83, and above, p. 372, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36289src" title="Return to note 132 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36296">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36296src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">133</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 37, 2; 38, 2: <span lang="la">Effugiet pericula si expiaverit prædictas divinitus minas. At hoc quoque in fato est,
+ut expiet</span>, &amp;c. This answer probably came from Chrysippus, who, as it appears from <i>Cic.</i> Divin. ii. 63, 130, and <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri theōn diagōgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς</span></span>, Vol<span>.</span> Herc. vi. col. 7, 33, defended the use of expiation. In the above-quoted and more
+general form it is found in Alexander and Eusebius, probably also taken from Chrysippus,
+see p. 181.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36296src" title="Return to note 133 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36323">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36323src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">134</a></span> According to the definition in <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 132, which <i>Cic.</i> Divin. ii. 63, 130, attributes to Chrysippus, it is an <span class="trans" title="epistēmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη</span></span> (<i>Cic.</i> more accurately: a vis = <span class="trans" title="dynamis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δύναμις</span></span>, since besides scientific there is also natural divination), <span class="trans" title="theōrētikē kai exēgētikē tōn hypo theōn anthrōpois didomenōn sēmeiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεωρητικὴ καὶ ἐξηγητικὴ τῶν ὑπὸ θεῶν ἀνθρώποις διδομένων σημείων</span></span>. <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 122 and 238; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. iv. 3, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36323src" title="Return to note 134 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36361">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36361src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">135</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Vit. Hom. 212, p. 1238: [<span class="trans" title="tēs mantikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῆς μαντικῆς</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="to men technikon phasin einai hoi Stōïkoi. hoion hieroskopian kai oiōnous kai to peri phēmas kai klēdonas kai symbola, haper syllēbdēn technika prosēgoreusan; to de atechnon kai adidakton, toutestin enypnia kai enthousiasmous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μὲν τεχνικόν φασιν εἶναι οἱ Στωϊκοί. οἷον ἱεροσκοπίαν καὶ οἰωνοὺς καὶ τὸ περὶ φήμας
+καὶ κληδόνας καὶ σύμβολα, ἅπερ συλλήβδην τεχνικὰ προσηγόρευσαν· τὸ δὲ ἄτεχνον καὶ
+ἀδίδακτον, τουτέστιν ἐνύπνια καὶ ἐνθουσιασμούς</span></span><span>.</span> To the same effect, <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 18, 34; ii. 11, 26.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36361src" title="Return to note 135 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36384">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36384src" title="Return to note 136 in text.">136</a></span> Conf. the fragment quoted in ‘Aristotle and the Peripatetics,’ p. 300, which throws
+light on old and well-known views in the spirit of the Platonic Aristotelian philosophy,
+without, however, defending them.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36384src" title="Return to note 136 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36387">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36387src" title="Return to note 137 in text.">137</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 30, 64; ii. 10, 26: The <span lang="la">naturale genus divinandi</span> is, <span lang="la">quod animos arriperet aut exciperet extrinsecus a divinitate, unde omnes animos haustos
+aut acceptos aut libatos haberemus.</span> <i>Plut.</i> Plac. v. 1; where, however, the words <span class="trans" title="kata theiotēta tēs psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ θειότητα τῆς ψυχῆς</span></span> are only a gloss on the preceding words <span class="trans" title="kata to entheon, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ τὸ ἔνθεον, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Galen.</i> Hist. Phil. p. 320.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36387src" title="Return to note 137 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36418">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36418src" title="Return to note 138 in text.">138</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 50, 115, and <i>Plut.</i> Compare the many Stoic stories of dreams and presentiments in <i>Cic.</i> i. 27, 56; 30, 64; ii. 65, 134; 70, 144.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36418src" title="Return to note 138 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36427">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36427src" title="Return to note 139 in text.">139</a></span> See besides the passages just quoted, <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 49, 110; 50, 113; 51, 115; and in particular i. 57, 129. Hence the prophecies
+of the dying (<i>ibid.</i> 30, 63, according to Posidonius; conf. <i>Arist.</i> l.c<span>.</span>), and the statement (<i>ibid.</i> 53, 121; see p. 380, 1) that true dreams come of innocent sleep.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36427src" title="Return to note 139 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36442">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36442src" title="Return to note 140 in text.">140</a></span> Conf. the quotations on p. 375, 4, from <i>Cic.</i> Divin. ii. 10, 26; 15, 35; and his remarks on the instinct <span lang="la">us afflatusque divinus.</span> <i>Cic.</i> i. 18, 34.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36442src" title="Return to note 140 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36452">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36452src" title="Return to note 141 in text.">141</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 30, 64, Posidonius thought prophetic dreams were realised in one of three
+ways: <span lang="la">uno, quod prævideat animus ipse per sese, quippe qui Deorum cognitione teneatur; altero,
+quod plenus aër sit immortalium animorum, in quibus tanquam insignitæ notæ veritatis
+appareant; tertio, quod ipsi Dii cum dormientibus colloquantur.</span> Of these three modes, not the first only, but also the second, corresponds with the
+Stoic hypotheses. Indeed, in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 122, 238, <span class="trans" title="mantikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μαντικὴ</span></span> is defined = <span class="trans" title="epistēmē theōrētikē sēmeiōn tōn apo theōn ē daimonōn pros anthrōpinon bion synteinontōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη θεωρητικὴ σημείων τῶν ἀπὸ θεῶν ἢ δαιμόνων πρὸς ἀνθρώπινον βίον συντεινόντων</span></span>. Posidonius can only have spoken of Gods in condescension to popular views; as a
+Stoic, he would only know of that connection with the soul of the universe which is
+referred to in the first mode.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36452src" title="Return to note 141 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36478">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36478src" title="Return to note 142 in text.">142</a></span> Amongst such external helps, the Stoic in <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 50, 114; 36, 79, enumerates the impression derived from music, natural
+scenery, mountains, woods, rivers, seas and vapours arising from the earth. But it
+is difficult to understand how, on Stoic principles, he can have attached value to
+oracles (<i>ibid.</i> 18, 34) by lot, or justified them otherwise than in the way mentioned on p. 375,
+4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36478src" title="Return to note 142 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36487">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36487src" title="Return to note 143 in text.">143</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> i. 18, 34; 33, 72.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36487src" title="Return to note 143 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36491">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36491src" title="Return to note 144 in text.">144</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> i. 56, 127.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36491src" title="Return to note 144 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36497">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36497src" title="Return to note 145 in text.">145</a></span> <i>Cicero</i>, ii. 11, 26, enumerates the above-named varieties, after having previously (i. 33)
+treated them separately. Similarly, Ps. <i>Plut.</i> V. Hom. 212. See above, p. 377, 2, <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 238, mentions tentatively, as varieties of <span class="trans" title="mantikē to te oneirokritikon, kai to oiōnoskopikon, kai thytikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μαντικὴ τό τε ὀνειροκριτικὸν, καὶ τὸ οἰωνοσκοπικὸν, καὶ θυτικόν</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 132, says: If there were no Gods, there would be neither <span class="trans" title="mantikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μαντικὴ</span></span> nor <span class="trans" title="theolēptikē, astromantikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεοληπτικὴ, ἀστρομαντικὴ</span></span> nor <span class="trans" title="logikē prorrhēsis di’ oneirōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λογικὴ πρόῤῥησις δι’ ὀνείρων</span></span>. <i>Macrob.</i> Somn. Scip. i. 3, gives a theory of dreams; but in how far it represents the views
+of the Stoics, it is impossible to say. <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. ii. 39, i. 41, clearly distinguishes the discussion of natural omens from
+the doctrines of philosophy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36497src" title="Return to note 145 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36544">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36544src" title="Return to note 146 in text.">146</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> i. 55, 124; 56, 128.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36544src" title="Return to note 146 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36549">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36549src" title="Return to note 147 in text.">147</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> i. 56, 127.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36549src" title="Return to note 147 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36557">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36557src" title="Return to note 148 in text.">148</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> i. 53, 121: <span lang="la">Ut igitur qui se tradet quieti præparato animo cum bonis cogitationibus tunc rebus</span> (for instance, nourishment; conf. c. 29, 60; 51, 115) <span lang="la">ad tranquillitatem accommodatis, certa et vera cernit in somnis; sic castus animus
+purusque vigilantis et ad astrorum et ad avium reliquorumque signorum et ad extorum
+veritatem est paratior.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36557src" title="Return to note 148 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch14" class="div1 last-child chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1626">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XIV.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY AS A WHOLE AND ITS HISTORICAL POSITION.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.a">A. <i>Inner connection of the Stoic system.</i></span>
+Having now investigated the Stoic system in detail, we are in a position to pass a
+definite judgment on the scope of the Stoic philosophy, the import and the relation
+of its various parts, and its historical position. Its peculiar character manifests
+itself before all things in the three points to which attention was drawn at the outset:<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36577src" href="#xd33e36577" title="Go to note 1.">1</a>—its pre-eminently practical tone, the determination of this practical tendency by
+the notions of the good and of virtue, and the use of logic and natural science as
+a scientific basis. Speculative knowledge is not, as we have seen, to the Stoics an
+end in itself, but only a means for producing a right moral attitude; all philosophical
+research stands directly or indirectly in the service of virtue. Both in the earlier
+and in the later days of its existence the Stoic School advocated this principle in
+the most determined and exclusive manner, nor was it even denied by Chrysippus, the
+chief representative of its science and learning.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb382">[<a href="#pb382">382</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.a.1">(1) <i>Ethical side of Stoicism.</i></span>
+If it be then asked what is the right moral attitude, the Stoics reply: action conformable
+to nature and reason—in other words, virtue. Virtue, however, implies two things.
+On the one hand it implies the resignation of the individual to the universe, obedience
+to the universal law; on the other hand it implies the harmony of man with himself,
+the dominion of the higher over the lower nature, of reason over emotion, and the
+rising superior to everything which does not belong to his true nature. Both statements
+may be reconciled, because the law of morality is addressed only to reasonable beings,
+and is the law of their nature, and can only be carried into execution by their own
+exertions. Still, in the Stoic ethics, two currents of thought may be clearly distinguished,
+which from time to time come into actual collision; the one requiring the individual
+to live for the common good and for society, the other impelling him to live for himself
+only, to emancipate himself from all that is not himself, and to console himself with
+the feeling of virtue. The first of these tendencies impels man to seek the society
+of others; the second enables him to dispense with it. From the former spring the
+virtues of justice, sociability, love of man; from the latter, the inner freedom and
+happiness of the virtuous man. The former culminates in citizenship of the world;
+the latter in the self-sufficingness of the wise man. In as far as virtue includes
+everything that can be required of man, happiness depends on it alone; nothing is
+good but virtue, nothing is evil but vice; all that is not <span class="pageNum" id="pb383">[<a href="#pb383">383</a>]</span>connected with the moral nature is indifferent. On the other hand, in as far as virtue
+is based on human nature, it stands on the same footing with all else that is conformable
+with nature. If its own peculiar value cannot be surrendered, no more can it be required
+that we should be indifferent to its conformity to nature, that it should not have
+for us some positive or negative value, or in some way affect our feelings. Therewith
+the doctrine of things indifferent and the wise man’s freedom from emotions begins
+to totter. Lastly, if we look at the way in which virtue exists in man, we arrive
+at different results, according as we look at its essence or its manifestation. Virtue
+consists in acting conformably with reason, and reason is one and undivided; hence
+it appears that virtue forms an undivided unity, and must be possessed whole and entire
+or not at all. From this proposition the contrast of the wise and foolish man, with
+all its bluntness and extravagances, is only a legitimate consequence. Or, again,
+if we look at the conditions upon which, owing to human nature, the acquisition and
+possession of virtue depends, the conviction is inevitable that the wise man as drawn
+by the Stoics never occurs in reality. Hence the conclusion is undeniable that the
+contrast between wise men and fools is more uncertain than it at first appeared to
+be. Thus all the main features of the Stoic ethics may be simply deduced from their
+one fundamental notion, that rational action or virtue is the only good.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.a.2">(2) <i>Scientific side of the Stoic system.</i></span>
+Not only does this view of ethics require a peculiar theory of the world to serve
+as its scientific basis, <span class="pageNum" id="pb384">[<a href="#pb384">384</a>]</span>but it has a reflex action also, influencing alike the tone and the results of theoretic
+enquiry. If the duty of man is declared to consist in bringing his actions into harmony
+with the laws of the universe, it becomes also necessary that he should endeavour
+himself to know the world and its laws. The more his knowledge of the world increases,
+the greater will be the value which he attaches to the forms of scientific procedure.
+If, moreover, man is required to be nothing more than an instrument of the universal
+law, it is only consistent to suppose an absolute regularity of procedure in the universe,
+an unbroken connection of cause and effect, and ultimately to refer everything to
+one highest all-moving cause, and to include everything under one primary substance.
+If in human life the individual has no rights as against the laws of the universe,
+then all that is of individual occurrence in the world is powerless against universal
+necessity. On the other hand, if in the case of man everything turns upon strength
+of will, then likewise in the universe the acting power must be regarded as the highest
+and most exalted. There arises thus that view of the world as a series of forces which
+constitutes one of the most peculiar and thorough-going characteristics of the Stoic
+view of nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36598src" href="#xd33e36598" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> Lastly, if such excessive importance is attached to practical conduct as is done
+by the Stoics, that sensuous view of the world which finds its crudest expression
+in the Stoic Materialism and reliance on the senses,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36601src" href="#xd33e36601" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> will most nearly accord with speculation. <span class="pageNum" id="pb385">[<a href="#pb385">385</a>]</span>At the same time the Materialism of the Stoics is limited and corrected by the conception
+of the universe and of a divine all-penetrating power and reason, just as their appeal
+to the senses is by the demand for the formation of conceptions, and the general application
+of the process of demonstration; the truth of knowledge itself is based on a practical
+postulate, the greater or less certainty of which is measured by the strength of personal
+conviction. If these elements proved too contradictory to be harmonised; if the Materialism
+of the Stoics was at variance with their view of the world as a series of forces;
+if appeals to the senses were obviously in conflict with logical method, it was at
+least thereby clearly established that a practical and not a purely intellectual interest
+lay at the root of their system.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.a.3">(3) <i>Connection of the moral and scientific elements.</i></span>
+This statement must of course not be taken to mean that the Stoics first developed
+their ethical principles independently of their theory of the universe, and afterwards
+brought the two into connection with each other. On the contrary, it was by the peculiar
+connection of theory and practice that Stoicism itself first came into existence.
+The leading thought of Zeno consists in the attempt to vindicate the supremacy of
+virtue by a scientific knowledge of the laws of the world; and he becomes the founder
+of a new School only by bringing to Cynicism those scientific ideas and aims which
+he had learned himself in the School of Polemo, Stilpo, and Diodorus, or otherwise
+gathered from a study of ancient philosophy. <span class="pageNum" id="pb386">[<a href="#pb386">386</a>]</span>These elements are not therefore accidentally brought together in Stoicism, but they
+are co-extensive, and dependent one upon the other. As in the natural science and
+theory of knowledge of the Stoics, the experimental basis on which their system was
+built may be easily seen, so the peculiar development of their ethics supposes all
+those positions respecting the universe and the powers therein at work, which form
+the most important part of their natural science. Only by a scientific treatment of
+this kind was Stoicism at all able to improve upon the imperfection of the Cynic ethics,
+so far at least as it really did so, and to accommodate itself to the wants of human
+nature, so far as to be able to exercise an influence at large. Upon this union of
+ethics and metaphysics that religious attitude of the Stoic system reposes, to which
+it owes in a great measure its historical importance. Thereby it occupies so influential
+a position in an age in which intellectual power was indeed declining, but in which
+the interest for science was keen. But that Stoic physics and metaphysics should have
+adopted this line, and no other; that Zeno and his followers, who draw on former systems
+for their own on the most extensive scale, should have borrowed from these systems
+these and no other positions, and expanded them in this and no other direction; these
+results are, doubtless, ultimately due to their moral attitude. All that bore on the
+subject of ethics, and supported it, they appropriated; all that was opposed thereto
+they rejected. The Stoic system as such owes its rise to <span class="pageNum" id="pb387">[<a href="#pb387">387</a>]</span>a union of ethical and speculative elements, in which both were more definitely determined
+by one another; still the ethical platform is the one on which its formation commences,
+and which primarily determined its course and results.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.b">B. <i>Relation of Stoicism to previous systems.</i><br id="ch14.b.1">(1) <i>Its relation to Socrates and the Cynics.</i></span>
+In order to obtain a more accurate notion of the rise of Stoicism, the premises on
+which it proceeds, and the grounds on which it is based, we must take a glance at
+its relation to preceding systems. The Stoics themselves deduced their philosophical
+pedigree directly from Antisthenes, and indirectly from Socrates.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36623src" href="#xd33e36623" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> Clear as is their connection with both these philosophers, it would nevertheless
+be a mistake to regard their teaching as a revival of Cynicism, still more to regard
+it as a simple following of Socrates. From both it undoubtedly borrowed much. The
+self-sufficiency of virtue, the distinction of things good, evil, and indifferent,
+the ideal picture of the wise man, the whole withdrawal from the outer world within
+the precincts of the mind, and the strength of moral will, are ideas taken from the
+Cynics. In the spirit of Cynicism, too, it explained general <span class="pageNum" id="pb388">[<a href="#pb388">388</a>]</span>ideas as simply names. Not to mention many peculiarities of ethics, the contrasting
+of one God with the many popular Gods, and the allegorical explanation of myths, were
+likewise points borrowed from Cynicism. The identification of virtue with intelligence,
+the belief that virtue was one, and could be imparted by teaching, were at once in
+the spirit of Socrates and also in that of the Cynics. The argument for the existence
+of God based on the subordination of means to ends, the whole view of the world as
+a system of means and ends, and the Stoic theory of Providence, are views peculiarly
+Socratic;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36650src" href="#xd33e36650" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> and the Stoics followed Socrates in ethics by identifying the good and the useful.
+</p>
+<p>And yet the greatness of the interval which separates the Stoics even from the Cynics
+becomes at once apparent on considering the relation of Aristo to the rest of the
+Stoic School. In refusing to meddle with natural or mental science, or even with ethical
+considerations at all, Aristo faithfully reflects the principles of Antisthenes. In
+asserting the unity of virtue to such an extent that all virtues are merged in one,
+he was only repeating similar expressions of Antisthenes. In denying any difference
+in value to things morally indifferent, and in placing the highest morality in this
+indifference, he was, according to the older writers, reasserting a Cynic tenet.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36659src" href="#xd33e36659" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> Conversely in denying these statements, as the great majority of Stoics did, the
+points are indicated in which <span class="pageNum" id="pb389">[<a href="#pb389">389</a>]</span>Stoicism differed from Cynicism.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36664src" href="#xd33e36664" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> In the feeling of moral independence, and in invincible strength of will, the Cynic
+is opposed to the whole world; he needs for virtue no scientific knowledge of the
+world and its laws; he regards nothing external to himself; he allows nothing to influence
+his conduct, and attaches value to nothing; but, in consequence, he remains with his
+virtue confined to himself; virtue makes him independent of men and circumstances,
+but it has neither the will nor the power to interpose effectively in the affairs
+of life, and to infuse therein new moral notions. Stoicism insists upon the self-sufficiency
+of virtue quite as strongly as Cynicism, and will allow quite as little that anything
+except virtue can be a good in the strictest sense of the term. But in Stoicism the
+individual is not nearly so sharply opposed to the outer world as in Cynicism. The
+Stoic is too cultivated; he knows too well that he is a part of the universe to ignore
+the value of an intellectual view of the world, or to neglect the natural conditions
+of moral action, as things of no moment. What he aims at is not only a negation—independence
+from externals—but a positive position—life according to nature; and that life only
+he considers according to nature which is in harmony with the laws of the universe
+as well as with those of human nature. Hence Stoicism is not only <span class="pageNum" id="pb390">[<a href="#pb390">390</a>]</span>far in advance of Cynicism by its intellectual attitude, but its moral philosophy
+also breathes a freer and milder spirit. Let only the principles of the Stoics on
+the necessity and value of scientific knowledge be compared with the sophistical assertions
+of Antisthenes, destructive of all knowledge; or the cultivated logical form of the
+intellectual edifice of the Stoics, with the chaotic condition of Cynic thought; or
+the careful metaphysical and psychological researches and the copious learning of
+the School of Chrysippus, with the Cynics’ contempt for all theory and all learned
+research, and it becomes apparent at once how deep-seated is the difference between
+the two systems, and how little Stoicism as a philosophic system can be deduced from
+Cynicism.
+</p>
+<p>In ethics, too, the difference of the two Schools is also fully apparent. Stoic morality
+recognises, at least conditionally, a positive and negative value in external things
+and circumstances; the Cynic allows to these absolutely no value. The former forbids
+affection contrary to reason, the latter any and every kind of affection.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36676src" href="#xd33e36676" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> The former throws the individual back upon human society, the latter isolates him.
+The former teaches citizenship of the world in a positive sense, requiring all to
+feel themselves one with their fellow-men; the latter in a negative sense, that of
+feeling indifferent to home and family. The former has a pantheistic tone about it,
+due to the lively feeling of the connection between man and the universe, and a definite
+theological stamp owing <span class="pageNum" id="pb391">[<a href="#pb391">391</a>]</span>to its taking a stand by positive religion; the latter has a rationalistic character,
+owing to the enfranchisement of the wise man from the prejudices of popular belief,
+with which it has exclusively to do. In all these respects Stoicism preserves the
+original character of the Socratic philosophy far better than Cynicism, which only
+caricatured them. Still it departs from that character in two respects. In point of
+theory the Stoic doctrine received a systematic form and development such as Socrates
+never contemplated; and in natural science, it cultivated a field avoided by Socrates
+on principle, however much its doctrine of Providence, and its view of nature as a
+system of means subordinated to ends, may remind of Socrates. On the other hand, interest
+in science, although limited to the subject of ethics, is with Socrates far deeper
+and stronger than with the Stoics, the latter pursuing scientific research only as
+a means for solving moral problems. Hence the Socratic theory of a knowledge of conceptions,
+simple though it may sound, contained a fruitful germ of unexpanded speculation, in
+comparison with which all that the Stoics did is fragmentary. The Stoic ethics are
+not only more expanded and more carefully worked out in detail than those of Socrates,
+but they are also more logical in clinging to the principle that virtue alone is an
+unconditional good. There are no concessions to current modes of thought, such as
+Socrates allowed, who practically based his doctrine of morals upon utility. On the
+other hand, the moral science of the Stoics also falls <span class="pageNum" id="pb392">[<a href="#pb392">392</a>]</span>far short of the frankness and cheerfulness of the Socratic view of life. If in many
+respects it toned down the asperities of Cynicism, still it appropriated its leading
+principles far too unreservedly to avoid accepting a great number of its conclusions.
+</p>
+<p>Asking in the next place in how far the Stoics were induced by other influences to
+change and extend the platform of the Socratic philosophy, we have for determining
+the practical side of their system, besides the general tendency of the post-Aristotelian
+<span class="marginnote" id="ch14.b.2">(2) <i>Relation to Megarians and Heraclitus.</i></span> philosophy, the example of Cynicism. Its speculative development, on the other hand,
+is partly connected with the Megarians, partly with Heraclitus; to the Megarians the
+personal connection of Zeno with Stilpo points, to Heraclitus the fact that from him
+the Stoics themselves deduced their views on natural science, which they expanded
+in commentaries on his writings.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36689src" href="#xd33e36689" title="Go to note 9.">9</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>The Megarians.</i></span>
+Probably the Megarian influence must not be rated too high. Zeno may have thence received
+an impulse to that reasoning habit which appears with him in a preference for compressed
+sharp-pointed syllogisms;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36705src" href="#xd33e36705" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> but in post-Aristotelian times, contact <span class="pageNum" id="pb393">[<a href="#pb393">393</a>]</span>with Megarians was no longer wanted for this, and the greatest reasoner among the
+Stoics, Chrysippus, appears not only to have had no personal relations to them, but
+his logic is throughout a simple continuation of that of Aristotle.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Heraclitus.</i></span>
+Far greater, and more generally recognised, is the importance of the influence which
+the views on nature of the philosopher of Ephesus exercised on the Stoics. A system
+which laid such emphasis on the subordination of everything individual to the law
+of the universe, which singled out universal reason from the flux of things as the
+one thing everlastingly and permanently the same—a system in many other ways so nearly
+related to their own, must have strongly commended itself to their notice, and offered
+them many points with which to connect their own. If to us the view that life is dependent
+for its existence on matter is repulsive, it was otherwise to the Stoics; for them
+this very theory possessed special attractions. Hence, with the exception of the threefold
+division of the elements, there is hardly a single point in the Heraclitean theory
+of nature which the Stoics did not appropriate:—fire or ether as the primary element,
+the oneness of this element with universal reason, the law of the universe, destiny,
+God, the flux of things, the gradual change of the primary element into the four elements,
+and of these back to the primary element, the regular alternation of creation and
+conflagration in the world, the oneness and eternity of the universe, the description
+of the soul as fiery breath, the identification of the <span class="pageNum" id="pb394">[<a href="#pb394">394</a>]</span>mind with the demon, the unconditional sovereignty of the universal law over individuals—these
+and many other points in the Stoic system, originally derived from Heraclitus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36722src" href="#xd33e36722" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> prove how greatly this system is indebted to him.
+</p>
+<p>Nor must it be forgotten that there is nothing in Heraclitus analogous to the reasoning
+forms of the Stoics, nor can their ethical views be referred to his few and undeveloped
+hints. With all the importance the Stoics attached to natural science, it is with
+them only subordinate to moral science; and the very fact that it is referred to Heraclitus
+as its author, proves its inferior position, and the want of any independent interest
+in the subject. It is also unmistakeable that even in natural science the Stoics only
+partially follow Heraclitus, and that principles taken from Heraclitus often bear
+an altered meaning when wrought into the Stoic system. Omitting minor points, not
+only is the Stoic doctrine of nature in a formal point of view far more developed,
+and with regard to its extension far more comprehensive, than the corresponding doctrine
+of Heraclitus, but the whole Stoic view of the world is by no means so completely
+identical with his as might be supposed. The flux of things, which the Stoics teach
+equally with Heraclitus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36727src" href="#xd33e36727" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> has not for them that overwhelming importance that it had for him. The <span class="pageNum" id="pb395">[<a href="#pb395">395</a>]</span>matter of which the universe consists may be always going over into new forms, but,
+at the same time, it is for them the permanent material and essence of things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36732src" href="#xd33e36732" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> Individual substances, too, are treated by the Stoics as corporeally permanent.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36735src" href="#xd33e36735" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Moreover, from the material they distinguish the active principle, Reason or deity,
+far more definitely than Heraclitus had done, and the same distinction is carried
+into individual things in the contrast between matter and quality. Thereby it becomes
+possible for them to contrast much more sharply than their predecessor had done the
+reason of the world, and the blindly working power of nature. Heraclitus, it would
+appear, confined his attention to observing nature and describing its elementary meteorological
+processes. But the natural science of the Stoics includes the idea of means working
+for ends. It sees the object in referring the whole arrangement of the world to man,
+and it pursues this line of thought exclusively, neglecting in consequence science
+proper. Hence the idea of sovereign reason or the universal law had not the same meaning
+in the minds of both. Heraclitus sees this reason, primarily and chiefly, in the ordinary
+sequence of natural phenomena, in the regularity of the course by which to each individual
+phenomenon its place in the world, its extent and duration are prescribed—in short,
+in the unchanging coherence of nature. Without excluding this aspect <span class="pageNum" id="pb396">[<a href="#pb396">396</a>]</span>in their proofs of the existence of God and the rule of Providence, the Stoics attach
+the chief importance to the serviceableness of the order of nature. The reason which
+rules the world appears in Heraclitus primarily as a natural power; in the Stoics,
+as intelligence working with a purpose. For Heraclitus Nature is the highest object,
+the object of independent and absolute interest; and hence the infinite Being is no
+more than the power which forms the world. The Stoics regard nature from the platform
+of humanity, as a means for the wellbeing and activity of man. Their deity accordingly
+does not work as a simple power of nature, but essentially as the wisdom which cares
+for the wellbeing of man. The highest conception in the system of Heraclitus is that
+of nature or destiny. Stoicism accepted this conception also, but at the same time
+developed it to the higher idea of Providence.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.b.3">(3) <i>Connection with Aristotle.</i></span>
+Shall we be wrong if we attribute this modification of the Heraclitean theory of nature
+by the Stoics partly to the influence of Socrates’ and Plato’s theory of final causes,
+but in a still greater degree to the influence of the Aristotelian philosophy? To
+Aristotle belongs properly the idea of matter without qualities, no less than the
+distinction between a material and a formal cause. Aristotle applied the idea of purpose
+to natural science far more extensively than any other system had done before; and
+although the mode in which the Stoics expressed this idea has more resemblance to
+the popular theological statements of Socrates and Plato than to <span class="pageNum" id="pb397">[<a href="#pb397">397</a>]</span>Aristotle, still the Stoic conception of a natural power working with a purpose, such
+as is contained in the idea of artificial fire and <span class="trans" title="logoi spermatikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι σπερματικοὶ</span></span>, is essentially Aristotelian. Even many positions which appear to be advanced in
+opposition to Aristotle were yet connected with him. Thus the existence of ether as
+a body distinct from the four elements is denied, and yet in point of fact it is asserted
+under a new name—that of artificial fire. The Peripatetic doctrine of the origin of
+the rational soul is contradicted by the Stoic theory of development, and yet the
+latter is based on a statement in Aristotle to the effect that the germ of the animal
+soul lies in the warm air<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36755src" href="#xd33e36755" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> which surrounds the seed, warm air which Aristotle distinguishes from fire quite
+as carefully as Zeno and Cleanthes distinguished the two kinds of fire. Even the point
+of greatest divergence from Aristotelian teaching—the transformation of the human
+soul and the divine spirit into something corporeal—might yet be connected with Aristotle,
+and, indeed, the Peripatetic School here comes to their assistance. For had not Aristotle
+described the ether as the most divine body, the stars formed out of it as divine
+and happy beings? Had he not brought down the acting and moving forces from a heavenly
+sphere to the region of earth? Had he not, as we have just seen, sought the germ of
+the soul in an ethereal matter? And might not others go a little further and arrive
+at materialistic views? and all the more so, seeing how hard it is to conceive <span class="pageNum" id="pb398">[<a href="#pb398">398</a>]</span>the extra-mundane intelligence of Aristotle, at once as incorporeal, and yet touching
+and encircling the world of matter, and to make personal unity in the human soul accord
+with an origin in a reason coming from above?
+</p>
+<p>The way for Stoicism was more directly paved by the Aristotelian speculations as to
+the origin of notions and conceptions. Here the Stoics did little more than omit (in
+conformity with their principles) what their predecessor had said as to an original
+possession and immediate knowledge of truth. It has been remarked on an earlier occasion
+how closely their formal logic followed that of Aristotle; they contented themselves
+with building on Aristotelian foundations, and even their additions have more reference
+to grammar than to logic. The actual influence of Peripatetic views on those of the
+Stoics appears to have been least in the province of ethics. Here the crudity of the
+Stoic conception of virtue, the entire suppression of emotions, the absolute exclusion
+of everything external from the circle of moral goods, the distinction between the
+wise and the foolish man, the attacks on a purely speculative life, present a sharp
+contrast to the caution and many-sidedness of Aristotle’s moral theory, to his careful
+weighing of current opinions and their practicability, to his recognition of propriety
+in every shape and form, and to the praise which he lavishes on a purely speculative
+life. What the Stoics chiefly owe to Aristotle is the formal treatment of the materials
+and the psychological analysis of individual <span class="pageNum" id="pb399">[<a href="#pb399">399</a>]</span>moral faculties. On the other hand, the province of ethics must be looked to for traces
+of the teaching which Zeno received from Polemo, perhaps even from Xenocrates.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.b.4">(4) <i>Connection with Plato.</i></span>
+The speculative portions of Plato’s teaching could offer no great attractions to practical
+men and materialists like the Stoics, either in their original form or in the form
+which they assumed in the older Academy under Pythagorean influence. On the other
+hand, such points in Platonism as the Socratic habit of making knowledge the foundation
+of virtue, the comparative depreciation of external goods, the disparagement of all
+that is sensual, the elevation and the purity of moral idealism, and, in the older
+Academy, the demand for life according to nature, the doctrine of the self-sufficingness
+of virtue, and the growing tendency to confine philosophy to practical issues—all
+these were questions for a Stoic full of interest. Unfounded as the notion of the
+later Eclectics is,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36776src" href="#xd33e36776" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> that the Stoic and Academician systems of morality were altogether the same, the
+Stoics, nevertheless, appear to have received suggestions from the Academy which they
+carried out in a more determined spirit. Thus the theory of living according to nature
+belongs originally to the Academy, although the Stoics adopted it with a peculiar
+and somewhat different meaning. Besides influencing the moral doctrines of the Stoics,
+the attitude assumed <span class="pageNum" id="pb400">[<a href="#pb400">400</a>]</span>by the older Academy towards positive religion may also have had some influence on
+their orthodoxy; their most prominent representative, Cleanthes, is in his whole philosophic
+character the counterpart of Xenocrates. Although later in its origin than Stoicism,
+the new Academy was not without important influence on that system, through the person
+of Chrysippus, but this influence was at first only of an indirect kind, inasmuch
+as it obliged the Stoics by its logical contradiction to look about for a more logical
+basis for their system, and therewith to attempt a more systematic expansion of their
+teaching.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36781src" href="#xd33e36781" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> Somewhat similar is the effect of Epicureanism, which by its strong opposition in
+the field of ethics imparted decision and accuracy to the Stoic doctrine, and thus
+indirectly helped to form it.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.c">C. <i>The Stoic philosophy as a whole.</i><br id="ch14.c.1">(1) <i>Its historical position.</i></span>
+By the aid of these remarks it now becomes possible to give a satisfactory account
+of the history of Stoicism. Belonging to an age of moral debasement and political
+oppression, its founder, Zeno, conceived the idea of liberating himself and all who
+were able to follow him from its degeneracy and slavery by means of a philosophy which,
+by purity and strength of moral will, would procure independence from all external
+things, and unruffled inward peace. That his endeavours should have taken this practical
+turn, that he should have proposed to himself not knowledge as such, but the moral
+exercise of knowledge as the object to be realised, was in part due to <span class="pageNum" id="pb401">[<a href="#pb401">401</a>]</span>his own personal character, and may be in part referred to the general circumstances
+of the times. On nobler and more serious minds, these circumstances weighed too heavily
+not to call forth opposition and resistance in place of listless contemplation. The
+sway of the Macedonian, and afterwards of the Roman Empire, was far too despotic to
+allow the least prospect of open resistance. Nor must it be overlooked that philosophy
+itself had reached a pass at which satisfactory answers to speculative problems were
+no longer forthcoming; hence attention was naturally directed to questions of morals.
+</p>
+<p>Haunted by this longing for virtue, Zeno must have felt attracted by a system of philosophy
+which had at an earlier period followed a similar course with marked success, viz.
+the system of the Cynics, and what he doubtless identified therewith, the old Socratic
+teaching.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36796src" href="#xd33e36796" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> Anxious to find a positive meaning and scientific basis for virtue, he strove to
+appropriate from every system whatever agreed with the bent of his own mind. By using
+all the labours of his predecessors, and keeping his eye steadily fixed upon the practical
+end of philosophy, he succeeded in forming a new and more comprehensive system, which
+was afterwards completed by Chrysippus. In point of form this system was most indebted
+to the <span class="pageNum" id="pb402">[<a href="#pb402">402</a>]</span>Peripatetic philosophy; in point of matter, next to its debt to the Cynics, which
+has been already mentioned, its chief obligation was to Heraclitus. But the moral
+theory of the Stoics was as little identical with that of the Cynics, as the natural
+science of the Stoics was with that of Heraclitus. If the divergence was, in the first
+instance, due to the influence of the Stoic principles, still the influence of the
+Peripatetic teaching is unmistakeable in the natural and speculative science of the
+Stoics, and the influence of the Academy in their moral science. Stoicism does not,
+therefore, appear simply as a continuation of Cynicism, nor yet as an isolated innovation,
+but, like every other form of thought which marks an epoch, it worked up into itself
+all previous materials, and produced from their combination a new result. In this
+process of assimilation much that was beautiful and full of meaning was omitted; everything
+was absorbed that could be of use in the new career on which the Greek mind was about
+to enter.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch14.c.2">(2) <i>Its onesidedness.</i></span>
+It was the fault of the age that it could no longer come up to the many-sidedness
+of an Aristotle or a Plato. Stoicism, it is true, approximates thereto more nearly
+than any other of the post-Aristotelian systems. But in its practical view of philosophy,
+in its materialistic appeal to the senses, in its theoretical self-sufficiency, setting
+up the wise man as superior to the weaknesses and wants of human nature; in its citizenship
+of the world, throwing political interests into the background; and in so many other
+traits it is the fit exponent of an epoch in which the taste for purely scientific
+research and the delight in <span class="pageNum" id="pb403">[<a href="#pb403">403</a>]</span>ethical speculation were at an end, whilst out of the overthrow of states, and the
+growth of freedom, the idea of humanity was coming to the fore. Stoicism represented
+most powerfully the moral and religious convictions of such an age, yet not without
+onesidedness and exaggeration. By exercise of the will and by rational understanding,
+man is to become free and happy. This aim is, however, pursued so persistently that
+the natural conditions of human existence and the claims of individuality are ignored.
+To man, regarded as the exponent of universal law, as little freedom of will is allowed
+by the Stoic natural science in face of the inexorable course of nature as freedom
+of action is allowed by the Stoic ethics in face of the demands of duty. The universal
+claims of morality are alone acknowledged; the right of the individual to act according
+to his peculiar character, and to develop that character, is almost ignored. The individual,
+as such, dwindles into obscurity, whilst a high place in the world is assigned to
+mankind collectively. The individual is subordinated to the law of the whole; but
+by regarding nature as a system of means and ends, and introducing the belief in Providence
+and Prophecy, the universe is again subordinated to the interests of man—a view against
+which a more careful research has many objections to urge. In both respects Epicureanism
+is in decided contrast to Stoicism, though agreeing with it in the general tone of
+its practical philosophy and in its aim to make man independent of the outer world
+and happy in himself.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb404">[<a href="#pb404">404</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36577">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36577src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> See p. 46.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36577src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36598">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36598src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> See p. 139.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36598src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36601">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36601src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> See p. 132.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36601src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36623">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36623src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> Whether Diogenes, in connecting the Stoics with the Cynics, was following a Stoic
+authority or not (vii.), is a moot point; nevertheless, the view comes to us from
+a time in which the relations of the two must have been well known, and the quotation
+from Posidonius on p. 274, 2, quite accords herewith. Not to mention others, <i>Diog.</i> vi. 14, speaking of Antisthenes, says: <span class="trans" title="dokei de kai tēs andrōdestatēs Stōïkēs katarxai ... houtos hēgēsato kai tēs Diogenous apatheias kai tēs Kratētos enkrateias kai tēs Zēnōnos karterias, autos hypothemenos tē polei ta themelia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀνδρωδεστάτης Στωϊκῆς κατάρξαι … οὗτος ἡγήσατο καὶ τῆς Διογένους
+ἀπαθείας καὶ τῆς Κράτητος ἐγκρατείας καὶ τῆς Ζήνωνος καρτερίας, αὐτὸς ὑποθέμενος τῇ
+πόλει τὰ θεμέλια</span></span>: and <i>Juvenal</i>, xiii. 121, calls the Stoic dogmas a <span lang="la">Cynicis tunica</span> (the common dress in distinction to the <span lang="la">tribon</span>) <span lang="la">distantia</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36623src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36650">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36650src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forschungen</span>, i. 363, and above, p. 145, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36650src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36659">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36659src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> On Aristo see p. 59; 260; 281.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36659src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36664">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36664src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> Aristo cannot, therefore, be considered (as he is by <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 411) the best representative of the original Stoic theory. On the contrary, he only
+represents a reaction of the Cynic element in Stoicism against the other component
+parts of this philosophy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36664src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36676">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36676src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> See p. 290.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36676src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36689">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36689src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> Apart from the testimony of Numenius (in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 10), to which no great value can be attached, the acquaintance of
+Zeno with Heraclitus is established by the fact that not only the ethics, but also
+the natural science of the Stoic School owes its origin to him. See pp. 40, 3; 62,
+2, 3; 126, 2; 141, 2; 144, 4; 145, 1, 2; 146, 4; 148, 2; 151, 1. <i>Diog.</i> mentions treatises of Cleanthes, vii. 174; ix. 15, of Aristo, ix. 5, of Sphærus (vii.
+178; ix. 15) treating of Heraclitus; and <i>Phædrus</i> (Philodem.), Fragm. col. 4, says that Chrysippus explained the old myths after the
+manner of Heraclitus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36689src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36705">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36705src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> Instances have often occurred. See p. 144, 4; 145, 1, 2; 232, 4. Conf. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 83, 9.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36705src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36722">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36722src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> Besides meteorological and other points of natural science, which the Stoics may have
+borrowed from Heraclitus, Heraclitus’ attitude towards the popular faith also belongs
+here.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36722src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36727">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36727src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> See p. 101, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36727src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36732">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36732src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> See p. 100, 4, 5; 101, 2; 140, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36732src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36735">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36735src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> As an illustration of the difference, take Heraclitus’ statement of the daily extinction
+of the sun, which every one must admit would not have been possible in the Stoic School.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36735src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36755">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36755src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <span class="trans" title="pneuma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πνεῦμα</span></span> as with the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36755src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36776">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36776src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> See particularly Antiochus and also Cicero in many passages. See above, p. 39, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36776src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36781">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36781src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> See p. 46, 1, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36781src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36796">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36796src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> The story in <i>Diog.</i> vii. 3 bears out this view, that Zeno was first won for philosophy by Xenophon’s
+Memorabilia, and that on asking who was the representative of this line of thought,
+he was referred to Crates. According to the quotations on pp. 274, 2; 387, 1, the
+Cynics were regarded in the Stoic School as genuine followers of Socrates.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36796src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="pt3" class="div0 part">
+<h2 class="label">PART III.</h2>
+<h2 class="main"><i>THE EPICUREANS.</i></h2>
+<div id="ch15" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1766">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XV.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">EPICURUS AND THE EPICUREAN SCHOOL.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36822src" href="#xd33e36822" title="Go to note 1.">1</a></h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch15.a">A. <i>Epicurus.</i></span>
+Epicurus, the son of the Athenian Neocles,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36831src" href="#xd33e36831" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> was born in Samos<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36851src" href="#xd33e36851" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> in the year 342 or 341 <span class="asc">B.C.</span><a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36871src" href="#xd33e36871" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> His early education appears to have been neglected;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36891src" href="#xd33e36891" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb405">[<a href="#pb405">405</a>]</span>and his knowledge of previous philosophic systems was very superficial, even at the
+time when he first came forward as an independent teacher. Still he can hardly have
+been so entirely self-taught as he wished to appear at a later period in life. The
+names, at least, of the individuals are on record who instructed him in the systems
+of Democritus and Plato;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e36950src" href="#xd33e36950" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> and although it is by no means an ascertained fact that he subsequently attended
+the lectures of Xenocrates,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37000src" href="#xd33e37000" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> on the occasion of a visit to Athens,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37007src" href="#xd33e37007" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> no doubt can be felt that he was <span class="pageNum" id="pb406">[<a href="#pb406">406</a>]</span>acquainted with the writings of previous philosophers, from whom he borrowed important
+parts of his system<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37034src" href="#xd33e37034" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> and more particularly with those of Democritus.
+</p>
+<p>After having been engaged as a teacher in several Schools<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37074src" href="#xd33e37074" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> in Asia Minor, he repaired to Athens about the year 306 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37083src" href="#xd33e37083" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> and there founded a School of his own.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37094src" href="#xd33e37094" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> The meeting-place of this School was the founder’s garden,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37107src" href="#xd33e37107" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> and its centre of attraction was <span class="pageNum" id="pb407">[<a href="#pb407">407</a>]</span>the founder himself, around whom a circle of friends gathered, knit together by a
+common set of principles, by a common affection for a master whom they almost worshipped,
+and by a common enjoyment of cultivated society.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37134src" href="#xd33e37134" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Opponents charged the Epicureans with gross impropriety, because they admitted not
+only women,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37137src" href="#xd33e37137" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> but women of loose morality,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37147src" href="#xd33e37147" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> to this circle of philosophic culture; but in the then state of Greek society, such
+conduct does not appear extraordinary. Here Epicurus laboured for six and thirty years,
+during which he succeeded in impressing a stamp on his School which is now seen definite
+and unchanged after the lapse of centuries. In the year 270 <span class="asc">B.C.</span><a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37188src" href="#xd33e37188" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> he succumbed to disease, the pains and troubles of which he bore with great fortitude.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37196src" href="#xd33e37196" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> Out of the multitude of his writings<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37208src" href="#xd33e37208" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> only a few have <span class="pageNum" id="pb408">[<a href="#pb408">408</a>]</span>come down to us, and these are for the most part unimportant ones.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37223src" href="#xd33e37223" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> On the whole, these fragments<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37251src" href="#xd33e37251" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> bear out the unfavourable opinions which opponents have expressed with regard to
+his style.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37260src" href="#xd33e37260" title="Go to note 22.">22</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch15.b">B. <i>Scholars of Epicurus.</i></span>
+Among the numerous scholars of Epicurus<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37290src" href="#xd33e37290" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> the best known are Metrodorus<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37309src" href="#xd33e37309" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> and Polyænus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37364src" href="#xd33e37364" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> both of <span class="pageNum" id="pb409">[<a href="#pb409">409</a>]</span>whom died before their master; Hermarchus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37416src" href="#xd33e37416" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> upon whom the presidency of the School devolved after the death of Epicurus;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37449src" href="#xd33e37449" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> and Colotes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37454src" href="#xd33e37454" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> against whom Plutarch, four hundred years later, wrote a treatise. Many others are
+also known, at least by name.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37465src" href="#xd33e37465" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> The <span class="pageNum" id="pb410">[<a href="#pb410">410</a>]</span>garden which Epicurus in his will left to the School<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37604src" href="#xd33e37604" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> continued after his death to be the external rallying-point for his followers. Hermarchus
+was succeeded by Polystratus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37613src" href="#xd33e37613" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> with whom Hippoclides is also mentioned<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37626src" href="#xd33e37626" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> as joint-president. Hermarchus and Hippoclides were succeeded by Dionysius, and Dionysius
+again by Basilides.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37656src" href="#xd33e37656" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> Protarchus of Bargylium,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37668src" href="#xd33e37668" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb411">[<a href="#pb411">411</a>]</span>and his pupil, Demetrius the Laconian,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37680src" href="#xd33e37680" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> appear to belong to the second century before Christ; but the time in which these
+philosophers flourished cannot be established with certainty; and the same remark
+applies to several others whose names are on record.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37705src" href="#xd33e37705" title="Go to note 36.">36</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch15.c">C. <i>Epicureans of the Roman period.</i></span>
+Before the middle of the second century <span class="asc">B.C.</span> Epicureanism is said to have obtained a footing in Rome.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37726src" href="#xd33e37726" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> It is certain that it existed there not long afterwards. C. Amafinius is mentioned
+as the first who paved the way for the spread of Epicurean doctrines by discussing
+them in Latin;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37755src" href="#xd33e37755" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> and it is stated <span class="pageNum" id="pb412">[<a href="#pb412">412</a>]</span>that these doctrines soon found many supporters, attracted partly by their merits,
+but more often by the simplicity and the ease with which they could be understood.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37785src" href="#xd33e37785" title="Go to note 39.">39</a>
+</p>
+<p>Towards the close of the second century Apollodorus, one of the most voluminous writers
+on philosophy, taught at Athens.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37796src" href="#xd33e37796" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> His pupil, Zeno of Sidon, the most important among the Epicureans of that age, laboured
+for a long time successfully, both orally and in writing.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37809src" href="#xd33e37809" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> About the same time Phædrus is <span class="pageNum" id="pb413">[<a href="#pb413">413</a>]</span>heard of in Rome and Athens,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37897src" href="#xd33e37897" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> and at a little later period Philodemus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37942src" href="#xd33e37942" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> and Syro or Sciro in <span class="pageNum" id="pb414">[<a href="#pb414">414</a>]</span>Rome,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37973src" href="#xd33e37973" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> and Patro,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37990src" href="#xd33e37990" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> the successor of Phædrus, in Athens. The number of Epicureans at Rome, known to us
+chiefly from Cicero’s writings,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e37994src" href="#xd33e37994" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> is not small. No one of <span class="pageNum" id="pb415">[<a href="#pb415">415</a>]</span>them has obtained a higher repute than T. Lucretius Carus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38077src" href="#xd33e38077" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> His poem, carefully reproducing the Epicurean notions on natural science, is one
+of the most valuable sources for the knowledge of their system. Contemporary with
+Lucretius was the celebrated physician Asclepiades of Bithynia,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38100src" href="#xd33e38100" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> who resided at Rome, but to judge by the views on nature attributed to him, he was
+no genuine Epicurean, although connected with the Epicurean School.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38107src" href="#xd33e38107" title="Go to note 49.">49</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb416">[<a href="#pb416">416</a>]</span></p>
+<p>In the following century several supporters of the practical philosophy of the Epicureans
+are known to us,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38175src" href="#xd33e38175" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> but no one apparently approaching Zeno or <span class="pageNum" id="pb417">[<a href="#pb417">417</a>]</span>Phædrus in scientific importance. Rehabilitated under the Antonines by the establishment
+of a public chair in Athens, the Epicurean School outlived most other systems, and
+continued to exist as late as the fourth century after Christ.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38216src" href="#xd33e38216" title="Go to note 51.">51</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb418">[<a href="#pb418">418</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36822">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36822src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Consult, on this subject, the valuable treatise of <i>Steinhart</i>, in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, sect. i. vol. 35, pp. 459–477.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36822src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36831">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36831src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> x. i. He is frequently mentioned as an Athenian, belonging to the <span class="trans" title="dēmos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δῆμος</span></span> Gargettos. <i>Diog.</i> l.c.; <i>Lucret.</i> Nat. Rer. vi. 1; <i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. xv. 16; <i>Ælian</i>, V.&nbsp;H. iv. 13.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36831src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36851">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36851src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> i.; <i>Strabo</i>, xiv. 1, 18, p. 638. According to these authorities, and <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 26, 72, his father had gone thither as a <span class="trans" title="klērouchos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κληροῦχος</span></span>. That this happened before his birth has been demonstrated by <i>Steinhart</i>, p. 461.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36851src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36871">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36871src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> Apollodorus (in <i>Diog.</i> x. 14) mentions 7 Gamelion, Ol. 109, 3, as the birthday of Epicurus. It was observed
+(Epicurus’ will, <i>Diog.</i> 18) <span class="trans" title="tē protera dekatē tou Gamēliōnos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῇ προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος</span></span>. Gamelion being the seventh month of the Attic year, the time of his birth must have
+been either early in 341 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, or the last days of 342 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36871src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36891">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36891src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> His father, according to Strabo, was a schoolmaster, and Epicurus had assisted him
+in teaching (Hermippus and Timon, in <i>Diog.</i> 2; <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 588, a). His mother is said to have earned money by repeating charms (<span class="trans" title="katharmoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθαρμοί</span></span>), and Epicurus to have assisted in this occupation (<i>Diog.</i> 4). Although the latter statement evidently comes from some hostile authority, it
+would seem that his circumstances in early <span class="pageNum" id="pb405n">[<a href="#pb405n">405</a>]</span>life were not favourable to a thoroughly scientific education. His language in disparagement
+of culture would lead us to the same conclusion, even were the express testimony of
+<i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 1 wanting: <span class="trans" title="en pollois gar amathēs Epikouros elenchetai, oude en tais koinais homiliais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν πολλοῖς γὰρ ἀμαθὴς Ἐπίκουρος ἐλέγχεται, οὐδὲ ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ὁμιλίαις</span></span> (in common expressions, conf. the censure passed on him by Dionysius of Halicarnassus
+and Aristophanes in <i>Diog.</i> 4, 13) <span class="trans" title="kathareuōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθαρεύων</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 7, 26: <span lang="la">Vellem equidem, aut ipse doctrinis fuisset instructor—est enim … non satis politus
+in artibus, quas qui tenent eruditi appellantur—aut ne deterruisset alios a studiis.</span> <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 588, a: <span class="trans" title="enkykliou paideias amyētos ōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας ἀμύητος ὤν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36891src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e36950">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e36950src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> According to his own statement (<i>Diog.</i> 2), he was not more than fourteen (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Epik"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπικ</span></span>. has twelve) years of age when he began to philosophise, i.e. to think about philosophical
+subjects; probably about chaos, following the suggestion of Hesiod’s verses. He subsequently
+boasted that he had made himself what he was without a teacher, and refused to own
+his obligations to those shown to be his teachers. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 26, 72; 33, 93; <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 2, who mentions his disparagement of Nausiphanes; <i>Diog.</i> 8, 13; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. V. 18, 4; conf. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 52, 3. It is, however, established that in his youth he enjoyed the instruction
+of Pamphilus and of that Nausiphanes, who is sometimes called a follower of Democritus,
+sometimes of Pyrrho (<i>Cic.</i>; <i>Sext.</i>; <i>Diog.</i> x. 8; 13; 14; ix. 64; 69; Proœm. 15; <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Epik"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπικ</span></span>.; <i>Clem.</i> Strom. i. 301, <span class="asc">D</span>). The names of two other supposed instructors are also mentioned, Nausicydes and
+Praxiphanes (<i>Diog.</i> Proœm. 15; x. 13), but they almost seem to be corruptions for Pamphilus and Nausiphanes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e36950src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37000">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37000src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> l.c., he denied the fact. Others, however, asserted it, and, among them, Demetrius
+of Magnesia. <i>Diog.</i> 13.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37000src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37007">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37007src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> Whither he came, in his <span class="pageNum" id="pb406n">[<a href="#pb406n">406</a>]</span>eighteenth year, according to Heraclides Lembus, in <i>Diog.</i> 1. Conf. <i>Strabo</i>, l.c.: <span class="trans" title="traphēnai phasin enthade"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τραφῆναί φασιν ἐνθάδε</span></span> (in Samos) <span class="trans" title="kai en Teō kai ephēbeusai Athēnēsi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἐν Τέῳ καὶ ἐφηβεῦσαι Ἀθήνῃσι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37007src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37034">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37034src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> According to Hermippus (<i>Diog.</i> 2) Democritus first gave him the impulse to pursue philosophy; but this is only a
+conjecture. Besides Democritus, Aristippus is also mentioned as a philosopher whose
+doctrines he followed (<i>Diog.</i> 4). Epicurus is even said to have expressed a disparaging opinion of Democritus (<i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 33, 93; <i>Diog.</i> 8). Nor is this denied by Diog. 9: but it probably refers to particular points only,
+or it may have reference to the attitude of later Epicureans, such as Colotes (<i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 3, 3, p. 1108). <i>Plut.</i> l.c., says, not only that Epicurus for a long time called himself a follower of Democritus,
+but he also quotes passages from Leonteus and Metrodorus, attesting Epicurus’ respect
+for Democritus. <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span>, Vol. Herc. v. 2, col. 20, seems to refer to expressions of Epicurus which excuse
+certain mistakes of Democritus. <i>Lucret.</i> iii. 370, v. 620, also speaks of Democritus with great respect; and <i>Philodem.</i> De Mus. Vol. Herc. i. col. 36, calls him <span class="trans" title="anēr ou physiologōtatos monon tōn archaiōn alla kai tōn historoumenōn oudenos hētton polypragmōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνὴρ οὐ φυσιολογώτατος μόνον τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἱστορουμένων οὐδενὸς ἧττον πολυπράγμων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37034src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37074">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37074src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 1, 15 mentions Colophon, Mytilene, and Lampsacus. <i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589, also affirms that Epicurus resided for some time at Lampsacus,
+and there made the acquaintance of Idomeneus and Leonteus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37074src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37083">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37083src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Diog<span>.</span></i> 2, on the authority of Heraclides and Sotion. According to him, Epicurus returned
+to Athens in the archonship of Anaxicrates, 307–6 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> In that case the numbers must be slightly reduced in the statement (<i>Diog.</i> 15) that he came to Mytilene when 32, and taught there and in Lampsacus for five
+years.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37083src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37094">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37094src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> Not immediately, however, since <i>Diog.</i> 2 says, on the authority of Heraclides: <span class="trans" title="mechri men tinos kat’ epimixian tois allois philosophein, epeit’ idia pōs tēn ap’ autou klētheisan hairesin systēsasthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μέχρι μέν τινος κατ’ ἐπιμιξίαν τοῖς ἄλλοις φιλοσοφεῖν, ἔπειτ’ ἰδίᾳ πως τὴν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
+κληθεῖσαν αἵρεσιν συστήσασθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37094src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37107">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37107src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> On this celebrated garden, <span class="pageNum" id="pb407n">[<a href="#pb407n">407</a>]</span>after which the Epicureans were called <span class="trans" title="hoi apo tōn kēpōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν κήπων</span></span>, see <i>Diog.</i> 10, 17; <i>Plin.</i> H.&nbsp;N. xix. 4, 51; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 20, 65; v. 1, 3; Ad Fam. xiii. 1; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 21, 10; <i>Steinhart</i>, p. 462, 45; 463, 72. Epicurus had purchased it for 80 minæ.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37107src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37134">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37134src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> This subject will be discussed at a later period.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37134src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37137">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37137src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> Such as Themista or Themisto, the wife of Leonteus (<i>Diog.</i> 5; 25; 26; <i>Clem.</i> Strom. iv. 522, <span class="asc">D</span>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37137src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37147">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37147src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 4; 6; 7; <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteor. p. 92, Balfor.; <i>Plut<span>.</span></i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 4, 8; 16, 1 and 6; Lat. Viv. 4, 2. The best-known among these <span class="trans" title="hetairai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑταῖραι</span></span> is Leontion, who lived with Metrodorus, a pupil of Epicurus (<i>Diog.</i> 6; 23), and wrote with spirit against Theophrastus (<i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 33, 93; <i>Plut.</i> Hist. Nat. Præf. 29). Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 5; <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span>, Vol. Herc. v. 2, Fr. 9. <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 593, b, tells a fine story of self-sacrifice of her daughter Danaë.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37147src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37188">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37188src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> Ol. 127, 2, in the archonship of Pytharatus, and in his seventy-second year. <i>Diog.</i> 15; <i>Cic.</i> De Fat. 9, 19.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37188src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37196">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37196src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 15; 22; <i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. vii. 26; Fin. ii. 30, 96; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 47; 92, 25. That he put an end to his own life (<i>Baumhauer</i>, Vet. Philo. Doct. De Mort. Volunt. 322), Hermippus (<i>Diog.</i> 15) by no means implies.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37196src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37208">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37208src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> According to <i>Diog<span>.</span></i> Pro. 16, x. 26, he was, next to Chrysippus, the most voluminous writer of the ancient
+philosophers, his writings filling 300 <span class="pageNum" id="pb408n">[<a href="#pb408n">408</a>]</span>rolls. The titles of his most esteemed works are given by <i>Diog.</i> 27. Conf. <i>Fabric.</i> Bibl. Gr. iii. 595, Harl.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37208src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37223">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37223src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> Three epistles in <i>Diog.</i> 35; 84; 122; and the <span class="trans" title="kyriai doxai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κύριαι δόξαι</span></span>, an epitome of his ethics, mentioned by <i>Cic.</i> N. D<span>.</span> i. 30, 85, and 139. Of his 37 books <span class="trans" title="peri physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ φύσεως</span></span>, fragments of books 2 and 11 have been edited (Vol. Hercul. ii<span>.</span>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37223src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37251">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37251src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> Fragments in <i>Diog.</i> 5; 7. Besides the testament and the letter to Idomeneus (<i>Diog<span>.</span></i> 16–22), many individual expressions of Epicurus have been preserved by Seneca.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37251src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37260">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37260src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> Aristophanes (in <i>Diog.</i> 13) calls his style <span class="trans" title="idiōtikōtatē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰδιωτικωτάτη</span></span>. <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteor. p<span>.</span> 91, complains of his awkward and barbarous expressions, instancing: <span class="trans" title="sarkos eustathē katastēmata; ta peri tautēs pista elpismata; lipasma ophthalmōn; hiera anakraugasmata; gargalismous sōmatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σαρκὸς εὐσταθῆ καταστήματα· τὰ περὶ ταύτης πιστὰ ἐλπίσματα· λιπάσμα ὀφθαλμῶν· ἱερὰ
+ἀνακραυγάσματα· γαργαλισμοὺς σώματος</span></span>. In this respect, Chrysippus may be compared with him. See above, p. 48, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37260src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37290">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37290src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> See <i>Fabric.</i> Bibl. Gr. iii. 598, Harl. They were, no doubt, very numerous. <i>Diog.</i> x. 9, probably exaggerates their number in saying the friends of Epicurus would fill
+towns. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 20, 65, speaks of <span lang="la">magni greges amicorum.</span> <i>Plut.</i> Lat. Viv. 3, 1<span id="xd33e37304">,</span> also mentions his friends in Asia and Egypt. In Greece, however, on his own testimony,
+and that of Metrodorus (<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 79, 15), they attracted little notice.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37290src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37309">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37309src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> A native of Lampsacus (<i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589), and, next to Epicurus, the most celebrated teacher of the
+School. <i>Cicero</i>, Fin. ii. 28, 92, calls him pæne alter Epicurus, and states (Fin. ii. 3, 7) that
+Epicurus gave him the name of a wise man (<i>Diog.</i> 18; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 52, 3). Further particulars respecting him and his writings in <i>Diog.</i> x. 6; 18; 21–24; <i>Philodem.</i> De Vitiis, ix. (Vol. Herc. iii<span>.</span>), col. 12; 21; 27; <i>Athen.</i> vii. 279; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 7, 1; 12, 2; 16, 6 and 9; Adv. Col. 33, 2 and 6; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 98, 9; 99, 25. Fragments of the letters are to be found in Plutarch, Seneca,
+and Philodemus. Whether the fragments of a treatise <span class="trans" title="peri aisthētōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ αἰσθητῶν</span></span> in vol. vi. of Vol. Hercul. belong to him, is very uncertain. According to <i>Diog.</i> 23, he died seven years before Epicurus, in his fifty-third year, and must therefore
+have been born 330 or 329 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> For the education of his children probably by Leontion, whom <i>Diog.</i> 23 calls <span class="trans" title="pallakē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παλλακὴ</span></span>, and <i>Sen.</i> Fr. 45 in <i>Hieron.</i> Adv. Jovin. i. 191 calls his wife, provision is made by Epicurus in his will (<i>Diog.</i> 19, 21).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37309src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37364">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37364src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> Son of Athenodorus, likewise <span class="pageNum" id="pb409n">[<a href="#pb409n">409</a>]</span>a native of Lampsacus (<i>Diog.</i> 24), a capital mathematician, according to <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 33, 106; Fin. i. 6, 20. <i>Diog.</i> l.c. calls him <span class="trans" title="epieikēs kai philēkoos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιεικὴς καὶ φιλήκοος</span></span>; Metrodorus, in <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span> (Vol. Herc. v. a), col. 6, <span class="trans" title="apophthegmatias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποφθεγματίας</span></span>. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 6, 6, calls him, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus, <span lang="la">viros magnos</span>. <i>Philodemus</i> (vol. v. b), Fr. 49. praises his frankness towards his teacher. A son of his is also
+mentioned in Epicurus’ will (<i>Diog.</i> 19), whose mother would appear to have been a courtesan, according to <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37364src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37416">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37416src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> This individual’s name, formerly written Hermachus, appears as Hermarchus in the modern
+editions of Diogenes, Cicero, and Seneca. The latter form is now established beyond
+doubt by the Herculanean fragments from <i>Philodemus</i> (<span class="trans" title="peri theōn diagōgēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς</span></span>, vol. vi. col. 13, 20; De Vitiis, ix. vol. iii<span>.</span> col. 25, 1), and the inscription on a monument to him (Antiquitat. Hercul. V. 17).
+His birthplace was Mytilene, Agemarchus being his father. (<i>Diog.</i> 17, 15, 24.) <i>Diog.</i> 24 gives a list of his books. Epicurus (<i>Diog.</i> 20) describes him as one of his oldest and most faithful friends, in the words: <span class="trans" title="meta tou synkatagegērakotos hēmin en philosophia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μετὰ τοῦ συγκαταγεγηρακότος ἡμῖν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ</span></span>. On his character, see <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 6, 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37416src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37449">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37449src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> According to what is stated in the testament of Epicurus. <i>Diog.</i> 16.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37449src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37454">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37454src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> Colotes, a native of Lampsacus. <i>Diog.</i> 25. Further particulars about him may be obtained from <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 17, 5; 1, 1; N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 1, 1; <i>Macrob.</i> Somn<span>.</span> Scip. i. 2. Vol. Hercul. iv. Introd. in Polystr. p. iii.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37454src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37465">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37465src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> In particular, Neocles, Chairedemus, and Aristobulus, the brothers of Epicurus (<i>Diog.</i> 3, 28; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 5, 3; where <span class="trans" title="Agathoboulos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀγαθόβουλος</span></span> is evidently a copyist’s error; 16, 3; De Lat. Viv. 3, 2); Idomeneus, a native of
+Lampsacus (<i>Diog.</i> 25; 22; 23; 5; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 18, 3; <i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589; <i>Athen.</i> vii. 279; <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span>. Fr. 72, Vol. Herc. v. 2; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 21, 3 and 7; 22, 5; <i>Phot.</i> Lex.; and <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Pythia kai Dēlia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πύθια καὶ Δήλια</span></span>), from whose historical writings many fragments are quoted by <i>Müller</i>, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 489; Leonteus, likewise a native of Lampsacus (<i>Diog.</i> 5; 25; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 3, 3; <i>Strabo</i>, l.c.); Herodotus (<i>Diog.</i> 4 and 34); Pythocles (<i>Diog.</i> 5 and 83; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 12, 1<span id="xd33e37528">;</span> Adv. Col. 29, 2; <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span>, Fr. 6); Apelles (<i>Plut.</i> N. P<span>.</span> Suav. Vivi, 12, 1); Menœceus (<i>Diog.</i> 121); Nicanor (<i>Diog.</i> 20); Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, who afterwards fell out with Epicurus
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb410n">[<a href="#pb410n">410</a>]</span>(<i>Diog.</i> 4 and 6; 23 and 28; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 33, 93: <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Adv. Col. 32, 7; Comment. in <i>Hesiod.</i> Fr. 7, 1; <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span>, Vol. Herc. v. a, col<span>.</span> 20). This Timocrates must not be confounded with the Athenian Timocrates, whom Epicurus
+appointed his heir, jointly with Amynomachus (<i>Diog.</i> 16; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 31, 101). The two last named were probably pupils of Epicurus. Other pupils
+were: Mithras, a Syrian, an official under Lysimachus (<i>Diog.</i> 4 and 28; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 33, 2; N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Viv. 15, 5); Mys, a slave of Epicurus, on whom he bestowed
+liberty (<i>Diog.</i> 21; 3; 10; <i>Gell.</i> ii. 18, 8; <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. i. 11; the ladies mentioned on p. 407, 2, 3; likewise Anaxarchus, to whom Epicurus
+addressed a letter, and Timarchus, to whom Metrodorus addressed one (<i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 17, 3); Hegesianax, who died early (<i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 20, 5); the poet Menander, whose wondrous epigram on Epicurus is
+to be found in the anthology; and probably Dionysius <span class="trans" title="ho metathemenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ μεταθέμενος</span></span>. (See above, p. 44, 1.)&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37465src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37604">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37604src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 16. In Cicero’s time, the plot of ground, together with the tenement standing thereupon,
+and at that time in ruins (<span lang="la">parietinæ</span>), was in the hands of C. Memmius, a distinguished Roman, to whom Cicero wrote (Ad
+Fam. xiii. 1), conf. Ad Att. v. 11, begging him to restore it to the School. Whether
+he was successful is not known from <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 21, 10.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37604src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37613">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37613src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 25. does not say that Polystratus was a personal disciple of Epicurus, but it seems
+probable. Fragments of a treatise of his <span class="trans" title="peri alogou kataphronēseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ἀλόγου καταφρονήσεως</span></span> in the fourth volume of Vol. Hercul.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37613src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37626">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37626src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> According to <i>Valer. Max.</i> i. 8, ext. 17, both these individuals were born on the same day, and passed their
+whole lives together with a common purse. Lysias, according to the older text of <i>Diog.</i> x. 25, was a cotemporary, at whose house Hermarchus died, as <i>Fabric.</i> Bibl. Gr. iii. 606 believes, and who is styled in <i>Athen.</i> v. 215, b, tyrant of Tarsus, <i>Cobet</i>, however, reads <span class="trans" title="paralysei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παραλύσει</span></span> instead of <span class="trans" title="para Lysia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρὰ Λυσίᾳ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37626src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37656">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37656src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 25. The Dionysius referred to can hardly be Dionysius <span class="trans" title="ho metathemenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ μεταθέμενος</span></span> (see p. 44, 1), or Diogenes would have said so. Besides the chronology forbids such
+an assumption.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37656src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37668">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37668src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Strabo</i>, xiv. 2, 20, p. 658. <span class="pageNum" id="pb411n">[<a href="#pb411n">411</a>]</span>He is probably the Protarchus whose sayings are quoted by <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 78, a; <i>Themist.</i> Phys. 27, a.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37668src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37680">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37680src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> According to <i>Strabo</i>, l.c., <i>Diog.</i> 26, <i>Sext.</i> Empir. Pyrrh. iii. 137, Math. viii. 348, x. 219, <i>Erotian</i>, Lex. Hippocr. <span class="trans" title="Klangōdē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κλαγγώδη</span></span>, Demetrius was one of the most distinguished Epicureans. Whether a treatise on mathematics,
+illegible fragments of which are found in <span class="corr" id="xd33e37699" title="Source: Herculanum">Herculaneum</span> (Vol. Herc. iv. Introd. in Polystr. iii. 2), is his, or belongs to another Demetrius
+mentioned by <i>Strabo</i>, xii. 3, 16, page 548, it is impossible to say.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37680src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37705">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37705src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> Both the Ptolemies of Alexandria (<i>Diog.</i> 25); Diogenes of Tarsus (<i>Diog.</i> vi. 81; x. 26; 97; 118; 136; 138); Orion (<i>Diog.</i> 26); Timagoras (<i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 25, 80); and also Metrodorus of Stratonice, who went over from Epicurus
+to Carneades (<i>Diog.</i> 9)—a very rare thing for an Epicurean to do—may be named among his pupils.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37705src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37726">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37726src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> According to <i>Athen.</i> xii. 547, a, <i>Ælian</i>, V.&nbsp;H. ix. 12, two Epicureans, Alcius and Philiscus, were banished from Rome, in
+the consulate of L. Postumius (173 or 155 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>; see <i>Clinton’s</i> Fasti), because of their evil influence on youth. Although the story is obviously
+taken from a hostile authority and in <i>Suid.</i> (<span class="trans" title="Epikouros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπίκουρος</span></span>, vol. i. b, 419 Bern<span>.</span>), it is told with such exaggerations as to inspire grave mistrust, it can hardly
+be altogether without some foundation. <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. V. 19, 4, says, that in some cities severe laws were passed against the
+Epicureans, and just at that time there was a strong feeling in Rome against innovations,
+witness the well-known enquiry into the Bacchanalia instituted 186 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37726src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37755">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37755src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 3, 6, Amafinius seems to have come forward not long after the philosophic
+embassy of 156 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>; nor is this at variance with <i>Lucr.</i> v. 336, who claims <span lang="la">primus cum primis</span> <span class="pageNum" id="pb412n">[<a href="#pb412n">412</a>]</span>to have set forth the Epicurean teaching in Latin. His works made a great impression
+at the time, according to <i>Cic.</i> l.c. (<span lang="la">cujus libris editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eam potissimum disciplinam</span>). According to Acad. i. 2, 5, he pursued natural science, carefully following the
+views of Epicurus. Cicero then complains of him and Rabirius, we know not which one
+is meant, nor whether he was an Epicurean, <span lang="la">qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vulgari sermone disputant: nihil
+definiunt, nihil partiuntur,</span> &amp;c. Conf. Tusc. ii. 3, 7. Cassius, too (<i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. xv. 12), calls him and Catius (see p. 414, 3) <span lang="la">mali verborum interpretes.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37755src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37785">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37785src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 3, 7: <span lang="la">Post Amafinium autem multi ejusdem æmuli rationis multa cum scripsissent, Italiam
+totam occupaverunt, quodque maxumum argumentum est non dici illa subtiliter, quod
+et tam facile ediscantur et ab indoctis probentur, id illi firmamentum esse discipliæ
+putant.</span> Conf. in Fin. i. 7, 25, the question: <span lang="la">Cur tam multi sint Epicurei?</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37785src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37796">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37796src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> Surnamed <span class="trans" title="ho kēpotyrannos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ κηποτύραννος</span></span>, the writer of more than 400 books. <i>Diog.</i> 25; 2; 13; vii. 181.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37796src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37809">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37809src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> vii. 35, x. 25, and Procl. in <i>Euclid.</i> 55, says that Zeno was a native of Sidon, and a pupil of Apollodorus; nor can these
+statements be referred to an older Zeno, as some previous writers maintained, believing
+Apollodorus to be called in error a pupil of Epicurus by <i>Diog.</i> x. 25, instead of to the one mentioned by Cicero. For no trace of such a one exists;
+and Diogenes vii. 35 would then have passed over the teacher of Cicero without notice,
+although the latter cannot possibly have been unknown to him. According to <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 12, 46, Zeno attended the lectures of Carneades and admired them; and since
+Carneades died not later than 129 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, Zeno cannot have been born much later than 150 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> If, therefore, Zeno was really the successor of Apollodorus, the latter must be placed
+entirely in the second <span class="pageNum" id="pb413n">[<a href="#pb413n">413</a>]</span>century. But this fact is not sufficiently established. Cicero, in company with Atticus,
+attended his lectures (<i>Cic.</i> l.c.; Fin. i. 5, 16; Tusc. iii. 17, 38. In <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 21, 58, Cotta says the same of himself), on his first visit to Athens, 78
+or 79 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>; conf. N.&nbsp;D. i. 34, 93; but this cannot possibly be the same Zeno or Xeno (as <i>Krische</i>, <span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 26, maintains) whom <i>Cic.</i> Ad Att. v. 10, 11; xvi. 3 mentions as living in 50 and 43 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 21, calls him <span lang="la">princeps Epicureorum</span> (and Philo of Larissa, <span lang="la">coryphæus Epicureorum</span>); Tusc. l.c., <span lang="la">acriculus senex, istorum</span> (Epicureans) <span lang="la">acutissimus</span>. <i>Diog.</i> x. 25, calls him <span class="trans" title="polygraphos anēr"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολύγραφος ἀνήρ</span></span>. From Procl. in <i>Euclid.</i> 55; 59; 60, we hear of a treatise of Zeno, in which he attacked the validity of mathematical
+proofs. <i>Philodemus’</i> treatise <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span> (Vol. Herc. v. a) seems, from the title, to have been an abstract from Zeno. Cotemporary
+with Zeno was that Aristio, or Athenio, who played a part in Athens during the Mithridatic
+war, and is sometimes called a Peripatetic, and sometimes an Epicurean (<i>Plut.</i> Sulla, 12; 14; 23). See <i>Zeller’s</i> <span lang="de">Philosophie der Griechen</span>, vol. ii. b, 759, 2. Perhaps to the time of his despotism the statement may be referred
+(<i>Demetrius</i> Magnes in <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 611, b) that the Stoic Theotimus, who wrote against Epicurus, was killed at
+the instance of Zeno.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37809src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37897">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37897src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> Cicero (N.&nbsp;D. i. 33, 93; Fin. i. 5, 16; v. 1, 3; Legg. i. 20, 53) had also studied
+under him in Athens, and previously in Rome, where Phædrus must then have been residing
+(Ad Fam. xiii. 1). He was old when Cicero for the second time was brought into relations
+with him. According to Phlegon, in <i>Phot.</i> Bibl. Cod. 97, p. 84, a, 17, he was succeeded by Patro (Ol. 177, 3, or 70 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>) in the headship of the School, after holding it only for a very short time; but
+this is not a well-ascertained fact. Cicero l.c. praises the character of Phædrus.
+He calls him <span lang="la">nobilis philosophus</span> (Philip, v. 5, 13). It is supposed that Cicero’s description (N.&nbsp;D. i. 10, 25; 15,
+41), and that the fragments first published by Drummond (Herculanensia: London, 1810),
+and then by Petersen (Phædri … de Nat. De. Fragm.: Hamb. 1833), and illustrated by
+Krische (<span lang="de">Forschungen</span>), were from a treatise of Phædrus on the Gods, to which perhaps <i>Cic.</i> Ad Att. xiii. 39 refers. But Spengel (from the Herculanean rolls, Philodemus <span class="trans" title="peri eusebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐσεβείας</span></span>. <span lang="de">Abh. d. Münch. Akad.</span> Philos-philol. Kl. x. 1, 127) and Sauppe (<span lang="la">De Philodemi libro … de pietate</span>. <span lang="de">Gött. <span class="corr" id="xd33e37929" title="Source: Lections verz.">Lectionsverz.</span> für Sommer</span>, 1864) have shown that the Neapolitan (Vol. Herc. Coll. Alt. i. ii. 1862) editors
+are right in regarding these fragments as the remains of a treatise of Philodemus
+<span class="trans" title="peri eusebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐσεβείας</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37897src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37942">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37942src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> Philodemus (see Vol. Herc. i. 1; <i>Gros</i>, Philod. Rhet. <span class="pageNum" id="pb414n">[<a href="#pb414n">414</a>]</span>cxii.; <i>Preller</i>, Allg. Encycl. Sect. III. Bd. xxiii. 345) was a native of Gadara. in Cœle-Syria (<i>Strabo</i>, xvi. 2, 29, p. 759)<span>.</span> He lived at Rome in Cicero’s time, and is mentioned by Cicero as a learned and amiable
+man (Fin. ii. 35, 119; Or. in Pison. 28). Besides philosophic works, he also wrote
+poems (<i>Cic.</i> In Pis.; <i>Hor.</i> Sat. i. 2, 121). A number of the latter, in the shape of epigrams, are preserved.
+Of his philosophical works mentioned by <i>Diog.</i> x. 3; 24, no fewer than thirty-six books were discovered in Herculaneum, which have,
+for the most part, been published (Vol. Herc. iv. Introd. in Polystr. iii.) so far
+as they were legible. Spengel and Gros have separately edited Rhet. IV.; Sauppe, De
+Vitiis X.; and Petersen and Sauppe, the fragments <span class="trans" title="peri eusebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐσεβείας</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37942src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37973">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37973src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 33, 106; Fin. ii. 35, 110; Ad Fam. vi. 11. According to <i>Virgil</i>, Catal. 7, 9; 10, 1, <i>Donat.</i> Vita Virg. 79, <i>Serv.</i> Ad Ecl. vi. 13, <i>Æn.</i> vi. 264, he was the teacher of Virgil. The name is variously written as Syro, Siro,
+Sciro, Scyro. Somewhat earlier is the grammarian Pompilius Andronicus, from Syria,
+who, according to <i>Sueton.</i> Illust. Gram. c. 8, lived at Rome at the same time as Gnipho, the teacher of Cæsar
+(<i>Ibid.</i> c. 7), and gave up his profession for the Epicurean philosophy, and afterwards lived
+at Cumæ.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37973src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37990">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37990src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. xiii. 1; Ad Att. v. 11; vii. 2; Ad Quint. Fratr. i. 2, 4, where besides him
+an Epicurean Plato of Sardes is mentioned, and above, pp. 410, 1; 413, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37990src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e37994">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e37994src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> Besides Lucretius, the most important among them are T. Albutius, called by <i>Cic.</i> Brut. 35, 131, <span lang="la">perfectus Epicureus</span> (<i>Cic.</i> Brut. 26, 102; Tusc. v. 37, 108; N.&nbsp;D. i. 33, 93; Fin. i. 3, 8 [De Orat. iii. 43,
+171]; In Pison. 38, 92; Offic. ii. 14, 50; Orator, 44, 149; In Cæcil. 19, 63; Provin.
+Cons. 7, 15; De Orat. ii. 70, 281), and Velleius, who, as <i>Krische</i> (<span lang="de">Forsch.</span> 20) proves, by a gloss on Nat. De. i. 29, 82 and <i>Cic.</i> De N.&nbsp;D. i. 28, 79 (conf. Divin. i. 36, 79), was a native of Lanuvium, and was considered
+the most distinguished Epicurean of his time (<i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 6, 15; 21, 58; conf. De Orat. iii. 21, 78). Other Epicureans were: C. Catius,
+a native of Gaul, spoken of by Cicero (Ad Fam<span>.</span> xv. 16) as one long ago dead. By <i>Quintilian</i>, x. 1, 124, he is called <span lang="la">levis quidem sed non injucundus tamen auctor</span>; and the Comment. Cruqu. in <i>Hor.</i> Sat. ii. 4, 1, says that he wrote four books <span lang="la">De Rerum Natura et De Summo Bono</span>;—C. Cassius, the well-known leader of the conspiracy against Cæsar (<i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. xv. 16, 19; <i>Plut.</i> Brut. 37); C. Vibius Pansa, who died as consul at Mutina in 43 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> (<i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. vii. 12; xv. 19); Gallus (Ad Fam. vii. 26); L. Piso, the patron of <span class="pageNum" id="pb415n">[<a href="#pb415n">415</a>]</span>Philodemus (<i>Cic.</i> in Pis. 28, see above, p. 413, 2; l.c. 9, 20; 16, 37; 18, 42; 25, 59; Post Red. 6,
+14); Statilius (<i>Plut.</i> Brut. 12); a second Statilius appears to be meant (Cat. Min. 65); L. Manlius Torquatus,
+to whom <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 5, 13 delegates the representation of the Epicurean teaching. T. Pomponius
+Atticus, the well-known friend of Cicero, approached nearest to the Epicurean School,
+calling its adherents <span lang="la">nostri familiares</span> (<i>Cic.</i> Fin. v. 1, 3) and <span lang="la">condiscipuli</span> (Legg. i. 7, 21). He was a pupil of Zeno and Phædrus and a friend of Patro’s; but
+his relations to philosophy were too free to entitle him properly to be ranked in
+any one school (<i>Cic.</i> Fam. xiii. 1). The same observation applies also to his friend, L. Saufeius (<i>Nepos</i>, Att. 12; <i>Cic.</i> Ad Att. iv. 6). Still less can C. Sergius Orata (<i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 22, 70; Off. iii. 16, 67; De Orat. i. 39, 178), L. Thorius Balbus (Fin.
+l.c.), and Postumius (<i>Ibid.</i>) be called Epicureans. Nor can anything be stated with certainty respecting L. Papirius
+Pætus (<i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. vii. 17 to 26), not even from the chief passage Ep. 25, or respecting C<span>.</span> Trebatius from <i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. vii. 12. C. Memmius (from the way in which he is spoken of by <i>Cic.</i> Ad Fam. xiii. 1) cannot be regarded as a member of the Epicurean School, although
+<i>Lucret.</i> De Rer. Nat. i. 24; v. 9, expressed the hope of winning him.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e37994src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38077">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38077src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> Born, according to Hieron, (in <i>Eus.</i> Chron.), 95 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, he died in his 44th year, or 51 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> In Vita Virgilii, 659 ought therefore to be substituted for 699 <span class="asc">A.U.C.</span> It is clear, from <i>Nepos</i>, Att. 12, that he was dead before the assassination of Cæsar. Teuffel (in <i>Pauly’s</i> <span lang="de">Realencycl.</span> iv. 1195) justly disputes the statement of Hieronymus, that he committed suicide
+in a fit of madness.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38077src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38100">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38100src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> According to <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 201, a cotemporary of Antiochus of Ascalon, whose language towards him
+is there quoted, and reckoned by <i>Galen</i>. Isag. c. 4, vol. xiv. 683 among the leaders of the logical School of Physicians.
+His medical treatises are often referred to by Galen. Plutarch in his Placita often
+names him.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38100src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38107">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38107src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> Known for three things—<span class="pageNum" id="pb416n">[<a href="#pb416n">416</a>]</span>his theory of atoms, his theory of the acquisition of knowledge, and his resolution
+of the soul into matter.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">All bodies, he held, consist of atoms, which differ from the atoms of Democritus in
+that they owe their origin to the meeting and breaking up of greater masses, and are
+not in quality alike and unchangeable (<span class="trans" title="apatheis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπαθεῖς</span></span>). <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 32; Math<span>.</span> ix. 363; x. 318; viii. 220; iii. 5; <i>Galen.</i> l.c. 9, p. 698; <i>Dionys<span>.</span></i>; Alex. (in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 23, 4); <i>Cœl. Aurelian.</i> De Pass. Acut. i. 14. See <i>Fabric.</i> on Pyrrh. iii. 32. The latter is probably in error in describing the primary atoms
+of Asclepiades as without quality, differing only in size, form, number, and arrangement.
+Although in this respect he resembled Heraclides, with whom he is generally classed,
+and applied, like him, the name <span class="trans" title="onkoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὄγκοι</span></span> to atoms, still it is probable that his knowledge of Heraclides was traditionally
+derived from the Epicureans.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">He also asserted, with Epicurus (Antiochus, in <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 201): <span class="trans" title="tas men aisthēseis ontōs kai alēthōs antilēpseis einai, logō de mēden holōs hēmas katalambanein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ὄντως καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀντιλήψεις εἶναι, λόγῳ δὲ μηδὲν ὅλως ἡμᾶς καταλαμβάνειν</span></span>. At the same time he maintained that our senses cannot distinguish the component
+parts of things, but even Epicurus and Democritus admitted as much in respect of atoms.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">He differs entirely from Epicurus in denying the existence of a soul apart from body,
+and in referring every kind of notion, including the soul itself, to the action of
+the senses (<i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 380; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 2, 6; <i>Cœl. Aurelian.</i> l.c. in <i>Fabric.</i> on the passage of Sext.; <i>Tertullian</i>, De An. 15). What is elsewhere stated of Asclepiades, leaving alone his medical views,
+for instance, that with Heraclitus he believed in a perpetual flux of things, is not
+at variance with Epicurean principles.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38107src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38175">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38175src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> <i>Quint</i> Inst. vi. 3, 78, names L. Varus as an Epicurean, a friend of Augustus, perhaps the
+individual who according to <i>Donat.</i> V. Virg. 79, <i>Serv.</i> on Ecl. vi. 13. attended the lectures of Syro in company with Virgil. Horace, notwithstanding
+Ep. i. 4, 15, was no Epicurean, but only a man who gathered everywhere what he could
+make use of (Sat. i. 5, 101). In Caligula’s time, a senator Pompedius was an Epicurean
+(<i>Joseph.</i> Antiquit. ix. 1<span>,</span> 5); under Nero, Aufidius Bassus, a friend of Seneca (<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 30, 1 and 3 and 5; 14), the elder Celsus (<i>Orig.</i> c. Cels. i. 8), and Diodorus, who committed suicide (<i>Sen.</i> Vi. Be. 19, 1); under Vespasian or his sons, Pollius (<i>Stat.</i> Silv. ii. 2, 113). In the first half of the second century, <i>Cleomedes</i>, Met. p. 87, complained of the honours paid to Epicurus. In the second <span class="pageNum" id="pb417n">[<a href="#pb417n">417</a>]</span>half of the same century lived Antonius, mentioned by <i>Galen</i>. De Prop. An. Affect. v. 1, and Zenobius, who, according to <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 113, b, was an opponent of Alexander of Aphrodisias. In the first half of the
+third century lived Diogenes Laërtius, who, if not a perfect Epicurean himself, was
+at least a friend of the Epicureans. Amongst other Epicureans, the names of Athenæus
+(whose epigram on Epicurus is quoted by <i>Diog.</i> x. 12). Autodorus (<i>Diog.</i> v. 92), and Hermodorus (<i>Lucian</i>, Icaromen. 16) may be mentioned; but <i>Diog.</i> x. 11 does not justify us calling Diocles of Magnesia an Epicurean.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38175src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38216">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38216src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> x. 9, in the first half of the third century, writes: <span class="trans" title="hē te didachē pasōn schedon eklipousōn tōn allōn esaei diamenousa kai nērithmous archas apolyousa allēn ex allēs tōn gnōrimōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἥ τε διδαχὴ πασῶν σχεδὸν ἐκλιπουσῶν τῶν ἄλλων ἐσαεὶ διαμένουσα καὶ νηρίθμους ἀρχὰς
+ἀπολύουσα ἄλλην ἐξ ἄλλης τῶν γνωρίμων</span></span>. The testimony of <i>Lactantius</i>, Inst. iii. 17, to the wide extension of Epicureanism is not so trustworthy, although
+he treats it as an existing fact. It may be that he is only following older writers,
+as Cicero does. See above, p. 412, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38216src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch16" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1803">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XVI.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THE EPICUREAN TEACHING: THE TEST-SCIENCE OF TRUTH.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch16.a">A. <i>Character of Epicurean system.</i><br id="ch16.a.1">(1) <i>Its power of self-preservation.</i></span>
+The scientific value and capacity for development of Epicureanism are out of all proportion
+to its extensive diffusion and the length of time during which it continued to flourish.
+No other system troubled itself so little about the foundation on which it rested;
+none confined itself so exclusively to the utterances of its founder. Such was the
+dogmatism with which Epicurus propounded his precepts, such the conviction he entertained
+of their excellence, that his pupils were required to commit summaries of them to
+memory;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38244src" href="#xd33e38244" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> and the superstitious devotion for the founder was with his approval<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38273src" href="#xd33e38273" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> carried to <span class="pageNum" id="pb419">[<a href="#pb419">419</a>]</span>such a length, that on no single point was the slightest deviation from his tenets
+permitted. Although, even in Cicero’s time, the writings of Epicurus and Metrodorus
+found hardly a reader outside the School,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38332src" href="#xd33e38332" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> yet it is asserted that as late as the first and second centuries after Christ the
+Epicureans clung tenaciously to their master’s teaching.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38338src" href="#xd33e38338" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> Probably it was easier for an Epicurean than for any other thinker to act thus. Like
+his master,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38356src" href="#xd33e38356" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> he was indifferent to the <span class="pageNum" id="pb420">[<a href="#pb420">420</a>]</span>labours of other philosophers, or unable to appreciate their merits.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38380src" href="#xd33e38380" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> For us this conduct of theirs has one advantage: we can be far more certain that
+the Epicurean teaching reflects that of the founder than we can that this is so in
+the case of the Stoics. But this philosophical sterility, this mechanical handing
+down of unchangeable principles, places the intellectual value of Epicureanism on
+the lowest level. The servile dependence of the Epicurean School on its founder can
+neither excuse its mental idleness nor recommend a system so powerless to give an
+independent training to its supporters.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch16.a.2">(2) <i>Aim of philosophy according to the Epicureans.</i></span>
+The want of intellectual taste here displayed appears also in the view taken by Epicurus
+of the aim and business of philosophy. If among the Stoics the subordination of theory
+to practice was frequently felt, among the Epicureans this subordination was carried
+to such an extent as to lead to a depreciation of all science. The aim of philosophy
+was, with them, to promote human happiness. Indeed, philosophy is nothing else than
+an activity helping us to happiness by means of speech and thought.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38399src" href="#xd33e38399" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> Nor is happiness, according to Epicurus, <span class="pageNum" id="pb421">[<a href="#pb421">421</a>]</span>directly promoted by knowledge, but only indirectly in as far as knowledge ministers
+to practical needs, or clears away hindrances to their attainment. All science which
+does not serve this end is superfluous and worthless.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38417src" href="#xd33e38417" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> Epicurus, therefore, despised learning and culture, the researches of grammarians,
+and the lore of historians, and declared it a piece of good fortune for simplicity
+of feeling to be uncontaminated by learned rubbish.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38433src" href="#xd33e38433" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> Nor was his opinion different respecting mathematical science, of which he was wholly
+ignorant.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38516src" href="#xd33e38516" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> The calculations of mathematicians, he maintained, are based on false principles;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38523src" href="#xd33e38523" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb422">[<a href="#pb422">422</a>]</span>at any rate, they contribute nothing to human happiness, and it is therefore useless
+and foolish to trouble oneself about them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38536src" href="#xd33e38536" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> The theory of music and poetry he likewise found exceedingly irksome, although he
+took pleasure in music itself and the theatre;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38561src" href="#xd33e38561" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> and rhetoric, as an artificial guide to eloquence, seemed to him as worthless as
+the show-speeches which are the only result of the study of it. The power of public
+speaking is a matter of practice and of momentary feeling, and hence the skilful speaker
+is far from being a good statesman.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38579src" href="#xd33e38579" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> The greater part of logical enquiries fared no better in his judgment. Himself no
+logician, he set little store by logic. Definitions are of no use; the theory of division
+and proof may be dispensed with; the philosopher does best to confine himself to words,
+and to leave all the logical ballast alone.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38585src" href="#xd33e38585" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> Of all the questions which engrossed the <span class="pageNum" id="pb423">[<a href="#pb423">423</a>]</span>attention of Stoic logicians, one only, the theory of knowledge, was studied by Epicurus,
+and that in a very superficial way.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38621src" href="#xd33e38621" title="Go to note 16.">16</a>
+</p>
+<p>Far greater, comparatively, was the importance he attached to the study of nature,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38626src" href="#xd33e38626" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> but even natural science was deemed valuable not so much for its own sake as because
+of its practical use. The knowledge of natural causes is the only means of liberating
+the soul from the shackles of superstition; this is the only use of natural science.
+If it were not for the thought of God and the fear of death, there would be no need
+of studying nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38637src" href="#xd33e38637" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> The investigation of our instincts is also of use, because it helps us to control
+them, and to keep them within their natural bounds.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38671src" href="#xd33e38671" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> Thus the onesided practical view <span class="pageNum" id="pb424">[<a href="#pb424">424</a>]</span>of philosophy which we have already encountered in Stoicism was carried by the Epicureans
+to an extreme length.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch16.a.3">(3) <i>Divisions of philosophy.</i></span>
+Nor is it otherwise than in harmony herewith that logic did not receive a fuller or
+more perfect treatment in the further development of their system. Even the study
+of nature, going far more fully into particulars than logic, was guided entirely by
+practical considerations, all scientific interest in nature being ignored. Following
+the usual method, however, the Epicureans divided philosophy into three parts<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38687src" href="#xd33e38687" title="Go to note 20.">20</a>—logic, natural science, and moral science. Limiting the first of these parts to one
+branch of logic, the part which deals with the characteristics of truth, and which
+they therefore called neither logic, nor dialectic, but Canonic, they really reduced
+this part to a mere introductory appendage to the two other parts,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38723src" href="#xd33e38723" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> and studied Canonic as a part of natural science.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38735src" href="#xd33e38735" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> Natural science <span class="pageNum" id="pb425">[<a href="#pb425">425</a>]</span>moreover was so entirely subordinated to moral science, that we might almost feel
+tempted to follow some modern writers<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38765src" href="#xd33e38765" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> in their view of the Epicurean system, by giving to moral science precedence of the
+two other parts, or at least of natural science.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38775src" href="#xd33e38775" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> The School, however, followed the usual order, and not without reason;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38779src" href="#xd33e38779" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> for although the whole tendency of the Epicurean Canonic and natural science can
+only, like the Stoic, be explained by a reference to moral science, yet moral science
+with them presupposes the test-science of truth and natural science. We shall, therefore,
+do well to treat of Canonic in the first place, and subsequently to prove how this
+branch of study depends on Ethics.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch16.b">B. <i>Canonic or the test-science of truth.</i><br id="ch16.b.1">(1) <i>Sensation and perception.</i></span>
+Canonic or the test-science of truth, as has been observed, is occupied with investigating
+the standard of truth, and with enquiring into the mode of acquiring knowledge. The
+whole of formal logic, the doctrine of the formation of conceptions and conclusions,
+is omitted by Epicurus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38793src" href="#xd33e38793" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> Even the theory of the acquisition of knowledge assumes with him a very simple form.
+If the Stoics were fain, notwithstanding their ideal ethics and their pantheistic
+speculations, ultimately to take their stand on materialism, could Epicurus avoid
+doing the same? In seeking a speculative basis for a view of life which refers everything
+to the feeling of pleasure <span class="pageNum" id="pb426">[<a href="#pb426">426</a>]</span>or pain, he appealed far more unreservedly than they had done to sensation. Now, since
+the senses can alone inform us what is pleasant or unpleasant, and what is desirable
+or the contrary, our judgment as to truth or falsehood must ultimately depend on the
+senses. Viewed speculatively, sensation is the standard of truth; viewed practically,
+the feeling of pleasure or pain.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38799src" href="#xd33e38799" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> If the senses may not be trusted, still less may knowledge derived from reason be
+trusted, since reason itself is primarily and entirely derived from the senses. There
+remains, therefore, no distinctive mark of truth, and no possibility of certain conviction.
+We are at the mercy of unlimited doubt. If, however, this doubt is contradictory of
+itself—for how can men declare they <i>know</i>, that they can <i>know</i> nothing?—it is also contradictory of human nature, since it would do away not only
+with all knowledge but with every possibility of action—in short, with all the conditions
+on which human life depends.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38839src" href="#xd33e38839" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> To avoid doubt we must allow that sensation as such is always, and under all circumstances,
+to be trusted; nor ought the delusions of the senses to shake our belief; the causes
+of these <span class="pageNum" id="pb427">[<a href="#pb427">427</a>]</span>deceptions do not lie in sensation as such, but in our judgment about sensation. What
+the senses supply is only that an object produces this or that effect upon us, and
+that this or that picture has impressed our soul. The facts thus supplied are always
+true, only it does not follow that the object exactly corresponds with the impression
+we receive of it, or that it produces on others the same impression that it produces
+on us. Many different pictures may emanate from one and the same object, and these
+pictures may be changed on their way to the ear or eye. Pictures, too, may strike
+our senses with which no real objects correspond. To confound the picture with the
+thing, the impression made with the object making the impression, is certainly an
+error, but this error must not be laid to the charge of the senses, but to that of
+opinion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38860src" href="#xd33e38860" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> Indeed, how is it possible, asks Epicurus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38876src" href="#xd33e38876" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> to refute the testimony of the senses? Can reason refute it? But reason is itself
+dependent on the senses, and cannot bear testimony against that on which its own claims
+to belief depend. Or can one sense convict another of error? But different sensations
+do not refer to the same object, and similar sensations have equal value. Nothing
+remains, therefore, but to attach implicit belief to every impression of the senses.
+Every such impression is directly <span class="pageNum" id="pb428">[<a href="#pb428">428</a>]</span>certain, and is accordingly termed by Epicurus clear evidence (<span class="trans" title="enargeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνάργεια</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38893src" href="#xd33e38893" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> Nay, more, its truth is so paramount that the impressions of madmen, and appearances
+in dreams, are true because they are caused by something real,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38946src" href="#xd33e38946" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> and error only becomes possible when we go beyond sensation.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch16.b.2">(2) <i>Notions.</i></span>
+This going beyond sensation becomes, however, a necessity. By a repetition of the
+same perception a notion (<span class="trans" title="prolēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψις</span></span>) arises. A notion, therefore, is nothing else than the general picture retained in
+the mind of what has been perceived.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38963src" href="#xd33e38963" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> On these notions retained by memory depend all speaking and thinking. They are what
+commonly go under the name of things; and speech is only a means of recalling definite
+perceptions<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e38976src" href="#xd33e38976" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> to the memory. Notions are <span class="pageNum" id="pb429">[<a href="#pb429">429</a>]</span>presupposed in all scientific knowledge.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39017src" href="#xd33e39017" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> Together with sensations they form the measure of the truth of our convictions;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39059src" href="#xd33e39059" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> and it holds true of them as it did of sensations—that they are true in themselves
+and need no proof.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39074src" href="#xd33e39074" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> Taken by themselves, notions, like perceptions, are reflections in the soul of things
+on which the transforming action of the mind, changing external impressions into conceptions,
+has not as yet been brought to bear.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch16.b.3">(3) <i>Opinion.</i></span>
+For this very reason notion are not sufficient. From appearances we must advance to
+their secret causes; from the known to the unknown.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39100src" href="#xd33e39100" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> Far too little value was attached by Epicurus to the logical forms of thought, or
+he would have investigated more accurately the nature of this process of advancing.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39112src" href="#xd33e39112" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> Thoughts, in his view, result from sensations spontaneously, and although a certain
+amount of reflection is necessary for the process, yet it requires no scientific guidance.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39117src" href="#xd33e39117" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> The thoughts arrived at in <span class="pageNum" id="pb430">[<a href="#pb430">430</a>]</span>this way do not stand as a higher genus above perceptions, but they are only opinions
+(<span class="trans" title="hypolēpsis, doxa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπόληψις, δόξα</span></span>) without a note of truth in themselves, and depending for their truth upon sensation.
+That opinion may be considered a true one which is based on the testimony of the senses,
+or is at least not contrary to the senses, and that a false opinion in which the opposite
+is the case.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39162src" href="#xd33e39162" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> Sometimes we suppose that upon certain present impressions other impressions will
+follow: for instance, that a tower which appears round at a distance will appear round
+close at hand. In that case, if the real perception corresponds with the assumption,
+the opinion is true, otherwise it is false.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39193src" href="#xd33e39193" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> At other times we suppose that certain appearances are due to secret causes: for
+instance, that empty space is the cause of motion. If all appearances tally with their
+explanations, we may consider <span class="pageNum" id="pb431">[<a href="#pb431">431</a>]</span>our assumptions correct; if not, our assumptions are incorrect.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39217src" href="#xd33e39217" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> In the first case the test of the truth of an opinion is that it is supported by
+experience; in the latter that it is not refuted by experience.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39221src" href="#xd33e39221" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> Have we not here all the leading features of a theory of knowledge based purely on
+sensation? The Epicurean’s interest in these questions was, however, far too slight
+to construct with them a developed theory of materialism.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch16.b.4">(4) <i>Standard of truth subjective.</i></span>
+Little pains seem to have been taken by Epicurus to overcome the difficulties by which
+this view was beset. If all sensations as such are true, the saying of Protagoras
+necessarily follows that for each individual that is true which seems to him to be
+true, that contrary impressions about one and the same object are true, and that deceptions
+of the senses, so many instances of which are supplied by experience, are really impossible.
+To avoid these conclusions, Epicurus maintained that for each different impression
+there is a different object-picture. What immediately affects our senses is not the
+object itself, but a picture of the object, and these pictures may be innumerable,
+a different one being the cause of each separate sensation. Moreover, although the
+pictures emanating from the same object are in general nearly alike, it is possible
+that they may differ from one <span class="pageNum" id="pb432">[<a href="#pb432">432</a>]</span>another owing to a variety of causes. If, therefore, the same object appears different
+to different individuals, the cause of these different sensations is not one and the
+same, but a different one, and different pictures must have affected their senses.
+If our own sensations deceive us, the blame does not belong to our senses, as though
+they had depicted to us unreal objects, but to our judgment for drawing unwarranted
+inferences from pictures<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39251src" href="#xd33e39251" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> as to their causes.
+</p>
+<p>This line of argument, however, only removes the difficulty one step further. Sensation
+is said always to reproduce faithfully the picture which affects the organs of sense,
+but the pictures do not always reproduce the object with equal faithfulness. How then
+can a faithful picture be known from one which is not faithful? To this question the
+Epicurean system can furnish no real answer. To say that the wise man knows how to
+distinguish a faithful from an unfaithful picture<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39258src" href="#xd33e39258" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> is to despair of an absolute standard at all, and to make the decision of truth or
+error depend upon the individual’s judgment. Such a statement reduces all our impressions
+of the properties of things to a relative level. If sensation does not show us things
+themselves, but only those impressions of them which happen to affect us, it does
+not supply us with a knowledge of things as they are, but as they happen to be related
+to us. It <span class="pageNum" id="pb433">[<a href="#pb433">433</a>]</span>was, therefore, a legitimate inference from this theory of knowledge for Epicurus
+to deny that colour belongs to bodies in themselves, since some only see colour in
+the dark, whilst others do not.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39266src" href="#xd33e39266" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> Like his predecessor, Democritus, he must have been brought to this view by his theory
+of atoms. Few of the properties belong to atoms which we perceive in things, and hence
+all other properties must be explained as not belonging to the essence, but only to
+the appearance of things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39305src" href="#xd33e39305" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> The taste for speculation was, however, too weak, and the need of a direct truth
+of the senses too strong in Epicurus for him to be able to turn his thoughts in this
+direction for long. Whilst allowing to certain properties of things only a relative
+value, he had no wish to doubt the reality of objects, nor to disparage the object-pictures
+which furnish us with sensations.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39319src" href="#xd33e39319" title="Go to note 49.">49</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb434">[<a href="#pb434">434</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38244">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38244src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 7, 20: <span lang="la">Quis enim vestrum non edidicit Epicuri <span class="trans" title="kyrias doxas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κυρίας δόξας</span></span>?</span> <i>Diog.</i> 12 (according to Diocles). Epicurus often exhorted his scholars (<i>Ibid.</i> 83; 85; 35) to commit to memory what they had heard. His last exhortation to his
+friends was (<i>Diog.</i> 16): <span class="trans" title="tōn dogmatōn memnēsthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δογμάτων μεμνῆσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38244src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38273">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38273src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> He speaks of himself and Metrodorus in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 3, 7, as wise men. <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 18, 5, quotes, as coming from him: <span class="trans" title="hōs Kolōtēs men auton physiologounta proskynēseien gonatōn hapsamenos; Neoklēs de ho adelphos euthys ek paidōn apophainoito mēdena sophōteron Epikourou gegonenai mēd’ einai; hē de mētēr atomous eschen en hautē tosautas, hoiai synelthousai sophon an egennēsan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς Κολώτης μὲν αὐτὸν φυσιολογοῦντα προσκυνήσειεν γονάτων ἁψάμενος· Νεοκλῆς δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς
+εὐθὺς ἐκ παίδων ἀποφαίνοιτο μηδένα σοφώτερον Ἐπικούρου γεγονέναι μηδ’ εἶναι· ἡ δὲ
+μήτηρ ἀτόμους ἔσχεν ἐν αὑτῇ τοσαύτας, οἷαι συνελθοῦσαι σοφὸν ἂν ἐγέννησαν</span></span>. Conf. <i>Id.</i> Frat. Am. 16, p. 487; Adv. Col. 17, 5; <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteor. p. 89. Not only was Epicurus’ birthday observed by the Epicurean School during
+his lifetime, but the 20th of <span class="pageNum" id="pb419n">[<a href="#pb419n">419</a>]</span>every month was celebrated as a festival in honour of him and Metrodorus. In his testament
+Epicurus especially ordered this twofold observance for the future. <i>Diog.</i> 18; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 31, 101; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Viv. 4, 8; <i>Plin.</i> H.&nbsp;N. xxxv. 5. <i>Athen.</i> vii. 298 d: <span class="trans" title="Epikoureios tis eikadistēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπικούρειός τις εἰκαδιστῆς</span></span>. Epicurus’ picture is constantly referred to (<i>Cic.</i> Fin. v. 1, 3; <i>Plin.</i> l.c.). The extravagant importance attached to Epicurus in his School is proved by
+the high eulogies in <i>Lucret.</i> i 62; iii. 1 and 1040; v. 1; vi. 1. Metrodorus, in <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 17, 4, praises <span class="trans" title="ta Epikourou hōs alēthōs theophanta orgia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ Ἐπικούρου ὡς ἀληθῶς θεόφαντα ὄργια</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38273src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38332">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38332src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Cic<span>.</span></i> Tusc. ii. 3, 8.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38332src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38338">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38338src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 33, 4, compares the scientific independence of the Stoics with the Epicurean’s
+dependence on the founder: <span lang="la">Non sumus sub rege: sibi quisque se vindicat. Apud istos quicquid dicit Hermarchus,
+quicquid Metrodorus, ad unum refertur. Omnia quæ quisquam in illo contubernio locutus
+est, unius ductu et auspiciis dicta sunt.</span> On the other hand, Numenius (in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 3), little as he can agree with their tenets, commends the Epicureans
+for faithfully adhering to their master’s teaching, a point in which only the Pythagoreans
+are their equals. Of the Epicureans, it may be said: <span class="trans" title="mēd’ autois eipein pō enantion oute allēlois oute Epikourō mēden [mēdena] eis mēden, hotou kai mnēsthēnai axion, all’ estin autois paranomēma, mallon de asebēma, kai kategnōstai to kainotomēthen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μηδ’ αὐτοῖς εἰπεῖν πω ἐναντίον οὔτε ἀλλήλοις οὔτε Ἐπικούρῳ μηδὲν [μηδένα] εἰς μηδὲν,
+ὅτου καὶ μνησθῆναι ἄξιον, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς παρανόμημα, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀσέβημα, καὶ κατέγνωσται
+τὸ καινοτομηθέν</span></span>. Thus the Epicurean School resembles a state animated by one spirit, in which there
+are no divisions of party.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38338src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38356">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38356src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> It has been already observed, p. 405, 1; 406, 1, that Epicurus ignored his obligations
+to his teachers Pamphilus and Nausicydes, and only confessed his debt to Democritus.
+All other philosophers provoked not only his contempt, but likewise his abuse. <i>Diog.</i> 8, probably on the authority of Timocrates, communicates his remarks on Plato, Aristotle,
+and others. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 33, 93: <span lang="la">Cum Epicurus Aristotelem vexarit contumeliosissime, Phædoni Socratico turpissime <span class="pageNum" id="pb420n">[<a href="#pb420n">420</a>]</span>maledixerit.</span> <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 2, 2: Compared with Epicurus and Metrodorus, Colotes is polite;
+<span class="trans" title="ta gar en anthrōpois aischista rhēmata, bōmolochias, lēkythismous, k.t.l. synagagontes Aristotelous kai Sōkratous kai Pythagorou kai Prōtagorou kai Theophrastou kai Hērakleidou kai Hipparchou, kai tinos gar ouchi tōn epiphanōn, kateskedasan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ γὰρ ἐν ἀνθρώποις αἴσχιστα ῥήματα, βωμολοχίας, ληκυθισμοὺς, κ.τ.λ. συναγαγόντες
+Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Σωκράτους καὶ Πυθαγόρου καὶ Πρωταγόρου καὶ Θεοφράστου καὶ Ἡρακλείδου
+καὶ Ἱππάρχου, καὶ τίνος γὰρ οὐχὶ τῶν ἐπιφανῶν, κατεσκέδασαν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38356src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38380">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38380src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 29, 73: <span lang="la">Nam vobis, Vellei, minus notum est, quem ad modum quidque dicatur; vestra enim solum
+legitis, vestra amatis, ceteros causa incognita condemnatis.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> i. 34, 93: Zeno not only despised cotemporary philosophers, but he even called Socrates
+a <span lang="la">scurra Atticus</span>, <i>Macrob.</i> Somn. i. 2 (Colotes ridiculing Plato’s Republic).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38380src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38399">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38399src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 169: <span class="trans" title="Epikouros elege tēn philosophian energeian einai logois kai dialogismois ton eudaimona bion peripoiousan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπίκουρος <span class="pageNum" id="pb421n">[<a href="#pb421n">421</a>]</span>ἔλεγε τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἐνέργειαν εἶναι λόγοις καὶ διαλογισμοῖς τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον περιποιοῦσαν</span></span>. Conf. Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 122: The demand to study philosophy in youth, as well as in age, is supported on
+the ground that it is never too early nor too late to be happy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38399src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38417">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38417src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> It was mentioned, p. 408, 3, that Epicurus’ own education was defective. Not content
+therewith, he upholds this defectiveness on principle. <span lang="la">Nullam eruditionem,</span> says the Epicurean in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 21, 71, <span lang="la">esse duxit, nisi quæ beatæ vitæ disciplinam adjuvaret.</span> In poets, <span lang="la">nulla solida utilitas omnisque puerilis est delectatio.</span> Music, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy <span lang="la">et a falsis initiis profecta vera esse non possunt, et si essent vera nihil afferrent,
+quo jucundius, i.e. quo melius viveremus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38417src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38433">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38433src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 4, 12<span id="xd33e38436">:</span> <span lang="la">Vestri quidem vel optime disputant, nihil opus esse eum, philosophus qui futurus sit,
+scire literas.</span> They fetch their philosophers, like Cincinnatus, from the plough. In this spirit,
+Epicurus (<i>Diog.</i> 6; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. V. 12, 1) wrote to Pythocles: <span class="trans" title="paideian de pasan"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν</span></span> (the <span class="trans" title="paideia enkyklios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παιδεία ἐγκύκλιος</span></span>, the learned culture), <span class="trans" title="makarie, pheuge to akation aramenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μακάριε, φεῦγε τὸ ἀκάτιον ἀράμενος</span></span>; and to Apelles (<i>Plut.</i> l.c.; <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 588, a): <span class="trans" title="makarizō se, ō houtos, hoti katharos pasēs aitias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μακαρίζω σε, ὦ οὗτος, ὅτι καθαρὸς πάσης αἰτίας</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> explains it: <span class="trans" title="tōn mathēmatōn aposchomenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν μαθημάτων ἀποσχόμενος</span></span>) <span class="trans" title="epi philosophian hōrmēsas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ὥρμησας</span></span><span>.</span> Metrodorus asserted (<i>Plut.</i> l.c.) that it need not be a source of trouble to anyone, if he had never read a line
+of Homer, and did not know whether Hector were a Trojan or a Greek. The art of reading
+and writing, <span class="trans" title="grammatikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γραμματικὴ</span></span> in the limited sense, was the only art recognised by Epicurus. <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 49.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38433src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38516">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38516src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 1; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 6, 20.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38516src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38523">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38523src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 21 (see p. 421, 1), which probably only means, that mathematical ideas <span class="pageNum" id="pb422n">[<a href="#pb422n">422</a>]</span>cannot be applied to phenomena. Hence Acad. ii. 33, 106 (conf. Fin. i. 6, 20): <span lang="la">Polyænus … Epicuro adsentiens totam geometriam falsam esse credidit.</span> Conf. Procl. in <i>Eucl.</i> p. 85.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38523src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38536">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38536src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> See p. 421, 1; <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 1: Epicurus rejects mathematics <span class="trans" title="hōs tōn mathēmatōn mēden synergountōn pros sophias teleiōsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς τῶν μαθημάτων μηδὲν συνεργούντων πρὸς σοφίας τελείωσιν</span></span>. According to <i>Diog.</i> 93, Epicurus calls astronomy <span class="trans" title="tas andrapodōdeis tōn astrologōn techniteias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰς ἀνδραποδώδεις τῶν ἀστρολόγων τεχνιτείας</span></span>. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 79.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38536src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38561">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38561src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 13, 1. Philodemus, in his treatise <span class="trans" title="peri mousikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μουσικῆς</span></span>, had discussed at length the value of music, as we gather from the fragments of the
+4th Book, Vol. Herc. i.; in particular rejecting the notion that it has a moral effect,
+see col. i. 24, 28. He was even opposed to music at table (Col. 38, as Epicurus was
+in <i>Plut.</i>, l.c<span>.</span>). The statement of <i>Diog.</i> 121, that only the wise man can give a right opinion on poetry and music, is not
+at variance with these passages.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38561src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38579">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38579src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> <i>Philodemus</i>, De Rhet. Vol. Herc. iv. col. 3; 12. The same polemic is continued in the further
+fragments of this treatise. <i>Ibid.</i> V. Col. 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38579src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38585">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38585src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 7, 22: <span lang="la">In logic iste vester plane, ut mihi quidem videtur, inermis ac nudus est. Tollit definitiones:
+nihil de <span class="pageNum" id="pb423n">[<a href="#pb423n">423</a>]</span>dividendo ac partiendo docet. Non quomodo efficiatur concludaturque ratio, tradit,
+non qua via captiosa solvantur<span>,</span> ambigua distinguantur, ostendit.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 19, 63: <span lang="la">In dialectica autem vestra nullam existimavit [Epic<span>.</span>] esse nec ad melius vivendum nec ad commodius disserendum viam.</span> Acad. ii. 30, 97: <span lang="la">Ab Epicuro, qui totam dialecticam et contemnit et inridet.</span> <i>Diog.</i> 31: <span class="trans" title="tēn dialektikēn hōs parelkousan apodokimazousin; arkein gar tous physikous chōrein kata tous tōn pragmatōn phthongous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ὡς παρέλκουσαν ἀποδοκιμάζουσιν· ἀρκεῖν γὰρ τοὺς φυσικοὺς χωρεῖν κατὰ
+τοὺς τῶν πραγμάτων φθόγγους</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38585src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38621">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38621src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> See p. 424.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38621src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38626">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38626src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 19, 63: <span lang="la">In physicis plurimum posuit</span> [Epic.]. <i>Ibid.</i> 6, 17: <span lang="la">In physicis, quibus maxime gloriatur, primum totus est alienus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38626src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38637">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38637src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> x. 82 and 85: <span class="trans" title="mē allo ti telos ek tēs peri meteōrōn gnōseōs ... nomizein dei einai ēper ataraxian kai pistin bebaion kathaper kai epi tōn loipōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ ἄλλο τι τέλος ἐκ τῆς περὶ μετεώρων γνώσεως … νομίζειν δεῖ εἶναι ἤπερ ἀταραξίαν
+καὶ πίστιν βέβαιον καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν</span></span>. <i>Ibid<span>.</span></i> 112: <span class="trans" title="ei mēthen hēmas hai peri tōn meteōrōn hypopsiai ēnōchloun kai hai peri thanatou ... ouk an prosedeometha physiologias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ περὶ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου … οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα
+φυσιολογίας</span></span>; but this becomes necessary, since, without knowledge of nature, we cannot he perfectly
+free from fear. The same in <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Viv. 8, 7; conf. <i>Diog.</i> 79 and 143; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 5, 11; <i>Lucret.</i> i. 62; iii. 14; vi. 9.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38637src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38671">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38671src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> In <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 19, 63, the Epicurean speaks of a fivefold, or, excluding Canonic, of a fourfold
+use of natural science: <span lang="la">fortitudo contra mortis timorem; constantia contra metum religionis; sedatio animi
+omnium rerum occultarum ignoratione <span class="pageNum" id="pb424n">[<a href="#pb424n">424</a>]</span>sublata; moderatio natura cupiditatum generibusque earum explicatis.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38671src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38687">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38687src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 29: <span class="trans" title="diaireitai toinyn [hē philosophia] eis tria, to te kanonikon kai physikon kai ēthikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαιρεῖται τοίνυν [ἡ φιλοσοφία] εἰς τρία, τό τε κανονικὸν καὶ φυσικὸν καὶ ἠθικόν</span></span>. Canonic was also called <span class="trans" title="peri kritēriou kai archēs kai stoicheiōtikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἀρχῆς καὶ στοιχειωτικόν</span></span>; natural science, <span class="trans" title="peri geneseōs kai phthoras kai peri physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς καὶ περὶ φύσεως</span></span>; ethics, <span class="trans" title="peri hairetōn kai pheuktōn kai peri biōn kai telous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν καὶ περὶ βίων καὶ τέλους</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38687src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38723">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38723src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 30: <span class="trans" title="to men oun kanonikon ephodous epi tēn pragmateian echei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μὲν οὖν κανονικὸν ἐφόδους ἐπὶ τὴν πραγματείαν ἔχει</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38723src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38735">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38735src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="eiōthasi mentoi to kanonikon homou tō physikō syntattein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰώθασι μέντοι τὸ κανονικὸν ὁμοῦ τῷ φυσικῷ συντάττειν</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 19. See p. 423, 4. Hence <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 14: Some reckon Epicurus amongst those who only divide philosophy into
+natural and moral science; whilst, according to others, he adhered to a threefold
+division, at the same time rejecting the Stoic logic. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 89, 11: <span lang="la">Epicurei duas partes philosophiæ putaverunt esse, <span class="corr" id="xd33e38754" title="Source: na uralem">naturalem</span> atque moralem: rationalem removerunt, deinde cum ipsis rebus cogerentur, ambigua
+secernere, falsa sub specie veri latentia coarguere, ipsi quoque locum, quem de judicio
+et regula appellant, alio nomine <span class="pageNum" id="pb425n">[<a href="#pb425n">425</a>]</span>rationalem <span class="corr" id="xd33e38759" title="Source: indux runt">induxerunt</span>: sed eum accessionem esse naturalis partis existimant.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38735src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38765">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38765src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 463; <i>Schleiermacher</i>, <span lang="de">Gesch. d. Phil.</span> p. 123.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38765src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38775">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38775src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Steinhart</i> in the treatise often referred to.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38775src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38779">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38779src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 29; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 22.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38779src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38793">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38793src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 7, 22. See p. 422, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38793src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38799">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38799src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 7, 22; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 203. If, according to <i>Diog.</i> 31, and <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 46, 142, Epicurus named three criteria—<span class="trans" title="prolēpsis, aisthēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψις, αἴσθησις</span></span>, and <span class="trans" title="pathē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάθη</span></span>—instead of the above two, it must be an inaccuracy of expression; <span class="trans" title="prolēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψις</span></span>, as we have seen, is derived from sensation.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38799src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38839">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38839src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> Epicurus, in <i>Diog.</i> x. 146; <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 467–519; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 19, 54. Colotes (in <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 24, 3) replies to the Cyrenaic scepticism by saying: <span class="trans" title="mē dynasthai zēn mēde chrēsthai tois pragmasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ δύνασθαι ζῇν μηδὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς πράγμασιν</span></span>. In this case, as in the case of the Stoics, the dogmatism in favour of the senses
+is based on a practical postulate, the need of a firm basis of conviction for human
+life.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38839src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38860">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38860src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> x. 50, and 147; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 203–210; viii. 9; 63; 185; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 4, 3; 5, 2; 25, 2; Plac. iv. 9, 2: <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 377–519; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 25, 79; 32, 101; Fin. i. 7, 22; N.&nbsp;D. i. 25, 70; <i>Tertull.</i> De An. 17. Further particulars below respecting sense-perception.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38860src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38876">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38876src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> x. 31; <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 480.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38876src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38893">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38893src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 203 and 216. In <i>Diog.</i> x. 52, instead of <span class="trans" title="energeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνεργείας</span></span>, we should read with <i>Cobet</i> <span class="trans" title="enargeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐναργείας</span></span>. Besides this peculiar expression, Epicurus uses sometimes <span class="trans" title="aisthēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴσθησις</span></span>, sometimes <span class="trans" title="phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία</span></span> (<i>Sext.</i> l.c.), for sensation. An impression on the senses, he calls <span class="trans" title="phantastikē epibolē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φανταστικὴ ἐπιβολή</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 50.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38893src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38946">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38946src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 32.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38946src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38963">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38963src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 33: <span class="trans" title="tēn de prolēpsin legousin hoionei katalēpsin ē doxan orthēn ē ennoian ē katholikēn noēsin enapokeimenēn, toutesti mnēmēn tou pollakis exōthen phanentos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν δὲ πρόληψιν λέγουσιν οἱονεὶ κατάληψιν ἢ δόξαν ὀρθὴν ἢ ἔννοιαν ἢ καθολικὴν νόησιν
+ἐναποκειμένην, τουτέστι μνήμην τοῦ πολλάκις ἔξωθεν φανέντος</span></span><span>.</span> By the help of this passage, Cicero’s description, N.&nbsp;D. i. 16, 43, must be corrected.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38963src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e38976">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e38976src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="hama gar tō rhēthēnai anthrōpos euthys kata prolēpsin kai ho typos autou noeitai proēgoumenōn tōn aisthēseōn. panti oun onomati to prōtōs hypotetagmenon enarges esti; kai ouk an ezētēsamen to zētoumenon, ei mē proteron egnōkeimen auto ... oud’ an ōnomasamen ti mē proteron autou kata prolēpsin ton typon mathontes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἅμα γὰρ τῷ ῥηθῆναι ἄνθρωπος εὐθὺς κατὰ πρόληψιν καὶ ὁ τύπος αὐτοῦ νοεῖται προηγουμένων
+τῶν αἰσθήσεων. παντὶ οὖν ὀνόματι τὸ πρώτως ὑποτεταγμένον ἐναργές ἐστι· καὶ οὐκ ἂν
+ἐζητήσαμεν τὸ ζητούμενον, εἰ μὴ πρότερον ἐγνώκειμεν αὐτὸ … οὐδ’ ἂν ὠνομάσαμέν τι μὴ
+πρότερον αὐτοῦ κατὰ πρόληψιν τὸν τύπον μαθόντες</span></span>. Hence the exhortation in Epicurus’ letter to Herodotus (in <i>Diog.</i> x. 37): <span class="trans" title="prōton men oun ta hypotetagmena tois phthongois dei eilēphenai hopōs an ta doxazomena ē zētoumena ē aporoumena echōmen eis ho anagontes epikrinein, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τὰ <span id="xd33e38993">ὑποτεταγμένα</span> τοῖς φθόγγοις δεῖ εἰληφέναι ὅπως ἂν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἢ ζητούμενα ἢ ἀπορούμενα ἔχωμεν
+εἰς ὃ ἀνάγοντες ἐπικρίνειν, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> Every impression must be referred to definite perceptions; apart from perceptions,
+no reality belongs to our impressions; or, as it is expressed <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. ii. 107, Math. viii. 13, 258: The Epicureans deny the existence of a <span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span>, and between a thing and its name there exists a third intermediate something—a conception.
+See also <i>Sext.</i> vii. 267.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e38976src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39017">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39017src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 33. <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 57 (xi. 21): <span class="trans" title="oute zētein oute aporein esti kata ton sophon Epikouron aneu prolēpseōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε ζητεῖν <span id="xd33e39026">οὔτε</span> ἀπορεῖν ἔστι κατὰ τὸν σόφον Ἐπίκουρον ἄνευ προλήψεως</span></span>. <i>Ibid<span>.</span></i> viii. 337, p. 521; <i>Plut.</i> De An. 6: The difficulty, that all learning presupposes knowledge, the Stoics met
+by <span class="trans" title="physikai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικαὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span>, the Epicureans by <span class="trans" title="prolēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προλήψεις</span></span>, which accordingly are the natural test of truth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39017src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39059">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39059src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> See p. 426, 1. <i>Diog.</i> l<span>.</span>c.: <span class="trans" title="enargeis oun eisin hai prolēpseis kai to doxaston apo proterou tinos enargous ērtētai, eph’ ho anapherontes legomen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐναργεῖς οὖν εἰσιν αἱ προλήψεις καὶ τὸ δοξαστὸν ἀπὸ προτέρου τινὸς ἐναργοῦς ἤρτηται,
+ἐφ’ ὃ ἀναφέροντες λέγομεν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39059src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39074">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39074src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> See previous note and Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 38: <span class="trans" title="anankē gar to prōton ennoēma kath’ hekaston phthongon blepesthai kai mēthen apodeixeōs prosdeisthai, eiper hexomen to zētoumenon ē aporoumenon kai doxazomenon eph’ ho anaxomen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον ἐννόημα καθ’ ἕκαστον φθόγγον βλέπεσθαι καὶ μηθὲν ἀποδείξεως προσδεῖσθαι,
+εἴπερ <span id="xd33e39082">ἕξομεν</span> τὸ ζητούμενον ἢ ἀπορούμενον καὶ <span id="xd33e39086">δοξαζόμενον</span> ἐφ’ ὃ ἀνάξομεν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39074src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39100">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39100src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 33 (conf. 38, 104): <span class="trans" title="peri tōn adēlōn apo tōn phainomenōn chrē sēmeiousthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῶν ἀδήλων ἀπὸ τῶν φαινομένων χρὴ σημειοῦσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39100src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39112">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39112src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> See p. 422, 4. <i>Steinhart</i>, p. 466, goes too far in saying that Epicurus defied all law and rule in thought.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39112src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39117">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39117src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 32: <span class="trans" title="kai gar kai epinoiai pasai apo tōn aisthēseōn gegonasi, kata te periptōsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐπίνοιαι πᾶσαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων γεγόνασι<span>,</span> κατά τε περίπτωσιν</span></span> (probably: the coincidence of several sensations which must be distinguished from
+their <span class="trans" title="synthesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύνθεσις</span></span> or <span class="pageNum" id="pb430n">[<a href="#pb430n">430</a>]</span>free combination) <span class="trans" title="kai analogian kai homoiotēta kai synthesin, symballomenou ti kai tou logismou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἀναλογίαν καὶ ὁμοιότητα καὶ σύνθεσιν, συμβαλλομένου τι καὶ τοῦ λογισμοῦ</span></span>. Conf. p. 422, 4; 429, 1, and the corresponding doctrine of the Stoics, p. 80, with
+the teaching of Epicurus, on the genesis of thoughts from sensations.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39117src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39162">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39162src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 33: <span class="trans" title="kai to doxaston apo proterou tinos enargous ērtētai ... tēn de doxan kai hypolēpsin legousin. alēthē te phasi kai pseudē; an men gar epimartyrētai ē mē antimartyrētai alēthē einai; ean de mē epimartyrētai ē antimartyrētai pseudē tynchanein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὸ δοξαστὸν ἀπὸ προτέρου τινὸς ἐναργοῦς ἤρτηται … τὴν δὲ δόξαν καὶ ὑπόληψιν λέγουσιν.
+ἀληθῆ τέ φασι καὶ ψευδῆ· ἂν μὲν γὰρ ἐπιμαρτυρῆται ἢ μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρῆται ἀληθῆ εἶναι·
+ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπιμαρτυρῆται ἢ ἀντιμαρτυρῆται ψευδῆ τυγχάνειν</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 211: <span class="trans" title="tōn doxōn kata ton Epikouron hai men alētheis eisin hai de pseudeis; alētheis men hai te antimartyroumenai kai ouk antimartyroumenai pros tēs enargeias, pseudeis de hai te antimartyroumenai kai ouk epimartyroumenai pros tēs enargeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν δοξῶν κατὰ τὸν Ἐπίκουρον αἱ μὲν ἀληθεῖς εἰσιν αἱ δὲ ψευδεῖς· ἀληθεῖς μὲν αἵ τε
+ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι καὶ οὐκ ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι πρὸς τῆς ἐναργείας, ψευδεῖς δὲ αἵ τε ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι
+καὶ οὐκ ἐπιμαρτυρούμεναι πρὸς τῆς ἐναργείας</span></span>. <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 486, observes that these statements are contradictory. According to Sextus,
+an opinion is only then true when it can be proved <i>and</i> not refuted; according to Diogenes, when it can be proved <i>or</i> not refuted. The latter is, however, clearly meant by Sextus, and is affirmed by
+Epicurus in <i>Diog.</i> 50 and 51.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39162src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39193">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39193src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> Epicur. in <i>Diog.</i> 50; <i>Ibid.</i> 33; <i>Sext.</i> vii. 212. The object of a future sensation is called by <i>Diog.</i> 38, <span class="trans" title="to prosmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ προσμένον</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> x. 34, himself gives a perverted explanation of this term, which probably misled
+Steinhart, p. 466.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39193src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39217">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39217src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. 213.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39217src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39221">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39221src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> The two tests of truth, proof and absence of refutation, do not, therefore, as Sextus
+expressly says, refer to the same cases. Our assumptions in respect of external appearances
+must be proved, before they can be allowed to be true; our impressions of the secret
+causes of these appearances must not be refuted<span>.</span> The former test applies to opinions regarding <span class="trans" title="to prosmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ προσμένον</span></span>; the latter, to opinions regarding <span class="trans" title="to adēlon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ ἄδηλον</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 38.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39221src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39251">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39251src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> Compare the passages in <i>Sext.</i> vii. 206, quoted p. 427, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39251src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39258">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39258src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 14, 45: <span lang="la">Nam qui voluit subvenire erroribus Epicurus iis, qui videntur conturbare veri cognitionem,
+dixitque sapientis esse opinionem a perspicuitate sejungere, nihil profecit, ipsius
+enim opinionis errorem nullo modo sustulit.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39258src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39266">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39266src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 7, 2 (<i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 366; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 795): <span class="trans" title="ho Epikouros ouk einai legōn ta chrōmata symphyē tois sōmasin, alla gennasthai kata poias tinas taxeis kai theseis pros tēn opsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Ἐπίκουρος οὐκ εἶναι λέγων τὰ χρώματα συμφυῆ τοῖς σώμασιν, ἀλλὰ γεννᾶσθαι κατὰ ποιάς
+τινας τάξεις καὶ θέσεις πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν</span></span>. For says Epicurus, <span class="trans" title="ouk oida hopōs dei ta en skotei tauta onta phēsai chrōmata echein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ οἶδα ὅπως δεῖ τὰ ἐν σκότει ταῦτα ὄντα φῆσαι χρώματα ἔχειν</span></span>. Often some see colour where others do not; <span class="trans" title="ou mallon oun echein ē mē echein chrōma rhēthēsetai tōn sōmatōn hekaston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ μᾶλλον οὖν ἔχειν ἢ μὴ ἔχειν <span id="xd33e39293">χρῶμα</span> ῥηθήσεται τῶν σωμάτων <span id="xd33e39297">ἕκαστον</span></span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39266src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39305">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39305src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> <i>Simpl.</i> Categ. 109, β (Schol. in Arist. 92, a, 10): Since Democritus and Epicurus attribute
+all qualities, to atoms except those of form and mode of combination, <span class="trans" title="epiginesthai legousi tas allas poiotētas, tas te haplas, hoion thermotētas kai leiotētas, kai tas kata chrōmata kai tous chymous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιγίνεσθαι λέγουσι τὰς ἄλλας ποιότητας, τάς τε ἁπλᾶς, οἷον θερμότητας καὶ λειότητας,
+καὶ τὰς κατὰ χρώματα καὶ τοὺς χυμούς</span></span>. <i>Lucret.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39305src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39319">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39319src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> Compare the passages already quoted, on the truth of the impressions of the senses,
+and the words of Epicurus, in <i>Diog.</i> 68: <span class="trans" title="alla mēn kai ta schēmata kai ta chrōmata kai ta megethē kai ta barea kai hosa alla katēgoreitai kata tou sōmatos hōs an eis auto bebēkota kai pasin enonta ē tois horatois kai kata tēn aisthēsin autēn gnōstois, outh’ hōs kath’ heautas eisi physeis doxasteon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰ χρώματα καὶ τὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ βάρεα καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα κατηγορεῖται
+κατὰ τοῦ σώματος ὡς ἂν εἰς αὐτὸ βεβηκότα καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνόντα ἢ τοῖς ὁρατοῖς καὶ κατὰ
+τὴν αἴσθησιν αὐτὴν γνωστοῖς, οὐθ’ ὡς καθ’ ἑαυτάς εἰσι φύσεις δοξαστέον</span></span> (<span class="trans" title="ou gar dynaton epinoēsai touto"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν ἐπινοῆσαι τοῦτο</span></span>), <span class="trans" title="outh’ holōs hōs ouk eisin, outh’ hōs hetera tina prosyparchonta toutō asōmata outh’ hōs moria toutou, all’ hōs to holon sōma katholou men ek toutōn pantōn tēn heautou physin echon aïdion, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔθ’ ὅλως ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶν, οὔθ’ ὡς ἕτερά τινα προσυπάρχοντα τούτῳ ἀσώματα οὔθ’ ὡς μορία
+τούτου, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ ὅλον σῶμα καθόλου <span id="xd33e39343">μὲν</span> ἐκ τούτων πάντων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἔχον ἀΐδιον, κ.τ<span>.</span>λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39319src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch17" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e1905">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XVII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE EPICUREAN VIEWS ON NATURE.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.a">A. <i>General views on nature.</i><br id="ch17.a.1">(1) <i>Object, value, and method of the study of nature.</i></span>
+If Epicurus and his followers underrated logic, to natural science they attached a
+considerable value. This value was, however, exclusively derived from a sense of the
+practical advantages which a knowledge of nature confers in opposing superstition.
+Without such an object the study of nature would have seemed wholly superfluous.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39370src" href="#xd33e39370" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> Such being their attitude of mind, the Epicureans were, as might have been expected,
+indifferent about giving a complete and accurate explanation of phenomena. Their one
+aim was to put forward such a view of nature as would do away with the necessity for
+supernatural intervention, without at the same time pretending to offer a sufficient
+solution of the problems raised by science.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39383src" href="#xd33e39383" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> Whilst, therefore, he devoted considerable attention to natural science,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39395src" href="#xd33e39395" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> Epicurus does not seem <span class="pageNum" id="pb435">[<a href="#pb435">435</a>]</span>to have considered certainty to be of importance, or even to be possible, in dealing
+with details of scientific study. Of the general causes of things we can and ought
+to entertain a firm conviction, since the possibility of overcoming religious prejudices
+and the fears occasioned by them depends on these convictions. No such result, however,
+follows from the investigation of details, which, on the contrary, only tends to confirm
+prejudices in those who are not already emancipated from them. In dealing with details,
+therefore, it is enough for Epicurus to show that various natural causes for phenomena
+may be imagined, and to offer various suggestions which dispense with the intervention
+of the Gods and the myths of a belief in Providence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39409src" href="#xd33e39409" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> To say that any one of these suggestions is the only possible one, is in most cases
+to exceed the bounds of experience <span class="pageNum" id="pb436">[<a href="#pb436">436</a>]</span>and human knowledge, and to go back to the capricious explanations of mythology.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39492src" href="#xd33e39492" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> Possibly the world may move, and possibly it may be at rest. Possibly it may be round,
+or else it may be triangular, or have any other shape. Possibly the sun and the stars
+may be extinguished at setting, and be lighted afresh at rising. It is, however, equally
+possible that they may only disappear under the earth and reappear again, or that
+their rising and setting may be due to yet other causes. Possibly the waxing and waning
+of the moon may be caused by the moon’s revolving; or it may be due to an atmospheric
+change, or to an actual increase and decrease in the moon’s size, or to some other
+cause. Possibly the moon may shine with borrowed light, or it may shine with its own,
+experience supplying us with instances of bodies which give their own light, and of
+those which have their light borrowed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39533src" href="#xd33e39533" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> From these and such-like statements it appears that questions of natural science
+in themselves have no <span class="pageNum" id="pb437">[<a href="#pb437">437</a>]</span>value for Epicurus. Whilst granting that only one natural explanation of phenomena
+is generally possible, yet in any particular case he is perfectly indifferent which
+explanation is adopted.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.a.2">(2) <i>Mechanical explanation of nature.</i></span>
+Great stress is, however, laid by him on the general explanation. In contrast with
+the religious view which regards the world as a system of means leading to ends, the
+leading business of the natural science of the Epicureans is to refer all phenomena
+to natural causes. To an Epicurean nothing appeals more absurd than to suppose that
+the arrangements of nature have for their object the well-being of mankind, or that
+they have any object at all. The tongue is not given us for the purpose of speaking,
+nor the ears for the purpose of hearing. As a matter of fact, it would, indeed, be
+more correct to say, that we speak because we have a tongue, and hear because we have
+ears. Natural powers have acted purely according to the law of necessity, and among
+their various products there could not fail to be some presenting the appearance of
+purpose in their arrangement. In the case of man there have resulted many such products
+and powers. But this result is by no means intentional; it is an accidental consequence
+of natural causes. In explaining nature all thought of Gods must be put out of sight.
+For their happiness would be inconceivable, on the supposition that they cared for
+man and his welfare.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39549src" href="#xd33e39549" title="Go to note 7.">7</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb438">[<a href="#pb438">438</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Confining his interest in nature, as Epicurus did, entirely to this general view of
+things, he was all the more inclined, in carrying it into details, to rely upon some
+older system. No system, however, appeared to correspond better with his tone of mind
+than that of Democritus, which, moreover, commended itself to him not only by absolutely
+banishing the idea of final cause, but by referring everything to matter, and by its
+theory of atoms. As Epicurus places in each individual thing taken by itself the ultimate
+end of action, so Democritus had theoretically made all that is real to consist in
+what is absolutely individual or in atoms. His natural science, therefore, seemed
+to present the most natural <span class="pageNum" id="pb439">[<a href="#pb439">439</a>]</span>basis for the Epicurean Ethics. If the Stoics, in their views of nature, closely followed
+Heraclitus, Epicurus in his followed Democritus still more closely, and hence, with
+the exception of one single point, the additions made by Epicurus to the theory of
+this philosopher are of no philosophical importance.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.a.3">(3) <i>Atoms and empty space.</i></span>
+With Democritus Epicurus agreed in holding that there is no other form of reality
+except that of bodily reality. Every substance, he says in the words of the Stoics,
+must affect others, and be affected by them; and whatever affects others or is itself
+affected, is corporeal. Corporeal substance is, therefore, the only kind of substance<span>.</span><a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39630src" href="#xd33e39630" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> The various qualities of things, essential as well as accidental qualities, are accordingly
+not incorporeal existences, but simply chance modes of body, the former being called
+by Epicurus <span class="trans" title="symbebēkota"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμβεβηκότα</span></span>, the latter <span class="trans" title="symptōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπτώματα</span></span>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39688src" href="#xd33e39688" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> But a second something is necessary <span class="pageNum" id="pb440">[<a href="#pb440">440</a>]</span>besides corporeal substance in order to explain phenomena, viz. empty space. That
+empty space exists is proved by the differences of weight in bodies. For what else
+could be the cause of this difference?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39780src" href="#xd33e39780" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> It is proved still more conclusively by motion, motion being impossible without empty
+space.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39784src" href="#xd33e39784" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> Mind as a moving cause, however, seems to Epicurus altogether superfluous. Everything
+that exists consists of bodies and empty space, and there is no third thing.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39798src" href="#xd33e39798" title="Go to note 12.">12</a>
+</p>
+<p>Democritus had resolved the two conceptions of body and empty space into the conceptions
+of being and not being. True to his position, Epicurus dispensed with this speculative
+basis, and clinging to the ordinary notions of empty space, and of a material filling
+space,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39808src" href="#xd33e39808" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> he simply proves these notions by <span class="pageNum" id="pb441">[<a href="#pb441">441</a>]</span>the qualities of phenomena. For this very reason Democritus’s division of body into
+innumerable primary particles or atoms appeared to him most necessary. All bodies
+known to us by sensation are composed of parts.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39875src" href="#xd33e39875" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> If the process of division were infinitely continued, all things would ultimately
+be resolved into the non-existent—in this Epicurus and Democritus agree;—and conversely
+all things must have been formed out of the non-existent, in defiance of the first
+principle of natural science that nothing can come from nothing, and that nothing
+can be resolved into nothing.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39935src" href="#xd33e39935" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> Hence, we must conclude <span class="pageNum" id="pb442">[<a href="#pb442">442</a>]</span>that the primary component parts of things can neither have come into existence nor
+cease to exist, nor yet be changed in their nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39964src" href="#xd33e39964" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> These primary bodies contain no empty space in themselves, and hence can neither
+be divided nor destroyed, nor be changed in any way.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39975src" href="#xd33e39975" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> They are so small that they do not impress the senses, and as a matter of fact we
+do not see them. Nevertheless they must not be regarded as mathematical atoms, the
+name atoms being assigned to them only because their bodily structure will not admit
+of division.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39984src" href="#xd33e39984" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> They have neither colour, warmth, smell, nor any other property; properties belong
+only to distinct materials;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e39996src" href="#xd33e39996" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> and for this reason they must not be sought in the four elements, all of which, as
+experience shows, come into being and pass away.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40004src" href="#xd33e40004" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> They possess only the universal qualities of all corporeal things, viz. shape, size,
+and weight.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40008src" href="#xd33e40008" title="Go to note 21.">21</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb443">[<a href="#pb443">443</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Not only must atoms, like all other bodies, have shape, but there must exist among
+them indefinitely many varieties of shape, or it would be impossible to account for
+the innumerable differences of things. There cannot, however, be really an infinite
+number of shapes, as Democritus maintained, in any limited body—this is intelligible
+of itself—nor yet in the whole universe,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40018src" href="#xd33e40018" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> since an unlimited number would make the arrangement of the world impossible, everything
+in the world being circumscribed by certain containing limits.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40053src" href="#xd33e40053" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> Again, atoms must be different in point of size; for all materials cannot be divided
+into particles of equal size. Yet even to this difference there must be some limitation.
+An atom must neither be so large as to become an object of sense, nor can it, after
+what has been said, be infinitely small.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40057src" href="#xd33e40057" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> From difference in point of size the difference of atoms in point of weight follows.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40063src" href="#xd33e40063" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> In point of number atoms must be innumerable, and in the same way empty space must
+be unbounded also. For since everything bounded must be bounded by something, it is
+impossible to imagine any bounds of the universe beyond which nothing exists, and
+hence there can be no bounds at all. The absence <span class="pageNum" id="pb444">[<a href="#pb444">444</a>]</span>of bounds must, apply to the mass of atoms quite as much as to empty space. If an
+infinite number of atoms would not find room in a limited space, conversely a limited
+number of atoms would be lost in empty space, and never able to form a world.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40073src" href="#xd33e40073" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> In all these views Epicurus closely follows Democritus, no doubt agreeing with him
+also in explaining the qualities of things by the composition of their atoms<span>.</span><a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40099src" href="#xd33e40099" title="Go to note 27.">27</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.b">B<span>.</span> <i>The world.</i><br id="ch17.b.1">(1) <i>The swerving aside of atoms.</i></span>
+In deducing the origin of things from their primary causes, Epicurus, however, deviates
+widely from his predecessor. Atoms—so it was taught by both—have by virtue of their
+weight been eternally engaged in a downward motion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40122src" href="#xd33e40122" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> That all bodies <span class="pageNum" id="pb445">[<a href="#pb445">445</a>]</span>should move downwards in empty space seemed to Epicurus a matter of course; for whatever
+is heavy must fall unless it is supported.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40136src" href="#xd33e40136" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> He was therefore opposed to the Aristotelian view that heaviness shows itself in
+the form of attraction towards a centre, and consequently to his further supposition
+that downward mode of motion belongs only to certain bodies, circular motion being
+for others more natural.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40142src" href="#xd33e40142" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> The objection that in endless space there is no above or below he could meet only
+by appealing to experience;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40150src" href="#xd33e40150" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> some things always appear above our heads, others beneath our feet.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40154src" href="#xd33e40154" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> But whilst Democritus held that atoms in their downward motion meet together, thus
+giving rise to a rotatory motion, no such view commended itself to Epicurus. Nay rather
+in his view all atoms will fall equally fast, since empty space offers no resistance,
+and falling perpendicularly it is impossible to see how they can meet.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40160src" href="#xd33e40160" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> To render a meeting possible he supposes the <span class="pageNum" id="pb446">[<a href="#pb446">446</a>]</span>smallest possible swerving aside from the perpendicular line in falling. This assumption
+seemed to him indispensable, since it would be otherwise impossible to assert the
+freedom of the human will. For how can the will be free if everything falls according
+to the strict law of gravity? For the same reason this swerving aside was not supposed
+to proceed from any natural necessity, but simply from the power of self-motion in
+the atoms.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40171src" href="#xd33e40171" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> In consequence of their meeting one part of the atoms rebounds—so Democritus also
+taught; the lighter ones are forced upwards, and from the upward and downward motions
+combined a rotatory motion arises.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40184src" href="#xd33e40184" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> When this motion takes place a clustering of atoms is the consequence, which by their
+own motion separate themselves from the remaining mass, and form a world of themselves.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40194src" href="#xd33e40194" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> Atoms being eternal and unchangeable, the process of forming worlds must go on without
+beginning or end;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40203src" href="#xd33e40203" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> and inasmuch as they are also infinite in number, and empty space is infinite also,
+there must be an innumerable number of worlds.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40207src" href="#xd33e40207" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> In the <span class="pageNum" id="pb447">[<a href="#pb447">447</a>]</span>character of these worlds the greatest possible variety may be supposed, since it
+is most unlikely that the innumerable combinations of atoms all brought about at random
+will fall out alike. Equally impossible is it to assert that all these worlds are
+absolutely dissimilar. In general, Epicurus assumed that they are extremely different
+both in point of size and arrangement, and that here and there one may be similar
+to our own.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40219src" href="#xd33e40219" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> Moreover, since eternity affords time for all imaginable combinations of atoms, nothing
+can ever be brought about now which has not already existed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40229src" href="#xd33e40229" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> In one respect all worlds are alike; they come into existence, are liable to decay,
+and, like all other individual elements, are exposed to a gradual increase and decrease.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40244src" href="#xd33e40244" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> So we might have assumed from other positions in his system. Between the individual
+worlds both Democritus and Epicurus insert intermediate world-spaces, in which by
+the clustering of atoms from time to time new worlds come into being.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40257src" href="#xd33e40257" title="Go to note 42.">42</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.b.2">(2) <i><span class="corr" id="xd33e40265" title="Source: Orig">Origin</span> of the world.</i></span>
+The origin of our world is thus described. At a certain period of time—Lucretius<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40269src" href="#xd33e40269" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> believes at no very distant period—a cluster of atoms of varying <span class="pageNum" id="pb448">[<a href="#pb448">448</a>]</span>shape and size was formed in this definite portion of space. These atoms meeting,
+there first arose from the pressure and rebound of the quickly falling particles motions
+of every variety in every direction. Soon the greater atoms pressing downwards, by
+dint of weight forced upwards the smaller and lighter atoms, the fiery ones topmost
+and with the greatest impetus to form the ether, and afterwards those which form the
+air.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40274src" href="#xd33e40274" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> The upper pressure ceasing, these masses, under the pressure of particles still joining
+it from below, spread forth sidewards, and thus the belts of fire and air were formed.
+Next uprose those atoms out of which the sun and stars are formed into the heights,
+and at the same time the earth settled down, its inner part being partially exhausted
+in those places where the sea now is. By the influence of the warmth of the ether,
+and the sun-heat, the earth-mass was bound together more closely, the sea was pressed
+out of it, and the surface assumed an uneven character.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40279src" href="#xd33e40279" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> The world is shut <span class="pageNum" id="pb449">[<a href="#pb449">449</a>]</span>off from other worlds and from empty space by those bodies which form its external
+boundary.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40294src" href="#xd33e40294" title="Go to note 46.">46</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.b.3">(3) <i>Arrangement of the universe.</i></span>
+Asking, in the next place, what idea must be formed of the arrangement of the world,
+we are met by the two principles which Epicurus is never weary of inculcating; one,
+that we must explain nothing as an intentional arrangement by deity, but refer everything
+simply and solely to mechanical causes; the other, that in explaining phenomena the
+widest possible room must be given for hypotheses of every kind, and that nothing
+is more absurd than to abridge the wide range of possible explanations by exclusively
+deciding in favour of any one.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40324src" href="#xd33e40324" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> Thereby the investigation of nature loses for him its value as such, nor is it of
+any great interest to us to follow his speculations on nature into detail. On one
+point he dogmatises, protesting that the framework of heaven must not be considered
+the work of God,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40327src" href="#xd33e40327" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> nor must life and reason be attributed to the stars.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40330src" href="#xd33e40330" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> Otherwise, on nearly all the questions which engaged the attention of astronomers
+at that time, he observes the greatest indifference, treating the views of his predecessors,
+good and bad alike, with an easy superficiality which can only be explained by supposing
+him altogether indifferent<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40347src" href="#xd33e40347" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> as to their truth. The state <span class="pageNum" id="pb450">[<a href="#pb450">450</a>]</span>of his own astronomical knowledge can, moreover, be easily seen by recalling the notorious
+assertion<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40381src" href="#xd33e40381" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> that the sun, the moon, and the stars are either not at all, or only a little larger,
+and may possibly be even less than they appear to be. The Epicureans also thought
+to support their theory that the earth, borne by the air, reposes in the middle of
+the world—a theory which on their hypothesis of the weight of bodies is impossible<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40402src" href="#xd33e40402" title="Go to note 52.">52</a>—by the gradual diminution in weight of the surrounding bodies.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40405src" href="#xd33e40405" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> It would be impossible here to go through the treatment which they gave to atmospheric
+and terrestrial phenomena, particularly as the principle already indicated was most
+freely used, and many explanations were given as being all equally possible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40419src" href="#xd33e40419" title="Go to note 54.">54</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb451">[<a href="#pb451">451</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.b.4">(4) <i>Plants and animals.</i></span>
+Out of the newly made earth plants at first grew,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40476src" href="#xd33e40476" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> and afterwards animals came forth, since the latter, according to Lucretius, can
+by no possibility have fallen from heaven.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40482src" href="#xd33e40482" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> In other worlds, likewise, living beings came into existence, though not necessarily
+in all.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40486src" href="#xd33e40486" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> Among these beings were originally, as Empedocles had previously supposed,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40491src" href="#xd33e40491" title="Go to note 58.">58</a> all sorts of composite or deformed creatures. Those, however, alone continued to
+exist which were fitted by nature to find support, to propagate, and to protect themselves
+from danger. Romantic creatures, such as centaurs of chimæras, can never have existed
+here, because the beings of which they are compounded would require conditions of
+life<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40494src" href="#xd33e40494" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> altogether different.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.c">C. <i>Mankind<span>.</span></i><br id="ch17.c.1">(1) <i>Origin of the human race.</i></span>
+Aiming, as the Epicureans did, at explaining the origin of men and animals in a purely
+natural manner, they likewise tried to form an idea, equally according to nature,
+of the original state and historical development of the human race. In this <span class="pageNum" id="pb452">[<a href="#pb452">452</a>]</span>attempt they ignored all legendary notions, and, notwithstanding their leaning towards
+materialism, they on the whole advocated perfectly sound views. The men of early times,
+so thought Lucretius, were stronger and more powerful than the men of to-day. Rude
+and ignorant as beasts, they lived in the woods in a perpetual state of warfare with
+the wild animals, without justice or society.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40510src" href="#xd33e40510" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> The first and most important step in a social direction was the discovery of fire,
+the learning to build huts, and to clothe themselves in skins; then began marriage
+and domestic life,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40522src" href="#xd33e40522" title="Go to note 61.">61</a> and speech, originally not a matter of convention, but, like the noises of animals,
+the natural expression of thoughts and feelings, was developed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40526src" href="#xd33e40526" title="Go to note 62.">62</a> The older the human race grew, the more they learned of the arts and skill which
+minister to the preservation and enjoyment of life. These arts were first learnt by
+experience, under the pressure of nature, or the compulsion of want. What had thus
+been discovered was completed by reflection, the more gifted preceding the rest as
+teachers.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40545src" href="#xd33e40545" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> In exactly <span class="pageNum" id="pb453">[<a href="#pb453">453</a>]</span>the same way civil society was developed. Individuals built strongholds, and made
+themselves rulers. In time the power of kings aroused envy, and they were massacred.
+To crush the anarchy which then arose, magistrates were chosen, and order established
+by penal laws.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40586src" href="#xd33e40586" title="Go to note 64.">64</a> It will subsequently be seen that Epicurus explained religion in the same way by
+natural growth.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.c.2">(2) <i>The soul.</i></span>
+The apotheosis of nature, which has been apparent in Epicurus’s whole view of history,
+becomes specially prominent in his treatment of psychology. This treatment could,
+after all that has been said, be only purely materialistic. The soul, like every other
+real being, is a body. In support of this view the <span class="pageNum" id="pb454">[<a href="#pb454">454</a>]</span>Epicureans appealed to the mutual relations of the body and the soul, agreeing on
+this point with the Stoics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40597src" href="#xd33e40597" title="Go to note 65.">65</a> The body of the soul, however, consists of the finest, lightest, and most easily
+moved atoms, as is manifest from the speed of thought, from the instantaneous dissolution
+of the soul after death, and, moreover, from the fact that the soulless body is as
+heavy as the body in which there is a soul.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40603src" href="#xd33e40603" title="Go to note 66.">66</a> Hence Epicurus, again agreeing with the Stoics, describes the soul as a material
+resembling fire and air,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40609src" href="#xd33e40609" title="Go to note 67.">67</a> or, more accurately, as composed of four elements, fire, air, vapour, and a fourth
+nameless element. It consists of the finest atoms, and is the cause of feeling,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40637src" href="#xd33e40637" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> and according as one or other of these elements preponderates, the character of man
+is of one or the other kind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40648src" href="#xd33e40648" title="Go to note 69.">69</a> Like the Stoics, Epicurus believed that the soul-element is received by generation
+from the parents’ souls,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40652src" href="#xd33e40652" title="Go to note 70.">70</a> and that it is spread over the whole body,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40675src" href="#xd33e40675" title="Go to note 71.">71</a> growing as the body grows.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40681src" href="#xd33e40681" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> At the same time he makes a distinction somewhat similar to that made by the Stoics
+in their doctrine of the <span class="pageNum" id="pb455">[<a href="#pb455">455</a>]</span>sovereign part of the soul (<span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40704src" href="#xd33e40704" title="Go to note 73.">73</a> Only the irrational part of the soul is diffused as a principle of life over the
+whole body; the rational part has its seat in the breast.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40713src" href="#xd33e40713" title="Go to note 74.">74</a> To the rational part belong mental activity, sensation, and perception, the motion
+of the will and the mind, and in this latter sense life itself; both parts together
+make up one being, yet they may exist in different conditions. The mind may be cheerful
+whilst the body and the irrational soul feel pain, or the reverse may be the case.
+It is even possible that portions of the irrational soul may be lost by the mutilation
+of the body, without detriment to the rational soul, or consequently to life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40739src" href="#xd33e40739" title="Go to note 75.">75</a> When, however, the connection between soul and body is fully severed, then the soul
+can no longer exist. Deprived of the surrounding shelter of the body, its atoms are
+dispersed in a moment, owing to their lightness; and the body in consequence, being
+unable to exist without the soul, goes over into corruption.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40751src" href="#xd33e40751" title="Go to note 76.">76</a> If this view appears to hold out the most <span class="pageNum" id="pb456">[<a href="#pb456">456</a>]</span>gloomy prospect for the future, Epicurus considers that it cannot really be so. With
+life every feeling of evil ceases,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40766src" href="#xd33e40766" title="Go to note 77.">77</a> and the time when we shall no longer exist affects us just as little as the time
+before we existed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40804src" href="#xd33e40804" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> Nay, more, he entertains the opinion that his teaching alone can reconcile us to
+death by removing all fear of the nether world and its terrors.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40808src" href="#xd33e40808" title="Go to note 79.">79</a>
+</p>
+<p>Allowing that many of these statements are natural consequences of the principles
+of Epicurus, the distinction between a rational and an irrational soul must, nevertheless,
+at first sight seem strange in a system so thoroughly materialistic as was that of
+the Epicureans. And yet this distinction is not stranger than the corresponding parts
+of the Stoic teaching. If the Stoic views may be referred to the distinction which
+they drew in morals between the senses and the reason, not less are the Epicurean
+ethics marked by the same contrast between the general and the sensuous side of the
+mind. Hence Epicurus shares the Stoic belief in an ethereal origin of the human race;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40816src" href="#xd33e40816" title="Go to note 80.">80</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb457">[<a href="#pb457">457</a>]</span>and although this belief as at first expressed only implies that man, like other living
+beings, is composed of ethereal elements, yet there is connected with it the distinction
+already discussed in the case of the Stoics between the higher and the lower parts
+of man, which ultimately comes to be simply another mode of expressing the difference
+between mind and matter.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.c.3">(3) <i>Sensation<span>.</span></i></span>
+Among the phenomena of the soul’s life sensation is made to harmonise with the general
+principles of the Epicurean view of nature by the aid of Democritus’s doctrine of
+atom-pictures (<span class="trans" title="eidōla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἴδωλα</span></span>). From the surface of bodies—this is the pith of that doctrine—the finest possible
+particles are constantly being thrown off, which by virtue of their fineness traverse
+the furthest spaces in an infinitely short time, hurrying through the void.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40855src" href="#xd33e40855" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> Many of these exhalations are arrested by some obstacle soon after coming forth,
+or are otherwise thrown into confusion. In the case of others the atoms for a long
+time retain the same position and connection which they had in bodies themselves,
+thus presenting a picture of things, and only lacking corporeal solidity. As these
+pictures are conveyed to the soul by the various organs of sense, our impressions
+of things arise.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40858src" href="#xd33e40858" title="Go to note 82.">82</a> Even those impressions, which have no corresponding <span class="pageNum" id="pb458">[<a href="#pb458">458</a>]</span>real object, must be referred to such pictures present in the soul.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40892src" href="#xd33e40892" title="Go to note 83.">83</a> For often pictures last longer than things themselves;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40900src" href="#xd33e40900" title="Go to note 84.">84</a> and often by a casual combination of atoms pictures are formed in the air resembling
+no one single thing. Sometimes, too, pictures of various kinds are combined on their
+way to the senses; thus, for instance, the notion of a Centaur is caused by the union
+of the picture of a man with that of a horse, not only in our imagination, but already
+previously in the atom-picture.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40932src" href="#xd33e40932" title="Go to note 85.">85</a> If, therefore, sensation distorts or imperfectly represents real objects, it must
+be explained as being due to some change or mutilation in the atom-pictures before
+they reach our senses.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40936src" href="#xd33e40936" title="Go to note 86.">86</a>
+</p>
+<p>In thus explaining mental impressions, the Epicureans do not allow themselves to be
+disturbed by the fact that we can recall at pleasure the ideas of all possible things.
+The cause of this power was rather supposed to be the circumstance that we are always
+surrounded by an innumerable number of atom-pictures, none of which we perceive unless
+our attention is directed to them. Likewise the seeming <span class="pageNum" id="pb459">[<a href="#pb459">459</a>]</span>motion of forms which we behold in dreams is explained by the hasty succession of
+similar atom-pictures, appearing to us as changes of one and the same picture.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40946src" href="#xd33e40946" title="Go to note 87.">87</a> But besides receiving pictures supplied from without, spontaneous motion with regard
+to these pictures takes place on our part, a motion connected in the first instance
+with the soul’s motion when it receives the outward impression, but not to be regarded
+as a simple continuation thereof. This independent motion gives rise to opinion, and
+hence opinion is not so necessary or so universally true as feeling. It may agree
+with feeling, or it may not agree with it. It may be true or it may be false.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40952src" href="#xd33e40952" title="Go to note 88.">88</a> The conditions of its being true or false have been previously investigated.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e40989src" href="#xd33e40989" title="Go to note 89.">89</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch17.c.4">(4) <i>Will.</i></span>
+Impressions also give rise to will and action, the soul being set in motion by impressions,
+and this motion extending from the soul to the body.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41017src" href="#xd33e41017" title="Go to note 90.">90</a> Into the nature of will, however, Epicurus does not appear to have instituted a more
+careful psychological investigation. It was enough for him to assert the freedom of
+the will. This freedom he considers absolutely indispensable, if anything we <span class="pageNum" id="pb460">[<a href="#pb460">460</a>]</span>do is to be considered our own, unless we are prepared to despair of moral responsibility
+altogether, and to resign ourselves to a comfortless and inexorable necessity.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41030src" href="#xd33e41030" title="Go to note 91.">91</a> To make freedom possible, Epicurus had introduced accident into the motion of atoms,
+and for the same reason he denies the truth of disjunctive propositions which apply
+to the future.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41042src" href="#xd33e41042" title="Go to note 92.">92</a> In the latter respect, he, no doubt, only attacked the material truth of two clauses,
+without impugning the formal accuracy of the disjunction,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41049src" href="#xd33e41049" title="Go to note 93.">93</a> i.e. he did not deny that of two contradictory cases either one or the other must
+happen, nor did he deny the truth of saying: To-morrow Epicurus will either be alive
+or not alive. But he disputed the truth of each clause taken by itself. He denied
+the truth of the sentence<span>,</span> Epicurus will be alive; and equally that of its contradictory, Epicurus will not
+be alive; on the ground that the one or the other statement only <i>becomes</i> true by the actual realisation of an event at present uncertain.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41059src" href="#xd33e41059" title="Go to note 94.">94</a> For this he <span class="pageNum" id="pb461">[<a href="#pb461">461</a>]</span>deserves little blame. Our real charge against him is that he did not more thoroughly
+investigate the nature of the will and the conception of freedom, and that he treats
+the subject of the soul as scantily and superficially as he had treated the subject
+of nature.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb462">[<a href="#pb462">462</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39370">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39370src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 143: <span class="trans" title="ouk ēn ton phoboumenon peri tōn kyriōtatōn lyein mē kateidota tis hē tou sympantos physis all’ hypopteuomenon ti tōn kata tous mythous. hōste ouk ēn aneu physiologias akeraias tas hēdonas apolambanein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἦν τὸν φοβούμενον περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων λύειν μὴ κατειδότα τίς ἡ τοῦ σύμπαντος φύσις
+ἀλλ’ ὑποπτευόμενόν τι τῶν κατὰ τοὺς μύθους. ὥστε οὐκ ἦν ἄνευ φυσιολογίας ἀκεραίας
+τὰς ἡδονὰς ἀπολαμβάνειν</span></span>. For further particulars, p. 422.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39370src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39383">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39383src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <span class="trans" title="ou gar dē idiologias kai kenēs doxēs ho bios hēmōn echei chreian, alla tou athorybōs hēmas zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἰδιολογίας καὶ κενῆς δόξης ὁ βίος ἡμῶν ἔχει χρείαν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀθορύβως ἡμᾶς
+ζῇν</span></span>. Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 87.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39383src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39395">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39395src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 27, mentions 37 books of his <span class="trans" title="peri physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ φύσεως</span></span>, besides smaller works.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39395src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39409">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39409src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 78: <span class="trans" title="kai mēn kai tēn hyper tōn kyriōtatōn aitian exakribōsai physiologias ergon einai dei nomizein kai to makarion en tē peri tōn meteōrōn gnōsei entautha peptōkenai; kai en tō, tines physeis hai theōroumenai kata ta meteōra tauti, kai hosa syngenē pros tēn eis tauta akribeian; eti de kai to pleonachōs en tois toioutois einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μὴν καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν κυριωτάτων αἰτίαν ἐξακριβῶσαι φυσιολογίας ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ
+νομίζειν καὶ τὸ μακάριον ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν μετεώρων γνώσει ἐνταῦθα πεπτωκέναι· καὶ ἐν
+τῷ, τίνες φύσεις αἱ θεωρούμεναι κατὰ τὰ μετέωρα ταυτὶ, καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ πρὸς τὴν εἰς
+ταῦτα ἀκρίβειαν· ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸ πλεοναχῶς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις εἶναι</span></span> [evidently <span class="trans" title="mē einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ εἶναι</span></span> must be read], <span class="trans" title="kai to eudechomenōs kai allōs pōs echein, all’ haplōs mē einai en aphthartō kai makaria physei tōn diakrisin hypoballontōn ē tarachon mēthen; kai touto katalabein tē dianoia estin haplōs houtōs einai. to d’ en tē historia peptōkos tēs dyseōs kai anatolēs kai tropēs kai ekleipseōs kai hosa syngenē toutois mēthen eti pros to makarion tēs gnōseōs synteinein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὸ εὐδεχομένως καὶ ἄλλως πως ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς μὴ εἶναι ἐν ἀφθάρτῳ καὶ μακαρίᾳ
+φύσει τῶν διάκρισιν ὑποβαλλόντων ἢ τάραχον μηθέν· καὶ τοῦτο καταλαβεῖν τῇ διανοίᾳ
+ἔστιν ἁπλῶς οὕτως εἶναι. τὸ δ’ ἐν τῇ ἱστορίᾳ πεπτωκὸς τῆς δύσεως καὶ ἀνατολῆς καὶ
+τροπῆς καὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ τούτοις μηθὲν <span class="corr" id="xd33e39433" title="Source: ἔτ">ἔτι</span> πρὸς τὸ μακάριον τῆς γνώσεως συντείνειν</span></span> (how very different from Aristotle! See <i>Zeller</i>, <span lang="de">Philosophie der Griechen</span>, ii. b, 113, 3; 114, 3; 359, 2), <span class="trans" title="all’ homoiōs tous phobous echein tous tauta katidontas tines de hai physeis agnoountas kai tines hai kyriōtatai aitiai, kai ei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλ’ ὁμοίως τοὺς φόβους ἔχειν τοὺς ταῦτα κατιδόντας τίνες δὲ αἱ φύσεις ἀγνοοῦντας
+καὶ τίνες αἱ κυριώταται αἰτίαι, καὶ εἰ</span></span> (as if) <span class="trans" title="mē prosēdesan tauta, tacha de kai pleious, hotan to thambos ek tēs toutōn prokatanoēseōs mē dynētai tēn lysin lambanein kata tēn peri tōn kyriōtatōn oikonomian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ προσῄδεσαν ταῦτα, τάχα δὲ καὶ πλείους, ὅταν τὸ θάμβος ἐκ τῆς τούτων προκατανοήσεως
+μὴ δύνηται τὴν λύσιν λαμβάνειν κατὰ τὴν περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων οἰκονομίαν</span></span>. (Conf. <i>Lucr.</i> vi. 50; v. 82.) <span class="trans" title="dio dē kai pleious aitias heuriskomen tropōn, k.t.l. kai ou dei nomizein tēn hyper toutōn chreian akribeian mē apeilēphenai hosē pros to atarachon kai makarion hēmōn synteinei, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὸ δὴ καὶ πλείους αἰτίας εὑρίσκομεν τροπῶν, κ.τ.λ. καὶ οὐ δεῖ νομίζειν τὴν ὑπὲρ τούτων
+χρείαν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ ἀπειληφέναι ὅση πρὸς τὸ ἀτάραχον καὶ μακάριον ἡμῶν συντείνει,
+κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 104: <span class="trans" title="kai kat’ allous de tropous pleionas endechetai keraunous apoteleisthai. monon ho mythos apestō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ κατ’ ἄλλους δὲ τρόπους πλείονας ἐνδέχεται κεραυνοὺς ἀποτελεῖσθαι. <span class="corr" id="xd33e39480" title="Source: μόνο">μόνον</span> ὁ μῦθος ἀπέστω</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39409src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39492">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39492src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 87: <span class="trans" title="panta men oun ginetai aseistōs kata pantōn, kata pleonachon tropon ekkathairomenōn symphōnōs tois phainomenois, hotan tis to pithanologoumenon hyper autōn deontōs katalipē. hotan de tis to men apolipē, to de ekbalē homoiōs symphōnon on tō phainomenō dēlon hoti kai ek pantos ekpiptei physiologēmatos epi de ton mython katarrhei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα μὲν οὖν γίνεται ἀσείστως κατὰ πάντων, κατὰ πλεοναχὸν τρόπον ἐκκαθαιρομένων συμφώνως
+τοῖς φαινομένοις, ὅταν τις τὸ πιθανολογούμενον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν δεόντως καταλίπῃ. ὅταν δέ
+τις τὸ μὲν ἀπολίπῃ, τὸ δὲ ἐκβάλῃ ὁμοίως σύμφωνον ὂν τῷ φαινομένῳ δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐκ
+παντὸς ἐκπίπτει φυσιολογήματος ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν μῦθον καταῤῥεῖ</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 98: <span class="trans" title="hoi de to hen lambanontes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ δὲ τὸ ἓν λαμβάνοντες</span></span> (those who allow only one explanation for every phenomenon) <span class="trans" title="tois te phainomenois machontai kai tou ti dynaton anthrōpō theōrēsai diapeptōkasin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς τε φαινομένοις μάχονται καὶ τοῦ τί δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ θεωρῆσαι διαπεπτώκασιν</span></span>. In investigating nature, they proceed on suppositions chosen at random (<span class="trans" title="axiōmata kena kai nomothesiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀξιώματα κενὰ καὶ νομοθεσίαι</span></span>, Epic. l.c. 86). Conf. 94; 104; 113. <i>Lucret.</i> vi. 703.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39492src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39533">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39533src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 88; 92–95. Many other similar instances might be quoted. In support of the view that
+the sun was extinguished at setting, Epicurus, according to <i>Cleomed.</i> Meteora, p. 89, is said to have appealed to the story (respecting which Posidonius
+in <i>Strabo</i>, iii. 1, 5, p. 138) that, as it sets, the hissing of the ocean may be heard on the
+sea-shore.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39533src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39549">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39549src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> The principle is thus expanded by <i>Lucret.</i> i. 1021:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Nam certe neque consilio primordia rerum </p>
+<p class="line">Ordine se suo quæque sagaci mente locarunt, </p>
+<p class="line">Nec quos quæque darent motuspepigere profecto; </p>
+<p class="line">Sed quia multa modis multis mutata per omne </p>
+<p class="line">Ex infinito vexantur percita plagis, </p>
+<p class="line">Omne genus motus et cœtus experiundo, </p>
+<p class="line">Tandem deveniunt in tales disposituras, </p>
+<p class="line">Qualibus hæc rebus consistit summa creata. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">v. 156:
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Dicere porro hominum causa voluisse [<i>scil.</i> Deos] parare </p>
+<p class="line">Præclaram mundi naturam, &amp;c. </p>
+<p class="line">Desipere est. Quid enim immortalibus atque beatis </p>
+<p class="line">Gratia nostra queat largirier emolumenti, </p>
+<p class="line">Ut nostra quidquam causa gerere adgrediantur? </p>
+<p class="line">Quidve novi potuit tanto post ante quietos </p>
+<p class="line">Inlicere, ut cuperent vitam mutare priorem?… </p>
+<p class="line">Exemplum porro gignundis rebus et ipsa </p>
+<p class="line">Notities hominum, Dis unde est insita primum; … </p>
+<p class="line">Si non ipsa dedit specimen natura creandi? </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Conf. iv. 820; v. 78; 195; 419. In these views, he is only following Epicurus. Heavenly
+phenomena, says the latter, in <i>Diog.</i> 76, <span class="trans" title="mēte leitourgountos tinos nomizein dei ginesthai kai diatattontos ē diataxantos kai hama tēn pasan makariotēta echontos met’ aphtharsias; ou gar symphōnousi pragmateiai kai phrontides kai orgai kai charites tē makariotēti, all’ astheneia kai phobō kai prosdeēsei tōn plēsion tauta ginetai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μήτε λειτουργοῦντός τινος νομίζειν δεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ διατάττοντος ἢ διατάξαντος καὶ
+ἅμα τὴν πᾶσαν μακαριότητα ἔχοντος μετ’ ἀφθαρσίας· οὐ γὰρ συμφωνοῦσι πραγματεῖαι καὶ
+φροντίδες καὶ ὀργαὶ καὶ χάριτες τῇ μακαριότητι, ἀλλ’ ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει
+τῶν πλησίον ταῦτα γίνεται</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 97: <span class="trans" title="hē theia physis pros tauta mēdamē prosagesthō, all’ aleitourgētos diatēreisthō kai en tē pasē makariotēti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ θεία φύσις πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῆ προσαγέσθω, ἀλλ’ ἀλειτούργητος διατηρείσθω καὶ ἐν τῇ
+πάσῃ μακαριότητι</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 113. With these passages <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 20, 52, and <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 7, 7 (likewise ii. 3, 2; <i>Stob.</i> i. 442), are quite in agreement.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39549src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39630">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39630src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> i. 440:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Præterea per se quodcumque erit aut faciet quid </p>
+<p class="line">Aut aliis fungi [<span class="trans" title="paschein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάσχειν</span></span>] debebit agentibus ipsum, </p>
+<p class="line">Aut erit, ut possint in eo res esse gerique. </p>
+<p class="line">At facere et fungi sine corpore nulla potest res, </p>
+<p class="line">Nec præbere locum porro nisi inane vacansque. </p>
+<p class="line">Ergo præter inane et corpora <span class="corr" id="xd33e39654" title="Source: tert a">tertia</span> per se </p>
+<p class="line">Nulla potest rerum in numero natura relinqui. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 67: <span class="trans" title="kath’ heauto de ouk esti noēsai to asōmaton plēn epi tou kenou. to de kenon oute poiēsai oute pathein dynatai, alla kinēsin monon di’ heautou tois sōmasi parechetai. hōsth’ hoi legontes asōmaton einai tēn psychēn mataiazousin. outhen gar an edynato poiein oute paschein ei ēn toiautē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ ἑαυτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι νοῆσαι τὸ ἀσώματον πλὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κενοῦ. τὸ δὲ κενὸν οὔτε ποιῆσαι
+οὔτε παθεῖν δύναται, ἀλλὰ κίνησιν μόνον δι’ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς σώμασι παρέχεται. ὥσθ’ οἱ
+λέγοντες ἀσώματον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ματαιάζουσιν. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἂν ἐδύνατο ποιεῖν οὔτε πάσχειν
+εἰ ἦν τοιαύτη</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39630src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39688">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39688src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 68; 40. <i>Lucr.</i> i. 449, who expresses <span class="trans" title="symbebēkota"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμβεβηκότα</span></span> by <span lang="la">conjuncta</span>, and <span class="trans" title="symptōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπτώματα</span></span> by <span lang="la">eventa</span>. Among the latter Lucretius, 459, reckons <i>time</i>, because in itself it is nothing, and only comes to our knowledge through motion
+and rest. Likewise Epicurus, in <i>Diog.</i> 72 (conf. <i>Stob.</i> i. 252), shows that time is composed of days and <span class="pageNum" id="pb440n">[<a href="#pb440n">440</a>]</span>nights, and their portions, of states of feeling or unconsciousness, of motion or
+rest, and hence that it is only a product (<span class="trans" title="symptōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμπτωμα</span></span>) of these phenomena; and these being again <span class="trans" title="symptōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπτώματα</span></span>, time is defined by the Epicurean Demetrius (<i>Sext.</i> Math. x. 219; Pyrrh<span>.</span> iii. 137): <span class="trans" title="symptōma symptōmatōn parepomenon hēmerais te kai nyxi kai hōrais kai pathesi kai apatheiais kai kinēsesi kai monais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύμπτωμα <span class="corr" id="xd33e39749" title="Source: συμπτωτάτων">συμπτωμάτων</span> παρεπόμενον ἡμέραις τε καὶ νυξὶ καὶ ὥραις καὶ πάθεσι καὶ ἀπαθείαις καὶ κινήσεσι καὶ
+μοναῖς</span></span><span>.</span> The distinction between abstract and sensuous or undivided time (<i>Steinhart</i>, l.c. 466) does not appear to exist in Diogenes. His <span class="trans" title="chronoi dia logou theōrētoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χρόνοι διὰ λόγου θεωρητοὶ</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 47) are imperceptibly small divisions of time, <span lang="la">tempora multa, ratio quæ comperit esse</span>, which, according to <i>Lucret.</i> iv. 792, are contained in every given time.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39688src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39780">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39780src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Lucret.</i> i. 358.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39780src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39784">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39784src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Lucret.</i> l.c. and i. 329; <i>Diog.</i> 40 and 67; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 213; viii. 329. Most of the remarks in <i>Lucret.</i> i. 346 and 532 point to the same fundamental idea: Without vacant interstices, nourishment
+cannot be diffused over the whole bodies of plants or animals, nor can noise, cold,
+fire and water penetrate through solid bodies, or any body be broken up into parts.
+The same in <i>Themist.</i> 40, b; <i>Simpl.</i> De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 484, a, 26.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39784src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39798">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39798src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> i. 440; <i>Diog.</i> 39; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col 11, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39798src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39808">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39808src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> Body is defined by Epicurus (<i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 21; x. 240; 257; xi. 226) as <span class="trans" title="to trichē diastaton meta antitypias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ τριχῆ διαστατὸν μετὰ ἀντιτυπίας</span></span>, or as <span class="trans" title="synodos kata athroismon megethous kai schēmatos kai antitypias kai barous"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e39823">σύνοδος</span> κατὰ ἀθροισμὸν μεγέθους <span class="pageNum" id="pb441n">[<a href="#pb441n">441</a>]</span>καὶ σχήματος καὶ ἀντιτυπίας καὶ βάρους</span></span>. Emptiness is (according to <i>Sext.</i> x. 2) <span class="trans" title="physis anaphēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις ἀναφὴς</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="erēmos pantos sōmatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔρημος παντὸς σώματος</span></span>. When occupied by a body, it is called <span class="trans" title="topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόπος</span></span>; when bodies pass through it, it is <span class="trans" title="chōra"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χώρα</span></span>; so that all three expressions, as <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 388 rightly observes, are only different names for the same thing. To the
+same effect is the statement in <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 20.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39808src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39875">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39875src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> Hence, in <i>Diog.</i> 69, <span class="trans" title="athroisma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄθροισμα</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="sympephorēmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπεφορήμενον</span></span> are used of bodies; in <i>Diog.</i> 71, all bodies are called <span class="trans" title="symptōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπτώματα</span></span>; and according to Epicurus (<i>Sext.</i> Math. x. 42), all changes in bodies are due to local displacement of the atoms. <i>Plut.</i> Amator. 24, 3, p. 769, observes that Epicurus deals with <span class="trans" title="haphē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἁφὴ</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="symplokē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπλοκὴ</span></span>, but never with <span class="trans" title="henotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἑνότης</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39875src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39935">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39935src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 40: <span class="trans" title="tōn sōmatōn ta men esti synkriseis ta d’ ex hōn hai synkriseis pepoiēntai; tauta de estin atoma kai ametablēta eiper mē mellei panta eis to mē on phtharēsesthai, all’ ischyonta hypomenein en tais dialysesi tōn synkriseōn ... hōste tas archas atomous anankaion einai sōmatōn physeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι συγκρίσεις τὰ δ’ ἐξ ὧν αἱ συγκρίσεις πεποίηνται· ταῦτα δέ
+ἐστιν ἄτομα καὶ ἀμετάβλητα εἴπερ μὴ μέλλει πάντα εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν φθαρήσεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἰσχύοντα
+ὑπομένειν ἐν ταῖς διαλύσεσι τῶν συγκρίσεων … ὥστε τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀτόμους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι
+σωμάτων φύσεις</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 56; <i>Lucr.</i> i. 147; ii. 551; 751; 790. Further arguments for the belief in atoms in <i>Lucret.</i> i. 498: Since a body and the space in which it is are entirely different, both must
+originally have existed without any intermingling. If things exist composed of the
+full and the empty, the full by itself must exist, and likewise the empty. Bodies
+in which there is no empty space cannot be divided. They may be eternal, and must
+be so, unless things have been produced out of nothing. Without empty space, soft
+bodies could not exist, nor hard bodies without something full. If there were no indivisible
+parts, everything must have been long since destroyed. The regularity of phenomena
+presupposes <span class="pageNum" id="pb442n">[<a href="#pb442n">442</a>]</span>unchangeable primary elements. All that is composite must ultimately consist of simple
+indivisible parts. If there were no indivisible parts, every body would consist of
+innumerable parts, as many in the smaller as in the greater body (conf. Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 56). If nature did not reduce things to their smallest parts, it could not make new
+things. These arguments, very unequal in value, were borrowed by Lucretius from Epicurus.
+Plut. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. 1, 8, 9, quotes, as an Epicurean principle, that unchangeable Being must
+be at the bottom of everything.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39935src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39964">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39964src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> Epicurus and Lucretius, l.c. <i>Lucr.</i> i. 529; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 219; x. 318; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. i. 306; <i>Plut.</i> Pl. Phil. i. 3, 29.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39964src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39975">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39975src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 41; <i>Lucret.</i> i. 528; <i>Simpl.</i> De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 484, a, 23.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39975src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39984">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39984src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 44 and 55; <i>Lucret.</i> i. 266, where it is proved, by many analogies, that there may be invisible bodies;
+<i>Stob.</i> l.c.; <i>Plut.</i> l.c.; <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 216, a.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39984src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e39996">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e39996src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 44; 54; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 736 and 841; <i>Plut.</i> l.c. See page 433, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e39996src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40004">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40004src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Lucret.</i> v. 235.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40004src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40008">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40008src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Diog.</i>; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 3, 29. The statement there made, that Democritus only allowed to atoms size
+and shape, and that Epicurus added weight, is not correct.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40008src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40018">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40018src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 42; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 333 and 478; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 3, 30 (where, however, it would be against the sense to substitute <span class="trans" title="ē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἢ</span></span> for <span class="trans" title="mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ</span></span> as <i>Steinhart</i> l.c. p. 473 note 94 does); Alex. Aphr. in <i>Philop.</i> Gen. et Corr. 3, b; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 24, 66. It does not, however, appear that <i>Lucret.</i> ii. 333, made the variety of figures as great as the number of atoms. (<i>Ritter</i>, iv. 101.)&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40018src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40053">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40053src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Lucret.</i> i. 500.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40053src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40057">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40057src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> x. 55; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 381.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40057src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40063">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40063src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> See the passages quoted, p. 442, 6, and 445, 5. The text of <i>Stobæus</i>, Ecl. i. 346, must be corrected by the aid of these passages. <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 12, 5.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40063src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40073">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40073src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 41: <span class="trans" title="alla mēn kai to pan apeiron esti; to gar peperasmenon akron echei; to d’ akron par’ heteron ti theōreitai. hōste ouk echon akron peras ouk echei, peras d’ ouk echon apeiron an eiē kai ou peperasmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι· τὸ γὰρ πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει· τὸ δ’ ἄκρον παρ’
+ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται. ὥστε οὐκ ἔχον ἄκρον πέρας οὐκ ἔχει, πέρας δ’ οὐκ ἔχον ἄπειρον
+ἂν εἴη καὶ οὐ πεπερασμένον</span></span>. The same argument is used by <i>Lucret.</i> i. 951; 1008–1020. He continues 984, 1021: If space were limited, all bodies would
+collect <span class="corr" id="xd33e40087" title="Source: towa ds">towards</span> its lower part by reason of their weight, and their motion would cease. Unless the
+quantity of matter were unlimited, the amount lost by bodies in their mutual contact
+could not be supplied. Conf. also <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 13, 3; in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. i. 8, 9; Plac. i. 3, 28; Alex. in <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 107, b, who mentions the above-quoted argument of Epicurus as the chief argument
+of the Epicureans.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40073src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40099">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40099src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> We have but little information; but it has been already shown p. 433, 2, and follows
+too as a matter of course, that he referred all the properties of bodies to the shape
+and arrangement of the atoms. Whenever he found in the same body different qualities
+combined, he assumed that it was composed of different kinds of atoms. For instance,
+he asserted of wine: <span class="trans" title="ouk einai thermon autotelōs ton oinon, all’ echein tinas atomous en hautō thermasias apotelestikas, heteras d’ au psychrotētos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ εἶναι θερμὸν αὐτοτελῶς τὸν οἶνον, ἀλλ’ ἔχειν τινὰς ἀτόμους ἐν αὑτῷ θερμασίας ἀποτελεστικὰς,
+ἑτέρας δ’ αὖ ψυχρότητος</span></span>. According to the difference of constitution, it has on some a cooling, on others
+a heating effect. <i>Plut.</i> Qu. Conviv. iii. 5, 1, 4; Adv. Col. 6. This agrees with the remarks made on Democritus
+in vol. i. 597.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40099src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40122">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40122src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 43; 47; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 20, 54. What idea Epicurus formed to himself of motion we are not told.
+We learn, however, from <i>Themist.</i> Phys. 52, b, that he replied to Aristotle’s proof of motion, that no <span class="pageNum" id="pb445n">[<a href="#pb445n">445</a>]</span>constant quantities can be composed of indivisible particles (Phys. vi. 1), by saying:
+Whatever moves in a given line moves in the whole line, but not in the individual
+indivisible portions of which the line consists. With reference to the same question,
+the Epicureans, according to <i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 219, b, asserted that everything moves equally quickly through indivisible
+spaces.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40122src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40136">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40136src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 6, 18; <i>Lucret.</i> i. 1074.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40136src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40142">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40142src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 1052 (the text being faulty); <i>Simpl.</i> De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 510, b, 30; 486, a, 7. The latter writer inaccurately groups
+Epicurus together with others (Democritus and Strato). The same point, according to
+<i>Simpl.</i> Phys. 113, b, was a subject of contention between Alexander of Aphrodisias and the
+Epicurean Zenobius, at the close of the second century after Christ.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40142src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40150">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40150src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> As Aristotle had already done.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40150src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40154">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40154src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 60; conf. <i>Plut.</i> Def. Orac. 28, p. 425.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40154src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40160">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40160src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 43; 61; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 225; <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 43, i. p. 1082. This objection was borrowed from Aristotle by Epicurus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40160src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40171">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40171src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 216; <span class="corr" id="xd33e40174" title="Source: 251">261</span>; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 6, 18; N.&nbsp;D. i. 25, 69; De Fato, 10, 22; <i>Plut.</i> An. Procr. 6, 9, p. 1015; Solert. Anim. 7, 2, p. 964; Plac. i. 12, 5; 23, 4; <i>Stobæus</i>, Ecl. i. 346, 394.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40171src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40184">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40184src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 44; conf. 62; 90; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 12, 5; Fac. Lun. 4, 5, p. 921; <i>Stob.</i> i. 346; <i>Lucret.</i> v. 432.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40184src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40194">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40194src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 73; <i>Lucr.</i> i. 1021. See above, p. 437, 1; <i>Plut.</i> Def. Or. 19, p. 420.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40194src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40203">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40203src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 6, 17. See p. 444, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40203src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40207">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40207src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 45; 73; <i>Lucret.</i> ii. 1048; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 1, 3. It need hardly be remarked that by worlds world-bodies are not meant.
+In <i>Diog.</i> 88, Epicurus defines the world as a part of the heaven, surrounding the earth and
+stars, having a definite shape, and, towards other parts of the heaven, bounded.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40207src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40219">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40219src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 45; 74; 88; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 2, 2; 7, 3; <i>Stob.</i> i. 490; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 18, 48; Acad. ii. 40, 125.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40219src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40229">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40229src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> Plut. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. i<span>.</span> 8, 9: Epicurus says, <span class="trans" title="hoti ouden xenon apoteleitai en tō panti para ton ēdē gegenēmenon chronon apeiron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι οὐδὲν ξένον ἀποτελεῖται ἐν τῷ παντὶ παρὰ τὸν ἤδη γεγενημένον χρόνον ἄπειρον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40229src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40244">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40244src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 73; 89; <i>Lucret.</i> ii. 1105; v. 91 and 235, where the transitory character of the world is elaborately
+proved; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 6, 21. <i>Stob.</i> i. 418; Epicurus makes the world decay in the greatest variety of ways. <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 4, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40244src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40257">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40257src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> x. 89.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40257src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40269">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40269src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> v. 324, arguing that historical memory would otherwise go much further back, and arts
+and sciences be of much greater antiquity.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40269src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40274">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40274src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> On this point see <i>Lucret.</i> ii. 1112. The principle that similar elements naturally congregate is there explained
+in this way.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40274src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40279">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40279src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 416–508; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 4. The latter view has been referred, in vol. i. 604, to the Atomists. It
+would now appear that it must be deduced from Epicureanism, and its agreement with
+the views attributed to Leucippus in other places explained by the well-known connection
+between Epicurus and Democritus. The views of Epicurus on the formation of the world
+do not entirely agree with those of Democritus. It was probably with an eye to Democritus
+(compare the extracts in vol. i. 608 from <i>Orig.</i> Philosoph. p. 17) that Epicurus, in <i>Diog.</i> 90, denied that the world could be increased from without, or that sun and moon could
+be possibly absorbed in our world. <i>Lucret.</i> ii. 1105, however, supposes an increase of the world from without to be possible.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40279src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40294">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40294src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> On these <span lang="la">mœnia mundi</span>, which, according to Lucretius, coincide with the ether or fire-belt, see Epic<span>.</span> in <i>Diog.</i> 88; <i>Id.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ φύσεως</span></span>, xi. (Vol. Herc. ii.) col. 2; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 7, 3; <i>Lucr.</i> i. 73; ii. 1144; v. 454.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40294src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40324">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40324src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> On this point see page 434.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40324src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40327">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40327src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> See p. 437, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40327src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40330">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40330src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> In <i>Diog.</i> 77; 81; <i>Lucret.</i> v. 78 and 114, where the contrast is more fully brought out. By <span class="trans" title="zōa ourania"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ζῷα οὐράνια</span></span>, in <i>Plut.</i> Plac. v. 20, 2, we must by no means think of the stars.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40330src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40347">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40347src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> Examples have already been met with, p. 436. A complete review of the Epicurean <span class="pageNum" id="pb450n">[<a href="#pb450n">450</a>]</span>astronomy is not worth our while. It may be studied in the following passages: For
+the substance of the stars, consult <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 13, 9; for their rising and setting, <i>Diog.</i> 92; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 648; <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. p. 87; for their revolution and deviation, <i>Diog.</i> 92; 112–114; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 509; 612; for the appearance of the moon, <i>Diog.</i> 94, and <i>Lucr.</i> v. 574, 703; for eclipses of sun and moon, <i>Diog.</i> 96; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 749; for changes in the length of day, <i>Diog.</i> 98; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 678.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40347src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40381">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40381src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 91; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 26, 82; Fin. i. 6, 20; <i>Sen.</i> Qu. Nat. i. 3, 10; <i>Cleomed.</i> Met. ii. 1; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 21, 4; 22, 4; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 564. The body of the sun was considered by Epicurus (<i>Plut.</i> Plac. ii. 20, 9; <i>Stob.</i> i. 530) to consist of earth-like and spongy matter, saturated with fire. According
+to <i>Lucret.</i> v. 471, sun and moon stand midway between ether and earth in point of density.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40381src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40402">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40402src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> It is still more difficult to imagine the world as stationary, which is tacitly assumed.
+It would then be bounded by endless space, and soon come into collision with other
+masses.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40402src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40405">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40405src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 534. Conf. Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 74, and <span class="trans" title="peri physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ φύσεως</span></span>, xi. col. 1. In the latter passage, Epicurus appeals to the fact that the earth is
+equidistant from the bounds of the world.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40405src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40419">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40419src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> Further particulars: on clouds, <i>Diog.</i> 99: <i>Lucr.</i> vi. 451; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iii. 4, 3; on rain, <i>Diog.</i> 100; <i>Lucret.</i> vi. 495; on thunder, <i>Diog.</i> 100; 103; <i>Lucret.</i> vi. 96; on lightning, <i>Diog.</i> 101; <i>Lucr.</i> vi. 160; on sirocco, <i>Diog.</i> 104; <i>Lucr.</i> vi. 423; Plac. iii. 3, 2; on earthquakes, <i>Diog.</i> <span class="pageNum" id="pb451n">[<a href="#pb451n">451</a>]</span>105; <i>Lucr.</i> vi. 535; Plac. iii. 15, 11; <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. vi. 20, 5; on winds, <i>Diog.</i> 106; on hail, <i>Diog.</i> 106; Plac. iii. 4, 3; on snow, thaw, ice, frost, <i>Diog.</i> 107–109; on the rainbow, <i>Diog.</i> 109; on the halo of the moon, <i>Diog.</i> 110; on comets, <i>Diog.</i> 111; on shooting-stars, <i>Diog.</i> 114. Explanations are given by Lucretius of volcanoes (vi. 639), of the overflow
+of the Nile (vi. 712), of Lake Avernus (vi. 738–839), of the magnet (vi. 906–1087),
+of the reputed chilling of the springs in summer (vi. 840).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40419src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40476">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40476src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> <i>Lucret.</i> ii. 1157; v. 780. Otherwise, we learn that the Epicureans were as far as the Stoics
+from attributing to plants a soul. <i>Plut.</i> Plac. v. 26, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40476src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40482">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40482src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 1155; v. 787, giving further particulars as to the origin and maintenance of
+living beings, and the subsequent abatement of the productive powers of earth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40482src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40486">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40486src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 74.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40486src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40491">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40491src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> Anaximander, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, and Democritus, all taught
+the procreation of living beings from earth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40491src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40494">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40494src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 834–921.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40494src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40510">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40510src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> v. 922–1008. Conf. <i>Plato</i>, Polit. 274, <span class="asc">B</span>; <i>Arist.</i> Polit. ii. 8, 1269, a, 4; <i>Horace</i>, Serm. i. 3, 99, appears to have had an eye to Lucretius.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40510src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40522">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40522src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1009–1025.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40522src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40526">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40526src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> Epicurus, in <i>Diog.</i> 75, thus sums up his views on the origin of language: <span class="trans" title="ta onomata ex archēs mē thesei genesthai, all’ autas tas physeis tōn anthrōpōn kath’ hekasta ethnē idia paschousas pathē kai idia lambanousas phantasmata idiōs ton aera ekpempein ... hysteron de koinōs kath’ hekasta ta ethnē ta idia tethēnai pros to tas dēlōseis hētton amphibolous genesthai allēlois kai syntomōterōs dēloumenas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ ὀνόματα ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὴ θέσει γενέσθαι, ἀλλ’ αὐτὰς τὰς φύσεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καθ’ ἕκαστα
+ἔθνη ἴδια πασχούσας πάθη καὶ ἴδια λαμβανούσας φαντάσματα ἰδίως τὸν ἀέρα ἐκπέμπειν
+… ὕστερον δὲ κοινῶς καθ’ ἕκαστα τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἴδια τεθῆναι πρὸς τὸ τὰς δηλώσεις ἧττον
+ἀμφιβόλους γενέσθαι ἀλλήλοις καὶ συντομωτέρως δηλουμένας</span></span>. He who invents any new thing puts, at the same time, new words into circulation.
+<i>Lucret.</i> v. 1026–1088, explains more fully that language is of natural origin. On the voice,
+<i>Ibid.</i> iv. 522; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 19, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40526src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40545">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40545src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 75: <span class="trans" title="alla mēn hypolēpteon kai tēn tōn anthrōpōn physin polla kai pantoia hypo tōn autēn periestōtōn pragmatōn didachthēnai te kai anankasthēnai; ton de logismon ta hypo tautēs parengyēthenta kai hysteron epakriboun kai prosexeuriskein, en men tisi thatton en de tisi bradyteron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλὰ μὴν ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτὴν περιεστώτων
+πραγμάτων διδαχθῆναί <span class="pageNum" id="pb453n">[<a href="#pb453n">453</a>]</span>τε καὶ ἀναγκασθῆναι· τὸν δὲ λογισμὸν τὰ ὑπὸ ταύτης παρεγγυηθέντα καὶ ὕστερον ἐπακριβοῦν
+καὶ προσεξευρίσκειν, ἐν μέν τισι θᾶττον ἐν δέ τισι βραδύτερον</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont"><i>Lucr.</i> v. 1450:—all arts
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Usus et impigræ simul experientia mentis </p>
+<p class="line">Paulatim docuit. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont"><i>Ibid.</i> 1103:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem </p>
+<p class="line">Commutare novis monstrabant rebu’ benigni </p>
+<p class="line">Ingenio qui præstabant et corde vigebant. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">In harmony with these premises, Lucretius then tries to explain various inventions.
+The first fire was obtained by lightning, or the friction of branches in a storm.
+The sun taught cooking (v. 1089). Forests on fire, melting brass, first taught men
+how to work in metal (v. 1239–1294). Horses and elephants were used for help in war,
+after attempts had been previously made with oxen and wild beasts (v. 1295). Men first
+dressed themselves in skins; afterwards they wore twisted, and then woven materials
+(v. 1009; 1348; 1416). The first ideas of planting and agriculture were from the natural
+spread of plants (v. 1359). The first music was in imitation of birds; the first musical
+instrument was the pipe, through which the wind was heard to whistle; from this natural
+music, artificial music only gradually grew (v. 1377). The measure and arrangement
+of time was taught by the stars (v. 1434); and, comparatively late, came the arts
+of poetry and writing (v. 1438).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40545src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40586">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40586src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1106.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40586src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40597">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40597src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 161; <i>Diog.</i> 67. See p. 439, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40597src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40603">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40603src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 177; <i>Diog.</i> 63.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40603src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40609">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40609src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 63: <span class="trans" title="hē psychē sōma esti leptomeres par’ holon to athroisma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμά ἐστι λεπτομερὲς παρ’ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα</span></span> (the body), <span class="trans" title="paresparmenon; prosempherestaton de pneumati thermou tina krasin echonti"><span lang="grc" class="grek">παρεσπαρμένον· προσεμφερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν ἔχοντι</span></span>. 66: <span class="trans" title="ex atomōn autēn synkeisthai leiotatōn kai strongylotatōn pollō tini diapherousōn tōn tou pyros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξ ἀτόμων αὐτὴν συγκεῖσθαι λειοτάτων καὶ στρογγυλοτάτων πολλῷ τινι διαφερουσῶν τῶν
+τοῦ πυρός</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40609src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40637">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40637src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 231; 269; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 3, 5 (<i>Stob.</i> i. 798), conf. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 127, b.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40637src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40648">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40648src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 288.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40648src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40652">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40652src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> According to <i>Plut.</i> Plac. v. 3, 5, he considered the seed an <span class="trans" title="apospasma psychēs kai sōmatos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπόσπασμα ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος</span></span>; and, since he believed in a feminine <span class="trans" title="sperma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπέρμα</span></span>, he must have regarded the soul of the child as formed by the intermingling of the
+soul-atoms of both parents. <i>Ibid.</i> v. 16, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40652src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40675">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40675src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 63; <i>Lucret.</i> iii. 216; 276; 323; 370.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40675src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40681">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40681src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> <i>Metrodor.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri aisthētōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ αἰσθητῶν</span></span> (Vol. Herc. vi.), col. 7.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40681src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40704">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40704src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 98, contradicts the assertion that the soul is the harmony of the body; Epicurus
+having already replied (in <i>Philop.</i> De An. <span class="sc">E.</span> 1) to one of the objections urged against it by Plato.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40704src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40713">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40713src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 66; Lucr<span>.</span> iii. 94; 136; 396; 612; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 4, 3. Lucretius calls the rational part <span lang="la">animus</span> or <span lang="la">mens</span>, and the irrational part <span lang="la">anima</span>. The statement, Pl. Phil. iv. 23, 2, that Epicurus made feeling reside in the organs
+of sense, because the <span class="trans" title="hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡγεμονικὸν</span></span> was feelingless, can hardly be correct.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40713src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40739">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40739src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> and <i>Lucr.</i> In sleep, a portion of the soul is supposed to leave the body (<i>Lucr.</i> iv. 913, conf. <i>Tertull.</i> De An. 43), whilst another part is forcibly confined within the body. Probably this
+is all that is meant by <i>Diog.</i> 66.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40739src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40751">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40751src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 64. <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 417–827, gives an elaborate proof of the mortality of the soul. Other passages,
+<i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 27, 1 and 3; 30, 5; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 72, hardly need to be referred to. Observe the contrast between Epicureanism
+and Stoicism. In <span class="pageNum" id="pb456n">[<a href="#pb456n">456</a>]</span>Stoicism, the soul keeps the body together; in Epicureanism, the body the soul. In
+Stoicism, the soul survives the body; in Epicureanism, this is impossible. In Stoicism,
+the mind is a power over the world, and hence over the body; in Epicureanism, it is
+on a level with the body, and dependent on it.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40751src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40766">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40766src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 124–127, for instance: <span class="trans" title="to phrikōdestaton oun tōn kakōn ho thanatos ouden pros hēmas; epeidēper hotan men hēmeis ōmen ho thanatos ou parestin; hotan de ho thanatos parē toth’ hēmeis ouk esmen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ φρικωδέστατον οὖν τῶν κακῶν ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· ἐπειδήπερ ὅταν μὲν ἡμεῖς
+ὦμεν ὁ θάνατος οὐ πάρεστιν· ὅταν δὲ ὁ θάνατος παρῇ τόθ’ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμεν</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> in <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 229 (<i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Anal. Pri. 117, Top. 9. <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. ii. 8, 1; <i>Stob.</i> Serm. 118, 30): <span class="trans" title="ho thanatos ouden pros hēmas; to gar dialythen anaisthētei, to de anaisthētoun ouden pros hēmas"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e40792">ὁ</span> θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμας· τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ, τὸ δὲ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς
+ἡμᾶς</span></span>. <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 828–975.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40766src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40804">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40804src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 830.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40804src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40808">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40808src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 81; 142; <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 37.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40808src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40816">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40816src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 991:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Denique cœlesti sumus omnes semine oriundi, &amp;c. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">999:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Cedit item retro de terra quod fuit ante <span class="pageNum" id="pb457n">[<a href="#pb457n">457</a>]</span></p>
+<p class="line">In terras: et quod missum est ex ætheris oris </p>
+<p class="line">Id rursum cœli rellatum templa receptant. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40855">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40855src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> Democritus, from whom Epicurus has borrowed the rest of this theory, makes them mould
+the air.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40855src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40858">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40858src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 46–50; 52; and in the fragments of the second book <span class="trans" title="peri physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ φύσεως</span></span>; <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 26–266; 722; vi. 921 <i>Cic.</i> Ad <span class="pageNum" id="pb458n">[<a href="#pb458n">458</a>]</span>Famil. xv. 16; <i>Plut.</i> Qu. Conviv. viii. 10, 2, 2; Plac. iv. 3, 1; 19, 2; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 206; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. v. 16; <i>Macrob.</i> Sat. vii. 14; the remarks of <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 267; 568; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 14, 2, on reflected images and the echo belong likewise to the doctrine
+of idola.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40858src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40892">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40892src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">83</a></span> For instance, the impressions in the minds of dreamers and madmen. <i>Diog.</i> 32; <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 730.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40892src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40900">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40900src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">84</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: <span class="trans" title="ei de chrē gelan en philosophia ta eidōla gelasteon ta kōpha kai typhla kai apsycha, ha poimainousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δὲ χρὴ γελᾷν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ τὰ εἴδωλα γελαστέον τὰ κωφὰ καὶ τυφλὰ καὶ ἄψυχα, ἃ ποιμαίνουσιν</span></span> [sc. <span class="trans" title="hoi Epikoureioi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="apletous etōn periodous emphainomena kai perinostounta pantē ta men eti zōntōn ta de palai katakaentōn ē katasapentōn aporrhyenta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπλέτους <span id="xd33e40923">ἐτῶν</span> περιόδους ἐμφαινόμενα καὶ περινοστοῦντα πάντη τὰ μὲν ἔτι ζώντων τὰ δὲ πάλαι κατακαέντων
+ἢ κατασαπέντων ἀποῤῥυέντα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40900src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40932">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40932src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">85</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40932src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40936">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40936src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">86</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c.; <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 351.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40936src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40946">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40946src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">87</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 766–819; and on the incessant streaming forth of images, v. 141; <i>Diog.</i> 48.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40946src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40952">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40952src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">88</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> x. 52: <span class="trans" title="to de diēmartēmenon ouk an hypērchen, ei mē elambanomen kai allēn tina kinēsin en hēmin autois synēmmenēn men, dialēpsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ διημαρτημένον οὐκ ἂν ὑπῆρχεν, εἰ μὴ ἐλαμβάνομεν καὶ ἄλλην τινὰ κίνησιν ἐν ἡμῖν
+αὐτοῖς συνημμένην μὲν, διάληψιν</span></span> [al. <span class="trans" title="dialeipsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάλειψιν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="dʹ echousan kata de tautēn tēn synēmmenēn tē phantastikē epibolē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δʹ ἔχουσαν κατὰ δὲ ταύτην τὴν συνημμένην τῇ φανταστικῇ ἐπιβολῇ</span></span> [impression on the senses], <span class="trans" title="dialēpsin d’ echousan ean men mē epimartyrēthē ē antimartyrēthē to pseudos ginetai, ean de epimartyrēthē ē mē antimartyrēthē to alēthes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διάληψιν δ’ ἔχουσαν ἐὰν μὲν μὴ ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ τὸ ψεῦδος γίνεται, ἐὰν
+δὲ ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ τὸ ἀληθές</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40952src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e40989">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e40989src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">89</a></span> As to terminology, Epicurus, according to <i>Plut.</i> Plac. iv. 8, 2, <i>Diog.</i> 32, called the faculty of sensation <span class="trans" title="aisthēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἴσθησις</span></span>, and sensation itself, <span class="trans" title="epaisthēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπαίσθημα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e40989src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41017">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41017src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">90</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iv. 874; conf. <i>Galen</i><span>,</span> De Hipp. et Plat. v. 2, vol. v. 367, <span class="asc">K</span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41017src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41030">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41030src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">91</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 133: <span class="trans" title="to de par’ hēmas adespoton; hō kai to mempton kai to enantion parakolouthein pephyken. epei kreitton ēn tō peri theōn mythō katakolouthein ē tē tōn physikōn heimarmenē douleuein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς ἀδέσποτον· ᾧ καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκεν.
+ἐπεὶ κρεῖττον ἦν τῷ περὶ θεῶν μύθῳ κατακολουθεῖν ἢ τῇ τῶν φυσικῶν εἱμαρμένῃ δουλεύειν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41030src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41042">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41042src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">92</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 25, 70: <span lang="la">[Epicurus] pertimuit, ne si concessum esset hujusmodi aliquid: aut vivet cras aut
+non vivet Epicurus, alterutrum fieret necessarium; totum hoc; aut etiam aut non negavit
+esse necessarium.</span> Acad. ii. 30, 97; De Fat. 10, 21.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41042src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41049">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41049src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">93</a></span> <i>Steinhart</i>, p. 466.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41049src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41059">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41059src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">94</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 16, 37, at least says, referring to the above question: <span lang="la">Nisi forte voluimus Epicureorum opinionem sequi, qui tales propositiones nec veras
+nec falsas esse dicunt, aut cum id pudet illud tamen dicunt, quod est impudentius,
+veras esse ex contrariis disjunctiones, sed quæ in his enuntiata essent eorum neutrum
+esse verum.</span> Cicero indeed adds: <span lang="la">O admirabilem licentiam et miserabilem inscientiam dicendi!</span> but he has no reason for this exclamation; for the proposition: Either A or B must
+follow is not identical with the proposition: <span class="pageNum" id="pb461n">[<a href="#pb461n">461</a>]</span>It may be stated either of A or of B that it will follow. Epicurus could, therefore,
+justly allow the former and deny the latter. In so doing he is really following Aristotle.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41059src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch18" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e2058">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XVIII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">VIEWS OF EPICURUS ON RELIGION.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch18.a">A. <i>Criticism of the gods and the popular faith.</i></span>
+Satisfied with the results of his own enquiries into nature, Epicurus hoped by his
+view of the causes of things not only to displace the superstitions of a polytheistic
+worship, but also to uproot the prejudice in favour of Providence. Indeed, these two
+objects were placed by him on exactly the same footing. So absurd did he consider
+the popular notions respecting the Gods, that instead of blaming those who attacked
+them,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41084src" href="#xd33e41084" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> he believed it impious to acquiesce in them. Religion being, according to Lucretius,
+the cause of the greatest evils,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41102src" href="#xd33e41102" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> he who displaces it to make way for rational views of nature deserves praise as having
+overcome the most dangerous <span class="pageNum" id="pb463">[<a href="#pb463">463</a>]</span>enemy of mankind. All the language of Epicurus in disparagement of the art of poetry
+applies in a still higher degree to the religious errors fostered by poetry.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41129src" href="#xd33e41129" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> Nor is it better with belief in Providence than with the popular faith. This belief
+is also included in the category of romance;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41151src" href="#xd33e41151" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> and the doctrine of fatalism, which was the Stoic form for the same belief, was denounced
+as even worse than the popular faith.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41185src" href="#xd33e41185" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> For how, asks the Epicurean, could divine Providence have created a world in which
+evil abounds, in which virtue often fares ill, whilst vice is triumphant? How could
+a world have been made for the sake of man, when man can only inhabit a very small
+portion of it? How could nature be intended to promote man’s well-being when it so
+often imperils his life and labour, and sends him into the world more helpless than
+any animal? How can we form a conception of beings ruling over an infinite universe,
+and everywhere present to administer everything in every place?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41188src" href="#xd33e41188" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> What could have induced these beings to create a world, and how and whence could
+they have known how to create it, had not nature supplied them with an example?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41196src" href="#xd33e41196" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> In fine, how <span class="pageNum" id="pb464">[<a href="#pb464">464</a>]</span>could God be the happy Being He must be if the whole burden of caring for all things
+and all events lay upon Him, or He were swayed to and fro together with the body of
+the world?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41204src" href="#xd33e41204" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> Or how could we feel any other feeling than that of fear in the presence of such
+a God who troubles himself about everything?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41212src" href="#xd33e41212" title="Go to note 9.">9</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch18.b">B. <i>The gods according to Epicurus.</i><br id="ch18.b.1">(1) <i>Reasons for his belief.</i></span>
+With the denial of the popular Gods, the denial of demons,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41224src" href="#xd33e41224" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> of course, goes hand in hand; and, together with Providence, the need of prayer<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41228src" href="#xd33e41228" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> and of prophecy is at the same time negatived.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41238src" href="#xd33e41238" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> All these notions, according to Epicurus, are the result of ignorance and fear. Pictures
+seen in dreams have been confounded with real existences; regularity of motion in
+the heavenly bodies has been mistaken by the ignorant for the work of God; events
+which accidentally happened in combination with others have been regarded as portents;
+terrific natural phenomena, storms and earthquakes, have engendered in men’s minds
+the fear of higher powers.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41250src" href="#xd33e41250" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> Fear is therefore the basis of religion;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41258src" href="#xd33e41258" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> and, on the other hand, freedom from fear is the primary object aimed at by philosophy.
+</p>
+<p>For all that, Epicurus was unwilling to renounce <span class="pageNum" id="pb465">[<a href="#pb465">465</a>]</span>belief in the Gods,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41269src" href="#xd33e41269" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> nor is it credible that this unwillingness was simply a yielding to popular opinion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41294src" href="#xd33e41294" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> The language used by the Epicureans certainly gives the impression of sincerity;
+and the time was past when avowed atheism was attended with danger. Atheism would
+have been as readily condoned in the time of Epicurus as the deism which denied most
+unreservedly the popular faith. It is, however, possible to trace the causes which
+led Epicurus to believe that there are Gods. There was first the general diffusion
+of a belief in Gods which appeared to him to establish the truth of this belief, and
+hence he declared the existence of Gods to be something directly certain, and grounded
+on a primary notion (<span class="trans" title="prolēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψις</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41309src" href="#xd33e41309" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> Moreover, with his materialistic theory of knowledge he no doubt supposed that the
+primary notion which convinces us of the existence of Gods arises from the actual
+contemplation of divine beings, and from the perception of those atom-pictures from
+which Democritus had already deduced the belief in Gods.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41353src" href="#xd33e41353" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> And in addition to these theoretical reasons, <span class="pageNum" id="pb466">[<a href="#pb466">466</a>]</span>Epicurus had also another, half æsthetical, half religious—the wish to see his ideal
+of happiness realised in the person of the Gods,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41393src" href="#xd33e41393" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> and it is this ideal which determines the character of all his notions respecting
+them. His Gods are therefore, throughout, human beings. Religious belief only knows
+beings such as these, or, as Epicurus expresses it, only such beings come before us
+in those pictures of the Gods which present themselves to our minds, sometimes in
+sleep, sometimes when we are awake. Reflection, too, convinces us that the human form
+is the most beautiful, that to it alone reason belongs, and that it is the most appropriate
+form for perfectly happy beings.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41416src" href="#xd33e41416" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Epicurus even went so far as to attribute to the Gods difference of sex<span>.</span><a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41440src" href="#xd33e41440" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> At the same time everything must be eliminated which is not appropriate to a divine
+being.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb467">[<a href="#pb467">467</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch18.b.2">(2) <i>Nature of the Epicurean gods.</i></span>
+The two essential characteristics of the Gods, according to Epicurus, are immortality
+and perfect happiness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41451src" href="#xd33e41451" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> Both of these characteristics would be impaired were we to attribute to the bodies
+of the Gods the same dense corporeity which belongs to our own. We must, therefore,
+only assign to them a body analogous to our body, ethereal, and consisting of the
+finest atoms.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41474src" href="#xd33e41474" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> Such bodies would be of little use in a world like ours. In fact, they could not
+live in any world without being exposed to the temporal ruin which will in time overwhelm
+it, and, meantime, to a state of fear, which would mar their bliss. Epicurus, therefore,
+assigns the space between the worlds for their habitation, where, as Lucretius remarks,
+troubled by no storms, they live under a sky ever serene.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41502src" href="#xd33e41502" title="Go to note 24.">24</a>
+</p>
+<p>Nor can these Gods be supposed to care for the world and the affairs of men, else
+their happiness would be marred by the most distressing occupation; but perfectly
+free from care and trouble, and absolutely regardless of the world, in eternal contemplation
+of their unchanging perfection, they enjoy the most unalloyed happiness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41514src" href="#xd33e41514" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> The view which the <span class="pageNum" id="pb468">[<a href="#pb468">468</a>]</span>School formed to itself of this happiness we learn from Philodemus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41535src" href="#xd33e41535" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> The Gods are exempt from sleep, sleep being a partial death, and not needed by beings
+who live without any exertion. And yet he believes that they require nourishment,
+though this must, of course, be of a kind suited to their nature. They also need dwellings,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41546src" href="#xd33e41546" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> since every being requires some place wherein to dwell. Were powers of speech to
+be refused to them, they would be deprived of the highest means of enjoyment—the power
+of conversing with their equals. Philodemus thinks it probable they use the Greek
+or some other closely allied language.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41557src" href="#xd33e41557" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> In short, he imagines the Gods to be a society of Epicurean philosophers, who have
+everything that they can desire—everlasting life, no care, and perpetual opportunities
+of sweet converse. Only such Gods,—the Epicureans thought,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41579src" href="#xd33e41579" title="Go to note 29.">29</a>—need not be feared. Only such Gods are free and pure, and worshipped <span class="pageNum" id="pb469">[<a href="#pb469">469</a>]</span>because of this very perfection.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41587src" href="#xd33e41587" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> Moreover, these Gods are innumerable. If the number of mortal beings is infinite,
+the law of counterpoise requires that the number of immortal beings must not be less.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41602src" href="#xd33e41602" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> If we have only the idea of a limited number of Gods, it is because, owing to their
+being so much alike,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41609src" href="#xd33e41609" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> we confound in our minds the innumerable <span class="pageNum" id="pb470">[<a href="#pb470">470</a>]</span>pictures of the Gods which are conveyed to our souls.
+</p>
+<p>Priding themselves, in contrast to the Stoics, on their agreement by means of this
+theology with the anthropomorphic views of the popular belief, and even outdoing polytheism
+in the assumption of innumerable Gods,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41722src" href="#xd33e41722" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> the Epicureans were willing to join in the customary services of religion,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41753src" href="#xd33e41753" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> without being nearly so anxious as the Stoics to prove themselves in harmony with
+the popular creed. Whilst the Stoics in their anxiety to do this had plunged head
+over heels into allegory, no such tendency is observed on the part of the Epicureans.
+Only the poet of the School gives a few allegorical interpretations of mythical ideas,
+and he does it with more taste and skill than is usual with the Stoics.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41756src" href="#xd33e41756" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb471">[<a href="#pb471">471</a>]</span>On other points the Epicureans, not excluding Lucretius, observe towards the popular
+faith a negative attitude, that of opposing it by explanations; and by this attitude,
+without doubt, they rendered one of the most important services to humanity.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb472">[<a href="#pb472">472</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41084">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41084src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> x. 123: <span class="trans" title="hoious d’ autous [tous theous] hoi polloi nomizousin ouk eisin; ou gar phylattousin autous hoious nomizousin. asebēs de ouch ho tous tōn pollōn theous anairōn all’ ho tas tōn pollōn doxas theois prosaptōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἵους δ’ αὐτοὺς [τοὺς θεοὺς] οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς
+οἵους νομίζουσιν. ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺς ἀναιρῶν ἀλλ<span id="xd33e41091">’</span> ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας θεοῖς προσάπτων</span></span>. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 16, 42.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41084src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41102">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41102src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> iii. 14; vi. 49; and, specially, the celebrated passage i. 62:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Humana ante oculos fœde cum vita jaceret </p>
+<p class="line">In terris oppressa gravi sub relligione, </p>
+<p class="line">Quæ caput a cœli regionibus ostendebat </p>
+<p class="line">Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, &amp;c. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">as far as to 101:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">Conf. Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 81, and above p. 423, 3; 437, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41102src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41129">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41129src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Heraclit.</i> Alleg. Hom. c. 4: [<span class="trans" title="Epikouros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπίκουρος</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="hapasan homou poiētikēn hōsper olethrion mythōn delear aphosioumenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἅπασαν ὁμοῦ ποιητικὴν ὥσπερ ὀλέθριον μύθων δέλεαρ ἀφοσιούμενος</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> c. 75.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41129src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41151">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41151src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: <span class="trans" title="Epikoureiōn de chleuasmous kai gelōtas outi phobēteon hois tolmōsi chrēsthai kai kata tēs pronoias mython autēn apokalountes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπικουρείων δὲ χλευασμοὺς καὶ γέλωτας οὔτι φοβητέον οἷς τολμῶσι χρῆσθαι καὶ κατὰ τῆς
+προνοίας μῦθον αὐτὴν ἀποκαλοῦντες</span></span>. N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 2: <span class="trans" title="diaballontes tēn pronoian hōsper paisin Empousan ē Poinēn alitēriōdē kai tragikēn epigegrammenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαβάλλοντες τὴν πρόνοιαν ὥσπερ παισὶν Ἔμπουσαν ἢ Ποινὴν ἀλιτηριώδη καὶ τραγικὴν ἐπιγεγραμμένην</span></span>. In <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 8, 18, the Epicurean calls <span class="trans" title="pronoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόνοια</span></span> <span lang="la">anus fatidica</span>, to which it was often reduced, no doubt, by the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41151src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41185">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41185src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> See p. 460, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41185src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41188">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41188src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 196; ii. 1090; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 7, 10. Conf. the disputation of the Stoic and Epicurean in <i>Lucian</i>, Jup. Trag. c. 35, and especially c. 46.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41188src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41196">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41196src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 165; conf. p. 437, 1; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 7, 8.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41196src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41204">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41204src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 76; 97; 113; see p. 437, 1; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 20, 52; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 7, 7.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41204src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41212">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41212src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 54.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41212src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41224">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41224src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Def. Orac. 19; Plac. i. 83.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41224src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41228">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41228src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> Conf. the captious argument of Hermarchus, in <i>Procl.</i> in Tim. 66, <span class="asc">E</span>: If prayer is necessary for everything, it is necessary for prayer, and so on, <span lang="la">ad infin.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41228src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41238">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41238src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 135; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 379; <i>Plut.</i> Plac. v. 1, 2; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 20, 55; Divin. ii. 17, 40; <i>Tertull.</i> De An. 46.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41238src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41250">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41250src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1159–1238; conf. iv. 33; vi. 49; <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 25; vi. 19; <i>Diog.</i> 98; 115.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41250src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41258">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41258src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> This view is especially prominent in Lucretius. See p. 462, 2. Conf. <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 10; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 20, 54.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41258src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41269">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41269src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> He drew up separate treatises <span class="trans" title="peri theōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ θεῶν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="peri hosiotētos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ὁσιότητος</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 27; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 41, 115; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41269src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41294">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41294src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> Posidonius, in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 44, 123; Conf. 30, 85; iii. 1, 3; <i>Plut.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41294src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41309">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41309src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 123: <span class="trans" title="theoi men gar eisi; enargēs men gar estin autōn hē gnōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσι· ἐναργὴς μὲν γάρ ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις</span></span>. The Epicurean in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 16, 43: <span lang="la">Solus enim [Epicurus] vidit, primum esse Deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem
+impressisset ipsa natura. Quæ est enim gens aut quod genus hominum quod non habeat
+sine doctrina anticipationem quandam Deorum? quam appellat <span class="trans" title="prolēpsin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψιν</span></span> Epicurus,</span> &amp;c. These statements must, however, be received with some caution, since Cicero appears
+to give up his own views as to innate ideas. Inasmuch, however, as he expressly refers
+to Epicurus’ treatise <span class="trans" title="peri kanonos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κανόνος</span></span>, we may assume that belief in Gods with Epicurus rests on a general <span class="trans" title="prolēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόληψις</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41309src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41353">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41353src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> In support of this view, <span class="pageNum" id="pb466n">[<a href="#pb466n">466</a>]</span>see <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 18, 46. It is there said of the form of the Gods: <span lang="la">A natura habemus omnes omnium gentium speciem nullam aliam nisi humanam Deorum. Quæ
+enim alia forma occurrit umquam aut vigilanti cuiquam aut dormienti?</span> <span class="trans" title="physikē prolēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικὴ πρόληψις</span></span> is here referred to sensations derived from <span class="trans" title="eidōla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἴδωλα</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 19, 49; and <i>Lucr.</i> vi. 76:
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">de corpore quæ sancto simulacra feruntur </p>
+<p class="line">In mentis hominum divinæ nuntia formæ. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41393">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41393src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 121. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 17, 45: <span lang="la">Si nihil aliud quæreremus, nisi ut Deos pie coleremus et ut superstitione liberaremur,
+satis erat dictum: nam et præstans Deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et
+æterna esset et beatissima … et metus omnis a vi atque ira Deorum pulsus esset.</span> <i>Ibid<span>.</span></i> 20, 56: We do not fear the Gods, <span lang="la">et pie sancteque colimus naturam excellentem atque præstantem.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 41, 115. <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 19, 3: Epicurus denied all connection of God with the world, but, at the
+same time, would have him honoured as a father, <span lang="la">propter majestatem ejus eximiam singularemque naturam.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41393src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41416">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41416src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 18, 46; Divin. ii. 17, 40; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 218; <i>Plut.</i> Pl. Phil. i. 7, 18 (<i>Stob.</i> i. 66); <i>Phædr.</i> (Philodem.) Fragm. col. 7; <i>Metrodorus</i>, <span class="trans" title="peri aisthētōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ αἰσθητῶν</span></span> (Vol. Herc. vi.), col. 10; col. 16, 21.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41416src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41440">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41440src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 34, 95.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41440src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41451">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41451src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 123: <span class="trans" title="prōton men ton theon zōon aphtharton kai makarion nomizōn ... mēden mēte tēs aphtharsias allotrion mēte tēs makariotētos anoikeion autō prosapte, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων … μηδὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας
+ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον <span id="xd33e41459">αὐτῷ</span> πρόσαπτε, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 139. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 17, 45; 19, 51; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 646; v. 165.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41451src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41474">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41474src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 23, 59; i. 18, 49; 25, 71; 26, 74; Divin. ii. 17, 40; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 148; <i>Metrodor.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri aisthētōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ αἰσθητῶν</span></span>, col. 7; <i>Plut.</i> l.c. Epicurus has, as Cicero remarks, <span lang="la">monogrammos Deos; his Gods have only quasi corpus and quasi sanguinem.</span> They are <span lang="la">perlucidi</span> and <span lang="la">perflabiles</span>, or, according to Lucretius, tenues, so that they cannot be touched, and are indestructible.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41474src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41502">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41502src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Divin. ii. 17, 40; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 646; iii. 18; v. 146; <i>Sen.</i> Benef<span>.</span> iv. 19, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41502src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41514">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41514src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 77; 97; <span class="pageNum" id="pb468n">[<a href="#pb468n">468</a>]</span>139; <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 19, 51 (amongst other things: <span lang="la">nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus,</span> both of which features must therefore be attributed to the Gods); <i>Legg.</i> i. 7, 21; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 646; iii. 1092; iv. 83; vi. 57; <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 4, 1; 19, 2. Conf. p. 436; 464, 1; 466, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41514src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41535">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41535src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> In the fragments of his treatise <span class="trans" title="peri tēs tōn theōn eustochoumenēs diagōgēs, kata Zēnōna"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τῆς τῶν θεῶν εὐστοχουμένης διαγωγῆς, κατὰ Ζήνωνα</span></span>, col. 12.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41535src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41546">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41546src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> The <span class="trans" title="klisia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κλίσια</span></span> discussed by Hermarchus and Pythocles, col. 13, 20, had reference to these, and not
+to ordinary feasts.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41546src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41557">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41557src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> Col. 14: The reason being assigned that <span class="trans" title="legontai mē poly diapherousais kata tas arthrōseis chrēsthai phōnais, kai monon oidamen gegonotas theous Hellēnidi glōttē chrōmenous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λέγονται μὴ πολὺ διαφερούσαις κατὰ τὰς ἀρθρώσεις χρῆσθαι φωναῖς, καὶ μόνον οἴδαμεν
+γεγονότας θεοὺς Ἑλληνίδι γλώττῃ χρωμένους</span></span>. The first statement seems to refer to the words of the divine language quoted by
+Homer; the second statement, to stories of appearances of the Gods. For the whole
+tone of the system militates against our thinking of men who have afterwards become
+Gods. The sceptical question, Whether the Gods possess speech? raised by Carneades
+in <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 178, appears to refer to this <span class="trans" title="mythologia Epikourou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μυθολογία Ἐπικούρου</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41557src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41579">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41579src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 20, 54; <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iv. 19, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41579src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41587">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41587src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Philodem.</i> De Mus. iv. (V. Herc. i.) col. 4, says that the Gods do not need this worship, but
+it is natural for us to show it: <span class="trans" title="malista men hosiais prolēpsesin, epeita de kai tois kata to patrion paradedomenois hekastō tōn kata meros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μάλιστα μὲν ὁσίαις προλήψεσιν, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὸ πάτριον παραδεδομένοις ἑκάστῳ
+τῶν κατὰ <span id="xd33e41594">μέρος</span></span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41587src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41602">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41602src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. i. 19, 50, the sentence, <span lang="la">et si quæ interimant</span>, belonging, however, to Cicero only. For Epicurus cannot have described his ease-taking
+Gods as sustainers of the universe.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41602src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41609">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41609src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 19, 49: <span lang="la">(Epicurus) docet eam esse vim et naturam Deorum ut primum non sensu sed mente cernatur:
+nec soliditate quadam nec ad numerum, ut ea, quæ ille propter firmitatem <span class="trans" title="steremnia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">στερέμνια</span></span> appellat, sed imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis: cum infinita simillimarum
+imaginum species ex innumerabilibus individuis exsistat et ad Deos</span> (probably instead of <span lang="la">Deos</span>, which gives no sense, we should read <span lang="la">nos</span>. See the commentators in the editions of Moser and Kreuzer) <span lang="la">affluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram
+intelligentiam capere quæ sit et beata natura et æterna.</span> The meaning of these words appears to be, that ideas of the Gods are not formed in
+the same way as the ideas of other solid bodies, by a number of similar pictures from
+the same object striking our senses (<span lang="la">nec soliditate nec ad numerum</span>, <i>Diog.</i> x. 95), but by single pictures emanating from innumerable divine individuals, all
+so much alike that they leave behind them the impressions of perfect happiness and
+immortality. The passage of <i>Diog.</i> x. 139, ought probably to be corrected by that in Cicero. It runs: <span class="trans" title="en allois de phēsi, tous theous logō theōrētous einai; hous men kat’ arithmon hyphestōtas, hous de kata homoeidian ek tēs synechous epirrhyseōs tōn homoiōn eidōlōn epi to auto apotetelesmenous anthrōpoeidōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι, τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητοὺς εἶναι· οὓς μὲν κατ’ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας,
+οὓς δὲ κατὰ ὁμοειδίαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιῤῥύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένους
+ἀνθρωποειδῶς</span></span>. The similarity of most of the expressions leaves no doubt that Diogenes followed
+the same authority as Cicero (probably the same as <i>Plut.</i> Plac. i. 7, 18 followed), but in the words <span class="trans" title="hous men k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὓς μὲν κ.τ.λ.</span></span>, it asserts the very opposite of this and the Epicurean teaching. There must, therefore,
+be some error here, either due to Diogenes or a copyist. This error does not apparently
+belong to the words <span class="trans" title="kat’ arithmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατ’ ἀριθμὸν</span></span>, which Cicero renders <span lang="la">ad numerum</span>, so that <span class="pageNum" id="pb470n">[<a href="#pb470n">470</a>]</span><i>Steinhart’s</i> suggestion, p. 477, <span class="trans" title="kath’ harmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ ἁρμὸν</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="kath’ harmous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθ’ ἁρμοὺς</span></span>, is clearly wrong. It is more <span class="corr" id="xd33e41689" title="Source: probab y">probably</span> to be found in the words <span class="trans" title="hous men"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὓς μὲν</span></span>—<span class="trans" title="hous de"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὓς δὲ</span></span>. We might suggest for <span class="trans" title="hous men, ou mentoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὓς μὲν, οὐ μέντοι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41609src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41722">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41722src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> In <i>Phædrus</i> (<i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri eusebeias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ εὐσεβείας</span></span>), Fragm. col. 7 (10) it is said in answer to the Stoics: <span class="trans" title="epideiknysthōsan tois pollois hena monon [theon] hapanta legontes oude pantas hosous hē koinē phēmē paredōken, hēmōn ou monon hosous phasin hoi Panellēnes alla kai pleionas einai legontōn epeith’ hoti toioutous oude memēkasin apoleipein, hoious sebontai pantes kai hēmeis homologoumen. anthrōpoeideis gar ekeinoi ou nomizousin alla aera kai pneumata kai aithera, hōst’ egōge kai tetharrhēkotōs eipaimi toutous Diagorou mallon plēmmelein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιδεικνύσθωσαν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἕνα μόνον [θεὸν] ἅπαντα λέγοντες οὐδὲ πάντας ὅσους ἡ
+κοινὴ φήμη παρέδωκεν, ἡμῶν οὐ μόνον ὅσους φασὶν οἱ Πανέλληνες ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείονας εἶναι
+λεγόντων ἔπειθ’ ὅτι τοιούτους οὐδὲ μεμήκασιν ἀπολείπειν, οἵους σέβονται πάντες καὶ
+ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν. ἀνθρωποειδεῖς γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι οὐ νομίζουσιν ἀλλὰ ἀέρα καὶ πνεύματα
+καὶ αἰθέρα, ὥστ’ ἔγωγε καὶ τεθαῤῥηκότως εἴπαιμι τούτους Διαγόρου μᾶλλον πλημμελεῖν</span></span>. It is then shown how little the natural substances of the Stoics resemble Gods (col.
+9): <span class="trans" title="ta theia toiauta kataleipousin ha kai gennēta kai phtharta phainetai, tois de pasin hēmeis akolouthōs aïdious kaphthartous einai dogmatizomen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ θεῖα τοιαῦτα καταλείπουσιν ἃ καὶ γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτὰ φαίνεται, τοῖς δὲ πᾶσιν ἡμεῖς
+ἀκολούθως ἀϊδίους κἀφθάρτους εἶναι δογματίζομεν</span></span>. Here we have a phenomenon witnessed in modern times, Deists and Pantheists mutually
+accusing one another of atheism, the former missing personality, the latter missing
+activity in the deity of their opponents.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41722src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41753">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41753src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> See p. 469, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41753src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41756">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41756src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 598, explains the Mother of the Gods as meaning the earth. ii. 655, he allows
+the expressions, Neptune, Ceres, Bacchus, for the sea, corn, and wine. iii. 976, he
+interprets the pains of the nether-world as the qualms now brought on by superstition
+and folly.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41756src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch19" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e2109">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XIX.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE MORAL SCIENCE OF THE EPICUREANS. GENERAL PRINCIPLES.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch19.a">A. <i>Pleasure.</i><br id="ch19.a.1">(1) <i>Pleasure the highest good.</i></span>
+Natural science is intended to overcome the prejudices which stand in the way of happiness;
+moral science to give positive instruction as to the nature and means of attaining
+to happiness. The speculative parts of the Epicurean system had already worked out
+the idea that reality belongs only to individual things, and that all general order
+must be referred to the accidental harmony of individual forces. The same idea is
+now met with in the sphere of morals, individual feeling being made the standard,
+and individual well-being the object of all human activity. Natural science, beginning
+with external phenomena, went back to the secret principles of these phenomena, accessible
+only to thought. It led from an apparently accidental movement of atoms to a universe
+of regular motions. Not otherwise was the course followed by Epicurus in moral science.
+Not content with human feelings alone, nor with selfishly referring everything to
+the individual taken by himself alone, that science, in more accurately defining the
+conception of well-being, ascertained that the same <span class="pageNum" id="pb473">[<a href="#pb473">473</a>]</span>can only be found by rising superior to feelings and purely individual aims, in short
+by that very process of referring consciousness to itself and its universal being,
+which the Stoics declared to be the only path to happiness. It is for us now to portray
+this development of the Epicurean philosophy in its most prominent features.
+</p>
+<p>The only unconditional good, according to Epicurus, is pleasure; the only unconditional
+evil is pain.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41780src" href="#xd33e41780" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> No proof of this proposition seemed to him to be necessary; it rests on a conviction
+supplied by nature herself, and is the ground and basis of all our doing and not doing.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41808src" href="#xd33e41808" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> If proof, however, were required, he appealed to the fact that all living beings
+from the first moment of their existence pursue pleasure and avoid pain,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41822src" href="#xd33e41822" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> and that consequently pleasure is a natural good, and the normal condition of every
+being.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41830src" href="#xd33e41830" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> Hence follows the proposition to which Epicurus in common with all the philosophers
+of pleasure <span class="pageNum" id="pb474">[<a href="#pb474">474</a>]</span>appealed, that pleasure must be the object of life.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch19.a.2">(2) <i>Freedom from pain.</i></span>
+At the same time, this proposition was restricted in the Epicurean system by several
+considerations. In the first place, neither pleasure nor pain is a simple thing. There
+are many varieties and degrees of pleasure and pain, and the case may occur in which
+pleasure has to be secured by the loss of other pleasures, or even by pain, or in
+which pain can only be avoided by submitting to another pain, or at the cost of some
+pleasure. In this case Epicurus would have the various feelings of pleasure and pain
+carefully weighed, and in consideration of the advantages and disadvantages which
+they confer, would under circumstances advise the good to be treated as an evil, and
+the evil as a good. He would have pleasure forsworn if it would entail a greater corresponding
+pain, and pain submitted to if it holds out the prospect of greater pleasure.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41875src" href="#xd33e41875" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> He also agrees with Plato in holding that every positive pleasure presupposes a want,
+i.e. a pain which it proposes to remove; and hence he concludes that the real aim
+and object of all pleasure consists in obtaining freedom from pain,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41883src" href="#xd33e41883" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> and that the good is nothing else <span class="pageNum" id="pb475">[<a href="#pb475">475</a>]</span>but emancipation from evil.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41925src" href="#xd33e41925" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> By a Cyrenaic neither repose of soul nor freedom from pain, but a gentle motion of
+the soul or positive pleasure was proposed as the object of life; and hence happiness
+was not made to depend on man’s general state of mind, but on the sum-total of his
+actual enjoyments. But Epicurus, advancing beyond this position, recognised both the
+positive and the negative side of pleasures, both pleasure as repose, and pleasure
+as motion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41930src" href="#xd33e41930" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> Both aspects of pleasure, however, do not stand on the same footing in his system.
+On the contrary, the essential and immediate cause of happiness is repose of mind—<span class="trans" title="ataraxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀταραξία</span></span>. Positive pleasure is only an indirect cause of <span class="trans" title="ataraxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀταραξία</span></span> in that it removes the pain of unsatisfied craving.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e41982src" href="#xd33e41982" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> This mental repose, however, depends essentially on the character of a man’s mind,
+just as conversely positive pleasure in systems so materialistic must depend on sensuous
+attractions. It was consistent, therefore, on the part of Aristippus to consider bodily
+gratification the highest pleasure; and conversely Epicurus was no <span class="pageNum" id="pb476">[<a href="#pb476">476</a>]</span>less consistent in subordinating it to gratification of mind.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch19.b">B. <i>Intellectual happiness.</i></span>
+In calling pleasure the highest object in life, says Epicurus, we do not mean the
+pleasures of profligacy, nor indeed sensual enjoyments at all, but the freedom of
+the body from pain, and the freedom of the soul from disturbance. Neither feasts nor
+banquets, neither the lawful nor unlawful indulgence of the passions, nor the joys
+of the table, make life happy, but a sober judgment, investigating the motives for
+action and for inaction, and dispelling those greatest enemies of our peace, prejudices.
+The root from which it springs,
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch19.b.1">(1) <i>Intelligence.</i></span>
+and, therefore, the highest good, is intelligence.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42004src" href="#xd33e42004" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> It is intelligence that leaves us free to acquire possession thereof, without being
+ever too early or too late.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42034src" href="#xd33e42034" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> Our indispensable wants are simple, little being necessary to ensure freedom from
+pain; other things only afford change in enjoyment, by which the quantity is not increased,
+or else they rest on a mere sentiment.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42062src" href="#xd33e42062" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> The little we need may be easily attained. <span class="pageNum" id="pb477">[<a href="#pb477">477</a>]</span>Nature makes ample provision for our happiness, would we only receive her gifts thankfully,
+not forgetting what she gives in thinking what we desire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42094src" href="#xd33e42094" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> He who lives according to nature is never poor; the wise man living on bread and
+water has no reason to envy Zeus;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42109src" href="#xd33e42109" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> chance has little hold on him; with him judgment is everything,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42117src" href="#xd33e42117" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> and if that be right, he need trouble himself but little about external mishaps.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42140src" href="#xd33e42140" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> Not even bodily pain appeared to Epicurus so irresistible as to be able to cloud
+the wise man’s happiness. Although he regards as unnatural the Stoic’s insensibility
+to pain,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42152src" href="#xd33e42152" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> still he is of opinion that the wise man may be happy on the rack, and can smile
+at pains the most violent, exclaiming in the midst of torture, How sweet!<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42156src" href="#xd33e42156" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> A touch of forced sentiment may be discerned in the last expression, and a trace
+of self-satisfied exaggeration is manifest even in the beautiful language of the dying
+philosopher on the pains of disease.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42166src" href="#xd33e42166" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> Nevertheless, the <span class="pageNum" id="pb478">[<a href="#pb478">478</a>]</span>principle involved is based in the spirit of the Epicurean philosophy, and borne out
+by the testimony of the founder. The main thing, according to Epicurus, is not the
+state of the body, but the state of the mind; bodily pleasure being of short duration,
+and having much about it to unsettle; mental enjoyments only being pure and incorruptible.
+For the same reason mental sufferings are more severe than those of the body, since
+the body only suffers from present ills, whilst the soul feels those past and those
+to come.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42183src" href="#xd33e42183" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> In a life of limited duration the pleasures of the flesh never attain their consummation.
+Mind only, by consoling us for the limited nature of our bodily existence, can produce
+a life complete in itself, and not standing in need of unlimited duration.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42222src" href="#xd33e42222" title="Go to note 21.">21</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch19.b.2">(2) <i>Reasons for rising superior to the senses.</i></span>
+At the same time, the Epicureans, if consistent with their principles, could not deny
+that bodily pleasure is the earlier form, and likewise the ultimate source, of all
+pleasure, and neither Epicurus nor his favourite pupil Metrodorus shrank from making
+this admission; Epicurus declaring that he could form <span class="pageNum" id="pb479">[<a href="#pb479">479</a>]</span>no conception of the good apart from enjoyments<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42272src" href="#xd33e42272" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> of the senses; Metrodorus asserting that everything good has reference to the belly.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42302src" href="#xd33e42302" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> For all that the Epicureans did not feel themselves driven to give up the pre-eminence
+which they claimed for goods of the soul over those of the body. Did even the Stoics,
+notwithstanding the grossness of their theory of knowledge, ever abate their demand
+for a knowledge of conceptions; or cease to subordinate the senses to reason, although
+they built their theory of morals on nature? But all definite character has vanished
+from these intellectual joys and pains. The only distinctive feature which they possess
+is the addition either of memory, or of hope, or of fear<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42332src" href="#xd33e42332" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> to the present feeling of pleasure or pain; and their greater importance is simply
+ascribed to the greater force or duration belonging to ideal feelings as compared
+with the attractions which momentarily impress the senses.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42355src" href="#xd33e42355" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb480">[<a href="#pb480">480</a>]</span>Incidentally the remembrance of philosophic discourses is mentioned<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42366src" href="#xd33e42366" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> as a counterpoise to bodily pain; properly speaking, mental pleasures and pains are
+not different from other pleasures in kind, but only in degree, by reason of their
+being stronger and more enduring. Accordingly Epicurus cannot escape the admission
+that we have no cause for rejecting gross and carnal enjoyments if these can liberate
+us from the fear of higher powers, of death, and of sufferings;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42379src" href="#xd33e42379" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> and thus the only consolation he can offer in pain is the uncertain one that the
+most violent pains either do not last long, or else put an end to life; and the less
+violent ones ought to be endured since they do not exclude a counterbalancing pleasure.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42385src" href="#xd33e42385" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> Hence victory over the impression of the moment must be won, not so much by mental
+force stemming the tide of feeling, as by a proper estimate of the conditions and
+actions of the senses.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch19.b.3">(3) <i>Virtue.</i></span>
+In no other way can the necessity of virtue be established in the Epicurean system.
+Agreeing with the strictest moralists, so far as to hold that virtue can be as little
+separated from happiness as happiness from virtue,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42400src" href="#xd33e42400" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> having even the testimony of opponents as to the purity and integrity <span class="pageNum" id="pb481">[<a href="#pb481">481</a>]</span>of his moral teaching, which in its results differed in no wise from that of the Stoics;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42418src" href="#xd33e42418" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> Epicurus, nevertheless, holds a position of strong contrast to the Stoics in respect
+of the grounds on which his moral theory is based. To demand virtue for its own sake
+seemed to him a mere phantom of the imagination. Those only who make pleasure their
+aim have a real object in life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42436src" href="#xd33e42436" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> Virtue has only a conditional value<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42453src" href="#xd33e42453" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> as a means to happiness; or, as it is otherwise expressed,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42493src" href="#xd33e42493" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> Virtue taken by itself does not render a man happy, but the pleasure arising from
+the exercise of virtue. This pleasure the Epicurean system does not seek in the consciousness
+of duty fulfilled, <span class="pageNum" id="pb482">[<a href="#pb482">482</a>]</span>or of virtuous action, but in the freedom from disquiet, fear, and dangers, which
+follows as a consequence from virtue. Wisdom and intelligence contribute to happiness
+by liberating us from the fear of the Gods and of death, by making us independent
+of immoderate passions and vain desires, by teaching us to bear pain as something
+subordinate and passing, and by pointing the way to a more cheerful and natural life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42501src" href="#xd33e42501" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> Self-control aids<span>,</span> in that it points out the attitude to be assumed towards pleasure and pain, so as
+to receive the maximum of enjoyment and the minimum of suffering;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42510src" href="#xd33e42510" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> valour, in that it enables us to overcome fear and pain;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42514src" href="#xd33e42514" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> justice, in that it makes life possible without that fear of Gods and men, which
+ever haunts the transgressor.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42529src" href="#xd33e42529" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> To the Epicurean virtue is never an end in itself, but only a means to an end lying
+beyond—a happy life—but withal a means so certain and necessary, that virtue can neither
+be conceived without happiness, nor happiness without virtue. However unnecessary
+it may seem, still Epicurus would ever insist that an action to be right must be done
+not according to the letter, but according to the spirit of the law, not simply from
+regard to others, or by compulsion, but from delight in what is good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42543src" href="#xd33e42543" title="Go to note 38.">38</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb483">[<a href="#pb483">483</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch19.c">C. <i>The wise man.</i></span>
+The same claims were advanced by Epicurus on behalf of his wise man as the Stoics
+had urged on behalf of theirs. Not only does he attribute to him a control over pain,
+in nothing inferior to the Stoic insensibility of feeling, but he endeavours himself
+to describe the wise man’s life as most perfect and satisfactory in itself. Albeit
+not free from emotions, and in particular susceptible to the higher feelings of the
+soul such as compassion, the wise man finds his philosophic activity in no wise thereby
+impaired.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42563src" href="#xd33e42563" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> Without despising enjoyment, he is altogether master of his desires, and knows how
+to restrain them by intelligence, so that they never exercise a harmful influence
+on life. He alone has an unwavering certainty of conviction;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42567src" href="#xd33e42567" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> he alone knows how to do the right thing in the right way; he alone, as Metrodorus
+observes,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42571src" href="#xd33e42571" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> knows how to be thankful. Nay, more, he is so far exalted above ordinary men, that
+Epicurus promises his pupils that, by carefully observing his teaching, they will
+dwell as Gods among men;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42579src" href="#xd33e42579" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> so little can destiny influence him, that he calls him happy under all circumstances.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42587src" href="#xd33e42587" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> Happiness may, indeed, depend on certain external conditions; <span class="pageNum" id="pb484">[<a href="#pb484">484</a>]</span>it may even be allowed that the disposition to happiness is not found in every nature,
+nor in every person;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42601src" href="#xd33e42601" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> but still, when it is found, its stability is sure, nor can time affect its duration.
+For wisdom—so Epicurus and the Stoics alike believed—is indestructible,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42605src" href="#xd33e42605" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> and the wise man’s happiness can never be increased by time. A life, therefore, bounded
+by time can be quite as complete as one not so bounded.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42617src" href="#xd33e42617" title="Go to note 46.">46</a>
+</p>
+<p>Different as are the principles and the tone of the systems of the Stoics and of Epicurus,
+one and the same tendency may yet be traced in both—the tendency which characterises
+all the post-Aristotelian philosophy—the desire to place man in a position of absolute
+independence by emancipating him from connection with the external world, and by awakening
+in him the consciousness of the infinite freedom of thought.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42625src" href="#xd33e42625" title="Go to note 47.">47</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb485">[<a href="#pb485">485</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41780">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41780src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 128: <span class="trans" title="tēn hēdonēn archēn kai telos legomen einai tou makariōs zēn ... prōton agathon touto kai symphyton ... pasa oun hēdonē ... agathon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίως ζῇν … πρῶτον ἀγαθὸν τοῦτο καὶ
+σύμφυτον … πᾶσα οὖν ἡδονὴ … ἀγαθόν</span></span>.… <span class="trans" title="kathaper kai algēdōn pasa kakon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθάπερ καὶ ἀλγηδὼν πᾶσα κακόν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 141. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 9, 29; Tusc. v. 26, 73: <span lang="la">Cum præsertim omne malum dolore definiat, bonum voluptate.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41780src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41808">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41808src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 129: <span class="trans" title="tautēn gar agathon prōton kai syngenikon egnōmen kai apo tautēs katarchometha pasēs haireseōs kai pheugēs kai epi tautēn katantōmen hōs kanoni tō pathei to agathon krinontes"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ταύτην γὰρ ἀγαθὸν πρῶτον καὶ συγγενικὸν ἔγνωμεν καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης καταρχόμεθα πάσης αἱρέσεως
+καὶ φευγῆς καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτην καταντῶμεν ὡς κανόνι τῷ πάθει τὸ ἀγαθὸν κρίνοντες</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 27, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41808src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41822">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41822src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 137; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 7, 23; 9, 30; ii. 10, 31; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. iii. 194; Math. xi. 96.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41822src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41830">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41830src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 58: <span class="trans" title="touto d’"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῦτο δ’</span></span> [the <span class="trans" title="telos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλος</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="hoi kat’ Epikouron philosophountes ou prosdechontai legein energoumenon, dia to pathētikon hypotithesthai to telos, ou praktikon; hēdonē gar; hothen kai tēn ennoian apodidoasi tou telous, to oikeiōs diatetheisthai ex heautou pros auton chōris tēs ep’ allo te hapasēs epibolēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἱ κατ’ Ἐπίκουρον φιλοσοφοῦντες οὐ προσδέχονται λέγειν ἐνεργούμενον, διὰ τὸ παθητικὸν
+ὑποτίθεσθαι τὸ τέλος, οὐ πρακτικόν· ἡδονὴ γάρ· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἀποδιδόασι τοῦ
+τέλους, τὸ οἰκείως διατεθεῖσθαι ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν χωρὶς τῆς ἐπ’ ἄλλο τε ἁπάσης
+ἐπιβολῆς</span></span>. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 154, a: <span class="trans" title="tois de peri Epikouron hēdonē to prōton oikeion edoxen einai haplōs; proïontōn de diarthrousthai tautēn tēn hēdonēn phasi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς δὲ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον ἡδονὴ τὸ πρῶτον οἰκεῖον ἔδοξεν εἶναι ἁπλῶς· προϊόντων δὲ διαρθροῦσθαι
+ταύτην τὴν ἡδονήν φασι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41830src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41875">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41875src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 129; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 14, 48; Tusc. v. 33, 95; <i>Sen.</i> De Otio, 7, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41875src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41883">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41883src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 139 (<i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. ii. 9, 2): <span class="trans" title="horos tou megethous tōn hēdonōn hē pantos tou algountos hypexairesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅρος τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡ παντὸς τοῦ ἀλγοῦντος ὑπεξαίρεσις</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> in <i>Diog.</i> 128: <span class="trans" title="toutōn gar [tōn epithymiōn] aplanēs theōria pasan hairesin kai phygēn epanagagein oiden epi tēn tou sōmatos hygieian kai tēn tēs psychēs ataraxian. epei touto tou makariōs zēn esti telos. toutou gar charin hapanta prattomen hopōs mēte algōmen mēte tarbōmen; hotan de hapax touto peri hēmas genētai lyetai pas ho tēs psychēs cheimōn ouk echontos tou zōou badizein hōs pros endeon ti ... tote gar hēdonēs chreian echomen, hotan ek tou mē pareinai tēn hēdonēn algōmen; hotan de mē algōmen ouketi tēs hēdonēs deometha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τούτων γὰρ [τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν] ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπαναγαγεῖν οἶδεν
+ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν. ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῇν
+ἐστι τέλος. τούτου γὰρ χάριν ἅπαντα πράττομεν ὅπως μήτε ἀλγῶμεν μήτε ταρβῶμεν· ὅταν
+δὲ ἅπαξ τοῦτο περὶ ἡμᾶς γένηται λύεται πᾶς ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χειμὼν οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ ζῴου
+βαδίζειν ὡς πρὸς ἐνδέον τι … τότε γὰρ ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ <span class="pageNum" id="pb475n">[<a href="#pb475n">475</a>]</span>μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 131; 144; conf. <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 3, 10; <i>Stob.</i> Serm. 17, 35; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 14; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 11, 37.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41883src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41925">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41925src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> Epicurus and Metrodorus, in <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 7, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41925src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41930">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41930src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 136, quotes the words of Epicurus: <span class="trans" title="hē men gar ataraxia kai aponia katastēmatikai eisin hēdonai, hē de chara kai euphrosynē kata kinēsin energeia blepontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναὶ, ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ εὐφροσύνη
+κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται</span></span>. <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 469, suggests instead of <span class="trans" title="energeia enargeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνεργείᾳ ἐναργείᾳ</span></span>, but <span class="trans" title="energeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐνεργείᾳ</span></span> gives a very fair meaning: they appear actually in motion. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 45: <span lang="la">Apud Epicurum duo bona sunt, ex quibus summum illud beatumque componitur, ut corpus
+sine dolore sit, animus sine perturbatione.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41930src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e41982">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e41982src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> Hence <i>Sen.</i> Brevit. Vit. 14, 2: <span lang="la">Cum Epicuro quiescere.</span> Benef. iv. 4, 1: <span lang="la">Quæ maxima Epicuro felicitas videtur, nihil agit.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e41982src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42004">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42004src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 131. Similar views are expressed by Metrodorus, in <i>Clement</i>, Strom. v. 614, <span class="asc">B</span>, in praise of philosophers who escape all evils by rising to the contemplation of
+the eternal <span class="trans" title="katharoi kai asēmantoi toutou, ho nyn sōma peripherontes onomazomen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καθαροὶ καὶ ἀσήμαντοι τούτου, ὃ νῦν σῶμα περιφέροντες ὀνομάζομεν</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> in <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 17, 4: <span class="trans" title="poiēsōmen ti kalon epi kalois, monon ou katadyntes tais homoiopatheiais kai apallagentes ek tou chamai biou eis ta Epikourou hōs alēthōs theophanta orgia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποιήσωμέν τι καλὸν ἐπὶ καλοῖς, μόνον οὐ καταδύντες ταῖς ὁμοιοπαθείαις καὶ ἀπαλλαγέντες
+ἐκ τοῦ χαμαὶ βίου εἰς τὰ Ἐπικούρου ὡς ἀληθῶς θεόφαντα ὄργια</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42004src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42034">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42034src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 122: <span class="trans" title="mēte neos tis ōn melletō philosophein mēte gerōn hyparchōn kopiatō philosophōn. oute gar aōros oudeis estin oute parōros pros to kata psychēn hygiainon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μήτε νέος τις ὢν μελλέτω φιλοσοφεῖν μήτε γέρων ὑπάρχων κοπιάτω φιλοσοφῶν. οὔτε γὰρ
+ἄωρος οὐδείς ἐστιν οὔτε πάρωρος πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν ὑγιαῖνον</span></span>. He who says it is too early or too late to study philosophy means <span class="trans" title="pros eudaimonian ē mēpō pareinai tēn hōran ē mēketi einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μήπω παρεῖναι τὴν ὥραν ἢ μηκέτι εἶναι</span></span>. <i>Id.</i> in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 8, 7: <span lang="la">Philosophiæ servias oportet, ut tibi contingat vera libertas.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42034src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42062">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42062src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 127: <span class="trans" title="tōn epithymiōn hai men eisi physikai hai de kenai; kai tōn physikōn hai men anankaiai hai de physikai monon. tōn de anankaiōn hai men pros eudaimonian eisin anankaiai, hai de pros tēn tou sōmatos aochlēsian, hai de pros auto to zēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ αἱ δὲ κεναί· καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι αἱ
+δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον. τῶν δὲ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ
+πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῇν</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 149, <span class="pageNum" id="pb477n">[<a href="#pb477n">477</a>]</span>further particulars are given as to the classes. <i>Ibid.</i> 144; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 20; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 13, 45; Tusc. v. 33, 94; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 3, 10; <i>Eustrat.</i> Eth. N. 48, b; <i>Sen.</i> Vit. Be. 13, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42062src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42094">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42094src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Benef. iii. 4, 1: <span lang="la">Epicuro … qui adsidue queritur, quod adversus præterita simus ingrati.</span> Epic. in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 15, 10: <span lang="la">Stulta vita ingrata est et trepida, tota in futurum fertur;</span> and <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 929.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42094src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42109">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42109src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 11; 130; 144; 146; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 17; 23; 30; 34; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 2, 5; 16, 7; 25, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42109src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42117">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42117src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 144: <span class="trans" title="bracheia sophō tychē parempiptei, ta de megista kai kyriōtata ho logismos diōkēke"><span lang="grc" class="grek">βραχεῖα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα ὁ λογισμὸς διῴκηκε</span></span>. The like in <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 354; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 19, 63; <i>Sen.</i> De Const. 15, 4; Epicurus and Metrodorus in <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 9, 26, and <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Po. 14, p. 37.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42117src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42140">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42140src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 135: <span class="trans" title="kreitton einai nomizōn eulogistōs atychein ē alogistōs eutychein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρεῖττον εἶναι νομίζων εὐλογίστως ἀτυχεῖν ἢ ἀλογίστως εὐτυχεῖν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42140src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42152">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42152src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 20, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42152src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42156">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42156src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 118; <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 3, 9; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 18; 67, 15; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 26, 73.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42156src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42166">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42166src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 22; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 30, 96; Tusc. ii. 7, 17; <i>M. Aurel.</i> ix. 41; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 66, 47; 92, 25; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 18, 1, the <span class="pageNum" id="pb478n">[<a href="#pb478n">478</a>]</span>latter perverting Epicurus’ words to a terrible extent.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42166src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42183">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42183src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 137: <span class="trans" title="eti pros tous Kyrēnaïkous diapheretai. hoi men gar cheirous tas sōmatikas algēdonas legousi tōn psychikōn ... ho de tas psychikas. tēn goun sarka dia to paron monon cheimazein, tēn de psychēn kai dia to parelthon kai to paron kai to mellon. houtōs oun kai meizonas hēdonas einai tēs psychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔτι πρὸς τοὺς Κυρηναϊκοὺς διαφέρεται. οἱ μὲν γὰρ χείρους τὰς σωματικὰς ἀλγηδόνας λέγουσι
+τῶν ψυχικῶν … ὁ δὲ τὰς ψυχικάς. τὴν γοῦν σάρκα διὰ τὸ παρὸν μόνον χειμάζειν, τὴν δὲ
+ψυχὴν καὶ διὰ τὸ παρελθὸν καὶ τὸ παρὸν καὶ τὸ μέλλον<span>.</span> οὕτως οὖν καὶ μείζονας ἡδονὰς εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς</span></span>. Further particulars in <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 3, 10: <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 33, 96. The Epicureans spoke of bodily pleasure by <span class="trans" title="hēdesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἥδεσθαι</span></span>, mental by <span class="trans" title="chairein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαίρειν</span></span>. <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 5, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42183src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42222">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42222src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 145. Epicurus appears to have first used <span class="trans" title="sarx"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σὰρξ</span></span> to express the body in contrast to the soul: <span class="trans" title="sōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σῶμα</span></span>, in his system, includes the soul. See <i>Diog.</i> 137; 140; 144; Metrodor. in <i>Plut.</i> Colot. 31, 2. (<i>Plut.</i> in N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Plut. has <span class="trans" title="gastri"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γαστρὶ</span></span> instead of <span class="trans" title="sarki"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σαρκί</span></span>.)&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42222src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42272">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42272src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> x. 6, from Epicurus <span class="trans" title="peri telous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τέλους</span></span>: <span class="trans" title="ou gar egōge echō ti noēsō tagathon aphairōn men tas dia chylōn hēdonas, aphairōn de kai tas di’ aphrodisiōn kai tas di’ akroamatōn kai tas dia morphas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονὰς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ
+τὰς δι’ ἀφροδισίων καὶ τὰς δι’ ἀκροαμάτων καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφᾶς</span></span> (-<span class="trans" title="ēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ῆς</span></span>). The like, in a more expanded form, in <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 18, 41.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42272src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42302">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42302src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> l.c. 16, 9: <span class="trans" title="hōs kai echarēn kai ethrasynamēn hote emathon par’ Epikourou orthōs gastri"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς καὶ ἐχάρην καὶ ἐθρασυνάμην ὅτε ἔμαθον παρ’ Ἐπικούρου ὀρθῶς γαστρὶ</span></span> (see previous note) <span class="trans" title="charizesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χαρίζεσθαι</span></span>; and: <span class="trans" title="peri gastera gar, ō physiologe Timokrates, to agathon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ γαστέρα γὰρ, ὦ φυσιολόγε Τιμόκρατες, τὸ ἀγαθόν</span></span>. Conf. <i>ibid.</i> 3, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42302src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42332">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42332src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> See p. 478, 1, and Epic. in <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. V. 4, 10: <span class="trans" title="to gar eustathes sarkos katastēma kai to peri tautēs piston elpisma tēn akrotatēn charan kai bebaiotatēn echei tois epilogizesthai dynamenois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ γὰρ εὐσταθὲς σαρκὸς κατάστημα καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν ἔλπισμα τὴν ἀκροτάτην χαρὰν
+καὶ βεβαιοτάτην ἔχει τοῖς ἐπιλογίζεσθαι δυναμένοις</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 5, 1: <span class="trans" title="to men hēdomenon tēs sarkos tō chaironti tēs psychēs hypereidontes, authis d’ ek tou chairontos eis to hēdomenon tē elpidi teleutōntas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μὲν ἡδόμενον τῆς σαρκὸς τῷ χαίροντι τῆς ψυχῆς ὑπερείδοντες, αὖθις δ’ ἐκ τοῦ χαίροντος
+εἰς τὸ ἡδόμενον τῇ ἐλπίδι τελευτῶντας</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42332src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42355">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42355src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> Conf., besides the extracts on p. 478, 1 and 2, <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 17, 55: <span lang="la">Animi autem voluptates et dolores nasci fatemur e corporis voluptatibus et doloribus;</span> it is only a misapprehension on the part of several Epicureans to deny this fact.
+Mental pleasures and pains may therefore be the stronger ones for the reasons assigned
+above.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42355src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42366">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42366src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> In his last letter (<i>Diog.</i> 22), after describing his painful illness, Epicurus continues: <span class="trans" title="antiparetatteto de pasi toutois to kata psychēn chairon epi tē tōn gegonotōn hēmin dialogismōn mnēmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀντιπαρετάττετο δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν χαῖρον ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν γεγονότων ἡμῖν διαλογισμῶν
+μνήμῃ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42366src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42379">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42379src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 142; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 7, 21.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42379src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42385">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42385src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 140; 133; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 15, 49; <i>Plut.</i> Aud. Po. 14, p. 36; <i>M. Aurel.</i> vii. 33, 64.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42385src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42400">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42400src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 140: <span class="trans" title="ouk estin hēdeōs zēn aneu tou phronimōs kai kalōs kai dikaiōs, oude phronimōs kai dikaiōs aneu tou hēdeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῇν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ δικαίως
+ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως</span></span>. The same p. 132, 138. <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 9, 26; Fin. i. 16, 50; 19, 62; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42400src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42418">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42418src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Vit. Be. 13, 1 (conf. 12, 4): <span lang="la">In ea quidem ipse sententia sum (invitis nec nostris popularibus—<span lang="en">the Stoics</span>—dicam), sancta Epicurum et recta præcipere, et si propius accesseris tristia: voluptas
+enim illa ad parvum et exile revocatur, et quam nos virtuti legem dicimus eam ille
+dicit voluptati … itaque non dico, quod plerique nostrorum, sectam Epicuri flagitiorum
+<span class="corr" id="xd33e42426" title="Source: ministram">magistram</span> esse, sed illud dico: male audit, infamis est, et immerito. Ep. 33, 2: Apud me vero
+Epicurus est et fortis, licet manuleatus sit.</span> Seneca not infrequently quotes sayings of Epicurus, and calls (Ep. 6, 6) Metrodorus,
+Hermarchus, and Polyænus, <span lang="la">magnos viros</span>. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 25, 81.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42418src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42436">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42436src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> Epic. in <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 17, 3: <span class="trans" title="egō d’ eph’ hēdonas synecheis parakalō, kai ouk ep’ aretas, kenas kai mataias kai tarachōdeis echousas tōn karpōn tas elpidas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐγὼ δ’ ἐφ’ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ, καὶ οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀρετὰς, κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις
+ἐχούσας <span id="xd33e42444">τῶν</span> κάρπων τὰς ἐλπίδας</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42436src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42453">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42453src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 138: <span class="trans" title="dia de tēn hēdonēn kai tas aretas dein haireisthai ou di’ hautas; hōsper tēn iatrikēn dia tēn hygieian, katha phēsi kai Diogenēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὰ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς δεῖν αἱρεῖσθαι οὐ δι’ αὑτάς· ὥσπερ τὴν ἰατρικὴν διὰ
+τὴν ὑγίειαν, καθά φησι καὶ Διογένης</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 13, 42 (conf. ad Att. vii. 2): <span lang="la">Istæ enim vestræ eximiæ <span class="corr" id="xd33e42468" title="Source: pulcræque">pulchræque</span> virtutes nisi voluptatem efficerent, quis eas aut laudabiles aut expetendas arbitraretur?
+ut enim medicorum scientiam non ipsius artis sed bonæ valetudinis causa probamus,
+&amp;c. …; sic sapientia, quæ ars vivendi putanda est, non expeteretur si nihil efficeret;
+nunc expetitur quod est tanquam artifex conquirendæ et comparandæ voluptatis.</span> <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 156, b: [<span class="trans" title="hē aretē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ ἀρετὴ</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="peri tēn eklogēn esti tōn hēdeōn kat’ Epikouron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ τὴν ἐκλογήν ἐστι τῶν ἡδέων κατ’ Ἐπίκουρον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42453src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42493">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42493src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 85, 18: <span lang="la">Epicurus quoque judicat, cum virtutem habeat beatum esse, sed ipsam virtutem non satis
+esse ad beatam vitam, quia beatum efficiat voluptas quæ ex virtute est, non ipsa virtus.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42493src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42501">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42501src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 132; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 13, 43; 19, 62.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42501src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42510">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42510src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 13, 47.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42510src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42514">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42514src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 13, 49. <i>Diog.</i> 120: <span class="trans" title="tēn de andreian physei mē ginesthai, logismō de tou sympherontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν δὲ ἀνδρείαν φύσει μὴ γίνεσθαι, λογισμῷ δὲ τοῦ συμφέροντος</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42514src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42529">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42529src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 16, 50; <i>Diog.</i> 144; <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 6, 1; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 97, 13 and 15. <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1152: The criminal can never rest, and often in delirium or sleep betrays himself.
+Epicurus, however, refused to answer the question, Whether the wise man would do what
+is forbidden, if he could be certain of not being discovered? <i>Plut.</i> col. 34, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42529src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42543">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42543src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Philodemus</i>, De Rhet. Vol. <span class="pageNum" id="pb483n">[<a href="#pb483n">483</a>]</span>Herc. v. a, col. 25: The laws ought to be kept <span class="trans" title="tō mē ta diōrismena monon, alla kai ta tēn homoeideian autois echonta diaphylattein, kakeina mē monon syneidotōn, alla kan lanthanōmen apaxapantas, kai meth’ hēdonēs, ou di’ anankēn, kai bebaiōs, all’ ou saleuomenōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῷ μὴ τὰ διωρισμένα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τὴν ὁμοείδειαν αὐτοῖς ἔχοντα διαφυλάττειν,
+κἀκεῖνα μὴ μόνον συνειδότων, ἀλλὰ κἂν λανθάνωμεν ἀπαξάπαντας, καὶ μεθ’ ἡδονῆς, οὐ
+δι’ ἀνάγκην, καὶ βεβαίως, ἀλλ’ οὐ σαλευομένως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42543src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42563">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42563src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 117; 118; 119.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42563src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42567">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42567src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 19, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42567src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42571">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42571src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 118; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 81, 11. The Stoic assertion of the equality of virtues and vices was, however,
+denied by the Epicureans. <i>Diog.</i> 120.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42571src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42579">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42579src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 135; conf. <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 7, 3; <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 323.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42579src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42587">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42587src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 19, 61; v. 27 80: <span lang="la">Semper beatum esse sapientem.</span> Tusc. v. 9, 26; <i>Stob<span>.</span></i> Serm. 17, 30. See p. 477.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42587src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42601">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42601src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 117.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42601src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42605">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42605src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 117: <span class="trans" title="ton hapax genomenon sophon mēketi tēn enantian lambanein diathesin mēd’ epallattein hekonta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφὸν μηκέτι τὴν ἐναντίαν λαμβάνειν διάθεσιν μήδ’ ἐπαλλάττειν ἑκόντα</span></span>. The latter words appear to admit the possibility of an involuntary loss of wisdom,
+perhaps through madness.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42605src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42617">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42617src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 126; 145; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 19, 63.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42617src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42625">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42625src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> See also page 476, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42625src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch20" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e2200">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XX.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE EPICUREAN ETHICS CONTINUED: SPECIAL POINTS.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch20.a">A. <i>The individual.</i></span>
+The general principles already laid down determine likewise the character of particular
+points in the moral science of the Epicureans. Epicurus, it is true, never developed
+his moral views to a systematic theory of moral actions and states, however much his
+pupils, particularly in later times, busied themselves with morality and special points
+in a system of morals.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42639src" href="#xd33e42639" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> Moreover, his fragmentary statements and precepts are very imperfectly recorded.
+Still, all that is known corresponds with the notion which we must form in accordance
+with those general views. All the practical rules given by Epicurus aim at conducting
+man to happiness by controlling passions and desires. The wise man is easily satisfied.
+He sees that little is necessary for supplying the wants <span class="pageNum" id="pb486">[<a href="#pb486">486</a>]</span>of nature, and for emancipating from pain; that imaginary wealth knows no limit, whereas
+the riches required by nature may be easily acquired;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42676src" href="#xd33e42676" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> that the most simple nourishment affords as much enjoyment as the most luxurious,
+and is at the same time far more conducive to health;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42721src" href="#xd33e42721" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> that therefore the restriction of wants rather than the increase of possessions makes
+really rich;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42725src" href="#xd33e42725" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> and that he who is not satisfied with little will never be satisfied at all.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42737src" href="#xd33e42737" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> He therefore can like Epicurus live upon bread and water,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42745src" href="#xd33e42745" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> and at the same time think himself as happy <span class="pageNum" id="pb487">[<a href="#pb487">487</a>]</span>as Zeus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42808src" href="#xd33e42808" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> He eschews passions which disturb peace of mind and the repose of life; considering
+it foolish to throw away the present in order to obtain an uncertain future, or to
+sacrifice life itself for the means of life, seeing he can only once enjoy it.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42812src" href="#xd33e42812" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> He therefore neither gives way to passionate love, nor to forbidden acts of profligacy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42827src" href="#xd33e42827" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> Fame he does not <span class="pageNum" id="pb488">[<a href="#pb488">488</a>]</span>covet; and for the opinions of men he cares only so far as to wish not to be despised,
+since being despised would expose him to danger.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42917src" href="#xd33e42917" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> Injuries he can bear with calmness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42925src" href="#xd33e42925" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> He cares not what may happen to him after death;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42929src" href="#xd33e42929" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> nor envies any one the possessions which he does not himself value.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42941src" href="#xd33e42941" title="Go to note 13.">13</a>
+</p>
+<p>It has been already seen how Epicurus thought to rise above pains, and to emancipate
+himself from the fear of the Gods and death.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42947src" href="#xd33e42947" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> And it has been further noticed that he thinks to secure by means of his principles
+the same independence and happiness which the Stoics aspired to by means of theirs.
+But whilst the Stoics hoped to attain this independence by crushing the senses, Epicurus
+was content to restrain and regulate them. Desires he would not have uprooted, but
+he would have them brought into proper proportion to the collective end and condition
+of life, into the equilibrium necessary for perfect repose of mind. Hence, notwithstanding
+his own simplicity, Epicurus is far from disapproving, under all circumstances, of
+a fuller enjoyment of life. The wise man will not live as a Cynic or a beggar.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42960src" href="#xd33e42960" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> Care for business he will not neglect; only he will not <span class="pageNum" id="pb489">[<a href="#pb489">489</a>]</span>trouble himself too much about it, and will prefer the business of education to any
+and every other.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e42968src" href="#xd33e42968" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> Nor will he despise the attractions of art, although he is satisfied when obliged
+to do without them.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43000src" href="#xd33e43000" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> In short, his self-sufficiency will not consist in <i>using</i> little, but in <i>needing</i> little; and it is this freedom from wants which adds flavour to his more luxurious
+enjoyments.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43027src" href="#xd33e43027" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> His attitude to death is the same. Not fearing death, rather seeking it when he has
+no other mode of escaping unendurable suffering, he will resort to suicide if necessary,
+but the cases will be rare, because he has learnt to be happy under all bodily pains.
+The Stoic’s recommendation of suicide finds no favour with him.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43040src" href="#xd33e43040" title="Go to note 19.">19</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb490">[<a href="#pb490">490</a>]</span></p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch20.b">B. <i>Civil society and the family.</i><br id="ch20.b.1">(1) <i>Civil society.</i></span>
+However self-sufficing the wise man may be, still Epicurus will not separate him from
+connection with others. Not, indeed, that he believed with the Stoics in the natural
+relationship of all rational beings.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43107src" href="#xd33e43107" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Yet even he could form no idea of human life except in connection with human society.
+He does not, however, assign the same value to all forms of social life. Civil society
+and the state have for him the least attraction. Civil society is only an external
+association for the purpose of protection. Justice reposes originally on a contract
+entered into for purposes of mutual security.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43118src" href="#xd33e43118" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> Laws are made for the sake of the wise, not to prevent their committing, but to prevent
+their suffering injustice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43124src" href="#xd33e43124" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> Law and justice are not, therefore, binding for their own sake, but for the general
+good; nor is injustice to be condemned for its own sake, but only because the offender
+can never be free from fear of discovery and punishment.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43128src" href="#xd33e43128" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> There is not, therefore, any such thing as universal, unchangeable justice. The claims
+of justice only extend to a limited number of beings and nations—those, in fact, which
+are able and willing to enter into the social compact. And the particular applications
+of justice which constitute positive right differ in different <span class="pageNum" id="pb491">[<a href="#pb491">491</a>]</span>cases, and change with circumstances. What is felt to be conducive to mutual security
+must pass for justice, and whenever a law is seen to be inexpedient it is no longer
+binding.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43141src" href="#xd33e43141" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> The wise man will therefore only enter into political life in case and in as far
+as this is necessary for his own safety. Sovereign power is a good, inasmuch as it
+protects from harm. He who pursues it, without thereby attaining this object, acts
+most foolishly.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43145src" href="#xd33e43145" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> Since private individuals live as a rule much more quietly and safely than statesmen,
+it was natural that the Epicureans should be averse to public affairs; public life,
+after all, is a hindrance to what is the real end-in-chief—wisdom and happiness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43149src" href="#xd33e43149" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> Their watchword is <span class="trans" title="Lathe biōsas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λάθε βιώσας</span></span>.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43186src" href="#xd33e43186" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> To them the golden mean seemed by far the most desirable lot in life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43192src" href="#xd33e43192" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> They only advise citizens to take part in public affairs when special circumstances
+render it necessary,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43206src" href="#xd33e43206" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> or when an individual has such a restless nature that <span class="pageNum" id="pb492">[<a href="#pb492">492</a>]</span>he cannot be content with the quiet of private life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43211src" href="#xd33e43211" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> Otherwise they are too deeply convinced of the impossibility of pleasing the masses
+to wish even to make the attempt.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43215src" href="#xd33e43215" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> For the same reason they appear to have been partisans of monarchy. The stern and
+unflinching moral teaching of the Stoics had found its political expression in the
+unbending republican spirit, so often encountered at Rome. Naturally the soft and
+timid spirit of the Epicureans took shelter under a monarchical constitution. Of their
+political principles one thing at least is known, that they did not consider it degrading
+for a wise man to pay court to princes, and under all circumstances they recommended
+unconditional obedience to the powers that be.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43223src" href="#xd33e43223" title="Go to note 32.">32</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch20.b.2"><span class="corr" id="xd33e43254" title="Not in source">(2) <i>Family life.</i></span></span>
+Family life is said to have been deprecated by Epicurus equally with civil life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43258src" href="#xd33e43258" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> Stated thus baldly, this is an exaggeration. It appears, however, to be established,
+that Epicurus believed it to be generally better for the wise man to forego marriage
+and the rearing of children, since he would thereby save himself many disturbances.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43286src" href="#xd33e43286" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> It is also quite credible <span class="pageNum" id="pb493">[<a href="#pb493">493</a>]</span>that he declared the love of children towards parents to be no inborn feeling.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43325src" href="#xd33e43325" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> This view is, after all, only a legitimate consequence of his materialism; but it
+did not oblige him to give up parental love altogether. Nay, it is asserted of him
+that he was anything but a stranger to family affections.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43331src" href="#xd33e43331" title="Go to note 36.">36</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch20.c">C. <i>Friendship.</i></span>
+The highest form of social life was considered by Epicurus to be friendship—a view
+which is peculiar in a system that regarded the individual as the atom of society.
+Such a system naturally attributes more value to a connection with others freely entered
+upon and based on individual character and personal inclination, than to one in which
+a man finds himself placed without any choice, as a member of a society founded on
+nature or history. The basis, however, on which the Epicurean friendship rests is
+very superficial; regard is mainly had to its advantages, and in some degree to the
+natural effects of common enjoyments;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43350src" href="#xd33e43350" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> but it is also treated <span class="pageNum" id="pb494">[<a href="#pb494">494</a>]</span>in such a way, that its scientific imperfection has no influence on its moral importance.
+Only one section of the School, and that not the most consistent, maintained that
+friendship is pursued in the first instance for the sake of its own use and pleasure,
+but that it subsequently becomes an unselfish love.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43454src" href="#xd33e43454" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> The assumption that among the wise there exists a tacit agreement requiring them
+to love one another as much as they love themselves, is clearly only a lame shift.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43458src" href="#xd33e43458" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> Still, the Epicureans were of opinion that a grounding of friendship on motives of
+utility was not inconsistent with holding it in the highest esteem. Friendly connection
+with others affords so pleasant a feeling of security, that it entails the most enjoyable
+consequences; and since this connection can only exist when friends love one another
+as themselves, it follows that self-love and the love of a friend must be equally
+strong.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43462src" href="#xd33e43462" title="Go to note 40.">40</a>
+</p>
+<p>Even this inference sounds forced, nor does it <span class="pageNum" id="pb495">[<a href="#pb495">495</a>]</span>fully state the grounds on which Epicurus’s view of the value of friendship reposes.
+That view, in fact, was anterior to all the necessary props of the system. What Epicurus
+requires is primarily enjoyment. The first conditions of such enjoyment, however,
+are inward repose of mind, and the removal of fear of disturbances. But Epicurus was
+far too effeminate and dependent on externals to trust his own powers to satisfy these
+conditions. He needed the support of others, not only to obtain their help in necessity
+and trouble, and to console himself for the uncertainty of the future, but still more,
+to make sure of himself and his principles by having the approval of others, and thus
+obtaining an inward satisfaction which he could not otherwise have had. Thus, the
+approval of friends is to him the pledge of the truth of his convictions. In sympathy
+with friends his mind first attains to a strength by which it is able to rise above
+the changing circumstances of life. General ideas are for him too abstract, too unreal.
+A philosopher who considers individual beings as alone real, and perceptions as absolutely
+true, cannot feel quite happy and sure of his ground, unless he finds others to go
+with him.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43470src" href="#xd33e43470" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> The enjoyment which he seeks is the enjoyment of his own cultivated personality;
+and wherever this standard prevails, particular value is attached <span class="pageNum" id="pb496">[<a href="#pb496">496</a>]</span>to the personal relations of society, and to friendship.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43477src" href="#xd33e43477" title="Go to note 42.">42</a>
+</p>
+<p>Hence Epicurus uses language on the value and necessity of friendship which goes far
+beyond the grounds on which he bases it. Friendship is unconditionally the highest
+of earthly goods.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43482src" href="#xd33e43482" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> It is far more important in whose company we eat and drink, than what we eat and
+drink.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43523src" href="#xd33e43523" title="Go to note 44.">44</a> In case of emergency, the wise man will not shrink from suffering the greatest pains,
+even death, for his friend.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43529src" href="#xd33e43529" title="Go to note 45.">45</a>
+</p>
+<p>It is well known that the conduct of Epicurus and his followers was in harmony with
+these professions. The Epicurean friendship is hardly less celebrated than the Pythagorean.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43539src" href="#xd33e43539" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> There may be an offensive mawkishness and a tendency to mutual admiration apparent
+in the relations of Epicurus to his friends,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43549src" href="#xd33e43549" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> but of the sincerity of his feelings there <span class="pageNum" id="pb497">[<a href="#pb497">497</a>]</span>can be no doubt. One single expression referring to the property of friends,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43611src" href="#xd33e43611" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> is enough to prove what a high view Epicurus held of friendship; and there is evidence
+to show that he aimed at a higher improvement of his associates.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43627src" href="#xd33e43627" title="Go to note 49.">49</a>
+</p>
+<p>In other respects Epicurus bore the reputation of being a kind, benevolent, and genial
+companion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43646src" href="#xd33e43646" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> His teaching bears the same impress. It meets the inexorable sternness of the Stoics
+by insisting on compassion and forgiveness,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43654src" href="#xd33e43654" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> and supersedes its own egotism by the maxim that it is more <span class="pageNum" id="pb498">[<a href="#pb498">498</a>]</span>blessed to give than to receive.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43678src" href="#xd33e43678" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> The number of such maxims on record is, no doubt, limited; nevertheless, the whole
+tone of the Epicurean School is a pledge of the humane and generous character of its
+moral teaching.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43694src" href="#xd33e43694" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> To this trait that School owes its chief importance in history. By its theory of
+utility it undoubtedly did much harm, partly exposing, partly helping forward, the
+moral decline of the classic nations. Still, by drawing man away from the outer world
+within himself, by teaching him to seek happiness in the beautiful type of a cultivated
+mind content with itself, it contributed quite as much as Stoicism, though after a
+gentler fashion, to the development and the extension of a more independent and more
+universal morality.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb499">[<a href="#pb499">499</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42639">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42639src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> We gather this from the fragments of Philodemus’ treatise <span class="trans" title="peri kakiōn kai tōn antikeimenōn agathōn kai tōn en hois eisi kai peri ha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ κακιῶν καὶ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἀγαθῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν οἷς εἰσὶ καὶ περὶ ἅ</span></span>. The 10th book of this treatise gives a portrait of the <span class="trans" title="hyperēphanos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑπερήφανος</span></span>, and kindred faults, after the manner of Theophrastus; the 9th, a mild criticism
+of Xenophon’s and Aristotle’s <span class="trans" title="oikonomikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἰκονομικός</span></span>. It is objected to the latter that the master of the house is there made (col. ii.
+30) to rise earlier than his servants, and to go to bed later than they do, such conduct
+being <span class="trans" title="talaipōron kai anoikeion philosophou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ταλαίπωρον καὶ ἀνοίκειον φιλοσόφου</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42639src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42676">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42676src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 144; 146; 130; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 17, 23; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 16, 7; <i>Lucr.</i> ii. 20; iii. 59; v. 1115; <i>Philod.</i> De Vit. ix. col. 12: <span class="trans" title="philosophō d’ esti ploutou mikron; ho paredōkamen akolouthōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φιλοσόφῳ δ’ ἐστὶ πλούτου μικρόν· ὃ παρεδώκαμεν ἀκολούθως</span></span> [for thus and not by <span class="trans" title="eukairōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐκαίρως</span></span> must the defective -<span class="trans" title="ōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ως</span></span> be represented] <span class="trans" title="tois kathēgemosin en tois peri ploutou logois"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς καθηγεμόσιν ἐν τοῖς περὶ πλούτου λόγοις</span></span>. Conf. p. 476, 3; 477.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42676src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42721">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42721src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 130.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42721src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42725">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42725src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 17, 24 and 37; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 21, 7; 14, 17; 2, 5: <span lang="la">Honesta, inquit, res est læta paupertas.</span> Ep. 17, 11: <span lang="la">Multis parasse divitias non finis miseriarum fuit, sed mutatio.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42725src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42737">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42737src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Flor. 17, 30. Conf. <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 9, 20: <span lang="la">Si cui sua non videntur amplissima, licet totius mundi dominus sit tamen miser est.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42737src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42745">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42745src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 11; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 17, 34; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 31, 89; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 25, 4. Epicurus lived very abstemiously. The charge of luxury brought against
+him was fully disposed of by <i>Gassendi</i>, De Vit. et Mor. Epic. 153. Timocrates, on the strength of one of his letters, asserts
+that he spent a <span lang="la">mina</span> every day on his table. If this statement be not a pure invention, it must refer
+to the whole circle of his friends. It could otherwise only have happened at such
+a time as the siege of Athens by Demetrius Poliorcetes, when a <span lang="la">modius</span> of wheat cost 300 drachmæ, and when Epicurus counted out to his friends the beans
+on which they lived. <i>Plut.</i> Demetr. 33. The further statement of Timocrates—(<i>Diog.</i> 6<span class="corr" id="xd33e42767" title="Source: )">:</span> <span class="trans" title="auton dis tēs hēmeras emein apo tryphēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτὸν δὶς τῆς ἡμέρας ἐμεῖν ἀπὸ τρυφῆς</span></span>)—is certainly an unfounded calumny. The moderation of Epicurus is admitted by <i>Sen.</i> Vit. B. 12, 4; 13, 1; and Epicurus flatters himself, in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 18, 9: <span lang="la">Non toto asse pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto</span>; and, in <i>Diog.</i> 11, because he was satisfied with bread and water. <i>Ibid.</i> he writes: <span class="trans" title="pempson moi tyrou Kythniou, hin’ hotan boulōmai polyteleusasthai, dynōmai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πέμψον μοι τυροῦ Κυθνίου, ἵν’ ὅταν βούλωμαι πολυτελεύσασθαι, δύνωμαι</span></span>. Still less have we any reason to connect the diseases of which <span class="pageNum" id="pb487n">[<a href="#pb487n">487</a>]</span>Epicurus and some of his scholars died (as <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. V. 5, 3 does, herein following Timocrates in <i>Diog.</i> 7) with their presumed luxuriousness.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42745src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42808">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42808src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 17, 30. See p. 477, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42808src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42812">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42812src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> Epicurus and Metrodorus, in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 16, 28; 20, Conf. <i>Plut.</i> Tran. An. 16, p. 474: <span class="trans" title="ho tēs aurion hēkista deomenos, hōs phēsin Epikouros, hēdista proseisi pros tēn aurion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ τῆς αὔριον ἥκιστα δεόμενος, ὥς φησιν Ἐπίκουρος, ἥδιστα πρόσεισι πρὸς τὴν αὔριον</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42812src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42827">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42827src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> Serious charges on this head, against which Gassendi defends him, are preferred against
+Epicurus by Timocrates, in <i>Diog.</i> 6; but neither the testimony of Timocrates, nor the fact that a woman of loose morality
+(see above p. 406) was in his society, can be considered conclusive. Chrysippus in
+<i>Stob.</i> Floril. 63, 31, calls Epicurus <span class="trans" title="anaisthētos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀναίσθητος</span></span>. Epicurus is, however, far below our standard of morality. Thus, in the quotation
+on p. 479, 1, he reckons <span class="trans" title="hēdonai di’ aphrodisiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδοναὶ δι’ ἀφροδισίων</span></span> among the necessary ingredients of the good. By <i>Eustrat.</i> in Eth. N. 48, such pleasures are included among <span class="trans" title="physikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικαὶ</span></span> (see p. 476, 3), not among <span class="trans" title="hēdonai anankaiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡδοναὶ ἀναγκαῖαι</span></span>. They are treated in the same light by <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1050; and <i>Plut.</i> Qu. Conviv. iii. 6, 1, 1, not only discusses the most suitable time for the enjoyment
+of love, but quotes as the words of Epicurus: <span class="trans" title="ei gerōn ho sophos ōn kai mē dynamenos plēsiazein eti tais tōn kalōn haphais chairei kai psēlaphēsesin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ γέρων ὁ σοφὸς ὢν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος πλησιάζειν ἔτι ταῖς τῶν καλῶν ἁφαῖς χαίρει καὶ
+ψηλαφήσεσιν</span></span> (N.&nbsp;P. Suav. V. 12, 3). These enjoyments, according to Epicurus, are only then allowed
+when they do not entail any bad consequences (<i>Diog.</i> 118), or produce passionate states of feeling. Hence he not only forbids unlawful
+commerce (<i>Diog.</i> 118), but declares <span class="trans" title="ouk erasthēsesthai ton sophon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ ἐρασθήσεσθαι τὸν σοφόν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 118; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 63, 31. Eros is defined (<i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 75) = <span class="trans" title="syntonos orexis aphrodisiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σύντονος ὄρεξις ἀφροδισίων</span></span>. Conf. <i>Plut.</i> Amat. 19, 16, p. 765. It is consequently a passionate and disturbing state, which
+the wise man must avoid. The Stoics, on the contrary, allowed Eros to their wise man.
+The same view is taken of Eros by Lucretius, who cannot find words strong enough to
+express the restlessness and confusion entailed by love, the state of dependence in
+which it places man, and the loss to his fortune and good name. His advice is to allay
+passion as quickly as possible by means of <span lang="la">Venus volgivaga</span>, and to gratify it in a calm way.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42827src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42917">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42917src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 120; 140; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. ii. 12, 28; <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 59; 993.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42917src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42925">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42925src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> De Const. 16, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42925src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42929">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42929src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 118: <span class="trans" title="oude taphēs phrontiein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲ ταφῆς φροντιεῖν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42929src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42941">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42941src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Lucr.</i> iii. 74.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42941src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42947">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42947src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> See pp. 479, 455. A further argument may, however, be here quoted. In <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Viv. 16, 3, he says: <span class="trans" title="hoti nosō nosōn askitē tinas hestiaseis philōn synēge, kai ouk ephthonei tēs prosagōgēs tou hygrou tō hydrōpi, kai tōn eschatōn Neokleous logōn memnēmenos etēketo tē meta dakryōn hēdonē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι νόσῳ νοσῶν ἀσκίτῃ τινὰς ἑστιάσεις φίλων συνῆγε, καὶ οὐκ ἐφθόνει τῆς προσαγωγῆς
+τοῦ ὑγροῦ τῷ ὕδρωπι, καὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων Νεοκλέους λόγων μεμνημένος ἐτήκετο τῇ μετὰ δακρύων
+ἡδονῇ</span></span>. It is true that a certain mawkishness and self-conceit may be detected in this language.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42947src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42960">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42960src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 119; <i>Philodem.</i> De Vit. ix. 12; 27, 40.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42960src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e42968">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e42968src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 120: <span class="trans" title="ktēseōs pronoēsesthai kai tou mellontos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κτήσεως προνοήσεσθαι καὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος</span></span>. 121: <span class="trans" title="chrēmatisesthai te apo monēs sophias aporēsanta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">χρηματίσεσθαί τε ἀπὸ μόνης σοφίας ἀπορήσαντα</span></span>. The limitation implied in the text would, however, seem to require <span class="trans" title="monēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μόνης</span></span>. <i>Philodem.</i> in the same sense l.c. 23, 23, says that Epicurus received presents from his scholars,
+Conf. <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 18, 3, also 15, 31.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e42968src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43000">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43000src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 121: <span class="trans" title="eikonas te anathēsein ei echoi; adiaphorōs hexein an mē schoiē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰκόνας τε ἀναθήσειν εἰ ἔχοι· ἀδιαφόρως ἕξειν ἂν μὴ σχοίη</span></span> (<i>Cobet</i>, not intelligibly: <span class="trans" title="adiaphorōs an schoiēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀδιαφόρως ἂν σχοίης</span></span>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43000src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43027">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43027src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> Epic. in <i>Diog.</i> 130: <span class="trans" title="kai tēn autarkeian de agathon mega nomizomen ouch hina pantōs tois oligois chrōmetha, all’ hopōs ean mē echōmen ta polla tois oligois chrōmetha pepeismenoi gnēsiōs hoti hēdista polyteleias apolauousin hoi hēkista autēs deomenoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὴν αὐτάρκειαν δὲ ἀγαθὸν μέγα νομίζομεν οὐχ ἵνα πάντως τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα, ἀλλ’
+ὅπως ἐὰν μὴ ἔχωμεν τὰ πολλὰ τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα πεπεισμένοι γνησίως ὅτι ἥδιστα πολυτελείας
+ἀπολαύουσιν οἱ ἥκιστα αὐτῆς δεόμενοι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43027src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43040">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43040src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> The Epicurean in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 15, 49: <span lang="la">Si tolerabiles sint [dolores] feramus, sin minus, æquo animo e vita, cum ea non placeat,
+tanquam e theatro exeamus.</span> Epic. in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 12, 10: <span lang="la">Malum est in necessitate vivere, sed in necessitate vivere necessitas nulla est.</span> On the other hand, Ep. 24, 22: <span lang="la">Objurgat Epicurus non minus eos qui mortem concupiscunt, quam eos, qui timent, et
+ait: ridiculum est currere ad mortem tædio vitæ, cum genere vitæ ut currendum esset
+ad mortem effeceris.</span> <i>Diog.</i> 119, the older editions read: <span class="trans" title="kai pērōtheis tas opseis methexein auton tou biou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ πηρωθεὶς τὰς ὄψεις μεθέξειν αὐτὸν τοῦ βίου</span></span>. <i>Cobet</i>: <span class="trans" title="metaxein hauton tou biou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μετάξειν αὑτὸν τοῦ βίου</span></span>. Instead of <span class="trans" title="pērōtheis pērōthenta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πηρωθεὶς πηρωθέντα</span></span> is read, or, as we might prefer, instead of <span class="trans" title="metaxein metaxei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μετάξειν μετάξει</span></span>. Suicide was only allowed by Epicurus in extreme cases. In Seneca’s time, when an
+Epicurean, Diodorus, committed <span class="pageNum" id="pb490n">[<a href="#pb490n">490</a>]</span>suicide, his fellow-scholars were unwilling to allow that suicide was permitted by
+the precepts of Epicurus (<i>Sen.</i> Vit. B. 19, 1).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43040src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43107">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43107src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> <i>Epict.</i> Diss. ii. 20, 6: <span class="trans" title="Epikouros hotan anairein thelē tēn physikēn koinōnian anthrōpois pros allēlous, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπίκουρος ὅταν ἀναιρεῖν θέλῃ τὴν φυσικὴν κοινωνίαν ἀνθρώποις πρὸς ἀλλήλους, κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43107src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43118">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43118src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 150; 154. From this point of view, <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1106, gives a long description of the rise of a state.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43118src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43124">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43124src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 43, 139.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43124src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43128">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43128src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 150; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1149; <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 97, 13, and 15; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 35. See p. 482, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43128src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43141">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43141src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 150–153.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43141src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43145">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43145src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 140.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43145src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43149">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43149src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 31; 33, 4; N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 23, 6; <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1125; <i>Cic.</i> pro Sext. 10, 23. <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri rhētorikēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ ῥητορικῆς</span></span> (Vol. Herc. iv.) col. 14: <span class="trans" title="oude chrēsimēn hēgoumetha tēn politikēn dynamin, out’ autois tois kektēmenois, oute tais polesin, autēn kath’ hautēn; alla pollakis aitian kai symphorōn anēkestōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲ χρησίμην ἡγούμεθα τὴν πολιτικὴν δύναμιν, οὔτ’ αὐτοῖς τοῖς κεκτημένοις, οὔτε ταῖς
+πόλεσιν, αὐτὴν καθ’ αὑτήν· ἀλλὰ πολλάκις αἰτίαν καὶ συμφορῶν ἀνηκέστων</span></span>, when combined with uprightness, it benefits the community, and is sometimes useful;
+at other times, harmful to statesmen themselves.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43149src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43186">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43186src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> De Latenter Vivendo, c. 4. In this respect, T. Pomponius Atticus is the true type
+of an Epicurean, on whose conduct during the civil war and withdrawal from public
+life, see <i>Nepos</i>, Att. 6.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43186src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43192">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43192src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> Metrodorus, in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 45, 26: <span class="trans" title="en polei mēte hōs leōn anastrephou mēte hōs kōnōps; to men gar ekpateitai to de kairophylakeitai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐν πόλει μήτε ὡς λέων ἀναστρέφου μήτε ὡς κώνωψ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐκπατεῖται τὸ δὲ καιροφυλακεῖται</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43192src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43206">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43206src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> Seneca well expresses the difference on this point between Epicureans and Stoics in
+the passage quoted, p. 320, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43206src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43211">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43211src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Tranq. An. c. 2, p. 465.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43211src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43215">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43215src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> Epic. in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 29, 10: <span lang="la">Nunquam volui populo placere; nam quæ ego scio non probat populus, quæ probat populos
+ego nescio.</span> Similar expressions from Stoics have been previously quoted.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43215src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43223">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43223src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 121: <span class="trans" title="kai monarchon en kairō therapeusein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μόναρχον ἐν καιρῷ θεραπεύσειν</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="ton sophon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν σοφόν</span></span>]. <i>Lucr.</i> v. 1125:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div lang="la" class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line">Ut satius multo jam sit parere quietum, </p>
+<p class="line">Quam regere imperio res velle et regna tenere. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43258">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43258src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Epict.</i> Diss. i. 23, 3 (against Epicurus): <span class="trans" title="diati aposymbouleueis tō sophō teknotrophein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διατὶ ἀποσυμβουλεύεις τῷ σοφῷ τεκνοτροφεῖν</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="ti phobē mē dia tauta eis lypas empesē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τί φοβῇ μὴ διὰ ταῦτα εἰς λύπας ἐμπέσῃ</span></span>; ii. 20, 20: <span class="trans" title="Epikouros ta men andros pant’ apekopsato kai ta oikodespotou kai philou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐπίκουρος τὰ μὲν ἀνδρὸς πάντ’ ἀπεκόψατο καὶ τὰ οἰκοδεσπότου καὶ φίλου</span></span>. The last words prove with what caution these statements must be taken.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43258src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43286">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43286src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 119. The passage is, however, involved in much <span class="pageNum" id="pb493n">[<a href="#pb493n">493</a>]</span>obscurity, owing to a difference of reading. The earlier text was: <span class="trans" title="kai mēn kai gamēsein kai teknopoiēsein ton sophon, hōs Epikouros en tais diaporiais kai en tais peri physeōs. kata peristasin de pote biou ou gamēsein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μὴν καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφὸν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ταῖς διαπορίαις
+καὶ ἐν ταῖς περὶ φύσεως. κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου οὐ <span class="corr" id="xd33e43295" title="Source: γαμήσεω">γαμήσειν</span></span></span>. <i>Cobet</i> reads instead: <span class="trans" title="kai mēde gamēsein mēde teknopoiēsein ton sophon ... kata peristasin de pote biou gamēsein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ μηδὲ γαμήσειν μηδὲ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν … κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν</span></span>. What the MS. authority for this reading is, we are not told. In sense it agrees
+with <i>Hieron.</i> Adv. Jovin. i. 191, quoting from <i>Seneca</i>, De Matrimonio: <span lang="la">Epicurus … raro dicit sapienti ineunda conjugia, quia multa incommoda admixta sunt
+nuptiis.</span> Like riches, honours, health, <span lang="la">ita et uxores sitas in bonorum malorumque confinio, grave autem esse viro sapienti
+venire in dubium, utrum bonam an malam ducturus sit.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43286src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43325">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43325src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 27, 6; De Am. Prol. 2, p. 495; <i>Epictet.</i> Diss. i. 23, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43325src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43331">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43331src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 10: <span class="trans" title="hē te pros tous goneas eucharistia kai hē pros tous adelphous eupoiïa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἥ τε πρὸς τοὺς γονέας εὐχαριστία καὶ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς εὐποιΐα</span></span>. Diogenes himself appeals to Epicurus’ testament, <i>ibid.</i> 18.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43331src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43350">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43350src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 120: <span class="trans" title="kai tēn philian dia tas chreias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὴν φιλίαν διὰ τὰς χρείας</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="ginesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">γίνεσθαι</span></span>] … <span class="trans" title="synistasthai de autēn kata koinōnian en tais hēdonais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνίστασθαι δὲ αὐτὴν κατὰ κοινωνίαν ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς</span></span>. Epic. <i>Ibid.</i> <span class="pageNum" id="pb494n">[<a href="#pb494n">494</a>]</span>148 (also in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 20, 68): <span class="trans" title="kai tēn en autois tois hōrismenois asphalean philias malista krēsei dei nomizein synteloumenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὡρισμένοις ἀσφάλεαν φιλίας μάλιστα κρήσει δεῖ νομίζειν συντελουμένην</span></span>. (<i>Cobet</i>, however, reads: <span class="trans" title="philias malista katidein einai syntelymenēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φιλίας μάλιστα κατιδεῖν εἶναι συντελυμένην</span></span>, in which case <span class="trans" title="philia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φιλίᾳ</span></span> should be substituted for <span class="trans" title="philias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φιλίας</span></span> or else <span class="trans" title="ktēsei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κτήσει</span></span> for <span class="trans" title="katidein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατιδεῖν</span></span>.) <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 9, 8: The wise man needs a friend, <span lang="la">non ad hoc quod Epicurus dicebat in hac ipsa epistola (<span lang="en">a letter in which Stilpo’s cynical self-contentment is blamed</span>), ut habeat, qui sibi ægro adsideat, succurrat in vincula conjecto vel inopi; sed
+ut habeat aliquem, cui ipse ægro adsideat, quem ipse circumventum hostili custodia
+liberet.</span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 20, 66: <span lang="la">Cum solitudo et vita sine amicis insidiarum et metus plena sit, ratio ipsa monet amicitias
+comparare, quibus partis confirmatur animus et a spe pariendarum voluptatum sejungi
+non potest,</span> etc. On the same grounds, <i>Philodem.</i> De Vit. ix. (V. Herc. iii.) col. 24, argues that it is much better to cultivate friendship
+than to withdraw from it.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43350src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43454">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43454src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 20, 69.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43454src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43458">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43458src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 70.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43458src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43462">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43462src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 67.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43462src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43470">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43470src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> The same need finds expression in the advice given by Epicurus (<i>Sen.</i> Ep. 11, 8; 25, 5): Let every one choose some distinguished man as his pattern, that
+so he may live, as it were, perpetually under his eye. Man requires a stranger to
+give him moral support.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43470src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43477">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43477src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> As illustrations in modern times, the reunions of the French freethinkers, or the
+societies of Rousseau, Mendelssohn, Jacobi, may be mentioned. It deserves notice that
+in these societies, as amongst the Epicureans, an important part was played by women.
+This is quite natural, when philosophy is confined to cultivated intercourse and conversation.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43477src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43482">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43482src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 148: <span class="trans" title="hōn hē sophia paraskeuazetai eis tēn tou holou biou makariotēta poly megiston estin hē tēs philias ktēsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὧν ἡ σοφία παρασκευάζεται εἰς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου μακαριότητα πολὺ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἡ
+τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις</span></span>. <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 25, 80: Epicurus exalts friendship to heaven. In <i>Diog.</i> 120, Cobet reads instead of the usual <span class="trans" title="philon te oudena ktēsesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φίλον τε οὐδένα κτήσεσθαι</span></span> [<span class="trans" title="ton sophon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸν σοφὸν</span></span>], which is altogether untrustworthy, <span class="trans" title="philōn te ouden ktēsesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φίλων τε οὐδὲν κτήσεσθαι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43482src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43523">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43523src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 19, 10, with the addition: <span lang="la">Nam sine amico visceratio leonis ac lupi vita est.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43523src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43529">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43529src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 8, 7; <i>Diog.</i> 121. We have no reason to suppose, with <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 474, that this was not the expression of a real sentiment. That it is inconsistent
+we can well allow.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43529src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43539">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43539src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> The Epicureans in <i>Cic.</i> Fin. i. 20, 65: <span lang="la">At vero Epicurus una in domo, et ea quidem angusta, quam magnos quantaque amoris conspiratione
+consentientes tenuit amicorum greges! quod fit etiam nunc ab Epicureis.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 25, 80.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43539src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43549">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43549src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> Instances have already <span class="pageNum" id="pb497n">[<a href="#pb497n">497</a>]</span>been quoted, p. 418, 2, of the extravagant honours required by Epicurus; nor did he
+fail to eulogise his friends, as the fragments of his letters to Leontion, Themista,
+and Pythocles (<i>Diog.</i> 5) prove. When Metrodorus had tried to obtain the release of a captive friend, Epicurus
+applauded him (<i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Sua. Vivi, 15, 5, Adv. Col. 33, 2): <span class="trans" title="hōs eu te kai neanikōs ex asteōs halade katebē Mithrō tō Syrō boēthēsōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς εὖ τε καὶ νεανικῶς ἐξ ἄστεως ἅλαδε κατέβη Μίθρῳ τῷ Σύρῳ βοηθήσων</span></span>. <i>Ibid.</i> 15, 8, he expresses his thanks for a present: <span class="trans" title="daïōs te kai megaloprepōs epemelēthēte hēmōn ta peri tēn tou sitou komidēn, kai ouranomēkē sēmeia endedeichthe tēs pros eme eunoias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δαΐως τε καὶ <span id="xd33e43572">μεγαλοπρεπῶς</span> ἐπεμελήθητε ἡμῶν τὰ περὶ τὴν τοῦ σίτου κομιδὴν, καὶ οὐρανομήκη σημεῖα ἐνδέδειχθε
+τῆς πρὸς ἐμὲ εὐνοίας</span></span>. He wrote of Pythocles before he was 18: <span class="trans" title="ouk einai physin en holē tē Helladi ameinō, kai teratikōs auton eu apangellein, kai paschein au to tōn gynaikōn, euchomenos anemesēta einai panta kai anepiphthona tēs hyperbolēs tou neaniskou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐκ εἶναι φύσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἀμείνω, καὶ τερατικῶς αὐτὸν εὖ ἀπαγγέλλειν, καὶ πάσχειν
+αὖ τὸ τῶν γυναικῶν, εὐχόμενος ἀνεμέσητα εἶναι πάντα καὶ ἀνεπίφθονα τῆς ὑπερβολῆς τοῦ
+νεανισκοῦ</span></span> (<i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 29, 2); and he also said (<i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span>, Fr. 6, V. Herc. v. 2, 11): <span class="trans" title="hōs dia Pythoklea tychēn theōsei para to tethemismenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς διὰ Πυθοκλέα τύχην θεώσει παρὰ τὸ τεθεμισμένον</span></span>. Compare the remarks on p. 488, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43549src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43611">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43611src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 11: <span class="trans" title="ton te Epikouron mē axioun eis to koinon katatithesthai tas ousias kathaper ton Pythagoran koina ta tōn philōn legonta, apistountōn gar einai to toiouton; ei d’ apistōn oude philōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τόν τε Ἐπίκουρον μὴ ἀξιοῦν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν <span id="xd33e43618">κατατίθεσθαι</span> τὰς οὐσίας καθάπερ τὸν Πυθαγόραν κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων λέγοντα, ἀπιστούντων γὰρ εἶναι
+τὸ τοιοῦτον· εἰ δ’ ἀπίστων οὐδὲ φίλων</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43611src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43627">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43627src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> <i>Philodem.</i> <span class="trans" title="peri parrhēsias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ παῤῥησίας</span></span> (V. Herc. v. 2), Fr. 15; 72; 73, mentions Epicurus and Metrodorus as patterns of
+genial frankness towards friends. Probably the words in <i>Sen.</i> Ep. 28, 9—<span lang="la">initium salutis est notitia peccati</span>—are taken from a moral exhortation addressed to a friend.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43627src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43646">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43646src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> Not only does Diogenes 9, praise his unequalled benevolence, his kindness to his slaves,
+and his general geniality, but Cicero calls him (Tusc. ii. 19, 44) <span lang="la">vir optimus</span>, and (Fin. ii. 25, 30) <span lang="la">bonum virum et comem et humanum.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43646src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43654">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43654src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 118: <span class="trans" title="oute kolasein oiketas eleēsein mentoi, kai syngnōmēn tini hexein tōn spoudaiōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε κολάσειν οἰκέτας ἐλεήσειν μέντοι, καὶ συγγνώμην <span class="pageNum" id="pb498n">[<a href="#pb498n">498</a>]</span>τινὶ ἕξειν τῶν σπουδαίων</span></span>. 121. <span class="trans" title="epicharisesthai tini epi tō diorthōmati"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιχαρίσεσθαί τινι ἐπὶ τῷ διορθώματι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43654src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43678">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43678src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> N.&nbsp;P. Suav. Vi. 15, 4 (similarly C. Princ. Philos. 3, 2, p. 778): <span class="trans" title="autoi de dēpou legousin hōs to eu poiein hēdion esti tou paschein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αὐτοὶ δὲ δήπου λέγουσιν ὡς τὸ εὖ ποιεῖν ἥδιόν ἐστι τοῦ πάσχειν</span></span>. Conf. <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> Top. 123. A similar maxim is attributed by <i>Ælian</i>, V.&nbsp;H. xiii. 13, to Ptolemy Lagi. Conf. Acts xx. 35.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43678src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43694">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43694src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 25, 81: <span lang="la">Et ipse bonus vir fuit et multi Epicurei fuerunt et hodie sunt, et in amicitiis fideles
+et in omni vita constantes et graves nec voluptate sed officio consilia moderantes.</span> Atticus is a well-known example of genuine human kindness and ready self-sacrifice,
+and Horace may be also quoted as an illustration of the same character. See <i>Steinhart’s</i> remarks, <i>l.c.</i> p. 470.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43694src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch21" class="div1 last-child chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e2259">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XXI.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE EPICUREAN SYSTEM AS A WHOLE; ITS POSITION IN HISTORY.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch21.a">A. <i>Inner connection of the Epicurean teaching.</i></span>
+It has often been urged against the Epicurean philosophy, that it is deficient both
+in coherence and consistency. Nor is this objection without foundation. If we come
+to the study of it, looking for a complete scientific groundwork, or a strictly logical
+development, we shall certainly be disappointed. It is not difficult to show in what
+contradictions Epicurus was involved; in professing to trust the senses wholly and
+entirely, and yet going beyond the senses to the hidden causes of things; in despising
+logical forms and laws, and at the same time building up his whole system on deductions;
+in holding that all sensations are true, but yet maintaining that a portion of the
+realities which they represent as belonging to things is only relative. Nor were these
+the only inconsistencies. At one time only natural causes and laws are acknowledged,
+and any such thing as free will and imagination is ignored; at another, by the doctrine
+of the swerving aside of atoms and of the human will, unexplained caprice is elevated
+to the rank of law. Pleasures and pains are all referred to bodily <span class="pageNum" id="pb500">[<a href="#pb500">500</a>]</span>sensations, and yet mental states are called higher and more important; nay, more,
+even from a basis of selfishness rules and precepts of humanity, justice, love, faithfulness,
+and devotion are deduced. It ought not, however, to be forgotten that the Stoics,
+to whom the claim of clear and consistent thought cannot be denied, were involved
+in similar difficulties. They, like the Epicureans, built up a rational system on
+a basis of the senses. They, too, constructed an ideal theory of morals on a material
+groundwork of metaphysics. They, too, declared that universal law is the only active
+power, whilst they maintained that reality belongs only to the world of matter. They,
+too, deduced a strict theory of virtue from the principle of self-preservation; not
+to mention the inconsistent attitude which they assumed towards the popular religion.
+To deny to the Stoics a unity and connectedness of system, because of these scientific
+defects and inconsistencies, would be felt to be doing them an injustice. And can
+Epicureanism be fairly condemned, when its faults are essentially of the same kind
+(though a little more obvious) as those of the Stoics, without a single extenuating
+circumstance which can be urged on its behalf?
+</p>
+<p>The strongest argument in favour of Epicureanism is that the development of the system
+does not pretend to rest upon an intellectual platform. Epicurus sought in philosophy
+a path to happiness, a school of practical wisdom. For him knowledge has only a secondary
+value, because it contributes <span class="pageNum" id="pb501">[<a href="#pb501">501</a>]</span>to this end; indeed, both the tone and the results of his intellectual activity were
+determined by a reference to this end. In the case of the Stoics, however, it has
+been already seen that the comparative subordination of Logic and Natural Science
+to Moral Science, the going back to the older view of nature, the vindication of the
+truth of the senses and of the reality of matter, grew out of their peculiarly one-sided
+view of the scope of philosophy. In the case of Epicurus the same results appear,
+and all the more markedly, since Epicurus did not, like the Stoics, look for happiness
+in subordination to a universal law, but in individual gratification or pleasure.
+For him the recognition of a universal law had not the same importance as for the
+Stoics; and consequently Epicurus did not feel the same need of a scientific method
+as they had done. He could therefore more exclusively content himself with the impressions
+of the senses, and regard them as the only unfailing source of knowledge. No necessity
+compelled him to advance from pure materialism to a view of matter in which it is
+described as possessing a soul, and made to be the bearer of reason. In fact, the
+more exclusively everything was referred by him to mechanical causes, the more easily
+could he regard the individual as independent of all superhuman forces in his pursuit
+of happiness, and left entirely to himself and his natural powers. No system in ancient
+times has so consistently carried out the mechanical view of nature as that of the
+Atomists. None, therefore, afforded such a strong metaphysical <span class="pageNum" id="pb502">[<a href="#pb502">502</a>]</span>support to the Epicurean views of the absolute worth of the individual. It was as
+natural for Epicurus to build on the teaching of Democritus as for the Stoics to build
+on that of Heraclitus. But Epicurus, influenced probably more by practical than by
+scientific considerations, allowed himself, by his theory of the swerving aside of
+atoms, to destroy the consistency of the theory of Democritus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43725src" href="#xd33e43725" title="Go to note 1.">1</a>
+</p>
+<p>It is hardly necessary to notice here how the distinctive features of the Epicurean
+morals were developed out of their theory of happiness, in contrast to the Stoic teaching.
+The happiness of Epicurus, however, does not depend upon sensual gratification as
+such, but upon repose of mind and cheerfulness of disposition. His theory of morals,
+therefore, notwithstanding its foundation in pleasure, bears a nobler character, which
+is seen in its language as to the wise man’s relations to the pains and passions of
+the body, to poverty and riches, to life and death, quite as much as in the mild humanity
+and the warm and hearty appreciation of friendship by the Epicurean School. The rationalising
+spirit of that School was undoubtedly opposed to any religious belief which supposed
+an intervention of God in the course of the world, or the world’s influence on man
+for weal or woe; but its appeal to the senses without criticism placed no objection
+in the way of admitting divine beings, from whom no such intervention need be feared.
+Nay, more, this belief seemed the most natural ground for explaining the popular belief
+in <span class="pageNum" id="pb503">[<a href="#pb503">503</a>]</span>Gods. It satisfied an inborn and apparently keenly felt want by supplying an appropriate
+object of devotion, and a standard by which to test the accuracy of moral ideas. Hence,
+notwithstanding scientific defects and contradictions, the whole system of Epicurus
+bears a definite stamp. All the essential parts of that system are subservient to
+one and the same end. The consistent working out of a scientific view of nature is
+looked for in vain; but there is no lack of consistency arising from an undeniable
+reference of the individual to a definite and practical standard.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch21.b">B. <i>Historical position of Epicureanism.</i><br id="ch21.b.1">(1) <i>Relation to Stoicism.</i></span>
+Looking to the wider historical relations of the Epicurean system, the first point
+which calls for remark is the relation of that system to Stoicism. The contrast between
+the two Schools is obvious; attention having been already drawn to it on all the more
+important points. It is likewise well known that a constant rivalry existed between
+the two Schools during their whole careers, that the Stoics looked down on the Epicureans,
+and circulated many calumnies with respect to their morals. For these statements proofs
+may be found in the preceding pages. Nevertheless, the two Schools are related in
+so many respects, that they can only be regarded as parallel links connected in one
+chain, their differences being varieties where the same main tendency
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>Points of agreement.</i></span>
+exists. Both agree in the general character of their philosophy. In both practical
+considerations prevail over speculation. Both treat natural science and logic as sciences
+subsidiary to ethics—natural science especially in view of its bearing on religion.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb504">[<a href="#pb504">504</a>]</span>Both attach more importance to natural science than to logic. If the Epicurean neglect
+of scientific rules forms a contrast to the care which the Stoics devoted thereto,
+both Schools are at least agreed in one thing—in displaying greater independence in
+investigating the question as to a test of truth. By both this standard was placed
+in the senses; and to all appearances both were led to take this view by the same
+cause; appeals to the senses being a consequence of their purely practical way of
+looking at things. Both, moreover, employed against scepticism the same practical
+postulate—the argument that knowledge must be possible, or no certainty of action
+would be possible. They even agree in not being content with the phenomena supplied
+by the senses as such, although Epicurus as little approved of the Stoic theory of
+irresistible impressions as he did of their logical analysis of the forms of thought.
+With such appeals to the senses how could there be any other result than materialism
+both in the Stoic and Epicurean systems? But it is strange that the materialism in
+both Schools should be based on the same definition of reality, corresponding with
+their practical way of looking at things.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43749src" href="#xd33e43749" title="Go to note 2.">2</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Points of difference.</i></span>
+In the unfolding and detailed exposition of their materialistic views the systems
+diverge, more widely, perhaps, than the philosophers themselves, whose leading they
+professed to follow. These divergencies appear particularly on the subject of nature,
+the Stoics regarding nature as a system of design, <span class="pageNum" id="pb505">[<a href="#pb505">505</a>]</span>the Epicureans explaining it as a mechanical product. Whilst the Stoics adhered to
+fatalism, and saw God everywhere, the Epicureans held the theory of atoms, and the
+theory of necessity. Whilst the Stoics were speculatively orthodox, the Epicureans
+were irreligious freethinkers. Both meet again in that branch of natural science which
+is most important in respect of morals—the part dealing with man. Both hold that the
+soul is a fiery atmospheric substance. Even the proof for this view, derived from
+the mutual influence of body and soul, is common to both. Both distinguish between
+the higher and the lower parts of the soul, and thus even the Epicureans in their
+psychology allow a belief in the superiority of reason to the senses, and in the divine
+origin of the soul.
+</p>
+<p>The arena of the warmest dispute between the two Schools is, however, ethics. Yet,
+even on this ground, they are more nearly related than appears at first sight. No
+greater contrast appears to be possible than that between the Epicurean theory of
+pleasure and the Stoic theory of virtue; and true it is that the two theories are
+diametrically opposite. Nevertheless, not only are both aiming at one and the same
+end—the happiness of mankind—but the conditions of happiness are also laid down by
+both in the same spirit. According to Zeno virtue, according to Epicurus pleasure,
+is the highest and only good; but the former in making virtue consist essentially
+in withdrawal from the senses or insensibility; the latter in seeking pleasure in
+repose of mind or imperturbability, are expressing the same belief. <span class="pageNum" id="pb506">[<a href="#pb506">506</a>]</span>Man can only find unconditional and enduring satisfaction, when by means of knowledge
+he attains to a condition of mind at rest with itself, and also to an independence
+of external attractions and misfortunes. The same unlimited appeal to personal truth
+is the common groundwork of both systems. Both have expanded this idea under the same
+form—that of the ideal wise man—for the most part with the same features. The wise
+man of Epicurus is, as we have seen, superior to pain and want; he enjoys an excellence
+which cannot be lost; and he lives among men a very God in intelligence and happiness.
+Thus, when worked out into details, the difference in the estimate of pleasure and
+virtue by the Stoics and Epicureans seems to vanish. Neither the Stoic can separate
+happiness from virtue, nor the Epicurean separate virtue from happiness.
+</p>
+<p>But, whilst recommending a living for society, both systems take no real interest
+in social life. The recognition of a natural society amongst mankind, of certain positive
+relations to state and family, above all, a clear enunciation of a citizenship of
+the world, characterise the Stoics. The pursuit of friendship, and the gentle humanity
+of their ethics, characterise the Epicureans. Together with these peculiarities one
+common feature cannot be ignored. Both have renounced the political character of the
+old propriety of conduct, and diverting their attention from public life, seek to
+find a basis for universal morality in the simple relation of man to man.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>c</i>) <i>The relationship greater than the difference.</i></span>
+The united weight of all these points of resemblance <span class="pageNum" id="pb507">[<a href="#pb507">507</a>]</span>is sufficient to warrant the assertion that, notwithstanding their differences, the
+Stoics and Epicureans stand on the same footing, and that the sharpness of the contrast
+between them is owing to their laying hold of opposite sides of one and the same principle.
+Abstract personality, and self-consciousness developed into a generic idea, is for
+both the highest aim. Compared with it not only the state of the senses, but the scientific
+knowledge of things, and the realisation of moral ideas in a commonwealth, are of
+minor importance. In this self-consciousness happiness consists. To implant it in
+man is the object of philosophy, and knowledge is only of value when and in as far
+as it ministers to this end. The point of difference between the two Schools is their
+view of the conditions under which that certainty of consciousness is attained. The
+Stoics hope to attain it by the entire subordination of the individual to universal
+law. The Epicureans, on the other hand, are of opinion that man can only then be content
+in himself when he is restrained by nothing external to himself. The first condition
+of happiness consists in liberating individual life from all dependence on others,
+and all disturbing causes. The former, therefore, make virtue, the latter make personal
+well-being or pleasure, the highest good. By the Epicureans, however, pleasure is
+usually conceived as of a purely negative character, as being freedom from pain, and
+is referred to the whole of human life. Hence it is always made to depend on the moderation
+of desires, on indifference to outward ills, <span class="pageNum" id="pb508">[<a href="#pb508">508</a>]</span>and the state of the senses, on intelligence and actions conformable with intelligence,
+in short, on virtue and wisdom. Hence, too, the Epicureans arrive by a roundabout
+course at the same result as the Stoics—the conviction that happiness can only be
+the lot of those who are altogether independent of external things, and enjoy perfect
+inward harmony.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch21.b.2">(2) <i>Relation to Aristippus.</i></span>
+Towards the older philosophy Epicureanism bears nearly the same relation as Stoicism.
+True it is that Epicurus and his School would not recognise their obligation to either
+one or other of their predecessors.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43783src" href="#xd33e43783" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb509">[<a href="#pb509">509</a>]</span>But far from disproving the influence of previous systems on his own, this conduct
+only shows the personal vanity of Epicurus. Epicureanism, like Stoicism, starts with
+the object of bringing down science from metaphysical speculation to the simpler form
+of a practical science of life. Both systems of philosophy, therefore, turn away from
+Plato and Aristotle, whose labours they notably neglect, to Socrates and those Socratic
+Schools which, without more extensive meddling with science, are content with ethics.
+Circumstances, however, led Epicurus to follow Aristippus as Zeno had followed Antisthenes.
+Not only in morals did Epicurus derive his principle of pleasure from the Cyrenaics;
+he likewise derived from them his theory of knowledge, that the sense-impressions
+are the only source of ideas, and that every feeling is true in itself. Nor can he
+altogether deny that feelings only furnish direct information respecting our personal
+states, and respecting the relative properties of things. With the Cyrenaics, too,
+he taught that true pleasure can only be secured by philosophic intelligence, and
+that this intelligence aims, before all things, at liberating the mind from passion,
+fear, and superstition. At the same time, he is by no means prepared to follow the
+Cyrenaics unreservedly. His theory of morals differs, as has already been seen, from
+the Cyrenaic theory <span class="pageNum" id="pb510">[<a href="#pb510">510</a>]</span>in this important particular, that not sensual and individual pleasure, but mental
+repose and the whole state of the mind is regarded as the ultimate end, and the highest
+good in life. It was thus impossible for him to be content, as the Cyrenaics were,
+with feelings only, with individual and personal impressions. He could not help requiring
+conviction which reposed on a real knowledge of things, since only on such conviction
+can an equable and certain tone of mind depend.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch21.b.3">(3) <i>Relation to Democritus.</i></span>
+Epicurus, therefore, not only differed from Aristippus with regard to feelings, by
+referring all feelings to impressions from without, of which he considered them true
+representations, but he felt himself called upon to oppose the Cyrenaic contempt for
+theories of nature, just as the Stoics had opposed the Cynic contempt for science.
+To the physics of Democritus he looked for a scientific basis for his ethics, just
+as they had looked to the system of Heraclitus. But the closer he clung to Democritus,
+owing to the weakness of his own interest in nature, the more it becomes apparent
+that his whole study of nature was subservient to a moral purpose, and hence of a
+purely relative value. Accordingly, he had not the least hesitation in setting consistency
+at defiance, by assuming the swerving aside of atoms and the freedom of the will.
+It is not only altogether improbable that Epicurus was but a second edition of Democritus—for
+history knows of no such repetitions—but as a matter of fact it is false. Closer observation
+proves that even when the two philosophers <span class="pageNum" id="pb511">[<a href="#pb511">511</a>]</span>agree in individual statements, the meaning which they attach to these assertions
+and the whole spirit of their systems are widely divergent. Democritus aims at explaining
+natural phenomena by natural causes. He wishes, in short, for a <i>science</i> of nature purely for its own sake. Epicurus wishes for a <i>view</i> of nature which shall be able to avert disturbing influences from man’s inner life.
+Natural science stands with him entirely in the service of ethics. If in point of
+substance his system is borrowed from another system, yet its whole position and treatment
+supposes an entirely new view of things. The Socratic introspection, and the Sophistic
+resolution of natural philosophy into personal rationalising, are its historical antecedents;
+and it owes its existence to that general dislike for pure theory, which constitutes
+the common peculiarity of all the post-Aristotelian systems.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch21.b.4">(4) <i>Relation to Aristotle and Plato.</i></span>
+Excepting the systems named, Epicureanism, so far as is known, is connected with no
+other previous system. Even its attack upon those systems appears to have consisted
+of general dogmatic and superficial statements. Still it must not be forgotten that
+Epicureanism presupposes the line of thought originated by Socrates, not only as found
+in the collateral Cyrenaic branch, but as found in the main line of regular development
+by Plato and Aristotle. The view of Plato and Aristotle, which distinguishes the immaterial
+essence from the sensible appearance of things, and attributes reality only to the
+former, is undoubtedly attacked by Epicurus as by Zeno, <span class="pageNum" id="pb512">[<a href="#pb512">512</a>]</span>on metaphysical grounds. Practically, however, he approaches very much nearer to this
+view in all those points in which his teaching deviates from the Cyrenaic and resembles
+that of the Stoics.
+</p>
+<p>It has been observed on a former occasion that the indifference to the immediate conditions
+of the senses, the withdrawal of the mind within itself, the contentment with itself
+of the thinking subject, which Epicurus no less than the Stoics and cotemporary Sceptics
+required, is itself a consequence of the idealism of Plato and Aristotle. Even the
+materialism of the post-Aristotelian systems, it is said, was by no means a going
+back to the old pre-Socratic philosophy of nature, but a one-sided practical apprehension
+of that idealism. These systems deny a soul in nature or a soul in man, because they
+look exclusively to consciousness and to personal activity for independence of the
+senses. The correctness of this observation may be easily proved from the Epicurean
+teaching, notwithstanding the severity and harshness of its materialism. Why was it
+that Epicurus relentlessly banished from nature all immaterial causes and all idea
+of purpose? And why did he confine himself exclusively to a mechanical explanation
+of nature? Was it not because he felt afraid that the admission of any other than
+material causes would imperil the certainty of consciousness; because he feared to
+lose the firm groundwork of reality by admitting invisible forces, and to expose human
+life to influences <span class="pageNum" id="pb513">[<a href="#pb513">513</a>]</span>beyond calculation if he allowed anything immaterial? Yet in his view of life, how
+little does he adhere to present facts, since his wise man is made to enjoy perfect
+happiness by himself alone, independent of everything external. The same ideal is
+reproduced in the Epicurean Gods. In their isolated contemplation of themselves, what
+else do they resemble but the God of Aristotle, who, aloof from all intermeddling
+with the world, meditates on himself alone? No doubt the independent existence of
+the thinking mind is held by Aristotle in a clear and dignified manner. By Epicurus
+it is pourtrayed in a sensuous, and, therefore, a contradictory form. But the connection
+of the views of both cannot be ignored. There is a similar general relation between
+the Epicurean philosophy and that of Plato and Aristotle.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43916src" href="#xd33e43916" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> Little as the former can be compared with the latter in breadth and depth, it must
+not, therefore, be regarded as an intellectual monstrosity. Epicureanism is a tenable
+though one-sided expression of a certain stage in the development of the intellect
+of Greece.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb514">[<a href="#pb514">514</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43725">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43725src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> See p. 445.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43725src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43749">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43749src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> Conf. p. 126, 2, with 439, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43749src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43783">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43783src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> It has been already stated, p. 405, 1, 4, that Epicurus admitted his debt to Democritus,
+but not without some reserve; otherwise he claimed to be entirely self-taught, and
+to have learned nothing from the ancient teachers, and expressed himself with such
+conceit and scorn as to spare neither them nor their writings. <i>Diog.</i> 8, besides mentioning his abuse of Nausiphanes (sup. 342, 1), refers also to his
+calling the Platonists <span class="trans" title="Dionysokolakas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διονυσοκόλακας</span></span>, Plato himself in irony the <i>golden</i> Plato, Heraclitus <span class="trans" title="kykētēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κυκητήν</span></span>, Democritus <span class="trans" title="Lērokriton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ληρόκριτον</span></span>, Antidorus <span class="trans" title="Sainidōron"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σαινίδωρον</span></span>, the Cynics <span class="trans" title="echthrous tēs Hellados"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐχθροὺς τῆς Ἑλλάδος</span></span>, the Dialecticians <span class="trans" title="polyphthonerous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολυφθονέρους</span></span>, Pyrrho <span class="trans" title="amathēn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀμαθῆν</span></span> and <span class="trans" title="apaideuton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπαίδευτον</span></span>, and charging Aristotle and Protagoras with vices in their youth. Diogenes refuses
+to allow that any of these statements are true, Epicurus’ friendliness being well
+known. But the devotion of Epicurus to his friends and admirers does not exclude hatred
+and injustice towards his predecessors (see p. 418, 2), of whom a fair estimate was
+rendered impossible by the superficial nature of his knowledge and the onesidedness
+of his point of view. <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 2, attests <span class="trans" title="tēn pros tous peri Platōna kai Aristotelē kai tous homoious dysmeneian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὴν πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη καὶ τοὺς ὁμοίους δυσμένειαν</span></span>; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 26, 1, mentions a false objection to Arcesilaus; and <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 33, 93, says: <span lang="la">Cum Epicurus Aristotelem vexarit contumeliosissime, Phædoni Socratico turpissime maledixerit,</span> etc. The rude jokes mentioned by Diogenes are in harmony with a man whom <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. ii. 17, 46, calls <span lang="la">homo non aptissimus ad jocandum minimeque resipiens patriam.</span> On these jokes he apparently prided himself as well as on a certain bombastic elegance.
+See p. 496, 6. In this Epicurus was followed by his pupils. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 34, 93, says of Zeno: <span lang="la">Non eos solum, qui tunc erant, <span class="pageNum" id="pb509n">[<a href="#pb509n">509</a>]</span>Apollodorum, Silum, ceteros figebat maledictis, sed Socratem ipsum … scurram Atticum
+fuisse dicebat</span> (according to <i>Cic.</i> Brut. 85, 292, Epicurus had already expressed a disparaging opinion of the Socratic
+irony), <span lang="la">Chrysippum nunquam nisi Chrysippam vocabat.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43783src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43916">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43916src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> Compare in this connection the quotations from Metrodorus on p. 476, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43916src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="pt4" class="div0 last-child part">
+<h2 class="label">PART IV.</h2>
+<h2 class="main"><i>THE SCEPTICS—PYRRHO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.</i></h2>
+<div id="ch22" class="div1 chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e2335">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XXII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">PYRRHO.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch22.a">A. <i>Historical position of Scepticism.</i></span>
+Stoicism and Epicureanism are alike in one respect: they commence the pursuit of happiness
+with definite dogmatic statements. The Sceptic Schools, however, attempt to reach
+the same end by denying every dogmatic position. Varied as the paths may be, the result
+is in all cases the same; happiness is made to consist in the exaltation of the mind
+above all external objects, in the withdrawal of man within his own thinking self.
+Moving in the same sphere
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch22.a.1">(1) <i>Its relation to cotemporary dogmatic systems.</i></span>
+as the cotemporary dogmatic systems, the post-Aristotelian Scepticism takes a practical
+view of the business of philosophy, and estimates the value of theoretical enquiries
+by their influence on the state and happiness of man. It moreover agrees with cotemporary
+systems in its ethical view of life; the object at which it aims is the same as that
+at which those systems aim, viz. repose of mind, and imperturbability. <span class="pageNum" id="pb515">[<a href="#pb515">515</a>]</span>It differs from them, none the less; for the Epicureans and Stoics made mental repose
+to depend on a knowledge of the world and its laws, whereas the Sceptics are of opinion
+that it can only be obtained by despairing of all knowledge. Hence, with the former
+morality depends on a positive conviction as to the highest Good; with the latter,
+morality consists in indifference to all that appears as Good to men. Important as
+this difference may be, it must not therefore be forgotten that Scepticism generally
+revolves in the same sphere as Stoicism and Epicureanism, and that in renouncing all
+claim to knowledge, and all interest in the external world, it is only pushing to
+extremes that withdrawal of man into himself which we have seen to be the common feature
+of these Schools. Not only, therefore, do these three lines of thought belong to one
+and the same epoch, but such is their internal connection that they may be regarded
+as three branches of a common stock.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch22.a.2">(2) <i>Causes producing it.</i></span>
+More than one point of departure was offered to Scepticism by the earlier philosophy.
+The Megarian criticism and the Cynic teaching had taken up a position subversive of
+all connection of ideas, and of all knowledge. Pyrrho, too, had received from the
+School of Democritus an impulse to doubt.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43947src" href="#xd33e43947" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> In <span class="pageNum" id="pb516">[<a href="#pb516">516</a>]</span>particular, the development of the Platonic and Aristotelian speculations by those
+who were not able to follow them, had made men mistrustful of all speculation, until
+they at last doubted the possibility of all knowledge. Not seldom do Sceptical theories
+follow times of great philosophical originality. A stronger impulse was given in the
+sequel by the Stoic and Epicurean systems. Related to Scepticism by their practical
+tone, it was natural that these systems should afford fuel to Scepticism. At the same
+time the unsatisfactory groundwork upon which they were built, and the contrast between
+their moral and physical teaching, promoted destructive criticism. If, according to
+the Stoics and Epicureans, the particular <span class="pageNum" id="pb517">[<a href="#pb517">517</a>]</span>and the universal elements in the personal soul, the isolation of the individual as
+an independent atom, and his being merged in a pantheistic universe, are contrasted
+without being reconciled; among the Sceptics this contrast has given place to neutrality.
+Neither the Stoic nor the Epicurean theory can claim our adherence; neither the unconditional
+value of pleasure, nor yet the unconditional value of virtue; neither the truth of
+the senses nor the truth of rational knowledge; neither the Atomist’s view of nature,
+nor the Pantheistic view as it found expression in Heraclitus. The only thing which
+remains certain amid universal uncertainty is abstract personality content with itself,
+personality forming at once the starting-point and the goal of the two contending
+systems.
+</p>
+<p>The important back-influence of Stoicism and Epicureanism upon Scepticism may be best
+gathered from the fact that Scepticism only attained a wide extension and a more comprehensive
+basis in the New Academy after the appearance of those systems. Before that time its
+leading features had been indeed laid down by Pyrrho, but they had never been developed
+into a permanent School of Scepticism, nor given rise to an expanded theory of doubt.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch22.a.3">(3) <i>Pyrrho and his followers.</i></span>
+Pyrrho was a native of Elis,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e43995src" href="#xd33e43995" title="Go to note 2.">2</a> and may therefore have early made the acquaintance of the Elean and <span class="pageNum" id="pb518">[<a href="#pb518">518</a>]</span>Megarian criticism—that criticism, in fact, which was the precursor of subsequent
+Scepticism. It can, however, hardly be true that Bryso was his instructor.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44004src" href="#xd33e44004" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> To Anaxarchus, a follower of Democritus, he attached himself, and accompanied that
+philosopher with Alexander’s army as far as India.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44028src" href="#xd33e44028" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> Perhaps, however, he is less indebted to Anaxarchus for the sceptical than for the
+ethical parts of his teaching.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44043src" href="#xd33e44043" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> At a later period <span class="pageNum" id="pb519">[<a href="#pb519">519</a>]</span>he resided in his native city,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44143src" href="#xd33e44143" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> honoured by his fellow-citizens,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44147src" href="#xd33e44147" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> but in poor circumstances,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44154src" href="#xd33e44154" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> which he bore with his characteristic repose of mind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44158src" href="#xd33e44158" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> He died, it would appear, at an advanced age,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44165src" href="#xd33e44165" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> between 275 and 270 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, leaving no writings behind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44180src" href="#xd33e44180" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> Even the ancients, therefore, only knew his teaching by that of his pupils, among
+whom Timon of Phlius was the most <span class="pageNum" id="pb520">[<a href="#pb520">520</a>]</span>distinguished.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44192src" href="#xd33e44192" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> Besides Timon several other of his pupils are known by name.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44236src" href="#xd33e44236" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> His School, however, was short-lived.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44265src" href="#xd33e44265" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> Soon after Timon it seems to have <span class="pageNum" id="pb521">[<a href="#pb521">521</a>]</span>become extinct.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44313src" href="#xd33e44313" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> Those who were disposed to be sceptical now joined the New Academy, towards whose
+founder even Timon made no secret of his grudge.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44326src" href="#xd33e44326" title="Go to note 16.">16</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch22.b">B. <i>Teaching of Pyrrho.</i><br id="ch22.b.1">(1) <i>Impossibility of knowledge.</i></span>
+The little which is known of Pyrrho’s teaching may be summed up in the three following
+statements: We can know nothing as to the nature of things: Hence the right attitude
+towards them is to withhold judgment: The necessary result of suspending judgment
+is imperturbability. He who will live happily—for happiness is the starting-point
+with the Sceptics—must, according to Timon, take these things into consideration:
+What is the nature of things? What ought our attitude to things to be? What is the
+gain resulting from these relations?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44338src" href="#xd33e44338" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> To the first of these three questions Pyrrho can only reply by saying that things
+are altogether inaccessible to knowledge, and that whatever property may be attributed
+to a thing, with equal justice the opposite <span class="pageNum" id="pb522">[<a href="#pb522">522</a>]</span>may be predicated.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44355src" href="#xd33e44355" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> In support of this statement Pyrrho appears to have argued that neither the senses
+nor reason furnish certain knowledge.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44398src" href="#xd33e44398" title="Go to note 19.">19</a> The senses do not show things as they are, but only as they appear to be.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44403src" href="#xd33e44403" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Rational knowledge, even where it seems to be most certain, in the sphere of morals,
+does not depend upon real knowledge, but only upon tradition and habit.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44417src" href="#xd33e44417" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> Against every statement the opposite may be advanced with equal justice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44442src" href="#xd33e44442" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> If, however, neither the senses nor reason alone can furnish trustworthy testimony,
+no more can the two combined, and thus the third way is barred, by which we might
+possibly have advanced to knowledge.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44455src" href="#xd33e44455" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> How many more of the arguments quoted by the later Sceptics belong to Pyrrho it is
+impossible to say. The short duration and diffusion of Pyrrho’s School renders it
+probable that with him Scepticism was not <span class="pageNum" id="pb523">[<a href="#pb523">523</a>]</span>far advanced. The same result appears to follow from its further development in the
+Academy. The ten <span class="trans" title="tropoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τρόποι</span></span>, or aspects under which sceptical objections were grouped, cannot with certainty
+be attributed to any one before Ænesidemus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44477src" href="#xd33e44477" title="Go to note 24.">24</a> Portions of the arguments used at a later day may be borrowed from Pyrrho and his
+pupils,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44517src" href="#xd33e44517" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> but it is impossible to discriminate these portions with certainty.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch22.b.2">(2) <i>Withholding of judgment.</i></span>
+Thus, if knowledge of things proves to be a failure, there only remains as possible
+an attitude of pure Scepticism; and therein is contained the answer to the second
+question. We know nothing whatever of the real nature of things, and hence can neither
+believe nor assert anything as to their nature. We cannot say of anything that it
+<i>is</i> or <i>is not</i>; but we must abstain from every opinion, allowing that of all which appears to us
+to be true, the opposite may with equal justice be true.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44530src" href="#xd33e44530" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> Accordingly, all our statements <span class="pageNum" id="pb524">[<a href="#pb524">524</a>]</span>(as the Cyrenaics taught) only express individual opinions, and not absolute realities.
+We cannot deny that things <i>appear</i> to be of this or the other kind; but we can never say that they <i>are</i> so.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44570src" href="#xd33e44570" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> Even the assertion that things are of this or the other kind is not an assertion,
+but a confession by the individual of his state of mind.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44585src" href="#xd33e44585" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> Hence, too, the universal rule of indecision cannot be taken as an established principle,
+but only as a confession, and, therefore, as only problematical.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44597src" href="#xd33e44597" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> It must, however, remain a matter of doubt how far the captious turns of expression
+by which the Sceptics thought to parry the attacks of their opponents come from Pyrrho’s
+School. The greater part, it is clear, came into use in the struggle with the Dogmatists,
+and are not older than the development of the Stoic <span class="pageNum" id="pb525">[<a href="#pb525">525</a>]</span>theory of knowledge by Chrysippus, and the criticism of Carneades to which it gave
+rise. In this despairing of anything like certain conviction consists <span class="trans" title="aphasia, akatalēpsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφασία, ἀκαταληψία</span></span>, or <span class="trans" title="epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐποχὴ</span></span>, the withholding of judgment or state of indecision which Pyrrho and Timon regard
+as the only true attitude in speculation,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44635src" href="#xd33e44635" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> and from which the whole School derived its distinctive name.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44663src" href="#xd33e44663" title="Go to note 31.">31</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch22.b.3">(3) <i>Mental imperturbability.</i></span>
+From this state of indecision, Timon, in reply to the third question, argues that
+mental imperturbability or <span class="trans" title="ataraxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀταραξία</span></span> proceeds, which can alone conduct to true happiness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44688src" href="#xd33e44688" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> Men are disturbed by views and prejudices which mislead them into the efforts of
+passion. Only the Sceptic who has suspended all judgment is in a condition to regard
+things with absolute calmness, unruffled by passion or desire.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44716src" href="#xd33e44716" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb526">[<a href="#pb526">526</a>]</span>He knows that it is a fond delusion to suppose that one external condition is preferable
+to another.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44814src" href="#xd33e44814" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> In reality only the tone of mind or virtue possesses value.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44854src" href="#xd33e44854" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> Thus, by withdrawing within himself, man reaches happiness, which is the goal of
+all philosophy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44863src" href="#xd33e44863" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> Absolute inactivity being, however, impossible, the Sceptic will act on probabilities,
+and hence follow custom;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44866src" href="#xd33e44866" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> but at the same time he will be conscious that such conduct does not rest on a basis
+of firm conviction.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44899src" href="#xd33e44899" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> The province of uncertain opinion includes all positive judgments respecting good
+and evil. Only in this conditional form will Timon allow of goodness and divine goodness
+as standards of conduct<span>.</span><a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44903src" href="#xd33e44903" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> The real object of Scepticism is, therefore, a purely negative one—indifference.
+It cannot even be proved<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44965src" href="#xd33e44965" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> that Pyrrho’s School so far accommodated <span class="pageNum" id="pb527">[<a href="#pb527">527</a>]</span>itself to life, as to make moderation rather than indifference the regulating principle
+for unavoidable actions and desires. In this direction the School seems to have done
+but little.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb528">[<a href="#pb528">528</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43947">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43947src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Democritus had denied all truth to sensuous impressions. The same sceptical tone was
+more strongly apparent in Metrodorus (Aristocl. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 19, 5; <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 88; <i>Epiphan.</i> Exp. Fid. 1088, <span class="asc">A</span>, although he cannot be considered a full Sceptic, notwithstanding his usual agreement
+with the physical views of Democritus (<i>Plut.</i> in <i>Eus<span>.</span></i> l.c. i. 8, 11; <i>id.</i> Fac. Lun. 15, 3, p. 928; <i>Sen.</i> Nat. Qu. vi. 19). <span class="pageNum" id="pb516n">[<a href="#pb516n">516</a>]</span>Scepticism appears to have passed from him to Pyrrho, Anaxarchus being the middleman
+(see p. 518, 2, 3), and herewith may be connected the Sceptical imperturbability.
+This doctrine of imperturbability being held by Epicurus, the pupil of Nansiphanes,
+it might be supposed that before Pyrrho’s time a doctrine not unlike that of Pyrrho
+had been developed in the School of Democritus, from whom it was borrowed by Epicurus.
+The connection is, however, uncertain. We have seen that the doubts of Democritus
+extended only to sense-impressions, not to intellectual knowledge. The case of Metrodorus
+was similar. His sceptical expressions refer only to the ordinary conditions of human
+knowledge, that of ideas derived from the senses: greater dependence is, however,
+placed on thought. We must therefore take the statement <span class="trans" title="hoti panta estin ho an tis noēsai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι πάντα ἐστὶν ὃ ἄν τις νοήσαι</span></span> subject to this limitation. Anaxarchus is said (<i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 87) to have compared the world to a stage-scene, which involves no greater
+scepticism than the similar expressions used by Plato as to the phenomenal world.
+However much, therefore, these individuals may have contributed to Pyrrhonism, a simple
+transference of Scepticism from Democritus to Pyrrho is not to be thought of. And
+as regards imperturbability, Epicurus may have borrowed the expression from Pyrrho,
+whom, according to <i>Diog.</i> ix. 64 and 69, he both knew and esteemed.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43947src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e43995">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e43995src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> Aristocl. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 1; <i>Diog.</i> ix. 61. We are indebted almost exclusively to Diogenes for our information respecting
+Pyrrho. Besides Antigonus the Carystian, Apollodorus, Alexander Polyhistor, Diocles,
+&amp;c., are the chief authorities drawn upon by Diogenes.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e43995src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44004">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44004src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> Attention has been drawn to the chronological difficulties in ‘Socrates and the Socratic
+Schools,’ p. 255, note 1 (2nd edition). Either Pyrrho is falsely called a pupil of
+Bryso, or Bryso is falsely called the son of Stilpo. The former seems more probable,
+<i>Diog.</i> ix. 61, having derived his statement from Alexander’s <span class="trans" title="diadochai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαδοχαί</span></span>, and it is quite in the style of the <span class="corr" id="xd33e44016" title="Source: c mpilers">compilers</span> of the <span class="trans" title="diadochai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαδοχαὶ</span></span> to assign a Megarian teacher to a Sceptic whose connection with that School was sufficiently
+obvious.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44004src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44028">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44028src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> ix. 61; Aristocl. l.c. 18, 20; 17, 8. We gather from them that Pyrrho was originally
+a painter. <i>Suidas</i>, <span class="trans" title="Pyrrhōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πύῤῥων</span></span>, only copies the present text of Diogenes with a few mistakes<span>.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44028src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44043">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44043src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> Besides the passage quoted from Sextus, p. 515, 1, which is little known, we have
+no proof of the sceptical tone in Anaxarchus which <i>Sextus</i>, Math. vii. 48, attributes to him, and since the latter quotes no proofs, it may
+be assumed that he had none. Anaxarchus appears to have been unjustly included among
+the Sceptics, like so many others who were called Sceptics by later writers on the
+strength of a single word or expression. According to other accounts, he belonged
+to the School of Democritus. <i>Plut.</i> Tranq. An. 4, p. 466. In <i>Valer. Max.</i> viii. 14, ext. 2, he propounds to Alexander the doctrine of an infinite number of
+worlds; and <i>Clemens</i>, Strom. i. 287, <span class="asc">B</span>, quotes a fragment, in which, agreeing with Democritus, he observes that <span class="trans" title="polymathia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πολυμαθία</span></span> is only useful when it is properly made use of. Like Epicurus, Anaxarchus followed
+Democritus, calling happiness the highest object of our desire; and this assertion
+probably gained for him the epithet <span class="trans" title="ho eudaimonikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ εὐδαιμονικός</span></span> (<i>Clemens</i>, l.c.; <i>Athen.</i> vi. 250; xii. 548, b; <i>Æl.</i> V.&nbsp;H. ix. 37). In other respects, he differed from Democritus. For first he is charged
+by Clearchus in <i>Athen.</i> xii. 548, b, with a luxurious indulgence far removed from the earnest and pure spirit
+of Democritus; and according to <i>Plut.</i> Alex. 52, he had, when in Asia, renounced the independence of a philosopher for a
+life of pleasure; Timon also in <i>Plut.</i> Virt. Mor. 6, p. 446, says he was led away by <span class="trans" title="physis hēdonoplēx"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φύσις ἡδονοπλὴξ</span></span> contrary to his better knowledge. Again, he is said to have commended <span class="pageNum" id="pb519n">[<a href="#pb519n">519</a>]</span>in Pyrrho (<i>Diog.</i> ix. 63) an indifference which went a good deal beyond the imperturbability of Democritus;
+and Timon commends him for his <span class="trans" title="kynikon menos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κυνικὸν μένος</span></span>. He meets external pain with the haughty pride expressed in his much-admired dictum
+under the blows of Nitocreon’s club—<i>Diog.</i> ix. 59; <i>Plut.</i> Virt. Mor. c. 10, p. 449; <i>Clemens</i>, Strom. iv. 496, <span class="asc">D</span>; <i>Valer. Max.</i> iii. 3, ext. 4; <i>Plin.</i> Hist. Nat. vii. 87; <i>Tertull.</i> Apol. 50; <i>Dio Chrysos.</i> Or<span>.</span> 37, p. 126, <span class="asc">B</span>. But he treats men with the same contempt; and whilst meeting the Macedonian conqueror
+with an air of independence, he spoils the whole by adroit flattery. Conf. <i>Plut.</i> Alex. 52; Ad Princ. Iner. 4, p. 781; Qu. Conv. ix. 1, 2, 5; <i>Æl.</i> V.&nbsp;H. ix. 37; <i>Athen.</i> vi. 250. His indifference was, at any rate, very much lacking in nobility. Respecting
+Anaxarchus see <i>Lusac.</i> Lect. Att. 181.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44043src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44143">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44143src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> ix. 64; 109.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44143src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44147">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44147src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 64, they made him head-priest, and, on his account, allowed to philosophers immunity
+from taxation. According to Diocles (<i>Diog.</i> 65), the Athenians presented him with citizenship for his services in putting a Thracian
+prince Cotys to death.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44147src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44154">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44154src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 66; 62.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44154src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44158">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44158src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> Examples in <i>Diog.</i> 67. It sounds, however, highly improbable; and doubts were expressed by Ænesidemus
+whether his indifference ever went to the extent described by Antigonus, <i>Ibid.</i> 62, of not getting out of the way of carriages and precipices, so that he had to
+be preserved from danger by his friends. He must, moreover, have enjoyed a special
+good fortune to attain the age of 90, notwithstanding such senseless conduct.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44158src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44165">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44165src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> All the dates here are very uncertain. Neither the date of his death <span class="corr" id="xd33e44167" title="Source: n r">nor</span> of his birth is given, and the notice in Suidas that he lived after the 111 Olympiad
+(336–332 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>) is indefinite. If, however, as <i>Diog.</i> 62 says, he attained the age of 90, and if he joined Anaxarchus at Alexander’s first
+invasion of Asia, being then between 24 and 30, the statements above given are true.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44165src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44180">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44180src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> Pro. 16; 102; Aristocl. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 1 are better authorities than <i>Sext.</i> Math. i. 282, or <i>Plut.</i> Alex. Fort. i. 10, p. 331. Neither does Sextus say that the supposed poem on Alexander
+was extant. The whole statement is evidently untrustworthy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44180src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44192">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44192src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> Timon (see <i>Wachsmuth</i>, De Timone Phliasio, Leipzig, 1859) was a native of Phlius (<i>Diog.</i> ix. 109). A public dancer at first (<i>Diog.</i> 109; Aristocl. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 12), when tired of this mode of life he repaired to Megara, to hear
+Stilpo (<i>Diog.</i> 109). Stilpo being alive in the third century, and Timon’s birth having happened
+approximately between 325–315 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, the connection is not so impossible as Wachsmuth, p. 5, and Preller, Hist. Phil.
+Gr. et Rom. 398, suppose, though in the uncertainty of chronological data it cannot
+be positively stated. Subsequently Timon became acquainted with Pyrrho, and leaving
+his staunch admirers (<i>Diog.</i> 109, 69; <i>Aristocl.</i> l.c. 11, 14, 21), removed with his wife to Elis. He then appeared as a teacher in
+Chalcis, and, having amassed a fortune, concluded his life in Athens (<i>Diog.</i> 110; 115). It appears from <i>Diog<span>.</span></i> 112 and 115, that he survived Arcesilaus (who died 241 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>), having nearly attained the age of 90. His death may therefore be approximately
+fixed in 230, his birth in 320 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> For his life and character, see <i>Diog.</i> 110; 112–115; <i>Athen.</i> x. 438, a; <i>Æl.</i> V.&nbsp;H. ii. 41. Of his numerous writings, the best known is a witty and pungent satire
+on previous and cotemporary philosophers. Respecting this satire (<i>Diog.</i> 110) consult <i>Wachsmuth</i>, p. 9 and 3. The latter, p. 51, has collected the fragments.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44192src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44236">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44236src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 67–69, mentions, besides Timon, a certain Eurylochus as his pupil, who, however,
+was not very successful in the way of keeping his temper; also Philo, an Athenian,
+Hecatæus of Abdera, the well-known historian (on whom see <i>Müller</i>, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 384); and Nausiphanes, the teacher of Epicurus. The last assertion
+is only tenable on the supposition that Nausiphanes appeared as a teacher only a few
+years after Pyrrho, for Pyrrho cannot have returned to Elis before 322 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, and Epicurus must have left the School of Nausiphanes before 310 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> See p. 406, 3. According to <i>Diog.</i> 64, Epicurus must have become acquainted with Pyrrho whilst a pupil of Nausiphanes.
+Nausiphanes is said not to have agreed with Pyrrho, but only to have admired his character
+(<i>Diog.</i> l.c<span>.</span>), so that he cannot properly be called his pupil. The mention of Numenius, by <i>Diog.</i> 102 (conf. 68), among Pyrrho’s <span class="trans" title="synētheis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνήθεις</span></span>, is suspicious, because Ænesidemus is named at the same time. It may be questioned
+whether he as well as Ænesidemus does not belong to a later period of Scepticism.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44236src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44265">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44265src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> According to <i>Diog.</i> 115, Menodotus (a Sceptic belonging to the latter half of the second century after
+Christ) asserted that Timon left no successor, and that the School <span class="pageNum" id="pb521n">[<a href="#pb521n">521</a>]</span>was in abeyance from Timon to Ptolemæus, i.e. until the second half of the first century
+<span class="asc">B.C.</span> Sotion and Hippobotus, however, asserted that his pupils were Dioscurides, Nicolochus,
+Euphranor, and Praÿlus. His son, too, the physician Xanthus, followed the father.
+(<i>Diog.</i> 109.) That Timon was himself a physician, as <i>Wachsmuth</i>, p. 5, supposes, cannot be concluded with certainty from the words <span class="trans" title="iatrikon edidaxe"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἰατρικὸν ἐδίδαξε</span></span>, since these words only imply that he had received instruction in medicine. On the
+other hand, according to <i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Pyrrhōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πύῤῥων</span></span>, the second Pyrrho, called Timon’s pupil, was a changeling. If Aratus of Soli was
+a pupil (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Aratos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἄρατος</span></span>; conf. <i>Diog.</i> ix. 113), he was certainly not a follower of his views. See p. 43, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44265src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44313">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44313src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> In <i>Diog.</i> 116, Eubulus is called a pupil of Euphranor, also on the authority of Sotion and
+Hippobotus. If Ptolemæus was the next one who is said to have come after him, no philosopher
+of Pyrrho’s <span class="trans" title="agōgē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀγωγὴ</span></span> can have been known for 150 years.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44313src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44326">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44326src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 114.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44326src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44338">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44338src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> Aristocl. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 2: <span class="trans" title="ho de ge mathētēs autou Timōn phēsi dein ton mellonta eudaimonēsein eis tria tauta blepein; prōton men hopoia pephyke ta pragmata; deuteron de, tina chrē tropon hēmas pros auta diakeisthai; teleutaion de ti periestai tois houtōs echousin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ δέ γε μαθητὴς αὐτοῦ Τίμων φησὶ δεῖν τὸν μέλλοντα εὐδαιμονήσειν εἰς τρία ταῦτα βλέπειν·
+πρῶτον μὲν ὁποῖα πέφυκε τὰ πράγματα· δεύτερον δὲ, τίνα χρὴ τρόπον ἡμᾶς πρὸς αὐτὰ διακεῖσθαι·
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb522n">[<a href="#pb522n">522</a>]</span>τελευταῖον δὲ τί περιέσται τοῖς οὕτως ἔχουσιν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44338src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44355">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44355src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> Aristocl. l.c.: <span class="trans" title="ta men oun pragmata phēsin auton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὰ μὲν οὖν πράγματά φησιν αὐτὸν</span></span> (Pyrrho) <span class="trans" title="apophainein episēs adiaphora kai astathmēta kai anepikrita, dia touto [to] mēte tas aisthēseis hēmōn mēte tas doxas alētheuein ē pseudesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀποφαίνειν ἐπίσης ἀδιάφορα καὶ ἀστάθμητα καὶ ἀνεπίκριτα, διὰ τοῦτο [τὸ] μήτε τὰς αἰσθήσεις
+ἡμῶν μήτε τὰς δόξας ἀληθεύειν ἢ ψεύδεσθαι</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> ix. 61: <span class="trans" title="ou gar mallon tode ē tode einai hekaston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον τόδε ἢ τόδε εἶναι <span id="xd33e44379">ἕκαστον</span></span></span>. <i>Gell.</i> xi. 5, 4: Pyrrho is said to have stated <span class="trans" title="ou mallon houtōs echei tode ē ekeinōs ē outheterōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ μᾶλλον οὕτως ἔχει τόδε ἢ ἐκείνως ἢ οὐθετέρως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44355src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44398">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44398src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> See the above-quoted passage of Aristocles and <i>Diog.</i> ix. 114.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44398src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44403">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44403src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> Timon, in <i>Diog.</i> ix. 105: <span class="trans" title="to meli hoti esti glyky ou tithēmi; to d’ hoti phainetai homologō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μέλι ὅτι ἐστὶ γλυκὺ οὐ τίθημι· τὸ δ’ ὅτι φαίνεται ὁμολογῶ</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44403src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44417">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44417src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> ix. 61: <span class="trans" title="ouden gar ephasken oute kalon oute aischron oute dikaion oute adikon, kai homoiōs epi pantōn, mēden einai tē alētheia, nomō de kai ethei panta tous anthrōpous prattein, ou gar mallon tode ē tode einai hekaston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔφασκεν οὔτε καλὸν οὔτε αἰσχρὸν οὔτε δίκαιον οὔτε ἄδικον, καὶ ὁμοίως ἐπὶ
+πάντων, μηδὲν εἶναι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, νόμῳ δὲ καὶ ἔθει πάντα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πράττειν, οὐ
+γὰρ μᾶλλον τόδε ἢ τόδε εἶναι <span id="xd33e44424">ἕκαστον</span></span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 140: <span class="trans" title="oute agathon ti esti physei oute kakon, alla pros anthrōpōn tauta noō kekritai kata ton Timōna"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὔτε ἀγαθόν τί ἐστι φύσει οὔτε κακὸν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ταῦτα νόῳ κέκριται κατὰ τὸν
+Τίμωνα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44417src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44442">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44442src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> In this sense the words of Ænesidemus, in <i>Diog.</i> ix. 106, must be understood: <span class="trans" title="ouden phēsin horizein ton Pyrrhōna dogmatikōs dia tēn antilogian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδέν φησιν ὁρίζειν τὸν Πύῤῥωνα δογματικῶς διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν</span></span>. See note 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44442src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44455">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44455src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> ix. 114, on Timon: <span class="trans" title="syneches te epilegein eiōthei pros tous tas aisthēseis met’ epimartyrountos tou nou enkrinontas; synēlthen Attagas te kai Noumēnios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνεχές τε ἐπιλέγειν εἰώθει πρὸς τοὺς τὰς αἰσθήσεις μετ’ ἐπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ νοῦ ἐγκρίνοντας·
+συνῆλθεν Ἀτταγᾶς τε καὶ Νουμήνιος</span></span>. The meaning of this proverb has been already explained.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44455src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44477">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44477src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> ix. 79 refers these <span class="trans" title="tropoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τρόποι</span></span> to Pyrrho, but inasmuch as he was there describing Sceptic views, the author of which
+to his mind was Pyrrho, nothing follows from his statement. <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i<span>.</span> 36 generally attributes them to the ancient Sceptics, by whom, according to Math.
+vii. 345, he understood Ænesidemus and his followers. Aristocles, l.c. 18, 11, refers
+them to Ænesidemus, and they may easily have been referred to Pyrrho by mistake, since
+Ænesidemus himself (<i>Diog.</i> ix. 106) and subsequent writers (Favorin. in <i>Gell.</i> xi. 5, 5; <i>Philostr.</i> Vit. Soph. i. 491) call every kind of sceptical statement <span class="trans" title="logoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λόγοι</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="tropoi Pyrrhōneioi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τρόποι Πυῤῥώνειοι</span></span>. That they cannot belong to Pyrrho in the form in which they are presented by Sextus
+and Diogenes is clear, since they obviously refer to later views.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44477src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44517">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44517src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vi. 66; x. 197 quotes an argument of Timon against the reality of time, and
+further states (Math. iv. 2) that Timon, in his conflict with the philosophers of
+nature, maintained that no assertion should be made without proof: in other words,
+he denied dogmatism; for every proof supposes something established, i.e. another
+proof, and so on for ever.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44517src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44530">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44530src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> Aristocl. l.c. 18, 3: <span class="trans" title="dia touto oun mēde pisteuein autois dein, all’ adoxastous kai aklineis kai akradantous einai peri henos hekastou legontas hoti ou mallon estin ē ouk estin, ē kai esti kai ouk estin, ē oute estin out’ ouk estin"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διὰ <span class="pageNum" id="pb524n">[<a href="#pb524n">524</a>]</span>τοῦτο οὖν μηδὲ πιστεύειν αὐτοῖς δεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἀδοξάστους καὶ ἀκλινεῖς καὶ ἀκραδάντους
+εἶναι περὶ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου λέγοντας ὅτι οὐ μᾶλλον ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἢ καὶ ἔστι καὶ οὐκ
+ἔστιν, ἢ οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> ix. 61. <i>Ibid.</i> 76: <span class="trans" title="ou mallon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐ μᾶλλον</span></span> means, according to Timon, <span class="trans" title="to mēden horizein alla aprosthetein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τὸ μηδὲν ὁρίζειν ἀλλὰ ἀπροσθετεῖν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44530src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44570">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44570src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> Ænesidem. in <i>Diog.</i> ix. 106: <span class="trans" title="ouden horizein ton Pyrrhōna dogmatikōs dia tēn antilogian, tois de phainomenois akolouthein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὐδὲν ὁρίζειν τὸν Πύῤῥωνα δογματικῶς διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν, τοῖς δὲ φαινομένοις ἀκολουθεῖν</span></span>. Timon. <i>Ibid.</i> 105. See p. 522, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44570src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44585">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44585src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> ix. 103: <span class="trans" title="peri men hōn hōs anthrōpoi paschomen homologoumen ... peri de hōn hoi dogmatikoi diabebaiountai tō logō phamenoi kateilēphthai epechomen peri toutōn hōs adēlōn; mona de ta pathē ginōskomen. to men gar hoti horōmen homologoumen kai to hoti tode nooimen ginōskomen, pōs d’ horōmen ē pōs nooumen agnooumen; kai hoti tode leukon phainetai diēgēmatikōs legomen ou diabebaioumenoi ei kai ontōs esti ... kai gar to phainomenon tithemetha ouch hōs kai toiouton on; kai hoti pyr kaiei aisthanometha; ei de physin echei kaustikēn, epechomen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ μὲν ὧν ὡς ἄνθρωποι πάσχομεν ὁμολογοῦμεν … περὶ δὲ ὧν οἱ δογματικοὶ διαβεβαιοῦνται
+τῷ λόγῳ φάμενοι κατειλῆφθαι ἐπέχομεν περὶ τούτων ὡς ἀδήλων· μόνα δὲ τὰ πάθη γινώσκομεν.
+τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ὁρῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ τὸ ὅτι τόδε νοοῖμεν γινώσκομεν, πῶς δ’ ὁρῶμεν
+ἢ πῶς νοοῦμεν ἀγνοοῦμεν· καὶ ὅτι τόδε λευκὸν φαίνεται διηγηματικῶς λέγομεν οὐ διαβεβαιούμενοι
+εἰ καὶ ὄντως ἐστί … καὶ γὰρ τὸ φαινόμενον τιθέμεθα οὐχ ὡς καὶ τοιοῦτον ὄν· καὶ ὅτι
+πῦρ καίει αἰσθανόμεθα· εἰ δὲ φύσιν ἔχει καυστικήν, ἐπέχομεν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44585src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44597">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44597src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="peri de tēs Ouden horizō phōnēs kai tōn homoiōn legomen hōs ou dogmatōn; ou gar eisin homoia tō legein hoti sphairoeidēs estin ho kosmos; alla gar to men adēlon, hai de exomologēseis eisin. en hō oun legomen mēden horizein oud’ auto touto horizometha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ δὲ τῆς Οὐδὲν ὁρίζω φωνῆς καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων λέγομεν ὡς οὐ δογμάτων· οὐ γάρ εἰσιν
+ὅμοια τῷ λέγειν ὅτι σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος· ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἄδηλον, αἱ δὲ ἐξομολογήσεις
+εἰσίν. ἐν ᾧ οὖν λέγομεν μηδὲν ὁρίζειν οὐδ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὁριζόμεθα</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> gives this view in its later form, probably following <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 197, but agreeing in substance with the <span class="corr" id="xd33e44612" title="Source: qu tations">quotations</span> from Timon and Pyrrho.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44597src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44635">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44635src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> ix. 61 and 107; Aristocl. l.c. The expressions <span class="trans" title="aphasia, akatalēpsia, epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφασία, ἀκαταληψία, ἐποχὴ</span></span>, invariably mean the same thing. Later writers use instead of them, <span class="trans" title="arrhepsia, agnōsia tēs alētheias k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀῤῥεψία, ἀγνωσία τῆς ἀληθείας κ.τ.λ.</span></span> If, according to Aristocles and Diog. 107, Timon first mentioned <span class="trans" title="aphasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀφασία</span></span> in dealing with the third of his questions, this statement is obviously inaccurate.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44635src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44663">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44663src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <span class="trans" title="Pyrrhōneioi, skeptikoi, aporētikoi, ephektikoi, zētētikoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πυῤῥώνειοι, σκεπτικοὶ, ἀπορητικοὶ, ἐφεκτικοὶ, ζητητικοί</span></span>. Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 69.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44663src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44688">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44688src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> Aristocl. l<span>.</span>c. 2: <span class="trans" title="tois mentoi diakeimenois houtō periesesthai Timōn phēsi prōton men aphasian epeita d’ ataraxian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς μέντοι διακειμένοις οὕτω περιέσεσθαι Τίμων φησὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἀφασίαν ἔπειτα δ’
+ἀταραξίαν</span></span>. <i>Diog.</i> 107: <span class="trans" title="telos de hoi skeptikoi phasi tēn epochēn, hē skias tropon epakolouthei hē ataraxia, hōs phasin hoi te peri ton Timōna kai Ainesidēmon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τέλος δὲ οἱ σκεπτικοί φασι τὴν ἐποχὴν, ᾗ σκιᾶς τρόπον ἐπακολουθεῖ ἡ ἀταραξία, ὥς φασιν
+οἵ τε περὶ τὸν Τίμωνα καὶ Αἰνεσίδημον</span></span>. Apathy is substituted for ataraxy in <i>Diog.</i> 108; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 42, 130.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44688src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44716">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44716src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> Timon, in Aristocl. l.c. 18, 14, speaking of Pyrrho:—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="all’ hoion ton atyphon egō idon ēd’ adamaston"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλ’ οἷον τὸν ἄτυφον ἐγὼ ἴδον ἠδ’ ἀδάμαστον</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="pasin, hosois damnantai homōs aphatoi te phatoi te"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πᾶσιν, ὅσοις δάμνανται ὁμῶς ἄφατοί τε φατοί τε</span></span> (conf. <i>Wachsmuth</i>, p<span>.</span> 62) </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="laōn ethnea koupha, barynomen’ entha kai entha"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λαῶν ἔθνεα κοῦφα, βαρυνόμεν’ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="ek patheōn doxēs te kai eikaiēs nomothēkēs."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐκ παθέων δόξης τε καὶ εἰκαίης νομοθήκης.</span></span> </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont"><i>Id.</i> in <i><span class="corr" id="xd33e44768" title="Source: S xt">Sext.</span></i> Math. xi. 1: The Sceptic lives—
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line xd33e44775"><span class="trans" title="rhēsta meth’ hēsychiēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e44779">ῥῇστα</span> μεθ’ ἡσυχίης</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="aiei aphrontistōs kai akinētōs kata tauta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">αἰεὶ ἀφροντίστως καὶ ἀκινήτως κατὰ ταὐτὰ</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="mē prosechōn deilois hēdylogou sophiēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ προσέχων δειλοῖς ἡδυλόγου σοφίης</span></span>. </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p>
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont"><i>Id.</i> in <i>Diog.</i> 65.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44716src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44814">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44814src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 13, 43: <span lang="la">Quæ</span> (externals) <span lang="la">quod Aristoni et Pyrrhoni omnino visa sunt pro nihilo, ut inter optime valere et gravissime
+ægrotare nihil prorsus dicerent interesse.</span> iii. 3, 11: <span lang="la">Cum Pyrrhone et Aristone qui omnia exæquent.</span> Acad. ii<span>.</span> 42, 130: <span lang="la">Pyrrho autem ea ne sentire quidem sapientem, quæ <span class="trans" title="apatheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπάθεια</span></span> nominatur.</span> <i>Epictet.</i> Fragm. 93 (in <i>Stob.</i> Serm. 121, 28): <span class="trans" title="Pyrrhōn elegen mēden diapherein zēn ē tethnanai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πύῤῥων ἔλεγεν μηδὲν διαφέρειν ζῇν ἢ τεθνάναι</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44814src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44854">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44854src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iv. 16, 43: <span lang="la">Pyrrho … qui virtute constituta nihil omnino quod appetendum sit relinquat.</span> The same <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 13, 43; iii. 4, 12.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44854src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44863">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44863src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> See p. 521, 3; 525, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44863src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44866">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44866src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> 105: <span class="trans" title="ho Timōn en tō Pythōni phēsi mē ekbebēkenai [ton Pyrrhōna] tēn synētheian. kai en tois indalmois houtō legei; alla to phainomenon panti sthenei houper an elthē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Τίμων ἐν τῷ Πύθωνί φησι μὴ ἐκβεβηκέναι [τὸν Πύῤῥωνα] τὴν συνήθειαν. καὶ ἐν τοῖς
+ἰνδαλμοῖς οὕτω <span id="xd33e44873">λέγει</span>· ἀλλὰ τὸ φαινόμενον παντὶ σθένει οὗπερ ἂν ἔλθῃ</span></span>. (Conf. <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 30<span>.</span>) <i>Ibid.</i> 106, of Pyrrho: <span class="trans" title="tois de phainomenois akolouthein"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τοῖς δὲ φαινομένοις <span class="corr" id="xd33e44891" title="Source: ἀκολ υθεῖν">ἀκολουθεῖν</span></span></span>. See p. 519, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44866src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44899">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44899src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> See p. 524, 1, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44899src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44903">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44903src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. xi. 20: <span class="trans" title="kata de to phainomenon toutōn hekaston echomen ethos agathon ē kakon ē adiaphoron prosagoreuein kathaper kai ho Timōn en tois indalmois eoike dēloun hotan phē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατὰ δὲ τὸ φαινόμενον τούτων <span id="xd33e44911">ἕκαστον</span> ἔχομεν ἔθος ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ἢ ἀδιάφορον προσαγορεύειν καθάπερ καὶ ὁ <span id="xd33e44915">Τίμων</span> ἐν τοῖς ἰνδαλμοῖς ἔοικε δηλοῦν ὅταν φῇ</span></span>
+</p>
+<div class="q">
+<div class="nestedtext">
+<div class="nestedbody">
+<div class="lgouter footnote">
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="ē gar egōn ereō hōs moi kataphainetai einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἦ γὰρ ἐγὼν ἐρέω ὥς μοι καταφαίνεται εἶναι</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line xd33e44936"><span class="trans" title="mython alētheiēs orthon echōn kanona;"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μῦθον ἀληθείης ὀρθὸν ἔχων κανόνα·</span></span> </p>
+<p class="line"><span class="trans" title="hōs hē tou theiou te physis kai tagathou aiei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὡς ἡ τοῦ θείου τε φύσις καὶ τἀγαθοῦ αἰεὶ</span></span>, </p>
+<p class="line xd33e44936"><span class="trans" title="ex hōn isotatos gignetai andri bios."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐξ ὧν ἰσότατος γίγνεται ἀνδρὶ βίος.</span></span> </p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div><p></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44965">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44965src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> According to an anecdote preserved by Antigonus of Carystus (Aristocl. l.c. 18, 19;
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb527n">[<a href="#pb527n">527</a>]</span><i>Diog.</i> ix<span>.</span> 66), Pyrrho apologised for being agitated by saving: It is difficult to lay aside
+humanity altogether. This language only proves what his aim was, and that he had found
+no mediating principle between the apathy required by his system and practical needs.
+Neither do the remarks of <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 451, prove that the doctrine of moderation belongs to Pyrrho and his school.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44965src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div id="ch23" class="div1 last-child chapter"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e2426">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="label">CHAPTER XXIII.</h2>
+<h2 class="main">THE NEW ACADEMY.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first"><span class="marginnote" id="ch23.a">A. <i>Arcesilaus.</i></span>
+Plato’s School was the first to put Scepticism on a firm footing, and to cultivate
+it as a system. It has been already remarked that after the time of Xenocrates this
+School gradually deserted speculative enquiries, and limited itself to Ethics. To
+this new tendency it consistently adhered, when, shortly after the beginning of the
+third century before Christ,
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch23.a.1">(1) <i>Denial of knowledge.</i></span>
+it took a fresh lease of life. Instead, however, of simply ignoring theoretical knowledge,
+as it had hitherto done, it assumed towards knowledge an attitude of opposition, hoping
+to arrive at security and happiness in life by being persuaded of the impossibility
+of knowledge. How far this result was due to the example set by Pyrrho it is impossible
+to establish authoritatively. But it is not in itself probable that the learned originator
+of this line of thought in the Academy should have ignored the views of a philosopher
+whose work had been carried on at Elis in his own lifetime, and whose most distinguished
+pupil, a personal acquaintance of his own, was then working at Athens as a prolific
+writer.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e44993src" href="#xd33e44993" title="Go to note 1.">1</a> The whole <span class="pageNum" id="pb529">[<a href="#pb529">529</a>]</span>tone and character, moreover, of the Scepticism of the New Academy betrays everywhere
+the presence of Stoic influences. By the confidence of its assertions it provokes
+contradiction and doubt, without its being necessary to seek an explanation by improbable
+conjectures as to the personal relations of Arcesilaus and Zeno.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45005src" href="#xd33e45005" title="Go to note 2.">2</a>
+</p>
+<p>This connection of the New Academy with Stoicism can be proved in the case of its
+first founder,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45014src" href="#xd33e45014" title="Go to note 3.">3</a> Arcesilaus.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45029src" href="#xd33e45029" title="Go to note 4.">4</a> The doubts of this philosopher are directed <span class="pageNum" id="pb530">[<a href="#pb530">530</a>]</span>not only to knowledge derived from the senses, but to rational knowledge as well.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45128src" href="#xd33e45128" title="Go to note 5.">5</a> The principal object of his attack was, however, the Stoic theory of irresistible
+impressions;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45142src" href="#xd33e45142" title="Go to note 6.">6</a> and in overthrowing that theory Arcesilaus, it would seem, believed he had exploded
+every possibility of rational knowledge; for the Stoic appeal to the senses he regarded
+as the only possible form of a theory of knowledge, and the theories of <span class="pageNum" id="pb531">[<a href="#pb531">531</a>]</span>Plato and Aristotle he ignored altogether. Indeed, no peculiar arguments against knowledge
+are referred to him. The old sceptical arguments of Plato and Socrates, of Anaxagoras,
+Empedocles, Democritus, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, are repeated,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45150src" href="#xd33e45150" title="Go to note 7.">7</a> all of which apply only to the knowledge of the senses, and not to rational knowledge.
+Nevertheless, Arcesilaus aimed at overthrowing the latter along with the former.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45161src" href="#xd33e45161" title="Go to note 8.">8</a> The opinion that he only used doubt to prepare for or to conceal genuine Platonism,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45165src" href="#xd33e45165" title="Go to note 9.">9</a> is opposed to all credible authorities. It appears, however, established that he
+deemed it unnecessary to refute the theory of a knowledge existing independently of
+the senses.
+</p>
+<p>The Stoic arguments in favour of irresistible impressions Arcesilaus met by asserting
+that an intermediate something between knowledge and opinion, a kind of conviction
+common to the wise and the unwise, such as the Stoic <span class="trans" title="katalēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατάληψις</span></span>, is inconceivable; the wise man’s conviction is always knowledge, that of the fool
+is always opinion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45185src" href="#xd33e45185" title="Go to note 10.">10</a> Going then farther into the idea of <span class="trans" title="phantasia katalēptikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία καταληπτική</span></span>, he endeavoured to show that it contained an internal contradiction; for to conceive
+(<span class="trans" title="katalēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατάληψις</span></span>) is to approve <span class="pageNum" id="pb532">[<a href="#pb532">532</a>]</span>(<span class="trans" title="synkatathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκατάθεσις</span></span>), and approval never applies to sensation, but only to thoughts and general ideas.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45216src" href="#xd33e45216" title="Go to note 11.">11</a> Lastly, if the Stoics regarded force of conviction as the distinctive mark of a true
+or irresistible conception, and as belonging to it in distinction from every other,
+the Sceptic rejoined that such conceptions do not exist, and that no true conception
+is of such a nature, but that a false one may be equally irresistible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45220src" href="#xd33e45220" title="Go to note 12.">12</a> If no certainty of perception is possible, no knowledge is possible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45271src" href="#xd33e45271" title="Go to note 13.">13</a> And since the wise man—for on this point Arcesilaus agrees with the Stoics—must only
+consider knowledge, and not opinion, nothing remains for him but to abstain from all
+and every statement, and to despair of any certain conviction.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45287src" href="#xd33e45287" title="Go to note 14.">14</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb533">[<a href="#pb533">533</a>]</span>It is therefore impossible to know anything, nor can we even know for certain that
+we do not know anything.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45321src" href="#xd33e45321" title="Go to note 15.">15</a> It was quite in accordance with this theory for Arcesilaus to lay down no definite
+view in his lectures, but only to refute the views of others.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45325src" href="#xd33e45325" title="Go to note 16.">16</a> Even his disparaging remarks on dialectic,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45333src" href="#xd33e45333" title="Go to note 17.">17</a> supposing them to be genuine,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45371src" href="#xd33e45371" title="Go to note 18.">18</a> are not at variance with this conduct. He might consider the arguments of the Stoics
+and the sophisms of the Megarians as useless, whilst, at the same time, he was convinced
+that no real knowledge could be attained by any other means. He might even have inferred
+from their sterility, that thought leads to truth quite as little as the senses. There
+is no real difference between the result at which he arrived and that of Pyrrho.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45378src" href="#xd33e45378" title="Go to note 19.">19</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb534">[<a href="#pb534">534</a>]</span></p>
+<p>If opponents asserted that by denying knowledge all possibility of action is denied,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45413src" href="#xd33e45413" title="Go to note 20.">20</a> Arcesilaus declined to accede to this statement. No firm conviction is, as he maintained,
+necessary for a decision of the will; for an action to come about a perception influences
+the will immediately, leaving the question as to its truth entirely out of sight.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45416src" href="#xd33e45416" title="Go to note 21.">21</a> In order to act sensibly
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch23.a.2">(2) <i>Probability.</i></span>
+we need no knowledge; for this purpose probability is quite enough; any one can follow
+probability, even though he is conscious of the uncertainty of all knowledge. Thus
+probability is the highest standard for practical life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45451src" href="#xd33e45451" title="Go to note 22.">22</a> We are but scantily informed how <span class="pageNum" id="pb535">[<a href="#pb535">535</a>]</span>Arcesilaus applied this principle to the sphere of morals, but a few of his utterances
+are on record.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45481src" href="#xd33e45481" title="Go to note 23.">23</a> All bear witness to the beautiful spirit of moderation in the moral theory of the
+Academy, which was otherwise exemplified in his own life.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45509src" href="#xd33e45509" title="Go to note 24.">24</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch23.b">B. <i>Carneades.</i></span>
+Comparing with the theory of Arcesilaus that which was propounded by Carneades a century
+later, the same leading features are found to be underlying; but the points have been
+more carefully worked out, and the theory placed on a wider footing. Of the immediate
+followers of Arcesilaus<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45517src" href="#xd33e45517" title="Go to note 25.">25</a> it can only be stated <span class="pageNum" id="pb536">[<a href="#pb536">536</a>]</span>that they clung to their teacher. It may be presumed that they did little in the way
+of expansion, since the ancients are silent as to their labours; Carneades<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45627src" href="#xd33e45627" title="Go to note 26.">26</a> is only mentioned as the continuer <span class="pageNum" id="pb537">[<a href="#pb537">537</a>]</span>of the Academic Scepticism. The importance of Carneades is therefore very great, whence
+he is in consequence called the founder of the third or New Academy;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45704src" href="#xd33e45704" title="Go to note 27.">27</a> and it is justly great, witness the admiration which his talents called forth among
+cotemporaries and posterity,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45713src" href="#xd33e45713" title="Go to note 28.">28</a> and the flourishing condition <span class="pageNum" id="pb538">[<a href="#pb538">538</a>]</span>in which he left his School.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45778src" href="#xd33e45778" title="Go to note 29.">29</a> Himself a pupil of Chrysippus, and resembling him in tone of mind,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45782src" href="#xd33e45782" title="Go to note 30.">30</a> Carneades expanded not only the negative side of the Sceptical theory in all directions
+with an acuteness entitling him to the first place among the ancient Sceptics, but
+he was also the first to investigate the positive side of Scepticism, the doctrine
+of probability, and to determine the degrees and conditions of probability. By his
+labours in both ways he brought the philosophy of Scepticism to its greatest scientific
+perfection.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch23.b.1">(1) <i>Negative side of his teaching.</i></span>
+As regards the negative side of these investigations, or the refutation of dogmatism,
+the attacks of Carneades were directed partly against the formal possibility of knowledge,
+and partly against the chief actual results of the knowledge of his day. In both respects
+he had mainly to do with the Stoics,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45790src" href="#xd33e45790" title="Go to note 31.">31</a> though he did not confine himself to them.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>a</i>) <i>Denial of possibility of formal knowledge.</i></span>
+To prove the impossibility of knowledge in general, he appeals sometimes to experience.
+There is no kind of conviction which does not sometimes deceive us; consequently there
+is none which guarantees its own truth.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45819src" href="#xd33e45819" title="Go to note 32.">32</a> Going then further into the <span class="pageNum" id="pb539">[<a href="#pb539">539</a>]</span>nature of our notions, he argues, that since notions consist in the change produced
+on the soul by impressions from without, they must, to be true, not only furnish information
+as to themselves, but also as to the objects producing them. Now, this is by no means
+always the case, many notions avowedly giving a false impression of things. Hence
+the note of truth cannot reside in an impression as such, but only in a true impression.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45835src" href="#xd33e45835" title="Go to note 33.">33</a> It is, however, impossible to distinguish with certainty a true impression from one
+that is false. For independently of dreams, visions, and the fancies of madmen, in
+short, of all the unfounded chimeras which force themselves on our notice under the
+guise of truth,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45839src" href="#xd33e45839" title="Go to note 34.">34</a> it is still undeniable that many false notions closely resemble true ones. The transition,
+too, from truth to falsehood is so gradual, the interval between the two is occupied
+by intermediate links so innumerable, and gradations so slight, that they imperceptibly
+pass one into the other, and it becomes impossible to draw a boundary line between
+the two opposite spheres.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45846src" href="#xd33e45846" title="Go to note 35.">35</a> Not content with proving this <span class="pageNum" id="pb540">[<a href="#pb540">540</a>]</span>assertion in regard to impressions of the senses, Carneades went on to prove it with
+regard to general notions based on experience and intellectual conceptions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45860src" href="#xd33e45860" title="Go to note 36.">36</a> He showed that it is impossible for us to distinguish objects so much alike as one
+egg is to another; that at a certain distance the painted surface seems raised, and
+a square tower seems round; that an oar in the water seems broken, and the neck-plumage
+of a pigeon assumes different colours in the sun; that objects on the shore seem to
+be moving as we sail by, and so forth;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45877src" href="#xd33e45877" title="Go to note 37.">37</a> in all these cases the same strength of conviction belongs to the false as to the
+true impressions.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45890src" href="#xd33e45890" title="Go to note 38.">38</a> He showed further that this applies equally to purely intellectual ideas; that many
+logical difficulties cannot be solved;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45894src" href="#xd33e45894" title="Go to note 39.">39</a> that no <span class="pageNum" id="pb541">[<a href="#pb541">541</a>]</span>absolute distinction can be drawn between much and little, in short between all differences
+in quantity; and that it is the most natural course in all such cases to follow Chrysippus,
+and to avoid the dangerous inferences which may be drawn by withholding judgment.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45912src" href="#xd33e45912" title="Go to note 40.">40</a> Arguing from these facts, Carneades concluded at first in regard to impressions of
+the senses, that there is no such thing as <span class="trans" title="phantasia katalēptikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία καταληπτικὴ</span></span> in the Stoic sense of the term, in other words, that no perception contains in itself
+characteristics, by virtue of which its truth may be inferred with certainty.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45926src" href="#xd33e45926" title="Go to note 41.">41</a> This fact being granted, the possibility is in his opinion precluded of there residing
+in the understanding a standard for the distinction of truth from falsehood. The understanding—and
+this belief was shared by his opponents—must derive its material from the senses.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45932src" href="#xd33e45932" title="Go to note 42.">42</a> Logic tests the formal accuracy of combinations of thought, but gives no insight
+into their import.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45936src" href="#xd33e45936" title="Go to note 43.">43</a> Direct proofs of the uncertainty of intellectual convictions are not therefore needed.
+The same result may also be attained in a more personal way, by raising the question,
+how individuals obtain their <span class="pageNum" id="pb542">[<a href="#pb542">542</a>]</span>knowledge. He can only be said to know a thing who has formed an opinion respecting
+it. In the mean time, until he has decided in favour of some definite opinion, he
+has still no knowledge. And what dependence can be placed on the judgment of one who
+has no knowledge?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45947src" href="#xd33e45947" title="Go to note 44.">44</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Attack on the scientific knowledge of the time.</i><br>(α) <i>The physical views of the Stoics attacked.</i></span>
+In these formal enquiries into the possibility of knowledge, Carneades had chiefly
+to deal with the Stoics, with whom he holds a common ground in his appeal to the senses.
+The Stoics were also his chief opponents in his polemic against the material results
+of the dogmatic philosophy. Natural science having throughout the period of the post-Aristotelian
+philosophy been subordinated to ethics, ethics likewise engaged more attention at
+the hands of Carneades than science.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45962src" href="#xd33e45962" title="Go to note 45.">45</a> In as far as he studied Natural science, he appears to have been entirely opposed
+to the Stoic treatment of the subject, and to this circumstance we owe it, that better
+information is forthcoming regarding his scientific, or rather his theological, investigations
+than regarding his moral views. The Stoic theories of God and of final causes<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45966src" href="#xd33e45966" title="Go to note 46.">46</a> afforded ample scope for the exercise of his ingenuity, and from the ground he occupied
+it was not difficult for him to expose the weak points of that theory. <span class="pageNum" id="pb543">[<a href="#pb543">543</a>]</span>The Stoics had appealed in support of the belief in God to the <i>consensus gentium</i>. How close at hand was the answer,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45976src" href="#xd33e45976" title="Go to note 47.">47</a> that the universality of this belief was neither proved to exist, nor as a matter
+of fact did it exist, but that in no case could the opinion of an ignorant multitude
+decide anything. The Stoics thought to find a proof of divine providence in the manner
+in which portents and prophecies come true. To expose this delusion, no very expanded
+criticism of divination was necessary.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45981src" href="#xd33e45981" title="Go to note 48.">48</a> Going beyond this, Carneades proceeded to call in question the cardinal point of
+the Stoic system—the belief in God, the doctrine of the soul and reason of the universe,
+and of the presence of design in its arrangements. How, he asks, is the presence of
+design manifested? Whence all the things which cause destruction and danger to men
+if it be true that God has made the world for the sake of man?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45986src" href="#xd33e45986" title="Go to note 49.">49</a> If reason is praised as the highest gift of God, is it not manifest that the majority
+of men only use it to make themselves worse than brutes? In bestowing such a gift
+God must have been taking but little <span class="pageNum" id="pb544">[<a href="#pb544">544</a>]</span>care of this majority.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e45997src" href="#xd33e45997" title="Go to note 50.">50</a> Even if we attribute to man direct blame for the misuse of reason, still, why has
+God bestowed on him a reason which can be so much abused?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46001src" href="#xd33e46001" title="Go to note 51.">51</a> The Stoics themselves say that a wise man can nowhere be found. They admit, too,
+that folly is the greatest misfortune. How, then, can they speak of the care bestowed
+by God on men, when, on their own confession, the whole of mankind is sunk in the
+deepest misery?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46005src" href="#xd33e46005" title="Go to note 52.">52</a> But allowing that the Gods could not bestow virtue and wisdom upon all, they could,
+at least, have taken care that it should go well with the good. Instead of this, the
+experience of hundreds of cases shows that the upright man comes to a miserable end;
+that crime succeeds; and that the criminal can enjoy the fruits of his misdeeds undisturbed.
+Where, then, is the agency of Providence?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46010src" href="#xd33e46010" title="Go to note 53.">53</a> The facts being entirely different from what the Stoics suppose, what becomes of
+their inferences? Allowing the presence of design in the world, and granting that
+the world is as beautiful and good as possible, why is it inconceivable that nature
+should have formed the world according to natural laws without the intervention of
+God? Admitting, too, the connection of parts in the universe, why should not this
+connection be the result simply of natural forces, without a soul of the universe
+or a deity?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46014src" href="#xd33e46014" title="Go to note 54.">54</a> Who can pretend to be so intimately <span class="pageNum" id="pb545">[<a href="#pb545">545</a>]</span>acquainted with the powers of nature, as to be able to prove the impossibility of
+this assumption? Zeno argued that rational things are better than things irrational,
+that the world is the best possible, and must therefore be rational. Man, says Socrates,
+can only derive his soul from the world; therefore the world must have a soul. But
+what, replies the Academician,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46022src" href="#xd33e46022" title="Go to note 55.">55</a> is there to show that reason is best for the world, if it be the best for us? or
+that there must be a soul in nature for nature to produce a soul? What man is not
+able to produce, that, argues Chrysippus, must have been produced by a higher being—by
+deity. But to this inference the same objection was raised by the Academicians as
+to the former one, viz. that it confounds two different points of view. There may,
+indeed, be a Being higher than man. But why must there needs be a rational man-like
+Being? Why a God? Why not nature herself?<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46026src" href="#xd33e46026" title="Go to note 56.">56</a> Nor did the argument seem to an Academician more conclusive, that as every house
+is destined to be inhabited, so, too, the world must be intended for the habitation
+of God. To this there was the obvious reply:<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46030src" href="#xd33e46030" title="Go to note 57.">57</a> If the world were a house, it might be so; but the very point at issue is whether
+it is a house constructed for a definite purpose, or whether it is simply an undesigned
+result of natural forces.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(β) <i>Theological views of the Stoics attacked.</i></span>
+Not content with attacking the conclusiveness of the arguments upon which the Stoics
+built their belief in a God, the scepticism of the Academy <span class="pageNum" id="pb546">[<a href="#pb546">546</a>]</span>sought to demonstrate that the idea of God itself is an untenable one. The line of
+argument which Carneades struck out for this purpose is essentially the same as that
+used in modern times to deny the personality of God. The ordinary view of God regards
+Him as an infinite, but, at the same time, as a separate Being, possessing the qualities
+and living the life of an individual. To this view Carneades objected, on the ground
+that the first assertion contradicts the second; and argues that it is impossible
+to apply the characteristics of personal existence to God without limiting His infinite
+nature. Whatever view we may take of God, we must regard Him as a living Being; and
+every living being is composite, having parts and passions, and is therefore destructible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46040src" href="#xd33e46040" title="Go to note 58.">58</a> Moreover, every living being has a sense-nature. Far, therefore, from refusing such
+a nature to God, Carneades attributed to Him, in the interest of omniscience, other
+organs of sense than the five we possess. Now, everything capable of impressions through
+the senses is also liable to change, sensation, according to the definition of Chrysippus,
+being nothing more than a change of soul. Every such being must therefore be capable
+of pleasure and pain, without which sensation is inconceivable. Whatever is capable
+of change is liable to destruction; whatever is susceptible to pain is also liable
+to deterioration, pain being caused by deterioration, and is also liable to destruction.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46044src" href="#xd33e46044" title="Go to note 59.">59</a> As the <span class="pageNum" id="pb547">[<a href="#pb547">547</a>]</span>capacity for sensation, so too the desire for what is in harmony with nature, and
+the dislike of what is opposed to nature, belong to the conditions of life. Whatever
+has the power of destroying any being is opposed to the nature of that being, everything
+that lives being exposed to annihilation.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46054src" href="#xd33e46054" title="Go to note 60.">60</a> Advancing from the conception of a living being to that of a rational being, all
+virtues would have to be attributed to God as well as bliss. But how, asks Carneades,
+can any virtue be ascribed to God? Every virtue supposes an imperfection, in overcoming
+which it consists. He only is continent who might possibly be incontinent, and persevering
+who might be indulgent. To be brave, a man must be exposed to danger; to be magnanimous,
+he must be exposed to misfortunes. A being not feeling attraction for pleasure, nor
+aversion for pain and difficulties, dangers and misfortunes, would not be capable
+of virtue. Just as little could we predicate prudence of a being not susceptible of
+pleasure and pain; prudence consisting in knowing what is good, bad, and morally indifferent.
+But how can there be any such knowledge where there is no susceptibility to pleasure
+or pain? Or how can a being be conceived of capable of feeling pleasure, but incapable
+of feeling pain, since pleasure can only be known by contrast with pain, and the possibility
+of increasing life always supposes the possibility of lessening it? Nor is it otherwise
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb548">[<a href="#pb548">548</a>]</span>with intelligence (<span class="trans" title="euboulia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐβουλία</span></span>). He only is intelligent who always discovers what will subserve his purpose. If,
+however, he must discover it, it cannot have been previously known to him. Hence intelligence
+can only belong to a being who is ignorant about much. Such a being can never feel
+sure that sooner or later something will not cause his ruin. He will therefore be
+exposed to fear. A being susceptible of pleasure and exposed to pain, a being who
+has to contend with dangers and difficulties, and who feels pain and fear, must inevitably,
+so thought Carneades, be finite and destructible. If, therefore, we cannot conceive
+of God except in this form, we cannot conceive of Him at all, our conception being
+self-destructive.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46071src" href="#xd33e46071" title="Go to note 61.">61</a>
+</p>
+<p>There is yet another reason, according to Carneades, why God cannot have any virtue;
+because virtue is above its possessor, and there can be nothing above God.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46087src" href="#xd33e46087" title="Go to note 62.">62</a> Moreover, what is the position of God in regard to speech? It was easy to show the
+absurdity of attributing speech to Him,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46091src" href="#xd33e46091" title="Go to note 63.">63</a> but to call him speechless (<span class="trans" title="aphōnos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄφωνος</span></span>) seemed also to be opposed to the general belief.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46102src" href="#xd33e46102" title="Go to note 64.">64</a> Quite independently, however, <span class="pageNum" id="pb549">[<a href="#pb549">549</a>]</span>of details, the inconceivableness of God appears, so soon as the question is raised,
+whether the deity is limited or unlimited, material or immaterial. God cannot be unlimited;
+for what is unlimited is necessarily immovable because it has no place, and soulless
+because by virtue of its boundlessness it cannot form a whole permeated by a soul;
+but God we ordinarily think of both as moving and as endowed with a soul. Nor can
+God be limited; for all that is limited is incomplete. Moreover, God cannot be immaterial,
+for Carneades, like the Stoics, held that what is immaterial possesses neither soul,
+feeling, nor activity. Neither can he be material, all composite bodies being liable
+to change and destruction, and simple bodies, fire, water, and the like, possessing
+neither life nor reason.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46109src" href="#xd33e46109" title="Go to note 65.">65</a> If, then, all the forms under which we think of God are impossible, His existence
+cannot be asserted.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(γ) <i>Polytheistic views attacked.</i></span>
+Easier work lay before the Sceptics in criticising polytheistic views of religion
+and their defence by the Stoics. Among the arguments employed by Carneades to overthrow
+them, certain chain-arguments are prominent, by means of which he endeavoured to show
+that the popular belief has no distinctive marks for the spheres of God and man. <span class="pageNum" id="pb550">[<a href="#pb550">550</a>]</span>If Zeus is a God, he argues, his brother Poseidon must likewise be one, and if he
+is one, the rivers and streams must also be Gods. If Helios is a God, the appearance
+of Helios above the earth, or day, must be a God; and, consequently, month, year,
+morning, midday, evening, must all be Gods.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46132src" href="#xd33e46132" title="Go to note 66.">66</a> Polytheism is here refuted by establishing an essential similarity between what is
+accepted as God and what is avowedly not a God. It may readily be supposed that this
+was not the only proof of the acuteness of Carneades’ reasoning.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46146src" href="#xd33e46146" title="Go to note 67.">67</a>
+</p>
+<p>Divination, to which the Stoics attached especial importance,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46153src" href="#xd33e46153" title="Go to note 68.">68</a> was vigorously assailed. Carneades proved that no peculiar range of subjects belonged
+thereto, but that in all cases which admit professional judgment experts pass a better
+judgment than diviners.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46158src" href="#xd33e46158" title="Go to note 69.">69</a> To know accidental events beforehand is impossible; it is useless to know those that
+are necessary and unavoidable, nay, more, it would even be harmful.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46162src" href="#xd33e46162" title="Go to note 70.">70</a> No causal connection can be conceived of between a prophecy and the ensuing realisation.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46166src" href="#xd33e46166" title="Go to note 71.">71</a> If the Stoics met him by pointing to fulfilled prophecies, he replied that the coincidence
+was accidental,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46173src" href="#xd33e46173" title="Go to note 72.">72</a> at <span class="pageNum" id="pb551">[<a href="#pb551">551</a>]</span>the same time declaring many such stories to be without doubt false.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46181src" href="#xd33e46181" title="Go to note 73.">73</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(δ) <i>Moral views of the Stoics attacked.</i></span>
+Connected probably with these attacks on divination was the defence by Carneades of
+the freedom of the will. The Stoic fatalism he refuted by an appeal to the fact that
+our decision is free; and since the Stoics appealed in support of their view to the
+law of causality, he likewise attacked this law.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46190src" href="#xd33e46190" title="Go to note 74.">74</a> In so doing his intention was not to assert anything positive respecting the nature
+of the human will, but only to attack the Stoic assertion, and if for his own part
+he adhered to the old Academic doctrine of a free will, he still regarded that doctrine
+as only probable.
+</p>
+<p>Less information exists as to the arguments by which Carneades sought to assail the
+current principles of morality. Nevertheless, enough is known to indicate the course
+taken by his Scepticism in relation thereto. In the second of the celebrated speeches
+which he delivered at Rome in the year 156 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46199src" href="#xd33e46199" title="Go to note 75.">75</a> he denied that there is such a thing as natural right: all laws are only positive
+civil institutions devised by men for the sake of safety and advantage, and for the
+protection of the weak; and hence he is regarded as foolish who prefers justice to
+interest, which after <span class="pageNum" id="pb552">[<a href="#pb552">552</a>]</span>all is the only unconditional end. In support of these statements he appealed to the
+fact that laws change with circumstances, and are different in different countries.
+He pointed to the example of great nations, such as the Romans, all of whom attained
+to greatness by unrighteous means. He impressed into his service the many casuistical
+questions raised by the Stoics, expressing the opinion that in all these cases it
+is better to commit the injury which brings advantage—for instance, to murder another
+to save one’s own life—than to postpone advantage to right, and hence inferred that
+intelligence is a state of irreconcileable opposition to justice.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46211src" href="#xd33e46211" title="Go to note 76.">76</a>
+</p>
+<p>This free criticism of dogmatic views could not fail to bring Carneades to the same
+result as his predecessors. Knowledge is absolutely impossible. A man of sense will
+look at everything from all sides and invariably withhold judgment, thus guarding
+himself against error.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46221src" href="#xd33e46221" title="Go to note 77.">77</a> And to this conviction <span class="pageNum" id="pb553">[<a href="#pb553">553</a>]</span>he clings so persistently that he altogether refuses to listen to the objection that
+the wise man must be at least <i>convinced</i> of the impossibility of any firm conviction.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46317src" href="#xd33e46317" title="Go to note 78.">78</a> The earlier Sceptics, far from attributing on this ground an equal value to all notions,
+had not dispensed with reasons for actions and
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch23.b.2">(2) <i>Positive side of the teaching of Carneades.</i><br>(<i>a</i>) <i>Theory of probabilities.</i></span>
+thoughts. This point was now taken up by Carneades, who, in attempting to establish
+the conditions and degrees of probability, hoped to obtain a clue to the kind of conviction
+which might be still permitted in his system. However much we may despair of knowledge,
+some stimulus and groundwork for action is needed. Certain things must therefore be
+assumed, from which the pursuit of happiness must start.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46331src" href="#xd33e46331" title="Go to note 79.">79</a> To these so much weight must be attached that they are allowed to decide our conduct,
+but we must be on our guard against considering them to be true, or to be something
+really known and conceived. Nor must we forget that <span class="pageNum" id="pb554">[<a href="#pb554">554</a>]</span>even the nature of true ideas is similar to that of false ones, and that the truth
+of ideas can never be known with certainty. Hence we should withhold all assent, not
+allowing any ideas to be true, but only to have the appearance of truth (<span class="trans" title="alēthē phainesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀληθῆ φαίνεσθαι</span></span>) or probability (<span class="trans" title="emphasis, pithanotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔμφασις, πιθανότης</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46392src" href="#xd33e46392" title="Go to note 80.">80</a> In every notion two things need to be considered, the relation to the object represented
+which makes it either true or false, and the relation to the subject who has the notion,
+which makes it <i>seem</i> either true or false. The former relation is, for the reasons already quoted, quite
+beyond the compass of our judgment; the latter, the relation of a notion to ourselves,
+falls within the sphere of consciousness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46401src" href="#xd33e46401" title="Go to note 81.">81</a> So long as a notion seemingly true is cloudy and indistinct, like an object contemplated
+from a distance, it makes no great impression on us. When, on the contrary, the appearance
+of truth is strong, it produces in us a belief<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46405src" href="#xd33e46405" title="Go to note 82.">82</a> strong enough to determine us to action, although it does not come up to the impregnable
+certainty of knowledge.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46427src" href="#xd33e46427" title="Go to note 83.">83</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb555">[<a href="#pb555">555</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Belief, however, like probability, is of several degrees. The lowest degree of probability
+arises when a notion produces by itself an impression of truth, without being taken
+in connection with other notions. The next higher degree is when that impression is
+confirmed by the agreement of all notions which are related to it. The third and highest
+degree is when an investigation of all these notions results in producing the same
+corroboration for all. In the first case a notion is called probable (<span class="trans" title="pithanē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πιθανή</span></span>); in the second probable and undisputed (<span class="trans" title="pithanē kai aperispastos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πιθανὴ καὶ ἀπερίσπαστος</span></span>); in the third probable, undisputed, and tested (<span class="trans" title="pithanē kai aperispastos kai periōdeumenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πιθανὴ καὶ ἀπερίσπαστος καὶ περιωδευμένη</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46487src" href="#xd33e46487" title="Go to note 84.">84</a> Within each one of these three classes different gradations of probability are again
+possible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46493src" href="#xd33e46493" title="Go to note 85.">85</a> The distinguishing marks, which must be considered in the investigation of probability,
+appear to have been investigated by Carneades in the spirit of the Aristotelian logic.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46498src" href="#xd33e46498" title="Go to note 86.">86</a> In proportion to the greater or less practical importance of a question, or to the
+accuracy of investigation which the circumstances allow, we must adhere to one or
+the other degree of probability.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46502src" href="#xd33e46502" title="Go to note 87.">87</a> Although no one of them is of such a nature as to exclude the possibility of error,
+this circumstance need not deprive us of certainty in <span class="pageNum" id="pb556">[<a href="#pb556">556</a>]</span>respect to actions, provided we have once convinced ourselves that the absolute certainty
+of our practical premisses is not possible.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46508src" href="#xd33e46508" title="Go to note 88.">88</a> Just as little should we hesitate to affirm or deny anything in that conditional
+way which is alone possible after what has been stated. Assent will be given to no
+notion in the sense of its being absolutely true, but to many notions in the sense
+that we consider them highly probable.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46514src" href="#xd33e46514" title="Go to note 89.">89</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote">(<i>b</i>) <i>Moral and religious view of life.</i></span>
+Among questions about which the greatest possible certainty is felt to be desirable,
+Carneades, true to his whole position, gave a prominent place to principles of morals;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46529src" href="#xd33e46529" title="Go to note 90.">90</a> life and action being the principal things with which the theory of probability has
+to do.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46549src" href="#xd33e46549" title="Go to note 91.">91</a> We hear, therefore, that he thoroughly discussed the fundamental questions of Ethics,
+the question as to the highest Good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46552src" href="#xd33e46552" title="Go to note 92.">92</a> On this subject he <span class="pageNum" id="pb557">[<a href="#pb557">557</a>]</span>distinguished six, or relatively four, different views. If the primary object of desire
+can in general only consist of those things which correspond with our nature, and
+which consequently call our emotions into exercise, the object of desire must be either
+pleasure, or absence of pain, or conformity with nature. In each of these three cases
+two opposite results are possible: either the highest Good may consist in the attainment
+of a purpose, or else in the activity which aims at its attainment. The latter is
+the view of the Stoics only, and arises from regarding natural activity or virtue
+as the highest Good. Hence the six possible views are practically reduced to four,
+which taken by themselves, or else in combination, include all existing views respecting
+the highest Good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46561src" href="#xd33e46561" title="Go to note 93.">93</a> But so ambiguously did Carneades express himself as to his particular preference
+of any one view, that even Clitomachus declared he was ignorant as to his real opinion.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46568src" href="#xd33e46568" title="Go to note 94.">94</a> It was only tentatively and for the purpose of refuting the Stoics, that he propounded
+the statement that the highest Good consists in the enjoyment of such things as afford
+satisfaction to the primary impulses <span class="pageNum" id="pb558">[<a href="#pb558">558</a>]</span>of nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46574src" href="#xd33e46574" title="Go to note 95.">95</a> Nevertheless, the matter has often been placed in such a light as though Carneades
+had propounded this statement on his own account; and the statement itself has been
+quoted to prove that he considered the satisfaction of natural impulses apart from
+virtue as an end in itself.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46589src" href="#xd33e46589" title="Go to note 96.">96</a> It is also asserted that he approximated to the view of Callipho, which does not
+appear to have been essentially different from that of the older Academy.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46604src" href="#xd33e46604" title="Go to note 97.">97</a> The same leaning to the older Academy and its doctrine of moderation appears in other
+recorded parts of the Ethics of Carneades. The pain caused by misfortune he wished
+to lessen by thinking beforehand of its possibility;<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46614src" href="#xd33e46614" title="Go to note 98.">98</a> and after the destruction of Carthage he deliberately asserted before Clitomachus
+that the wise man would never allow himself to be disturbed, not even by the downfall
+of his country.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46619src" href="#xd33e46619" title="Go to note 99.">99</a>
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb559">[<a href="#pb559">559</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Putting all these statements together, we obtain a view not unworthy of Carneades,
+and certainly quite in harmony with his position. That philosopher could not, consistently
+with his sceptical principles, allow scientific certainty to any of the various opinions
+respecting the nature and aim of moral action; and in this point he attacked the Stoics
+with steady home-thrusts. Their inconsistency in calling the choice of what is natural
+the highest business of morality, and yet not allowing to that which is according
+to nature a place among goods,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46634src" href="#xd33e46634" title="Go to note 100.">100</a> was so trenchantly exposed by him that Antipater is said to have been brought to
+admit that not the objects to which choice is directed, but the actual choice itself
+is a good.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46637src" href="#xd33e46637" title="Go to note 101.">101</a> He even asserted that the Stoic theory of Goods only differed in words from that
+of the Peripatetics; to this assertion he was probably led by the fact that the Stoic
+morality appeals to nature only, or perhaps by the theory therewith connected of things
+to be desired and things to be eschewed.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46643src" href="#xd33e46643" title="Go to note 102.">102</a> If there were any difference between the two, Stoicism, he thought, ignored the real
+wants of nature. The Stoics, for instance, <span class="pageNum" id="pb560">[<a href="#pb560">560</a>]</span>called a good name a thing indifferent; Carneades, however, drove them so much into
+a corner because of this statement that they ever after (so Cicero assures us) qualified
+their assertion, attributing to a good name at least a secondary value among things
+to be desired (<span class="trans" title="proēgmena"><span lang="grc" class="grek">προηγμένα</span></span>).<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46660src" href="#xd33e46660" title="Go to note 103.">103</a> Chrysippus, again, thought to find some consolation for the ills of life in the reflection
+that no man is free from them. Carneades was, however, of opinion that this thought
+could only afford consolation to a lover of ill; it being rather a matter for sorrow
+that all should be exposed to so hard a fate.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46663src" href="#xd33e46663" title="Go to note 104.">104</a> Believing, too, that man’s happiness does not depend on any theory of ethics,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46667src" href="#xd33e46667" title="Go to note 105.">105</a> he could avow without hesitation that all other views of morality do not go beyond
+probability; and thus the statement of Clitomachus, as far as it refers to a definite
+decision as to the highest good, is without doubt correct. But just as the denial
+of knowledge does not, according to the view of Carneades, exclude conviction in general
+on grounds of probability, no more does it in the province of ethics. Here, then,
+is the intermediate position which was attributed to him—a position not only suggested
+by the traditions of the Academic School, but remaining as a last resource to the
+sceptical destroyer of systems so opposite as Stoicism and the theory of pleasure.
+The inconsistency of at <span class="pageNum" id="pb561">[<a href="#pb561">561</a>]</span>one time identifying the satisfaction of natural instincts with virtue, and at another
+time distinguishing it from virtue, which is attributed to Carneades, is an inconsistency
+for which probably Cicero is alone responsible. The real meaning of Carneades can
+only be that virtue consists in an activity directed towards the possession of what
+is according to nature, and hence that it cannot as the highest Good be separated
+from accordance with nature.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46676src" href="#xd33e46676" title="Go to note 106.">106</a> For the same reason, virtue supplies all that is requisite for happiness.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46702src" href="#xd33e46702" title="Go to note 107.">107</a> Hence, when it is stated that, notwithstanding his scepticism on moral subjects,
+Carneades was a thoroughly upright man,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46708src" href="#xd33e46708" title="Go to note 108.">108</a> we have not only no reason to doubt this statement as to his personal character,
+but we can even discern that it was a practical and legitimate consequence of his
+philosophy. It may appear to us inconsistent to build on a foundation of absolute
+doubt the certainty of practical conduct; nevertheless, it is an inconsistency deeply
+rooted in all the scepticism of post-Aristotelian times. That scepticism Carneades
+brought to completeness, and in logically developing his theory, even its scientific
+defects came to light.
+</p>
+<p>For the same reason we may also give credit to <span class="pageNum" id="pb562">[<a href="#pb562">562</a>]</span>the statement that Carneades, like the later Sceptics, notwithstanding his severe
+criticisms on the popular and philosophic theology of his age, never intended to deny
+the existence of divine agencies.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46716src" href="#xd33e46716" title="Go to note 109.">109</a> On this point he acted like a true Sceptic. He expressed doubts as to whether anything
+could be known about God, but for practical purposes he accepted the belief in God
+as an opinion more or less probable and useful.
+</p>
+<p>Taking all things into account, the philosophic importance of Carneades and the School
+of which he was the head cannot be estimated at so low a value as would be the case
+were the New Academy merely credited with entertaining shallow doubts, and Carneades’
+theory of probabilities deduced from rhetorical rather than from philosophical considerations.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46735src" href="#xd33e46735" title="Go to note 110.">110</a> For the last assertion there is no ground whatever; Carneades distinctly avowed that
+a conviction resting on probabilities seemed indispensable for practical needs and
+actions. On this point he is wholly in accord with all the forms of Scepticism, not
+only with the New Academy, but also with Pyrrho and the later Sceptics. He differs
+from them in the degree of accuracy with which he investigates the varieties and conditions
+of probability; but a <span class="pageNum" id="pb563">[<a href="#pb563">563</a>]</span>question of degree can least of all be urged against a philosopher. Nor should doubts
+be called shallow which the ancients even in later times could only very inadequately
+dissipate, and which throw light on several of the deepest problems of life by the
+critical investigations they occasioned. No doubt, in the despair of attaining to
+knowledge at all, and in the attempt to reduce everything to opinion more or less
+certain, indications may be seen of the exhaustion of the intellect, and of the extinction
+of philosophic originality. Nevertheless it must never be forgotten that the scepticism
+of the New Academy was not only in harmony with the course naturally taken by Greek
+philosophy as a whole, but that it was pursued with an acuteness and a scientific
+vigour leaving no doubt that it was a really important link in the chain of philosophic
+development.
+</p>
+<p><span class="marginnote" id="ch23.c">C. <i>School of Carneades.</i></span>
+In Carneades this Scepticism attained its highest growth. The successor of Carneades,
+Clitomachus,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46746src" href="#xd33e46746" title="Go to note 111.">111</a> <span class="pageNum" id="pb564">[<a href="#pb564">564</a>]</span>is known as the literary exponent of the views taught by Carneades.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46805src" href="#xd33e46805" title="Go to note 112.">112</a> At the same time we hear of his being accurately acquainted with the teaching of
+the Peripatetics and Stoics; and although it was no doubt his first aim to refute
+the dogmatism of these Schools, it would appear that Clitomachus entered into the
+connection of their doctrines more fully than is usually the case with opponents.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46811src" href="#xd33e46811" title="Go to note 113.">113</a> As to his fellow-pupil, Charmidas (or Charmadas),<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46824src" href="#xd33e46824" title="Go to note 114.">114</a> one wholly unimportant utterance is our only guide for determining his views.<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46834src" href="#xd33e46834" title="Go to note 115.">115</a> For ascertaining the philosophy of the other pupils of Carneades,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46844src" href="#xd33e46844" title="Go to note 116.">116</a> nothing but the <span class="pageNum" id="pb565">[<a href="#pb565">565</a>]</span>scantiest fragments have been preserved. The statement of Polybius that the Academic
+School degenerated into empty subtleties, and thereby became an object of contempt,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46877src" href="#xd33e46877" title="Go to note 117.">117</a> may deserve no great amount of belief; but it does seem probable that the School
+made no important advance on the path marked out <span class="pageNum" id="pb566">[<a href="#pb566">566</a>]</span>by himself and Arcesilaus. It did not even continue true to that path for very long.
+Not a generation after the death of its most celebrated teacher, and even among his
+own pupils,<a class="noteRef" id="xd33e46910src" href="#xd33e46910" title="Go to note 118.">118</a> that eclecticism began to appear, the general and simultaneous spread of which ushered
+in a new period in the history of the post-Aristotelian philosophy.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb567">[<a href="#pb567">567</a>]</span> </p>
+</div>
+<div class="footnotes">
+<hr class="fnsep">
+<div class="footnote-body">
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e44993">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e44993src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">1</a></span> Conf. <i>Diog.</i> ix. 114. Tennemann’s view (<span lang="de">Gesch. d. Phil.</span> iv. 190), that Arcesilaus arrived at his conclusions independently <span class="pageNum" id="pb529n">[<a href="#pb529n">529</a>]</span>of Pyrrho, does not appear to be tenable.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e44993src" title="Return to note 1 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45005">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45005src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">2</a></span> Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 10; 6, 5, says that Zeno and Arcesilaus were fellow-pupils under
+Polemo, and that their rivalry whilst at school was the origin of the later quarrels
+between the Stoa and the Academy. The same may have been stated by Antiochus, since
+<i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 9, 35, ii. 24, 76, appeals to him to prove that they were together at school.
+Still the assertion is valueless. There can be no doubt that both Zeno and Arcesilaus
+were pupils of Polemo, but it is hardly possible that they can have been under him
+at the same time; nor if they were, could the intellectual differences of the two
+schools be referred simply to their personal relation.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45005src" title="Return to note 2 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45014">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45014src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">3</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. ii. 18, 68; <i>Diog.</i> iv. 28; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16; <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 220. <i>Clemens</i>, Strom. i. 301, <span class="asc">C</span>, calls Arcesilaus the founder of the New (second or middle) Academy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45014src" title="Return to note 3 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45029">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45029src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">4</a></span> Arcesilaus (see <i>Geffers</i>, De Arcesila, Gött. 1842, Gymn. Progr.) was born at Pitane, in Æolia (<i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 1, 67, p. 614; <i>Diog.</i> iv. 28). His birth-year is not stated; but as Lacydes (<i>Diog.</i> iv. 61) was his successor in 240 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, and he was then 75 years of age (<i>Diog.</i> 44), it must have been about 315 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> Having enjoyed the instruction of the mathematician Autolycus in his native town,
+he repaired to Athens, where he was first a pupil of Theophrastus, but was won for
+the Academy by Crantor (<i>Diog.</i> 29; Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> xiv. 6, 2). With Crantor he lived on the most intimate terms; but as Polemo was the
+president of the Academy, he is usually called a pupil of Polemo (<i>Cic.</i> De Orat. iii. 18, 67; Fin. v. 31, 94; <i>Strabo</i>). On the death of Polemo, he was probably a pupil of Crates; but it is not stated
+by <i>Diog.</i> 33, or Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> l.c. xiv. 5, 10, that he was a pupil of either Pyrrho, Menedemus, or Diodorus. If
+Eusebius seems to imply it, he may have <span class="pageNum" id="pb530n">[<a href="#pb530n">530</a>]</span>misunderstood the statement that he made use of their teaching. Fortified with extraordinary
+acuteness, penetrating wit, and ready speech (<i>Diog.</i> 30; 34; 37; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 18; Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> xiv. 6, 2; <i>Plut.</i> De Sanit. 7, p. 126; Qu. Conv. vii. 5, 3, 7; ii. 1, 10, 4; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 193, 28), learned, especially in mathematics (<i>Diog.</i> 32), and well acquainted with native poets (<i>Diog.</i> 30, who mentions his own attempts at poetry, quoting some of his epigrams), he appears
+to have early distinguished himself. From <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 26, p. 1121, it appears that in Epicurus’ lifetime, consequently before
+270 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, he had propounded his sceptical views with great success. Apollodorus, however,
+appears to have placed his career too early (<i>Diog.</i> 45), in making his <span class="trans" title="akmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκμὴ</span></span> between 300 and 296 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> On the death of Crates, the conduct of the School devolved upon Arcesilaus (<i>Diog.</i> 32), through whom it attained no small note (<i>Strabo</i>, i. 2, 2, p. 15; <i>Diog.</i> 37; Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> xiv. 6, 14). From public matters he held aloof, and lived in retirement (<i>Diog.</i> 39), esteemed even by opponents for his pure, gentle, and genial character (<i>Diog.</i> 37; quoting many individual traits, 44; vii. 171; ix. 115; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. v. 31, 94; <i>Plut.</i> De Adulat. 22, p. 63; Coh. Ira, 13, p. 461. <i>Ælian</i>, V.&nbsp;H. xiv. 96). On his relations to Cleanthes, conf. <i>Diog.</i> vii. 171; <i>Plut.</i> De Adulat. 11, p. 55. He left no writings (<i>Diog.</i> 32; <i>Plut.</i> Alex. Virt. 4, p. 328).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45029src" title="Return to note 4 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45128">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45128src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">5</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. iii. 18, 67: <span lang="la">Arcesilas primum … ex variis Platonis libris sermonibusque Socraticis hoc maxime arripuit,
+nihil esse certi quod aut sensibus aut animo percipi possit: quem ferunt … aspernatum
+esse omne animi sensusque judicium, primumque instituisse … non quid ipse sentiret
+ostendere, sed contra id, quod quisque se sentire dixisset, disputare.</span> This is, in fact, the <span lang="la">calumniandi licentia</span> with which <i>Augustin</i>, herein doubtless following Cicero, c. Acad. iii. 17, 39, charges him, <span lang="la">contra omnia velle dicere quasi ostentationis causa.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45128src" title="Return to note 5 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45142">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45142src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">6</a></span> Conf. Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv, 6, 12, and above, p. 86, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45142src" title="Return to note 6 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45150">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45150src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">7</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Adv<span>.</span> Col. 26, 2; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 12, 44. Ritter’s view of <span class="corr" id="xd33e45157" title="Source: thel atter">the latter</span> passage, that Arcesilaus quoted the diversities of philosophic teaching by way of
+refuting it (iii. 478), appears to be entirely without foundation. He rather quoted
+its uniform resemblance by way of overcoming doubt.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45150src" title="Return to note 7 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45161">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45161src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">8</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. iii. 18. See p. 530, 1.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45161src" title="Return to note 8 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45165">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45165src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">9</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 234; <i>Diocles</i> of Cnidus, in Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 6, 5; <i>Augustin</i>, c. Acad. iii. 17, 38. Geffers regards Arcesilaus as a true follower of the older
+Academy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45165src" title="Return to note 9 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45185">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45185src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">10</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 153.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45185src" title="Return to note 10 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45216">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45216src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">11</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. l.c. 154.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45216src" title="Return to note 11 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45220">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45220src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">12</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 24, 27. Zeno asserted: An irresistible or conceptional perception is such
+an impression of a real object as cannot possibly come from an unreal one. Arcesilaus
+endeavoured to prove <span lang="la">nullum tale visum esse a vero, ut non ejusdem modi etiam a falso posset esse</span>. The same view in <i>Sext.</i> l.c. To these may be added discussions on deceptions of the senses and contradictions
+in the statements of the senses in <i>Sext.</i> vii. 408, and others attributed to the Academicians. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 25, 70: <span lang="la">Urgebat Arcesilas Zenonem, cum ipse falsa omnia diceret, quæ sensibus viderentur,
+Zenon autem nonnulla visa esse falsa, non omnia.</span> To these attacks on Zeno <i>Plut.</i> De An. (Fr. vii.) 1, probably refers: <span class="trans" title="hoti ou to epistēton aition tēs epistēmēs hōs Arkesilaos. houtō gar kai anepistēmosynē tēs epistēmēs aitia phaneitai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅτι οὐ τὸ ἐπιστητὸν αἴτιον τῆς ἐπιστήμης ὡς Ἀρκεσίλαος. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἀνεπιστημοσύνη
+τῆς ἐπιστήμης αἴτια φανεῖται</span></span>. All that is here attributed to Arcesilaus is the assertion that <span class="trans" title="epistēton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστητόν</span></span> is the cause of <span class="trans" title="epistēmē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη</span></span>, and that it is so when it produces a <span class="trans" title="phantasia katalēptikē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία καταληπτική</span></span>. The connection in which these statements were made by Arcesilaus was probably this:
+If there is such a thing as knowledge, there must be objects which produce it. These
+objects, however, do not exist, there being no object which does not admit a false
+opinion equally well with a true one.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45220src" title="Return to note 12 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45271">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45271src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">13</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> 155: <span class="trans" title="mē ousēs de katalēptikēs phantasias oude katalēpsis genēsetai; ēn gar katalēptikē phantasia synkatathesis; mē ousēs de katalēpseōs panta estai akatalēpta"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μὴ οὔσης δὲ καταληπτικῆς φαντασίας οὐδὲ κατάληψις γενήσεται· ἦν γὰρ καταληπτικῇ <span id="xd33e45278">φαντασίᾳ</span> συγκατάθεσις· μὴ οὔσης δὲ καταλήψεως πάντα ἔσται ἀκατάληπτα</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45271src" title="Return to note 13 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45287">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45287src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">14</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c.; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 12, 45; ii. 20, 66; <i>Plut.</i> Adv. <span class="pageNum" id="pb533n">[<a href="#pb533n">533</a>]</span>Col. 24, 2; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16; 6, 4. By <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 233, it is thus expressed: Arcesilaus regards <span class="trans" title="epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐποχὴ</span></span> as being a good in every case, <span class="trans" title="synkatathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκατάθεσις</span></span> as an evil.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45287src" title="Return to note 14 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45321">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45321src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">15</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. i. 12, 45.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45321src" title="Return to note 15 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45325">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45325src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">16</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 1, 2; v. 4, 11; De Orat. iii. 18, 67; <i>Diog.</i> iv. 28; conf. <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 37, 7.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45325src" title="Return to note 16 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45333">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45333src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">17</a></span> <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 82, 4: <span class="trans" title="Arkesilaos ho philosophos ephē tous dialektikous eoikenai tois psēphopaiktais"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀρκεσίλαος ὁ φιλόσοφος ἔφη τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς ἐοικέναι τοῖς ψηφοπαίκταις</span></span> (jugglers), <span class="trans" title="hoitines charientōs paralogizontai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἵτινες χαριέντως παραλογίζονται</span></span>; and, <i>Ibid.</i> 10 (under the heading: <span class="trans" title="Arkesilaou ek tōn Serēnou apomnēmoneumatōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀρκεσιλάου ἐκ τῶν Σερήνου ἀπομνημονευμάτων</span></span>): <span class="trans" title="dialektikēn de pheuge, synkyka tanō katō"><span lang="grc" class="grek">διαλεκτικὴν δὲ φεῦγε, συγκυκᾷ τἄνω κάτω</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45333src" title="Return to note 17 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45371">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45371src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">18</a></span> The authority is a very uncertain one, particularly as Arcesilaus left nothing in
+writing, and the remarks quoted would seem to be more appropriate to the Chian Aristo
+(see p. 59) than to Arcesilaus. Still, if Chrysippus condemned the dialectic of the
+Sceptics (according to p<span>.</span> 66, 1), Arcesilaus may very well have condemned that of the Stoics and Megarians.
+Does not even <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 28, 91, probably following Carneades (see p. 541, 4), object to dialectic,
+because it furnishes no knowledge?&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45371src" title="Return to note 18 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45378">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45378src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">19</a></span> This fact is recognised not only by Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 6, 4, but by <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 232. The difference which the later Sceptics draw between themselves and
+the Academicians, viz. that they assert the principle of doubt tentatively, whereas
+the Academicians assert it absolutely, <span class="pageNum" id="pb534n">[<a href="#pb534n">534</a>]</span>does not apply to Arcesilaus (see p. 533, 1). Even Sextus says the same, but with
+some diffidence (<span class="trans" title="plēn ei mē legoi tis hoti k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">πλὴν εἰ μὴ λέγοι τις ὅτι κ.τ.λ.</span></span>). On account of this connection with Pyrrho, the Stoic Aristo called Arcesilaus (following
+Il. vi. 181): <span class="trans" title="prosthe Platōn opithen Pyrrhōn, mesos Diodōros"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρόσθε Πλάτων ὄπιθεν Πύῤῥων, μέσος Διόδωρος</span></span>. <i>Sext.</i> l.c.; Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 11; <i>Diog.</i> iv. 33.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45378src" title="Return to note 19 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45413">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45413src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">20</a></span> It has been already seen that this was the key to the position which the Stoics and
+Epicureans took up against the Sceptics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45413src" title="Return to note 20 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45416">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45416src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">21</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Adv. Col. 26, 3, defending Arcesilaus against the attacks of Colotes, says: The opponents
+of Scepticism cannot show that <span class="trans" title="epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐποχὴ</span></span> leads to inactivity, for <span class="trans" title="panta peirōsi kai strephousin autois ouch hypēkousen hē hormē genesthai synkatathesis oude tēs rhopēs archēn edexato tēn aisthēsin, all’ ex heautēs agōgos epi tas praxeis ephanē mē deomenē tou prostithesthai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα πειρῶσι καὶ στρέφουσιν αὐτοῖς οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν ἡ ὁρμὴ γενέσθαι συγκατάθεσις οὐδὲ
+τῆς ῥοπῆς ἀρχὴν ἐδέξατο τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἀγωγὸς ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις ἐφάνη
+μὴ δεομένη τοῦ προστίθεσθαι</span></span>. Perception arises and influences the will without <span class="trans" title="synkatathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συγκατάθεσις</span></span>. Since this statement was controverted by Chrysippus (<i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 47, 12. See above 87, 1), there can be no doubt that it was propounded
+by Arcesilaus.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45416src" title="Return to note 21 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45451">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45451src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">22</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii 158: <span class="trans" title="all’ epei meta tauta edei kai peri tēs tou Biou diexagōgēs zētein hē tis ou chōris kritēriou pephyken apodidosthai, aph’ hou kai hē eudaimonia, toutesti to tou biou telos, ērtēmenēn echei tēn pistin, phēsin ho Arkesilaos, hoti ho peri pantōn epechōn kanoniei tas haireseis kai phygas kai koinōs tas praxeis tō eulogō, kata touto te proerchomenos to kritērion katorthōsei; tēn men gar eudaimonian periginesthai dia tēs phronēseōs, tēn de phronēsin kineisthai en tois katorthōmasi, to de katorthōma einai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδει καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Βίου διεξαγωγῆς ζητεῖν ἥ τις οὐ χωρὶς κριτηρίου
+πέφυκεν ἀποδίδοσθαι, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ ἡ εὐδαιμονία, τουτέστι τὸ τοῦ βίου τέλος, ἠρτημένην
+ἔχει τὴν πίστιν, φησὶν ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος, ὅτι ὁ περὶ πάντων ἐπέχων κανονιεῖ τᾶς αἱρέσεις
+καὶ φυγὰς καὶ κοινῶς τὰς πράξεις <span id="xd33e45458">τῷ</span> εὐλόγῳ, κατὰ τοῦτό τε προερχόμενος τὸ κριτήριον κατορθώσει· τὴν μὲν γὰρ εὐδαιμονίαν
+περιγίνεσθαι διὰ τῆς φρονήσεως, τὴν δὲ φρόνησιν κινεῖσθαι ἐν τοῖς κατορθώμασι, τὸ
+δὲ κατόρθωμα εἶναι</span></span> (according to the Stoic definition) <span class="trans" title="hoper prachthen eulogon echei tēn apologian. ho prosechōn oun tō eulogō katorthōsei kai eudaimonēsei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὅπερ πραχθὲν εὔλογον ἔχει τὴν ἀπολογίαν. ὁ προσέχων οὖν τῷ εὐλόγῳ κατορθώσει καὶ εὐδαιμονήσει</span></span>. It is a mistake to suppose, with Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 6, <span class="pageNum" id="pb535n">[<a href="#pb535n">535</a>]</span>that, Arcesilaus denied probabilities.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45451src" title="Return to note 22 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45481">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45481src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">23</a></span> In <i>Plut.</i> Tran. An. 9, sub fin. p<span>.</span> 470, he gives the advice rather to devote attention to oneself and ones own life
+than to works of art and other external things. In <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 95, 17, he says: Poverty is burdensome, but educates for virtue. <i>Ibid.</i> 43, 91: Where there are most laws, there are most transgressions of law. <i>Plut.</i> Cons. ad Apoll. 15, p. 110, has a saying of his as to the folly of the fear of death.
+<i>Id.</i> De Sanit. 7, p. 126, Qu. Conv. vii. 5, 3, 7, records a somewhat severe judgment on
+adulterers and prodigals. Quite unique is the statement in <i>Tertull.</i> Ad. Nation. ii. 2: Arcesilaus held that there were three kinds of Gods (in other
+words he divided the popular Gods into three classes): the Olympian, the stars, and
+the Titans. It implies that he criticised the belief in the Gods. It also appears
+by the language used in <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 37, 7, respecting the Stoic theory of a <span class="trans" title="krasis di’ holou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλου</span></span>, that his criticism of dogmatism extended to natural science.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45481src" title="Return to note 23 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45509">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45509src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">24</a></span> Conf. p. 529, 3 sub fin.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45509src" title="Return to note 24 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45517">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45517src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">25</a></span> <i>Geffers</i>, De Arcesilæ Successoribus (including Carneades): Gött. 1845. Arcesilaus was succeeded
+by <i>Lacydes</i> of Cyrene, who died 240 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, after presiding over the School for 26 years. In his lifetime (probably shortly
+before his death) he entrusted it to the care of the Phocæans Telecles and Euandros
+(<i>Diog.</i> iv. 59–61). The statements made in <i>Diog.</i> l.c<span>.</span>, Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, <i>Plut.</i> De Adul. 22, p. 63, <i>Ælian</i>, V.&nbsp;H. ii. 41, <i>Athen.</i> x. 438, a. xiii. 606, <span class="asc">C</span>, <i>Plin.</i> H.&nbsp;N. x. 22, 51, refer to individual peculiarities which he appears to have had<span>.</span> They must be received with caution, particularly the gossip which <i>Diog.</i> 59 mentions casually and Numenius dwells upon with intolerable garrulity. <i>Diog.</i> calls him <span class="trans" title="anēr semnotatos kai ouk oligous eschēkōs zēlōtas; philoponos te ek neou kai penēs men, eucharis d’ allōs kai euomilos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνὴρ σεμνότατος καὶ οὐκ ὀλίγους ἐσχηκὼς ζηλωτάς· φιλόπονός τε ἐκ νέου καὶ πένης <span class="pageNum" id="pb536n">[<a href="#pb536n">536</a>]</span>μὲν, εὔχαρις δ’ ἄλλως καὶ εὐόμιλος</span></span>. To his admirers belongs Attalus I. of Pergamum. A visit to his court was however
+declined in skilful language (<i>Diog.</i> 60, which <i>Geffers</i>, p. 5, clearly misunderstands). In doctrine, he deviated little from Arcesilaus,
+and, having been the first to commit to writing the teaching of the New Academy <span class="corr" id="xd33e45567" title="Source: [">(</span><i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Lak"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λακ</span></span>.: <span class="trans" title="egrapse philosopha kai peri physeōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἔγραψε φιλόσοφα καὶ περὶ φύσεως</span></span>—the latter is somewhat extraordinary for a Sceptic), he was by some mistake called
+its founder (<i>Diog.</i> 59). According to <i>Diog.</i> vii. 183, see p. 46, 1, he appears to have taught in the Academy during Arcesilaus’
+lifetime. Panaretus (<i>Athen.</i> xii. 552, d; <i>Æl.</i> V.&nbsp;H. x. 6), Demophanes, and Ecdemus or Ecdelus (<i>Plutarch.</i> Philopon. 1; Arat. 5, 7) are also called pupils of Arcesilaus. The most distinguished
+pupil of Lacydes, according to <i>Eus.</i> xiv. 7, 12, was Aristippus of Cyrene, also mentioned by <i>Diog.</i> ii. 83. Another, Paulus, is mentioned by Timotheus, in <i>Clemens</i>, Strom. 496, <span class="sc">D.</span> His successors were Telecles and Euander, who jointly presided over the School. Euander,
+however, according to <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 16, <i>Diog.</i> 60, <i>Eus.</i> l.c., survived his colleague, and was followed by Hegesinus (<i>Diog.</i> 60; <i>Cic.</i> l.c.) or Hegesilaus (as he is called by <i>Clemens</i>, Strom. p. 301, <span class="asc">C</span>). who was the immediate predecessor of Carneades. Respecting these individuals nothing
+is known beyond the names.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45517src" title="Return to note 25 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45627">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45627src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">26</a></span> Carneades, the son of Epicomus or Philocomus, was born at Cyrene (<i>Diog.</i> iv. 62; <i>Strabo</i>, xvii. 3, 22, p. 838; <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iv. 3, 5), and died, according to Apollodorus (<i>Diog.</i> 65), 129 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, in his 85th year. <i>Lucian</i>, Macrob. 20, assigns to him the same age. With less probability <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 16, <i>Valer. Max.</i> viii. 7, 5, extend his age to 90, making his birth-year 213 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> Later admirers find it remarkable that his birthday, like Plato’s, occurred on the
+Carnean festival (<i>Plut.</i> Qu. Conv. viii. 1, 2, 1). Little is known of his life. He was a disciple and follower
+of Hegesinus, but at the same time received instruction in dialectic (<i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 30, 98) from the Stoic Diogenes, and studied philosophic literature with
+indefatigable zeal (<i>Diog.</i> 62), more particularly the writings of Chrysippus (<i>Diog.</i> 62; <i>Plut.</i> Sto. Rep. 10, 44; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 13). In 156 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> he took part in the well-known association of philosophers, and produced the greatest
+impression on his Roman hearers by the force of his language and the boldness with
+which he attacked the current principles of morals. Shortly before his death, probably
+also at an earlier period, he became blind (<i>Diog.</i> 66). <span class="pageNum" id="pb537n">[<a href="#pb537n">537</a>]</span>He left no writings, the preservation of his doctrines being the work of his pupils,
+in particular of Clitomachus (<i>Diog.</i> 66, 67; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 31, 98; 32, 102). Respecting his character, we may gather from a few expressions
+that, whilst vigorous in disputation (<i>Diog.</i> 63; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. vi. 14, 10), he was not wanting in a repose of mind which was in harmony with
+his principles (<i>Diog.</i> 66). That he was a just man, notwithstanding his speech against justice, we can well
+believe (<i>Quintil.</i> xii. 1, 35).
+</p>
+<p class="footnote cont">The quotation in <i>Diog.</i> 64 (<span class="trans" title="hē systēsasa physis kai dialysei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἡ συστήσασα φύσις καὶ διαλύσει</span></span>) does not indicate fear of death, but simple resignation to the course of nature.
+Still less does his language on Antipater’s suicide, and also what is quoted in <i>Stob.</i> <span class="corr" id="xd33e45699" title="Not in source">(</span>Floril. 119, 19) that he made a faint-hearted attempt to imitate him which he afterwards
+abandoned. It was only a not very clever way of ridiculing an action which appeared
+to Carneades eminently mad.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45627src" title="Return to note 26 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45704">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45704src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">27</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 220; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12; <i>Lucian</i>, <i>Macrob.</i> 20.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45704src" title="Return to note 27 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45713">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45713src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">28</a></span> His School held him in such esteem, that it considered him, together with Plato, because
+of his birthday (unless the idea grew out of his name), to be a special favourite
+of Apollo. Tradition says that an eclipse of the moon (<i>Suid.</i> <span class="trans" title="Karn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Καρν</span></span>. adds an eclipse of the sun) commemorated his death; <span class="trans" title="sympatheian, hōs an eipoi tis, ainittomenou tou meth’ hēlion kallistou tōn astrōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συμπάθειαν, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, αἰνιττομένου τοῦ μεθ’ ἥλιον καλλίστου τῶν ἄστρων</span></span> (<i>Diog.</i> 64). <i>Strabo</i>, xvii. 3, 22, p. 838, says of him: <span class="trans" title="houtos de tōn ex Akadēmias aristos philosophōn homologeitai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οὗτος δὲ τῶν ἐξ Ἀκαδημίας ἄριστος φιλοσόφων ὁμολογεῖται</span></span>. There was only one opinion among the ancients as to the force of his logic, and
+the power and attraction of his eloquence. These gifts were aided by unusually powerful
+organs (see the anecdotes in <i>Plut.</i> Garrul. 21, p. 513; <i>Diog.</i> 63). Conf. <i>Diog.</i> 62; <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 12, 41; De Orat. ii. 38, 161; iii. 18, 68; <i>Gell.</i> N.&nbsp;A. vi. 14, 10; Numen. in <i>Eusebius</i>, Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 2 and 5; <i>Lactant.</i> Inst. v. 14; <i>Plut.</i> Cato Maj. 22. The latter, speaking of his success at Rome, says: <span class="trans" title="malista d’ hē Karneadou charis, hēs dynamis te pleistē kai doxa tēs dynameōs ouk apodeousa ... hōs pneuma tēn polin ēchēs eneplēse. kai logos kateichen, hōs anēr Hellēn eis ekplēxin hyperphyēs, panta kēlōn kai cheiroumenos, erōta deinon embeblēke tois neois, hyph’ hou tōn allōn hēdonōn kai diatribōn ekpesontes enthousiōsi peri philosophian"><span lang="grc" class="grek">μάλιστα δ’ ἡ Καρνεάδου χάρις, ἧς δύναμίς τε πλείστη καὶ δόξα τῆς δυνάμεως οὐκ ἀποδέουσα
+… ὡς πνεῦμα τὴν πόλιν <span class="corr" id="xd33e45767" title="Source: ἐχῆς">ἠχῆς</span> ἐνέπλησε. καὶ λόγος κατεῖχεν, ὡς ἀνὴρ Ἕλλην εἰς ἔκπληξιν ὑπερφυὴς, πάντα κηλῶν καὶ
+χειρούμενος, ἔρωτα δεινὸν ἐμβέβληκε τοῖς νέοις, ὑφ’ οὗ τῶν ἄλλων ἡδονῶν καὶ διατριβῶν
+ἐκπεσόντες ἐνθουσιῶσι περὶ φιλοσοφίαν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45713src" title="Return to note 28 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45778">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45778src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">29</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 16.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45778src" title="Return to note 29 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45782">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45782src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">30</a></span> See p. 536, note.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45782src" title="Return to note 30 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45790">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45790src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">31</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 159: <span class="trans" title="tauta kai ho Arkesilaos. ho de Karneadēs ou monon tois Stōïkois alla kai pasi tois pro autou antidietasseto peri tou kritēriou"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος. ὁ δὲ Καρνεάδης <span id="xd33e45797">οὐ</span> μόνον τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἀντιδιετάσσετο περὶ τοῦ κριτηρίου</span></span>. In Math. ix. 1, Sextus charges the School of Carneades with unnecessary diffuseness
+in discussing the fundamental principles or every system. The Stoics were, however,
+the chief object of his attack. <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. v. 29, 82; N.&nbsp;D. ii. 65, 162; <i>Plut.</i> Garrul. 23, p. 514; <i>Augustin.</i> c. Acad. iii. 17, 39.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45790src" title="Return to note 31 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45819">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45819src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">32</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c.: <span class="trans" title="kai dē prōtos men autō kai koinos pros pantas esti logos kath’ hon paristatai hoti ouden estin haplōs alētheias kritērion, ou logos ouk aisthēsis ou phantasia ouk allo ti tōn ontōn; panta gar tauta syllēbdēn diapseudetai hēmas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ δὴ πρῶτος μὲν αὐτῷ καὶ κοινὸς πρὸς πάντας ἐστὶ λόγος καθ’ ὃν παρίσταται ὅτι οὐδέν
+ἐστιν ἁπλῶς ἀληθείας κριτήριον, οὐ λόγος οὐκ αἴσθησις οὐ φαντασία <span class="pageNum" id="pb539n">[<a href="#pb539n">539</a>]</span>οὐκ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὄντων· πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα συλλήβδην διαψεύδεται ἡμᾶς</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45819src" title="Return to note 32 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45835">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45835src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">33</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. 160–163.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45835src" title="Return to note 33 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45839">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45839src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">34</a></span> Conf. <i>Sext.</i> vii. 403; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 15, 47; 28, 89—where Carneades is undoubtedly meant, although he is not
+mentioned by name. For the other sceptical arguments which Cicero mentions tally with
+those which Sextus attributes to Carneades, and Cicero makes Antiochus refute them,
+who was the immediate adversary of Carneades.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45839src" title="Return to note 34 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45846">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45846src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">35</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 13, 40; 26, 83, the Academic system of proof rests on the four following
+propositions: (1) that there are false notions; (2) that these cannot be known, i.e.
+be recognised as true; (3) that of two indistinguishable notions, it is impossible
+to know the one and not the other; (4) <span class="pageNum" id="pb540n">[<a href="#pb540n">540</a>]</span>that there is no true notion by the side of which a false one cannot be placed indistinguishable
+from it. The second and third of these propositions are not denied at all, and the
+first is only denied by Epicurus in regard to impressions on the senses. Hence all
+importance attaches to the fourth proposition, to which <i>Sextus</i>, vii. 164 and 402, and Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 4, look as the most important argument.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45846src" title="Return to note 35 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45860">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45860src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">36</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 13, 42: <span lang="la">Dividunt enim in partes et eas quidem magnas: primum in sensus, deinde in ea, quæ
+ducuntur a sensibus et ab omni consuetudine, quam obscurari volunt</span> (the <span class="trans" title="synētheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">συνήθεια</span></span> against which Chrysippus already directed severe attacks. See p. 46, 2; 91, 2). <span lang="la">Tum perveniunt ad eam partem, ut ne ratione quidem et conjectura ulla res percipi
+possit. Hæc autem universa etiam concidunt minutius.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45860src" title="Return to note 36 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45877">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45877src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">37</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> vii. 409; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 26, 84; 7, 19; 25, 79; Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 5. Therewith is probably connected the statement in <i>Galen</i>, De Opt. Doct. c. 2, vol. i. 45, <span class="asc">K</span>, that Carneades persistently denied the axiom that two things that are equal to a
+third are equal to one another. His assertion probably comes to this, that it may
+be possible to distinguish two things as unequal, which cannot be distinguished from
+a third, that therefore two things may appear equal to a third without being or appearing
+equal to one another.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45877src" title="Return to note 37 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45890">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45890src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">38</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> 402 and 408.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45890src" title="Return to note 38 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45894">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45894src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">39</a></span> The fallacy called <span class="trans" title="pseudomenos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ψευδόμενος</span></span> is carefully investigated <span class="pageNum" id="pb541n">[<a href="#pb541n">541</a>]</span>in <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 30, 95 (by Carneades as he says, 98), as an instance in point.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45894src" title="Return to note 39 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45912">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45912src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">40</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> 416; <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 29, 92. Since Chrysippus tried to meet the chain-argument, it may be supposed
+that this fallacy had been used by Arcesilaus against the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45912src" title="Return to note 40 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45926">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45926src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">41</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> vii. 164; <i>Augustin.</i> c. Acad. ii. 5, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45926src" title="Return to note 41 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45932">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45932src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">42</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> 165.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45932src" title="Return to note 42 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45936">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45936src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">43</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 28, 91, who here appears to be following Philo, and, subsequently, Carneades
+as well. Carneades also gives utterance to a similar view of dialectic in <i>Stob.</i> Floril. 93, 13 (conf. <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 2, 4), comparing it to a polypus consuming its own tentacles. It is able,
+he conceives, to expose fallacies, but not to discover truth.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45936src" title="Return to note 43 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45947">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45947src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">44</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 36, 117. Carneades is not mentioned by name, but there can be no doubt
+that the reference is to some Academician, and it is probable that it was the work
+of Carneades.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45947src" title="Return to note 44 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45962">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45962src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">45</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> iv. 62.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45962src" title="Return to note 45 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45966">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45966src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">46</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 2, 5, after a brief description of the Stoical views of Gods: <span lang="la">Contra quos Carneades ita multa disseruit, ut excitaret homines non socordes ad veri
+investigandi cupiditatem.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45966src" title="Return to note 46 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45976">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45976src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">47</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 23, 62; iii. 4, 11. Here, too, Carneades is not mentioned by name, but the
+reference to him is made clear by Cicero’s remark that he is quoting the Academic
+view.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45976src" title="Return to note 47 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45981">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45981src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">48</a></span> Conf. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 5, 11.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45981src" title="Return to note 48 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45986">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45986src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">49</a></span> The Academician in <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 38, 120<span>.</span> That these arguments were used by Carneades is clear from Plut. in <i>Porphyr.</i> De Abst. iii. 20, where, traversing the arguments of the Stoics, he justifies the
+existence of vermin, poisonous plants, and beasts of prey. In answer to Chrysippus’
+assertion, that the final cause of a pig is to be killed, Carneades argues: A pig,
+therefore, by being killed, must attain the object for which it was destined; it is
+always beneficial for a thing to attain its object—therefore it must be beneficial
+to a pig to be killed and eaten.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45986src" title="Return to note 49 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e45997">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e45997src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">50</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 25, 65–70. It is here presumed that the leading thoughts in Cicero’s description
+belong to the School of Carneades.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e45997src" title="Return to note 50 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46001">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46001src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">51</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 31, 76.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46001src" title="Return to note 51 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46005">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46005src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">52</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 32, 79.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46005src" title="Return to note 52 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46010">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46010src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">53</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 32, 80.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46010src" title="Return to note 53 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46014">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46014src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">54</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 38, 120; N. D<span>.</span> iii. 11, 28.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46014src" title="Return to note 54 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46022">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46022src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">55</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 8, 21; 10, 26; 11, 27.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46022src" title="Return to note 55 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46026">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46026src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">56</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 10, 25.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46026src" title="Return to note 56 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46030">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46030src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">57</a></span> L.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46030src" title="Return to note 57 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46040">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46040src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">58</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 12, 29; 14, 34.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46040src" title="Return to note 58 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46044">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46044src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">59</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 13, 32. More fully <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 139–147. <span class="pageNum" id="pb547n">[<a href="#pb547n">547</a>]</span>Here too Carneades is expressly mentioned. But were he not mentioned the agreement
+of the argument with that given by Cicero would show that the same person was being
+referred to.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46044src" title="Return to note 59 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46054">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46054src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">60</a></span> <i>Cic.</i>; <i>Ibid.</i> Further proofs of the transient nature of all earthly beings are there given.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46054src" title="Return to note 60 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46071">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46071src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">61</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ix. 152–175, quotes the same argument for <span class="trans" title="sōphrosynē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σωφροσύνη</span></span>, and so does <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 15, 38. Neither mentions Carneades by name, but since both writers introduce
+these proofs in the same position in a longer argument, in which Carneades is expressly
+mentioned both before and after, there can be no doubt that to him they refer.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46071src" title="Return to note 61 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46087">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46087src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">62</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> ix. 176. The argument has a look of sophistry about it. It alludes to the important
+question which engaged so much attention in the middle ages, viz. How is the universal
+related in Deity to the individual? Are goodness and reason a law for God independent
+of His will or not?&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46087src" title="Return to note 62 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46091">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46091src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">63</a></span> As Epicurus did. See p. 468, 3.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46091src" title="Return to note 63 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46102">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46102src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">64</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> 178.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46102src" title="Return to note 64 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46109">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46109src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">65</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. 148–151; 180. That Sextus here refers to Carneades is clear from his agreement
+with <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. 12, 29–31; 14, 34. Cicero introduces his remarks with the words: <span lang="la">Illa autem, quæ Carneades afferebat, quemadmodum dissolvitis?</span> Sextus himself seems to refer not only individual arguments, but the whole series
+of them, to Carneades, when he continues, 182: <span class="trans" title="ērōtēntai de kai hypo tou Karneadou kai sōritikōs tines k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἠρώτηνται δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Καρνεάδου καὶ σωριτικῶς τινες κ.τ.λ.</span></span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46109src" title="Return to note 65 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46132">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46132src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">66</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> 182–190. More fully in <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 17, 43. Sextus also observes, 190: <span class="trans" title="kai allous dē toioutous sōreitas erōtōsin hoi peri ton Karneadēn eis to mē einai theous"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἄλλους δὴ τοιούτους σωρείτας ἐρωτῶσιν οἱ περὶ τὸν Καρνεάδην εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι θεούς</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46132src" title="Return to note 66 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46146">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46146src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">67</a></span> To him, or probably to his School, belongs the learned argument given by <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 21, 53, to 23, 60, in which he proves the want of unity in traditional
+myths by the multiplicity of Gods of the same name. The whole drift of this argument
+shows that it was borrowed from some Greek treatise.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46146src" title="Return to note 67 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46153">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46153src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">68</a></span> See <i>Cic.</i> Divin. i. 4, 7; 7, 12.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46153src" title="Return to note 68 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46158">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46158src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">69</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 3, 9.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46158src" title="Return to note 69 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46162">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46162src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">70</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> v. 13; but Carneades is not here mentioned by name.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46162src" title="Return to note 70 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46166">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46166src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">71</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> i. 13, 23<span id="xd33e46169">;</span> 49, 109.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46166src" title="Return to note 71 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46173">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46173src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">72</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. and Divin. ii. 21, 48<span>.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46173src" title="Return to note 72 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46181">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46181src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">73</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. ii. 11, 27.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46181src" title="Return to note 73 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46190">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46190src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">74</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, 11, 23; 14, 31. The freedom of the will, he there says, may be asserted
+even granting that every motion is referred to a cause, for it is not necessary that
+this law should hold good of the will. He will therefore confine it to bodily motion,
+and not allow to it unconditional validity.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46190src" title="Return to note 74 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46199">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46199src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">75</a></span> <i>Lact.</i> Instit. v. 14, following <i>Cic.</i> De Rep. iii. 4; <i>Plut.</i> Cato Maj. c. 22; <i>Quintil.</i> Instit. xii. 1, 35.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46199src" title="Return to note 75 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46211">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46211src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">76</a></span> <i>Lactant.</i> l.c. 16; <i>Cic.</i> De Rep. iii. 8–12; 14; 17; Fin<span>.</span> ii. 18, 59. On the above casuistical cases see De Off. iii. 13; 23, 89, and above,
+p. 299, 2. Probably Carneades was the cause of the study of casuistry among the later
+Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46211src" title="Return to note 76 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46221">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46221src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">77</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 34, 108; conf. 31, 98. In <i>Id.</i> Att. xiii. 21, he compares this <span class="trans" title="epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐποχὴ</span></span> to the drawing up of a charioteer, or to the guard of a pugilist. No doubt it is
+with reference to <span class="trans" title="epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐποχὴ</span></span> that <i>Alex. Aphr.</i> De An. 154 a, says: The Academicians consider <span class="trans" title="aptōsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπτωσία</span></span> the <span class="trans" title="prōton oikeion, pros tautēn gar phasin hēmas oikeiōs echein prōtēn, hōste mēden prosptaiein. aprosptōsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πρῶτον οἰκεῖον, πρὸς ταύτην γάρ φασιν ἡμᾶς οἰκείως ἔχειν πρώτην, ὥστε μηδὲν προσπταίειν.
+ἀπροσπτωσία</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="aproptōsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπροπτωσία</span></span> is, according to the Stoic definition (<i>Diog.</i> vii. 46) = <span class="trans" title="epistēmē tou pote dei synkatatithesthai kai mē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐπιστήμη τοῦ πότε δεῖ συγκατατίθεσθαι καὶ μή</span></span>. It consists, therefore, in not giving a hasty assent to any proposition. According
+to the Sceptics, this is only possible, and you are only then safe from error, when
+you give assent to none whatever. <span class="trans" title="aprosptōsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπροσπτωσία</span></span> becomes then identical with <span class="trans" title="epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐποχὴ</span></span> or <span class="trans" title="agnoia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄγνοια</span></span>, which <i>Max. Tyr.</i> Diss. 35, 7, speaks of as the ultimate end of Carneades. <span class="pageNum" id="pb553n">[<a href="#pb553n">553</a>]</span>Hence Carneades, as Arcesilaus had done before him, spoke for and against every subject
+without expressing a decided opinion. <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. i. 5, 11; Acad. ii. 18, 60; Divin. ii. 72, 150; Rep. iii. 5, 8; Tusc. v. 4,
+11; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46221src" title="Return to note 77 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46317">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46317src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">78</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 9, 28.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46317src" title="Return to note 78 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46331">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46331src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">79</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. vii. 166: <span class="trans" title="apatoumenos de kai autos [ho Karneadēs] ti kritērion pros te tēn tou biou diexagōgēn kai pros tēn tēs eudaimonias periktēsin dynamin apanankazetai kai kath’ hauton peri toutou diatattesthai, k.t.l."><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀπατούμενος δὲ καὶ αὐτός [ὁ Καρνεάδης] τι κριτήριον πρός τε τὴν τοῦ βίου διεξαγωγὴν
+καὶ πρὸς τὴν τὴς εὐδαιμονίας περίκτησιν δυνάμιν ἀπαναγκάζεται καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸν περὶ
+τούτου διατάττεσθαι, κ.τ.λ.</span></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 31, 99 (of Clitomachus): <span lang="la">Etenim contra naturam esset, si probabile nihil esset, et sequitur omnis vitæ … eversio.</span> <i>Ibid.</i> 101; 32, 104: <span lang="la">Nam cum placeat, eum qui de omnibus rebus contineat se de assentiendo, moveri tamen
+et agere aliquid, reliquit ejusmodi visa, quibus ad actionem excitemur,</span> etc. Hence the assurance (<i>Ibid.</i> 103; <i>Stob.</i> Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 234) that the Academicians do not wish to go into the question
+of perception. They accept it as a phenomenon of consciousness and a basis of action,
+but they deny that it strictly furnishes knowledge. The senses are <span class="trans" title="hygieis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὑγιεῖς</span></span>, but not <span class="trans" title="akribeis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀκριβεῖς</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46331src" title="Return to note 79 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46392">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46392src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">80</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> and <i>Cic.</i> l.c.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46392src" title="Return to note 80 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46401">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46401src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">81</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. 167–170.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46401src" title="Return to note 81 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46405">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46405src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">82</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 171–173; or, as it is expressed by Cicero, Acad. ii. 24, 78: It is possible <span lang="la">nihil percipere et tamen opinari.</span> It is of no importance that Philo and Metrodorus said Carneades had proved this statement,
+whereas Clitomachus had stated, <span lang="la">hoc magis ab eo disputatum quam probatum.</span> Acad. ii. 48, 148; 21, 67, attributes the statement to Carneades, without any qualification,
+adding only: <span lang="la">Adsensurum</span> (<span lang="la">aliquando</span>, as the latter passage adds) <span lang="la">non percepto,</span> i.e. <span lang="la">opinaturum sapientem.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46405src" title="Return to note 82 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46427">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46427src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">83</a></span> Conf. <i>Augustin.</i> c. Acad. ii. 11, 26 (undoubtedly in point of matter and probably in terms following
+Cicero): <span lang="la">Id probabile vel verisimile Academici vocant, quod nos ad addendum sine adsensione
+potest invitare. Sine adsensione autem dico, ut id quod agimus non opinemur verum
+esse aut non id scire arbitremur, agamus tamen.</span> To <span class="pageNum" id="pb555n">[<a href="#pb555n">555</a>]</span>the same effect, <i>Euseb.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12: Carneades declared it impossible to withhold judgment on all
+points, and asserted <span class="trans" title="panta men einai akatalēpta, ou panta de adēla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">πάντα μὲν εἶναι ἀκατάληπτα, οὐ πάντα δὲ ἄδηλα</span></span>. Conf. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 17, 54, where the objection is raised to the new Academicians: <span lang="la">Ne hoc quidem cernunt, omnia se reddere incerta, quod nolunt; ea dico incerta, quæ
+<span class="trans" title="adēla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἄδηλα</span></span> Græci.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46427src" title="Return to note 83 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46487">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46487src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">84</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. 173; 175–182; Pyrrh. i. 227; conf. <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 11, 33; 31, 99; 32, 104.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46487src" title="Return to note 84 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46493">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46493src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">85</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. 173; 181.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46493src" title="Return to note 85 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46498">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46498src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">86</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 176; 183.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46498src" title="Return to note 86 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46502">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46502src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">87</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> 184.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46502src" title="Return to note 87 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46508">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46508src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">88</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> l.c. 174; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 31, 99.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46508src" title="Return to note 88 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46514">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46514src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">89</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> l.c. 32, 103; 48, 148. This explanation does away with the charge of inconsistency
+which is brought against Carneades in <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 18, 59; 21, 67; 24, 78 (see p. 554, 3), on the ground that he allowed,
+in contradistinction to Arcesilaus, that the wise man will sometimes follow opinion,
+and will give his assent to certain statements. Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 7, even asserts that he expressed his own convictions to his friends
+in private; but this assertion is no more true of him than of Arcesilaus (see p. 531,
+3), as may be seen from the passage on p. 557, 2.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46514src" title="Return to note 89 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46529">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46529src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">90</a></span> <i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 226: <span class="trans" title="agathon gar ti phasin einai hoi Akadēmaïkoi kai kakon, ouch hōsper hēmeis, alla meta tou pepeisthai hoti pithanon esti mallon ho legousin einai agathon hyparchein ē to enantion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀγαθὸν γάρ τί φασιν εἶναι οἱ Ἀκαδημαϊκοὶ καὶ κακὸν, οὐχ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ
+πεπεῖσθαι ὅτι πιθανόν ἐστι μᾶλλον ὃ λέγουσιν εἶναι ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχειν ἢ τὸ ἐναντίον</span></span>; <span class="trans" title="kai epi tou kakou homoiōs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κακοῦ ὁμοίως</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46529src" title="Return to note 90 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46549">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46549src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">91</a></span> See p. 553, 2; 554, 4.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46549src" title="Return to note 91 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46552">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46552src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">92</a></span> Here the question arises, Whence does the Sceptic derive his conviction as to probabilities
+in morals? and as perception is not available for the purpose, Geffers concludes (De
+Arc. Successor. 20) that Carneades assumed a peculiar source of conviction in the
+mind. For such an assumption, however, our authorities give no proof. It cannot be
+gathered from the hypothetical language respecting <span class="pageNum" id="pb557n">[<a href="#pb557n">557</a>]</span>the freedom of the will in <i>Cic.</i> De Fato, ii. 23. See p. 551, 2. Nor is it, indeed, necessary that Carneades, who
+never pretended to hold any psychological theory, should have had any opinion on the
+subject. Supposing he did have it, he might have appealed to experience quite as readily
+or more so than the Stoics, and have been content with the fact that certain things
+are far more agreeable or disagreeable, and either promote or disturb happiness.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46552src" title="Return to note 92 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46561">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46561src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">93</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. v. 6, 16, to 8, 23; conf. Tusc. v. 29, 84; <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 686, has hardly expressed with accuracy Carneades’ division, or he would not
+have accused it of being inaccurate and superficial.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46561src" title="Return to note 93 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46568">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46568src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">94</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 45, 139.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46568src" title="Return to note 94 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46574">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46574src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">95</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 42, 131: <span lang="la">Introducebat etiam Carneades, non quo probaret, sed ut opponeret Stoicis, summum bonum
+esse frui iis rebus, quas primas natura conciliavisset (<span class="trans" title="oikeioun"><span lang="grc" class="grek">οἰκειοῦν</span></span>).</span> Similarly Fin. v. 7, 20; Tusc. v. 30, 84. This view differs from that of the Stoics,
+because it makes the highest Good consist not in natural activity as such, but in
+the enjoyment of natural goods.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46574src" title="Return to note 95 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46589">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46589src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">96</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. ii. 11, 35: <span lang="la">Ita tres sunt fines expertes honestatis, unus Aristippi vel Epicuri</span> (pleasure), <span lang="la">alter Hieronymi</span> (freedom from pain), <span lang="la">Carneadis tertius</span> (the satisfaction of natural instincts). Conf. <i>Ibid.</i> v. 7, 20; 8, 22.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46589src" title="Return to note 96 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46604">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46604src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">97</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 45, 139: <span lang="la">Ut Calliphontem sequar, cujus quidem sententiam Carneades ita studiose defensitabat,
+ut eam probare etiam videretur. Callipho is reckoned among those who consider honestas
+cum aliqua accessione</span>—or, as it is said, Fin. v. 8, 21; 25, 73; Tusc. v. 30, 85, <span lang="la">voluptas cum honestate</span>—the highest Good.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46604src" title="Return to note 97 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46614">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46614src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">98</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> Tranq. An. 16, p. 475.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46614src" title="Return to note 98 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46619">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46619src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">99</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 22, 54. Let it be observed that this view of Carneades is specially placed
+under the head of conviction on probabilities. It is said, he attacked the proposition,
+<span lang="la">videri fore in ægritudine sapientem patria capta.</span> The other statements <span class="pageNum" id="pb559n">[<a href="#pb559n">559</a>]</span>of Carneades on ethics, such as that in <i>Plut.</i> De Adulat. 16, p. 51, have nothing characteristic about them.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46619src" title="Return to note 99 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46634">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46634src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">100</a></span> See p. 279.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46634src" title="Return to note 100 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46637">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46637src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">101</a></span> <i>Plut.</i> C. Not. 27, 14; <i>Stob.</i> Ecl. ii. 134. Plutarch, however, only quotes it as the opinion of individuals. It
+appears more probable that it was an opinion of Chrysippus which Antipater defended
+against Carneades. Carneades even practically attributes it to the Stoics.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46637src" title="Return to note 101 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46643">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46643src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">102</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Fin. iii. 12, 41: <span lang="la">Carneades tuus … rem in summum discrimen adduxit, propterea quod pugnare non destitit,
+in omni hac quæstione, quæ de bonis et malis appelletur, non esse rerum Stoicis cum
+Peripateticis controversiam, sed nominum.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46643src" title="Return to note 102 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46660">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46660src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">103</a></span> Fin. iii. 17, 57.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46660src" title="Return to note 103 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46663">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46663src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">104</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> Tusc. iii. 25, 59.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46663src" title="Return to note 104 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46667">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46667src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">105</a></span> <i>Ibid.</i> v. 29, 83: <span lang="la">Et quoniam videris hoc velle, ut, quæcumque dissentientium philosophorum sententia
+sit de finibus, tamen virtus satis habeat ad vitam beatam præsidii, quod quidem Carneadem
+disputare solitum accepimus</span>, etc.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46667src" title="Return to note 105 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46676">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46676src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">106</a></span> He explicitly says, Fin. v. 7, 18, that as each one defines the highest good, so he
+determines the <span lang="la">honestum</span> (the <span class="trans" title="kalon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καλὸν</span></span>, virtue). The view of the Stoics, he says, places the <span lang="la">honestum</span> and <span lang="la">bonum</span> in activity aiming at what is according to nature; adding that, according to the
+view which places it in the possession of what is according to nature, the <span lang="la">prima secundum naturam</span> are also <span lang="la">prima in animis quasi virtutum igniculi et semina.</span>&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46676src" title="Return to note 106 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46702">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46702src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">107</a></span> See p. 560, 3, and <i>Plut.</i> Tranq. An. 19, p. 477, where, however, the greater part seems to belong to Plutarch.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46702src" title="Return to note 107 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46708">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46708src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">108</a></span> <i>Quintil.</i> Instit. xii. 1, 35. See above 536, 1, end.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46708src" title="Return to note 108 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46716">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46716src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">109</a></span> <i>Cic.</i> N.&nbsp;D. iii. 17, 44: <span lang="la">Hæc Carneades aiebat, non ut Deos tolleret—quid enim philosopho minus conveniens?—sed
+ut Stoicos nihil de Diis explicare convinceret.</span> In this sense the Academician in Cicero (i. 22, 62) frequently asserts, that he would
+not destroy belief in God, but that he finds the arguments unsatisfactory. Likewise
+<i>Sextus</i>, Pyrrh. iii. 2: <span class="trans" title="tō men biō katakolouthountes adoxastōs phamen einai theous kai sebomen theous kai pronoein autous phamen"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῷ μὲν βίῳ κατακολουθοῦντες ἀδοξάστως φαμὲν εἶναι θεοὺς καὶ σέβομεν θεοὺς καὶ προνοεῖν
+αὐτοὺς φαμέν</span></span>.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46716src" title="Return to note 109 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46735">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46735src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">110</a></span> <i>Ritter</i>, iii. 730, 694.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46735src" title="Return to note 110 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46746">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46746src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">111</a></span> Clitomachus was a native of Carthage. Hence he is called by <i>Max Tyr.</i> Diss. 10, 3, <span class="trans" title="ho Libys"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὁ Λίβυς</span></span>. He originally bore the name of Hasdrubal. At home he devoted himself to study, and
+wrote several treatises in his mother tongue (<span class="trans" title="tē idia phōnē en tē patridi ephilosophei"><span lang="grc" class="grek">τῇ ἰδίᾳ φωνῇ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι ἐφιλοσόφει</span></span>). When 40 years of age (according to <i>Steph.</i> Byz. De urbe <span class="trans" title="Karchēdōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Καρχηδὼν</span></span><span id="xd33e46775">;</span> 28), he came to Athens, was initiated by Carneades into Greek philosophy, and devoted
+himself to it with such zeal and success (<i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 17; 31, 98; <i>Athen.</i> ix. 402, c) that he became esteemed as a philosopher and voluminous writer (<i>Diog.</i> iv. 67). Treatises of his are mentioned by <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 31, 98; 32, 102; <i>Diog.</i> ii. 92. He died (according to <i>Stob.</i> Floril. vii. 55) by suicide, not before 110 <span class="asc">B.C.</span> (as <i>Zumpt</i> remarks, <span lang="de">Ueber d. philosoph. Schulen in Ath., Abh. d. Berl. Akad., Jahrg. 1842.</span> Hist. Philol. Kl. p. 67), since, according to <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. i. 11, 45, L. Crassus, during his quæstorship, which falls at the earliest
+in this year, met him at Athens. He must then have been very old.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46746src" title="Return to note 111 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46805">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46805src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">112</a></span> <i>Diog.</i> iv. 67; <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 32, 102.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46805src" title="Return to note 112 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46811">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46811src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">113</a></span> As the peculiar observation in <i>Diog.</i> iv. proves: (<span class="trans" title="anēr en tais trisin hairesesi diaprepsas, en te tē Akadēmaïkē Peripatētikē kai Stōïkē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀνὴρ ἐν ταῖς τρισὶν αἱρέσεσι διαπρέψας, ἔν τε τῇ Ἀκαδημαϊκῇ Περιπατητικῇ καὶ Στωϊκῇ</span></span>).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46811src" title="Return to note 113 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46824">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46824src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">114</a></span> According to <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 17; De Orat. i. 11. 45; Orator, 16, 51, Charmadas was a pupil of Carneades,
+whom he followed not only in teaching but also in method. He must have survived Clitomachus,
+since he taught at the same time with Philo. See p. 566, 1. Philo, however, according
+to Clitomachus, undertook the presidency of the School (<i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 9). According to <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. ii. 88, 360. Tusc. i. 24, 59, he was remarkable for a good memory.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46824src" title="Return to note 114 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46834">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46834src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">115</a></span> Cic. De Orat. i. 18, 84: Charmadas asserted, <span lang="la">eos qui rhetores nominabantur et qui dicendi præcepta traderent nihil plane tenere,
+neque posse quenquam facultatem assequi dicendi, nisi qui philosophorum inventa didicissent.</span> <i>Sext.</i> Math. ii. 20, also mentions the hostile attitude of Clitomachus and Charmadas towards
+rhetoricians, and says that both he and the School to which he belonged were engaged
+in disputes with them. His fellow-disciple Agnon drew up a treatise, according to
+<i>Quintil.</i> ii. 17, 15, entitled ‘Charges against the rhetoricians.’ Ritter’s inferences, that
+Charmadas recommended philosophy as the only way to eloquence, and thus betrayed the
+object of the philosophical doctrine of probability, iii. 695, make far too much of
+a casual expression which means no more than what the Stoics, and before them Plato,
+had said.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46834src" title="Return to note 115 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46844">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46844src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">116</a></span> In addition to Clitomachus and Charmadas, <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 16, mentions Agnon and Melanthius of Rhodes, the former of whom is also
+referred to by Quintilian. (See <i>Athen.</i> xiii. 602, d.) Cicero adds that <span class="pageNum" id="pb565n">[<a href="#pb565n">565</a>]</span>Metrodorus of Stratonice passed for a friend of Carneades; he had come over from among
+the Epicureans (<i>Diog.</i> x. 9) to join him. This Metrodorus must neither be confounded with Metrodorus of
+Skepsis, the pupil of Charmadas (see p. 566, 1), nor with the Metrodorus distinguished
+as a painter, 168 <span class="asc">B.C.</span>, whom Æmilius Paulus brought to Rome (<i>Plin.</i> H.&nbsp;N. xxxv. 11, 135). The former must have been younger, the latter older, than Metrodorus
+of Stratonice. A pupil of Melanthius (<i>Diog.</i> ii. 64), and also of Carneades in his later years (<i>Plut.</i> An Seni. s. ger. Resp. 13, 1, p. 791), was Æschines of Naples, according to <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. i. 11, 45<span>,</span> who was likewise a distinguished teacher in the Academic School towards the close
+of the second century. Another pupil, Mentor, was by Carneades forbidden the School,
+because he was caught with his concubine (<i>Diog.</i> iv. 63; Numen. in <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 7).&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46844src" title="Return to note 116 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46877">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46877src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">117</a></span> Exc. Vatic. xii 26: <span class="trans" title="kai gar ekeinōn [tōn en Akadēmia] tines boulomenoi peri te tōn prophanōs katalēptōn einai dokountōn kai peri tōn akatalēptōn eis aporian agein tous prosmachomenous toiautais chrōntai paradoxologiais kai toiautas euporousi pithanotētas, hōste diaporein, adynaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων [τῶν ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ] τινὲς βουλόμενοι περί τε τῶν προφανῶς καταληπτῶν
+εἶναι δοκούντων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀκαταλήπτων εἰς ἀπορίαν ἄγειν τοὺς προσμαχομένους τοιαύταις
+χρῶνται παραδοξολογίαις καὶ τοιαύτας εὐποροῦσι πιθανότητας, ὥστε διαπορεῖν, ἀδύνατόν</span></span> [l. <span class="trans" title="ei dynaton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εἰ δυνατόν</span></span>] <span class="trans" title="esti, tous en Athēnais ontas osphrainesthai tōn hepsomenōn ōōn en Ephesō, kai distazein, mē pō kath’ hon kairon en Akadēmia dialegontai peri toutōn ouch hyper allōn ar’ en oikō katakeimenoi toutous diatithentai tous logous; ex hōn di’ hyperbolēn tēs paradoxologias eis diabolēn ēchasi tēn holēn hairesin, hōste kai ta kalōs aporoumena para tois anthrōpois eis apistian ēchthai, kai chōris tēs idias astochias kai tois neois toiouton entetokasi zēlon, hōste tōn men ēthikōn kai pragmatikōn logōn mēde tēn tychousan epinoian poieisthai, di’ hōn onēsis tois philosophousi, peri de tas anōpheleis kai paradoxous heuresilogias kenodoxountes katatribousi tous bious"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἐστι, τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις ὄντας ὀσφραίνεσθαι τῶν ἑψομένων ὠῶν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, καὶ διστάζειν,
+μή πω καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ διαλέγονται περὶ τούτων οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἄλλων ἄρ’ ἐν οἴκῳ
+κατακείμενοι τούτους διατίθενται τοὺς λόγους· ἐξ ὧν δι’ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς παραδοξολογίας
+εἰς διαβολὴν <span class="corr" id="xd33e46899" title="Source: ἤχασιτὴν">ἤχασι τὴν</span> ὅλην αἵρεσιν, ὥστε καὶ τὰ καλῶς ἀπορούμενα παρὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς ἀπιστίαν ἦχθαι,
+καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ἰδίας ἀστοχίας καὶ τοῖς νέοις τοιοῦτον ἐντετόκασι ζῆλον, ὥστε τῶν μὲν
+ἠθικῶν καὶ πραγματικῶν λόγων μηδὲ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἐπίνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι, δι’ ὧν ὄνησις τοῖς
+φιλοσοφοῦσι, περὶ δὲ τὰς ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ παραδόξους εὑρεσιλογίας κενοδοξοῦντες κατατρίβουσι
+τοὺς βίους</span></span>. In the time of Carneades, whose cotemporary was Polybius, to whom the language as
+to the enthusiasm of youth for Sceptical teaching refers, such depreciatory remarks
+could not have been made of the Academy. The historical value, therefore, of the whole
+passage is suspicious. It bears besides the mark of exaggeration so strongly that
+it is of no greater use for giving a view of the Academy than are the caricatures
+of opponents for conveying an idea of modern German philosophy.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46877src" title="Return to note 117 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+<div class="fndiv" id="xd33e46910">
+<p class="footnote"><span class="fnlabel"><a class="noteRef" href="#xd33e46910src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">118</a></span> Among these pupils the tendency to lay stress on the doctrine of probabilities in
+relation to Scepticism was already strong. Proof may be found not only in the accounts
+already given us of Clitomachus and Æschines, but also in the circumstance that many
+of the older writers made the fourth Academy date from Philo and Charmadas, the fifth
+from Antiochus (<i>Sext.</i> Pyrrh. i. 220; <i>Eus.</i> Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16). At a still earlier date, Metrodorus is said to have departed
+from the platform of Carneades. <i>Augustin.</i> c. Acad. iii. 18, 41, after speaking of Antiochus and his renunciation of Scepticism,
+says: <span lang="la">Quamquam et Metrodorus id antea facere tentaverat, qui primus dicitur esse confessus,
+non decreto placuisse Academicis, nihil posse comprehendi, sed necessario contra Stoicos
+hujus modi eos arma sumsisse.</span> Probably Augustin borrowed this passage from a lost treatise of Cicero; hence it
+may be relied upon. The Metrodorus referred to is probably Metrodorus of Stratonice
+(see p. 564, 5), mentioned by <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 6, 16. Metrodorus of Skepsis might also be suggested (<i>Strabo</i>, xiii. 155, p. 609; xvi. 4, 16, p. 775; <i>Plut.</i> Lucull. 22; <i>Diog.</i> v. 84; <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. ii. 88, 360; 90, 365; iii. 20, 75; Tusc. i. 24, 59; <i>Plin.</i> Hist. Nat. vii. 24, 89; <i>Quintil.</i> x. 6, 1; xi. 2, 22; <i>Müller</i>, Hist. Gr. iii. 203), who first learned rhetoric at Chalcedon, afterwards entered
+the service of Mithridates, and was put to death by his orders, <span class="asc">B.C.</span> 70, at an advanced age. <i>Cic.</i> De Orat. iii. 20, 75, calls him an Academician; and he is mentioned, <i>Ibid.</i> i. 11, 45, as a pupil of Charmadas. The language quoted by Augustin may have come
+from the treatise <span class="trans" title="peri synētheias"><span lang="grc" class="grek">περὶ συνηθείας</span></span> (<i>Strabo</i>, p. 775). He is otherwise only known as a rhetorician and politician. The same uncertainty
+prevails as to the Metrodorus referred to in <i>Cic.</i> Acad. ii. 24, 78 (see p. 554, 3). We do not know who he is, but it may be inferred
+that it is the same Metrodorus who is mentioned by Augustin.&nbsp;<a class="fnarrow" href="#xd33e46910src" title="Return to note 118 in text.">↑</a></p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div class="back">
+<div id="ix" class="div1 index"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#xd33e2507">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divHead">
+<h2 class="main">INDEX.</h2>
+</div>
+<div class="divBody">
+<p class="first">Academic, Scepticism, <a href="#pb537" class="pageref">537</a>; <br>School, <a href="#pb560" class="pageref">560</a>, <a href="#pb565" class="pageref">565</a>; <br>decline of, <a href="#pb565" class="pageref">565</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Academician, <a href="#pb377" class="pageref">377</a>; <br>view of reason, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>; <br>systems of morality, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Academicians attacked by Stoics, <a href="#pb233" class="pageref">233</a>; <br>objections to Chrysippus, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Academy, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>; <br>influence of, on Stoics, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>; <br>older, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>, <a href="#pb558" class="pageref">558</a>; <br>Middle, <a href="#pb46" class="pageref">46</a>, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>, <a href="#pb535" class="pageref">535</a>; <br>New, <a href="#pb26" class="pageref">26</a>, <a href="#pb409" class="pageref">409</a>, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>, <a href="#pb521" class="pageref">521</a>, <a href="#pb523" class="pageref">523</a>, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>scepticism of, <a href="#pb529" class="pageref">529</a>, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>, <a href="#pb562" class="pageref">562</a>, <a href="#pb563" class="pageref">563</a>; <br>connection with Stoicism, <a href="#pb529" class="pageref">529</a>; <br>Third, <a href="#pb537" class="pageref">537</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Achæan League, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Achæans, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Achaia, province of, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Achilles, shield of, explained, <a href="#pb360" class="pageref">360</a>; <br>staying the plague, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Adiaphora"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀδιάφορα</span></span>, <a href="#pb232" class="pageref">232</a>, <a href="#pb283" class="pageref">283</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ænesidemus, a later Sceptic, <a href="#pb523" class="pageref">523</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ætolians, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Affections permitted, <a href="#pb290" class="pageref">290</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Air, God as, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Air-currents, Stoic theory of, <a href="#pb127" class="pageref">127</a>, <a href="#pb129" class="pageref">129</a>, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>, <a href="#pb152" class="pageref">152</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Akatalēpsia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀκαταληψία</span></span> of Sceptics, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Alexander of Macedon, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Alexander Aphrodisiensis, <a href="#pb117" class="pageref">117</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Alexandria, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>; <br>influence of, on philosophy, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>; <br>birthplace of Platonic School, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Alexandrian period, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Allegorical interpretations of myths, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Allegorising, the spirit of, among the Stoics, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Amafinius, a promulgator of Epicureanism at Rome, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hamartēma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἁμάρτημα</span></span>, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb265" class="pageref">265</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Anaxagoras, sceptical arguments of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Anaxarchus, a follower of Democritus, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Animals, Stoic views on, <a href="#pb208" class="pageref">208</a>; <br>Epicurean views on, <a href="#pb451" class="pageref">451</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Antonies, the, <a href="#pb417" class="pageref">417</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Antoninus’ view of demons, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Antigonus Gonatus, <a href="#pb39" class="pageref">39</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Antipater of Tarsus, <a href="#pb336" class="pageref">336</a>, <a href="#pb371" class="pageref">371</a>; <br>a later Stoic and president of that School, <a href="#pb50" class="pageref">50</a>; <br>inference from a single premiss, <a href="#pb121" class="pageref">121</a>; <br>follows Zeno’s example, <a href="#pb336" class="pageref">336</a>; <br>interpretation of myths, <a href="#pb362" class="pageref">362</a>; <br>views on divination, <a href="#pb371" class="pageref">371</a>; <br>views on moral choice, <a href="#pb559" class="pageref">559</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Antisthenes quoted as an example, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>, <a href="#pb292" class="pageref">292</a>, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>; <br>followed by Stoics, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>, <a href="#pb387" class="pageref">387</a>, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>; <br>by Zeno, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>; <br>reflected by Aristo, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>; <br>sophistical assertions of, <a href="#pb390" class="pageref">390</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Anthropomorphic view of nature, <a href="#pb8" class="pageref">8</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Apathy, Stoic, modified, <a href="#pb292" class="pageref">292</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Apaxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀπαξία</span></span>, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Aphasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀφασία</span></span> of Sceptics, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Aphormē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀφορμή</span></span>, <a href="#pb242" class="pageref">242</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb568">[<a href="#pb568">568</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Aphrodite, Stoic interpretation of, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>, <a href="#pb365" class="pageref">365</a>, <a href="#pb366" class="pageref">366</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Apollo as the sun, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>; <br>arrows of, explained, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Apollodorus, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Apoproēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span id="xd33e47430">Ἀποπροηγμένον</span></span></span>, <a href="#pb283" class="pageref">283</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Applied moral science, <a href="#pb279" class="pageref">279</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Aratus, a Stoic, and pupil of Zeno, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Arcesilaus, a Sceptic, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>belonging to Middle Academy, <a href="#pb46" class="pageref">46</a>; <br>account of, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>not connected with Zeno, <a href="#pb529" class="pageref">529</a>; <br>opponent of Stoic theory, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>, <a href="#pb532" class="pageref">532</a>; <br>agreement with Stoics, <a href="#pb532" class="pageref">532</a>; <br>views on probability, <a href="#pb534" class="pageref">534</a>; <br>followers of, <a href="#pb535" class="pageref">535</a>; <br>compared with Carneades, <a href="#pb535" class="pageref">535</a>, <a href="#pb565" class="pageref">565</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Archedemus of Tarsus, a Stoic, <a href="#pb50" class="pageref">50</a>; <br>view of the seat of the centre of force, <a href="#pb147" class="pageref">147</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Archipelago, Stoics in, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ares, story of, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>, <a href="#pb365" class="pageref">365</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Aristarchus of Samos, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Aristippus<span id="xd33e47538">,</span> considers bodily gratification the highest pleasure, <a href="#pb475" class="pageref">475</a>; <br>relation to Epicureanism, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>; <br>followed by Epicurus, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>; <br>but not wholly, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Aristo, the Stoic, <a href="#pb40" class="pageref">40</a>; <br>pupil of Zeno, <a href="#pb41" class="pageref">41</a>; <br>wins over the Cyrenaic Eratosthenes, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>; <br>views on logic and natural science, <a href="#pb59" class="pageref">59</a>, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>; <br>a native of Chios, <a href="#pb59" class="pageref">59</a>, <a href="#pb255" class="pageref">255</a>, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>; <br>opposed to encyclical knowledge, <a href="#pb60" class="pageref">60</a>; <br>ethics of, <a href="#pb61" class="pageref">61</a>; <br>peculiar views of, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>; <br>differs from Zeno, <a href="#pb63" class="pageref">63</a>; <br>objects to study of mind, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>; <br>divisions of emotions, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>; <br>an enemy of speculation, <a href="#pb255" class="pageref">255</a>; <br>on the oneness of virtue, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>not followed by the Stoics, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>; <br>follows Cynics, <a href="#pb297" class="pageref">297</a>; <br>followed by Cleanthes, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>; <br>view of the common source of virtue, <a href="#pb257" class="pageref">257</a>, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>denied sensation to Deity, <a href="#pb347" class="pageref">347</a>; <br>relation of, to Stoics, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Aristotle, merits and defects of, <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>; <br>connection with Greek character, <a href="#pb6" class="pageref">6</a>; <br>idealism of, <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>, <a href="#pb512" class="pageref">512</a>; <br>criticism of Plato, <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>inconsistencies of, <a href="#pb3" class="pageref">3</a>, <a href="#pb84" class="pageref">84</a>, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>generic conceptions of, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>, <a href="#pb85" class="pageref">85</a>; <br>commentators on, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>; <br>commendation of speculation, <a href="#pb57" class="pageref">57</a>, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>, <a href="#pb513" class="pageref">513</a>; <br>teaching of, <a href="#pb96" class="pageref">96</a>; <br>followed by Stoics, <a href="#pb97" class="pageref">97</a>, <a href="#pb100" class="pageref">100</a>, <a href="#pb194" class="pageref">194</a>, <a href="#pb196" class="pageref">196</a>, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>, <a href="#pb396" class="pageref">396</a>, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>; <br>categories of, <a href="#pb97" class="pageref">97</a>, <a href="#pb98" class="pageref">98</a>, <a href="#pb107" class="pageref">107</a>; <br>perfections of Greek philosophy in, <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>, <a href="#pb11" class="pageref">11</a>; <br>mistakes in natural science, <a href="#pb3" class="pageref">3</a>; <br>prominence given to dialectic method, <a href="#pb4" class="pageref">4</a>; <br>did not go far enough, <a href="#pb5" class="pageref">5</a>; <br>system of, connected with Greek character, <a href="#pb7" class="pageref">7</a>; <br>failing to distinguish two sides of ideas, <a href="#pb8" class="pageref">8</a>; <br>the child of his age, <a href="#pb10" class="pageref">10</a>; <br>speculations of, <a href="#pb18" class="pageref">18</a>; <br>bridges over chasm between thought and its object, <a href="#pb18" class="pageref">18</a>; <br>makes reason the essence of man, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>metaphysics of, <a href="#pb22" class="pageref">22</a>; <br>developes the doctrine of the syllogism, <a href="#pb65" class="pageref">65</a>; <br>views on conceptions, <a href="#pb96" class="pageref">96</a>; <br>on the modality of judgments, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>; <br>the study of, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>; <br>metaphysical notions of, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>distinguishes matter and form, <a href="#pb104" class="pageref">104</a>, <a href="#pb105" class="pageref">105</a>; <br>view of two kinds of fire, <a href="#pb201" class="pageref">201</a>; <br>view of the world, <a href="#pb203" class="pageref">203</a>; <br>of the stars, <a href="#pb205" class="pageref">205</a>; <br>of the seat of life, <a href="#pb214" class="pageref">214</a>; <br>of the soul, <a href="#pb215" class="pageref">215</a>; <br>places knowledge above action, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>; <br>followed by Zeno, <a href="#pb257" class="pageref">257</a>; <br>investigations into individual virtue, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>; <br>prejudice against foreigners, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>; <br>relation of Epicureans to, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>logic of, <a href="#pb123" class="pageref">123</a>; <br>followed by Chrysippus, <a href="#pb393" class="pageref">393</a>; <br>philosophy of, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>; <br>theory on time and space, <a href="#pb196" class="pageref">196</a>; <br>doctrine of the four elements, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>, <a href="#pb199" class="pageref">199</a>; <br>on the regulation of emotions, <a href="#pb252" class="pageref">252</a>; <br>under the influence of Greek ideas, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>; <br>view of Gods, <a href="#pb513" class="pageref">513</a>; <br>moral theory of, <a href="#pb398" class="pageref">398</a>; <br>many-sidedness <span class="pageNum" id="pb569">[<a href="#pb569">569</a>]</span>of, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>; <br>developed Socratic thought, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>ignored by Arcesilaus, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>formal and final causes, <a href="#pb141" class="pageref">141</a>; <br>commentators on, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Aristotelian, logic, <a href="#pb124" class="pageref">124</a>, <a href="#pb555" class="pageref">555</a>; <br>original teaching, <a href="#pb3" class="pageref">3</a>; <br>categories, <a href="#pb105" class="pageref">105</a>; <br>ethics, <a href="#pb304" class="pageref">304</a>; <br>spirit of, <a href="#pb555" class="pageref">555</a>; <br>manner, <a href="#pb285" class="pageref">285</a>; <br>view of heaviness, <a href="#pb445" class="pageref">445</a>; <br>speculations, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>; <br>philosophy, <a href="#pb396" class="pageref">396</a>, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Aristoxenus, <a href="#pb128" class="pageref">128</a>, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Artemis, explained as the moon, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Asclepiades, an Epicurean of Bithynia, <a href="#pb465" class="pageref">465</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Asia, emigrants to, from Greece, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>; <br>the birthplace of Stoics, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>Epicureans in, <a href="#pb406" class="pageref">406</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Assent, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb83" class="pageref">83</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Assos, birthplace of Cleanthes, <a href="#pb40" class="pageref">40</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Atoraxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀτοραξία</span></span>, in the Epicurean system, <a href="#pb475" class="pageref">475</a>; <br>of Sceptics, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Atheism, <a href="#pb465" class="pageref">465</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Athene, Stoic interpretation of, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Athenian, <a href="#pb404" class="pageref">404</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Athens, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>brilliant career of, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>; <br>seat of all Schools, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>; <br>foreign teachers at, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>; <br>visited by Zeno, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>appreciates him, <a href="#pb39" class="pageref">39</a>; <br>visited by Epicurus, <a href="#pb405" class="pageref">405</a>, <a href="#pb406" class="pageref">406</a>; <br>Epicureanism at, <a href="#pb412" class="pageref">412</a>, <a href="#pb413" class="pageref">413</a>, <a href="#pb417" class="pageref">417</a>; <br>visited by Apollodorus, <a href="#pb412" class="pageref">412</a>; <br>rivalry with Sparta, <a href="#pb11" class="pageref">11</a>; <br>the playball of rulers, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Atomists, system of, <a href="#pb501" class="pageref">501</a>; <br>view of nature, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Atoms and empty space, Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb439" class="pageref">439</a>; <br>deviation of, <a href="#pb444" class="pageref">444</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Augeas, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Authorities for Stoic philosophy, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Axia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀξία</span></span>, <a href="#pb227" class="pageref">227</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Axiōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἀξίωμα</span></span>, <a href="#pb110" class="pageref">110</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Bargylium, birthplace of Protarchus, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Basilides, an Epicurean and president of the School, <a href="#pb410" class="pageref">410</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Being, the Stoic category of, <a href="#pb98" class="pageref">98</a>, <a href="#pb99" class="pageref">99</a>, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>; <br>primary, <a href="#pb161" class="pageref">161</a>; <br>divine, <a href="#pb217" class="pageref">217</a>, <a href="#pb341" class="pageref">341</a>, <a href="#pb349" class="pageref">349</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Bithynia, birthplace of Asclepiades, <a href="#pb415" class="pageref">415</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Boëthus, a Stoic, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>; <br>inclining to the Peripatetics <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>; <br>attacked by Chrysippus, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>; <br>dissents from Stoic pantheism, <a href="#pb159" class="pageref">159</a>; <br>views on divination, <a href="#pb371" class="pageref">371</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Bosporus, birthplace of Sphærus the Stoic, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Bryso, not instructor of Pyrrho, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Byzantine imperialism, <a href="#pb33" class="pageref">33</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Callipho’s view, <a href="#pb558" class="pageref">558</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Canonic, the Epicurean, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Care, Stoic view of the causes of, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Carneades, a Sceptic, <a href="#pb535" class="pageref">535</a>; <br>his debt to Chrysippus the Stoic, <a href="#pb56" class="pageref">56</a>, <a href="#pb538" class="pageref">538</a>; <br>a thoroughly upright man, <a href="#pb561" class="pageref">561</a>; <br>on formal knowledge, <a href="#pb539" class="pageref">539</a>, <a href="#pb540" class="pageref">540</a>; <br>scepticism of, <a href="#pb563" class="pageref">563</a>, <a href="#pb538" class="pageref">538</a>; <br>ethics of, <a href="#pb558" class="pageref">558</a>; <br>negative views of, <a href="#pb538" class="pageref">538</a>; <br>positive views of, <a href="#pb553" class="pageref">553</a>; <br>a century later than Arcesilaus, <a href="#pb536" class="pageref">536</a>; <br>founder of the Third Academy, <a href="#pb537" class="pageref">537</a>; <br>denied <span class="trans" title="phantasia katalēptkē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία καταληπτκὴ</span></span>, <a href="#pb541" class="pageref">541</a>; <br>common ground with Stoics, <a href="#pb542" class="pageref">542</a>; <br>strictures on Stoicism, <a href="#pb543" class="pageref">543</a>; <br>views of God, <a href="#pb546" class="pageref">546</a>–550; <br>defends free will, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>; <br>denies knowledge, <a href="#pb552" class="pageref">552</a>, <a href="#pb560" class="pageref">560</a>; <br>theory of probabilities, <a href="#pb553" class="pageref">553</a>, <a href="#pb555" class="pageref">555</a>; <br>views on morals, <a href="#pb556" class="pageref">556</a>–559; <br>importance of, <a href="#pb562" class="pageref">562</a>; <br>pupils of, <a href="#pb564" class="pageref">564</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb563" class="pageref">563</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Carthage, birthplace of Herillus, <a href="#pb42" class="pageref">42</a>, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>; <br>destruction of, <a href="#pb558" class="pageref">558</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Carus, T. Lucretius. <i>See</i> Lucretius.
+</p>
+<p>Categories, the Stoic, <a href="#pb97" class="pageref">97</a>, <a href="#pb99" class="pageref">99</a>; <br>relation of, <a href="#pb109" class="pageref">109</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb570">[<a href="#pb570">570</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Cato quoted as an example, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>; <br>death of the younger, <a href="#pb335" class="pageref">335</a>, <a href="#pb337" class="pageref">337</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cause, God the highest, according to Stoics, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Centaur, <a href="#pb458" class="pageref">458</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cerberus, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Chæronea, results of battle of, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Chain-inference, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>, <a href="#pb122" class="pageref">122</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Charmidas, <a href="#pb564" class="pageref">564</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Charybdis, Stoic explanation of, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Chemical combination, <a href="#pb106" class="pageref">106</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Chios, birthplace of Aristo, <a href="#pb41" class="pageref">41</a>, <a href="#pb59" class="pageref">59</a>, <a href="#pb255" class="pageref">255</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Chiron, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Christian ethics, <a href="#pb240" class="pageref">240</a>; <br>view of demons, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>; <br>modes of thought, <a href="#pb221" class="pageref">221</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Christianity, success of, <a href="#pb34" class="pageref">34</a>; <br>influence of, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Christians, early, <a href="#pb220" class="pageref">220</a>; <br>follow Zeno, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>; <br>ethics of, <a href="#pb240" class="pageref">240</a>; <br>example of, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Chrysippus, <a href="#pb54" class="pageref">54</a>, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>, <a href="#pb57" class="pageref">57</a>, <a href="#pb64" class="pageref">64</a>, <a href="#pb65" class="pageref">65</a>, <a href="#pb69" class="pageref">69</a>; <br>first founder of later Stoicism, <a href="#pb45" class="pageref">45</a>; <br>attended lectures of Arcesilaus, <a href="#pb46" class="pageref">46</a>; <br>differed from Cleanthes, <a href="#pb47" class="pageref">47</a>; <br>a voluminous writer, <a href="#pb47" class="pageref">47</a>, <a href="#pb86" class="pageref">86</a>; <br>formal logic of the Stoics fully developed by, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>; <br>contest between, and Diodorus, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>; <br>distinguishes five original forms of hypothetical sentences, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>; <br>exposes current fallacies, <a href="#pb122" class="pageref">122</a>; <br>narrows the field of logic, <a href="#pb124" class="pageref">124</a>; <br>materialism of, <a href="#pb131" class="pageref">131</a>; <br>teaches <span class="trans" title="krasis di’ holōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων</span></span>, <a href="#pb138" class="pageref">138</a>; <br>his view of the world, <a href="#pb146" class="pageref">146</a>; <br>view of the resolution of the world, <a href="#pb153" class="pageref">153</a>; <br>appeals to general conviction, <a href="#pb174" class="pageref">174</a>; <br>the theory of necessity, <a href="#pb178" class="pageref">178</a>, <a href="#pb180" class="pageref">180</a>; <br>definition of time, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>; <br>view of separate existence, <a href="#pb219" class="pageref">219</a>; <br>places the essence of emotions in the imagination, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>; <br>theory of virtue, <a href="#pb299" class="pageref">299</a>; <br>definitions of virtue, <a href="#pb260" class="pageref">260</a>; <br>on pleasure, <a href="#pb286" class="pageref">286</a>; <br>on virtue being lost, <a href="#pb295" class="pageref">295</a>; <br>division of ethics, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>; <br>shocks the feelings of cotemporaries, <a href="#pb307" class="pageref">307</a>; <br>moral character of, <a href="#pb309" class="pageref">309</a>; <br>his polity of the wise, <a href="#pb322" class="pageref">322</a>; <br>view of demons, <a href="#pb352" class="pageref">352</a>, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>; <br>view of divination, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>, <a href="#pb375" class="pageref">375</a>; <br>explains omens, <a href="#pb375" class="pageref">375</a>; <br>vagaries of, <a href="#pb380" class="pageref">380</a>; <br>follows Aristotle’s logic, <a href="#pb393" class="pageref">393</a>; <br>completes Zeno’s system, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>; <br>developed Stoic theory of knowledge, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>;<span class="sic"> <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>;</span> <br>on superhuman powers, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>; <br>definitions of sensations, <a href="#pb546" class="pageref">546</a>; <br>on destiny, <a href="#pb180" class="pageref">180</a>; <br>on adaptation of means to ends, <a href="#pb184" class="pageref">184</a>; <br>on punishment, <a href="#pb198" class="pageref">198</a>; <br>on faulty imagination, <a href="#pb246" class="pageref">246</a>; <br>on emotions and virtue, <a href="#pb260" class="pageref">260</a>; <br>on the wise man, <a href="#pb284" class="pageref">284</a>, <a href="#pb286" class="pageref">286</a>, <a href="#pb322" class="pageref">322</a>, <a href="#pb323" class="pageref">323</a>; <br>view of the Gods, <a href="#pb346" class="pageref">346</a>, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>; <br>explanation of myths, <a href="#pb365" class="pageref">365</a>; <br>regards knowledge as a means, <a href="#pb381" class="pageref">381</a>; <br>influence of, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>contemporary of, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>; <br>unadorned style of, <a href="#pb63" class="pageref">63</a>; <br>scholars of, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>, <a href="#pb375" class="pageref">375</a>, <a href="#pb538" class="pageref">538</a>, <a href="#pb541" class="pageref">541</a>; <br>time of, <a href="#pb64" class="pageref">64</a>, <a href="#pb69" class="pageref">69</a>, <a href="#pb70" class="pageref">70</a>, <a href="#pb86" class="pageref">86</a>, <a href="#pb257" class="pageref">257</a>; <br>subtlety of, <a href="#pb191" class="pageref">191</a>; <br>view of <span class="trans" title="eudaimonia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">εὐδαιμονία</span></span>, <a href="#pb352" class="pageref">352</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cicero, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>; <br>speaking as a Stoic, <a href="#pb239" class="pageref">239</a>, <a href="#pb346" class="pageref">346</a>; <br>follows Panætius, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>, <a href="#pb315" class="pageref">315</a>; <br>account of Sceptics, <a href="#pb560" class="pageref">560</a>; <br>treatise on duties, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>, <a href="#pb299" class="pageref">299</a>, <a href="#pb302" class="pageref">302</a>; <br>on divination, <a href="#pb379" class="pageref">379</a>; <br>account of Epicureans, <a href="#pb414" class="pageref">414</a>; <br>responsible for Sceptic inconsistencies, <a href="#pb561" class="pageref">561</a>; <br>time of, <a href="#pb419" class="pageref">419</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cilicia, birthplace of Chrysippus the Stoic, <a href="#pb45" class="pageref">45</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Circe, house of, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Citium, birthplace of Zeno the Stoic, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Citizenship of the world, Stoic, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Civil society, Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb490" class="pageref">490</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Class-conceptions of Stoics, <a href="#pb99" class="pageref">99</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cleanthes the Stoic, <a href="#pb40" class="pageref">40</a>; <br>stern, <a href="#pb237" class="pageref">237</a>; <br>a representative Stoic, <span class="pageNum" id="pb571">[<a href="#pb571">571</a>]</span>400; <br>instructor of Sphærus the Stoic, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>; <br>views of, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>; <br>holds later theory to some extent, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>; <br>view of perceptions, <a href="#pb78" class="pageref">78</a>; <br>view of life according to nature, <a href="#pb228" class="pageref">228</a>; <br>sad view of life, <a href="#pb272" class="pageref">272</a>; <br>view of the seat of efficient force, <a href="#pb147" class="pageref">147</a>; <br>view of the destruction of the world, <a href="#pb165" class="pageref">165</a>; <br>view of separate existence, <a href="#pb218" class="pageref">218</a>; <br>holds that all pleasure is contrary to nature, <a href="#pb237" class="pageref">237</a>; <br>determines the relations of the virtues, <a href="#pb262" class="pageref">262</a>; <br>Herillus a fellow-student of, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>; <br>teaches indefectible virtue, <a href="#pb295" class="pageref">295</a>; <br>agrees with Aristo, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>; <br>moral character of, <a href="#pb309" class="pageref">309</a>; <br>submission to destiny, <a href="#pb333" class="pageref">333</a>; <br>death of, <a href="#pb336" class="pageref">336</a>; <br>view of Stoicism, <a href="#pb342" class="pageref">342</a>; <br>seeks for moral ideas, <a href="#pb355" class="pageref">355</a>; <br>explanation of myths, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>; <br>distinguishes two kinds of fire, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>; <br>a counterpart of Xenocrates, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>allegorical interpretation of mythology, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>, <a href="#pb362" class="pageref">362</a>, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>; <br>preparation for later teaching, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>; <br>teaching of, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>, <a href="#pb45" class="pageref">45</a>, <a href="#pb46" class="pageref">46</a>, <a href="#pb54" class="pageref">54</a>, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>; <br>logical treatises of, <a href="#pb63" class="pageref">63</a>; <br>view of the common source of virtue, <a href="#pb257" class="pageref">257</a>; <br>moral view of life, <a href="#pb272" class="pageref">272</a>; <br>the successors, of, <a href="#pb273" class="pageref">273</a>; <br>specially honours the sun, <a href="#pb146" class="pageref">146</a>, <a href="#pb165" class="pageref">165</a>, <a href="#pb362" class="pageref">362</a>; <br>views on the soul, <a href="#pb217" class="pageref">217</a>; <br>view of divination, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cleomenes, Spartan reformer, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Clitomachus, <a href="#pb557" class="pageref">557</a>, <a href="#pb558" class="pageref">558</a>, <a href="#pb560" class="pageref">560</a>, <a href="#pb563" class="pageref">563</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Colotes, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb409" class="pageref">409</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Composite judgment of Stoics, <a href="#pb113" class="pageref">113</a>; <br>inference, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Conceptions formed from perceptions, <a href="#pb79" class="pageref">79</a>; <br>truth of, <a href="#pb135" class="pageref">135</a>; <br>relation to perceptions, <a href="#pb83" class="pageref">83</a>; <br>primary, a standard of truth, <a href="#pb90" class="pageref">90</a>; <br>highest, of Stoics, <a href="#pb98" class="pageref">98</a>; <br>Socratic theory of, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Condensation, a cause of being, <a href="#pb140" class="pageref">140</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Connection, inner, of Stoic system, <a href="#pb381" class="pageref">381</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Consensus gentium, appealed to by Stoics, <a href="#pb543" class="pageref">543</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Constantine, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Conversion, Stoic theory of, <a href="#pb275" class="pageref">275</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Conviction or assent, <a href="#pb88" class="pageref">88</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cornutus, a Stoic, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cosmopolitanism of Stoics, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Course of the world, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a><span>.</span>
+</p>
+<p>Crates the Cynic, <a href="#pb37" class="pageref">37</a>; <br>teacher of Zeno, <a href="#pb40" class="pageref">40</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Criticism of popular faith by Stoics, <a href="#pb314" class="pageref">314</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cronos, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cyclopes, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cynic, appeal to nature, <a href="#pb91" class="pageref">91</a>; <br>Epicurean view of life, <a href="#pb488" class="pageref">488</a>; <br>life, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>; <br>Zeno at one time, <a href="#pb322" class="pageref">322</a>; <br>strength of will, <a href="#pb389" class="pageref">389</a>; <br>contempt for theory, <a href="#pb390" class="pageref">390</a>, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a><span id="xd33e49526">;</span> <br>view of wise man, <a href="#pb488" class="pageref">488</a>; <br>ideas, <a href="#pb40" class="pageref">40</a>; <br>teaching, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>a precursor of Scepticism, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>nominalism, <a href="#pb84" class="pageref">84</a>; <br>School, precursor of Stoicism, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>; <br>onesidedness of, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>; <br>philosophy, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>; <br>followed by Aristo, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>, <a href="#pb297" class="pageref">297</a>; <br>virtue, <a href="#pb282" class="pageref">282</a>; <br>ethics, <a href="#pb386" class="pageref">386</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cynicism, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>, <a href="#pb91" class="pageref">91</a>, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>, <a href="#pb238" class="pageref">238</a>; <br>of the Stoics, <a href="#pb305" class="pageref">305</a>; <br>instances of, <a href="#pb307" class="pageref">307</a>; <br>a consequence of Stoic principles, <a href="#pb308" class="pageref">308</a>, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>, <a href="#pb387" class="pageref">387</a>, <a href="#pb389" class="pageref">389</a>, <a href="#pb390" class="pageref">390</a>; <br>attraction of, for Zeno, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cynics, <a href="#pb223" class="pageref">223</a>, <a href="#pb239" class="pageref">239</a>, <a href="#pb273" class="pageref">273</a>, <a href="#pb277" class="pageref">277</a>, <a href="#pb288" class="pageref">288</a>, <a href="#pb308" class="pageref">308</a>; <br>meagre teaching of, <a href="#pb37" class="pageref">37</a>, <a href="#pb255" class="pageref">255</a>; <br>appeal to nature, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>; <br>connections of Stoics with, <a href="#pb291" class="pageref">291</a>, <a href="#pb317" class="pageref">317</a>, <a href="#pb323" class="pageref">323</a>, <a href="#pb389" class="pageref">389</a>, <a href="#pb390" class="pageref">390</a>; <br>followed by Aristo, <a href="#pb297" class="pageref">297</a>; <br>precursors of Stoics, <a href="#pb327" class="pageref">327</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cyprus, Citium in, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cyrenaic, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>; <br>School, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>a precursor of Epicurean, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>view of pleasure as the object of life, <a href="#pb475" class="pageref">475</a>, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Cyrenaics, theory of pleasure followed by Epicurus, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>; <br>content with feelings, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>; <br>view of language, <a href="#pb524" class="pageref">524</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb572">[<a href="#pb572">572</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Deity, the Stoic conception of, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>; <br>as original matter, <a href="#pb155" class="pageref">155</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Demeter, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Demetrius, an Epicurean, and pupil of Protarchus, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Democritus, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>view of the world, <a href="#pb203" class="pageref">203</a>; <br>known to Epicurus, <a href="#pb405" class="pageref">405</a>, <a href="#pb433" class="pageref">433</a>, <a href="#pb438" class="pageref">438</a>; <br>his pupil Anaxarchus, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>; <br>on being and not being, <a href="#pb440" class="pageref">440</a>; <br>view of atoms, <a href="#pb433" class="pageref">433</a>, <a href="#pb445" class="pageref">445</a>, <a href="#pb447" class="pageref">447</a>, <a href="#pb441" class="pageref">441</a>, <a href="#pb443" class="pageref">443</a>, <a href="#pb444" class="pageref">444</a>; <br>system of, <a href="#pb405" class="pageref">405</a>, <a href="#pb502" class="pageref">502</a>; <br>doctrine of atom-pictures, <a href="#pb457" class="pageref">457</a>, <a href="#pb465" class="pageref">465</a>; <br>physics borrowed by Epicureans, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>; <br>suggests doubt to Pyrrho, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>sceptical argument of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>relations of Epicureans to, <a href="#pb502" class="pageref">502</a>, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Demons, Stoic views on, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Depravity of nature, <a href="#pb271" class="pageref">271</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Desirable things, <a href="#pb278" class="pageref">278</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Desire, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>; <br>a standard, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Destiny, God as, <a href="#pb150" class="pageref">150</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a><span id="xd33e49910">;</span> <br>as Providence, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>; <br>as generative reason, <a href="#pb172" class="pageref">172</a>; <br>as fate, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Dialectic, a branch of Stoic logic, <a href="#pb70" class="pageref">70</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Dianoētikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Διανοητικόν</span></span>, <a href="#pb214" class="pageref">214</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Dicæarchus, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Diocletian, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Diodorus, the logician, teacher of Zeno, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>; <br>a Megarian, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>; <br>captious, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Diogenes Laërtius, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>, <a href="#pb337" class="pageref">337</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Diogenes of Seleucia, a Stoic and pupil of Chrysippus, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>; <br>succeeded by Antipater, <a href="#pb50" class="pageref">50</a>; <br>definition of virtue, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>an example of wisdom, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>; <br>on forbidden gains, <a href="#pb285" class="pageref">285</a>; <br>division of ethics, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>; <br>on suicide, <a href="#pb337" class="pageref">337</a>; <br>views of divination, <a href="#pb371" class="pageref">371</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Diogenes the Cynic, <a href="#pb294" class="pageref">294</a>, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>; <br>shamelessness of, <a href="#pb308" class="pageref">308</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Diomedes, <a href="#pb366" class="pageref">366</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Dionysius, a Stoic, and pupil of Zeno, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>; <br>joined Epicureans, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>; <br>president of the Epicurean School, <a href="#pb410" class="pageref">410</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Dionysus, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Divination, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>; <br>attacked by Sceptics, <a href="#pb550" class="pageref">550</a>; <br>a proof of Providence, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>; <br>causes of, <a href="#pb377" class="pageref">377</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Divine Being, <a href="#pb216" class="pageref">216</a>, <a href="#pb217" class="pageref">217</a>, <a href="#pb341" class="pageref">341</a>, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Dogmatic, Schools of post-Aristotelian philosophy, <a href="#pb25" class="pageref">25</a>; <br>Scepticism, <a href="#pb26" class="pageref">26</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Dogmatists, struggle with Sceptics, <a href="#pb524" class="pageref">524</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Doxa"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Δόξα</span></span>, the Epicurean, <a href="#pb430" class="pageref">430</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Duties, perfect and intermediate, <a href="#pb287" class="pageref">287</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Dynamical theory of nature, held by the Stoics, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>, <a href="#pb139" class="pageref">139</a>.
+</p>
+<p>East, the, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>; <br>nations of, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Eclecticism, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>; <br>practical, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>; <br>involves doubt, <a href="#pb30" class="pageref">30</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Eclectics, <a href="#pb22" class="pageref">22</a>; <br>later, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Efficient cause with Stoics, <a href="#pb143" class="pageref">143</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb143" class="pageref">143</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hēgemonikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἡγεμονικόν</span></span>, <a href="#pb158" class="pageref">158</a>, <a href="#pb214" class="pageref">214</a>, <a href="#pb215" class="pageref">215</a>, <a href="#pb244" class="pageref">244</a>, <a href="#pb455" class="pageref">455</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hēgoumenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἡγούμενον</span></span>, <a href="#pb113" class="pageref">113</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Egypt, Greek emigrants to, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Egyptian customs, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Eidos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἶδος</span></span> of Aristotle, <a href="#pb104" class="pageref">104</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Eidōla"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἴδωλα</span></span>, <a href="#pb457" class="pageref">457</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Heimarmenē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Εἱμαρμένη</span></span> of Stoics, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Elean criticism, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Elements, the four, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Elis, birthplace of Pyrrho, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Emotions, <a href="#pb290" class="pageref">290</a>; <br>varieties of, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>; <br>and virtue, <a href="#pb243" class="pageref">243</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb243" class="pageref">243</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Empedocles, his view of Ares, <a href="#pb366" class="pageref">366</a>; <br>on the origin of animals, <a href="#pb451" class="pageref">451</a>; <br>sceptical arguments of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Empire, attempt to revive the, <a href="#pb31" class="pageref">31</a>; <br>a loose congeries of nations, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Empty, the, <a href="#pb196" class="pageref">196</a>, <a href="#pb439" class="pageref">439</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Enargeia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐνάργεια</span></span>, <a href="#pb428" class="pageref">428</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Encyclical knowledge, <a href="#pb60" class="pageref">60</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb573">[<a href="#pb573">573</a>]</span></p>
+<p>End-in-chief of Stoics, <a href="#pb187" class="pageref">187</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Endeiktikon sēmeion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐνδεικτικὸν σημεῖον</span></span>, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Endiathetos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐνδιάθετος λόγος</span></span>, <a href="#pb72" class="pageref">72</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Ennoiai koinai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἔννοιαι κοιναὶ</span></span> of Stoics, <a href="#pb81" class="pageref">81</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Epaminondas, <a href="#pb11" class="pageref">11</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ephesus, birthplace of Heraclitus, <a href="#pb393" class="pageref">393</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Epictetus, <a href="#pb299" class="pageref">299</a>; <br>a freedman, <a href="#pb325" class="pageref">325</a>; <br>native of Phrygia, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>a Stoic, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>; <br>of later times, <a href="#pb316" class="pageref">316</a>; <br>dissuades from matrimony, <a href="#pb324" class="pageref">324</a>; <br>religious language of, <a href="#pb328" class="pageref">328</a>; <br>view of demons, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a><span>.</span>
+</p>
+<p>Epicurean, <a href="#pb415" class="pageref">415</a>, <a href="#pb419" class="pageref">419</a>, <a href="#pb431" class="pageref">431</a>, <a href="#pb437" class="pageref">437</a>, <a href="#pb463" class="pageref">463</a>, <a href="#pb489" class="pageref">489</a><span id="xd33e50493">;</span> <br>view of Stoicism, <a href="#pb311" class="pageref">311</a>; <br>philosophy, <a href="#pb499" class="pageref">499</a>; <br>divisions of, <a href="#pb424" class="pageref">424</a>; <br>antecedents of, <a href="#pb16" class="pageref">16</a>; <br>system, character of, <a href="#pb418" class="pageref">418</a>, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>, <a href="#pb432" class="pageref">432</a>, <a href="#pb472" class="pageref">472</a>, <a href="#pb474" class="pageref">474</a>, <a href="#pb480" class="pageref">480</a>, <a href="#pb481" class="pageref">481</a>, <a href="#pb504" class="pageref">504</a>, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>; <br>outlived others, <a href="#pb417" class="pageref">417</a>; <br>developed, <a href="#pb500" class="pageref">500</a>; <br>historical relations of, <a href="#pb503" class="pageref">503</a>; <br>self-contentment, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>; <br>imperturbability, <a href="#pb21" class="pageref">21</a>; <br>School, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>, <a href="#pb415" class="pageref">415</a>, <a href="#pb420" class="pageref">420</a>; <br>tone of, <a href="#pb498" class="pageref">498</a>; <br>appreciates friendship, <a href="#pb502" class="pageref">502</a>; <br>doctrines, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>; <br>theory, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>; <br>inner connection of, <a href="#pb499" class="pageref">499</a>; <br>ethics, <a href="#pb439" class="pageref">439</a>, <a href="#pb456" class="pageref">456</a>; <br>friendship, <a href="#pb493" class="pageref">493</a>, <a href="#pb495" class="pageref">495</a>, <a href="#pb506" class="pageref">506</a>; <br>Gods, nature of, <a href="#pb467" class="pageref">467</a>; <br>canonic, <a href="#pb415" class="pageref">415</a>; <br>views on nature, <a href="#pb434" class="pageref">434</a>, <a href="#pb457" class="pageref">457</a>; <br>view of virtue, <a href="#pb481" class="pageref">481</a>, <a href="#pb482" class="pageref">482</a>; <br>moral science, <a href="#pb485" class="pageref">485</a>; <br>theory of pleasure, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>, <a href="#pb481" class="pageref">481</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Epicureanism, <a href="#pb26" class="pageref">26</a>, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>, <a href="#pb403" class="pageref">403</a>; <br>scientific value of, <a href="#pb418" class="pageref">418</a>; <br>intellectual value, <a href="#pb420" class="pageref">420</a>; <br>grows out of Cyrenaic teaching, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>; <br>power of self-preservation, <a href="#pb418" class="pageref">418</a>; <br>established in Rome, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>; <br>historical position of, <a href="#pb503" class="pageref">503</a>; <br>relation to Stoicism, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>, <a href="#pb403" class="pageref">403</a>, <a href="#pb503" class="pageref">503</a>, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>, <a href="#pb514" class="pageref">514</a>, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>relation to Aristippus, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>; <br>relation to Democritus, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>; <br>to Aristotle and Plato, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>to older philosophy, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>; <br>aims at a practical science of life, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>; <br>vindicated, <a href="#pb500" class="pageref">500</a>, <a href="#pb513" class="pageref">513</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Epicureans, <a href="#pb412" class="pageref">412</a>, <a href="#pb414" class="pageref">414</a>, <a href="#pb420" class="pageref">420</a>, <a href="#pb458" class="pageref">458</a>; <br>of the Roman period, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>; <br>regard individual side in man, <a href="#pb25" class="pageref">25</a>; <br>distinguished from Stoics, <a href="#pb183" class="pageref">183</a>, <a href="#pb372" class="pageref">372</a>; <br>points of agreement with, <a href="#pb507" class="pageref">507</a>, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>; <br>charged with impropriety by opponents, <a href="#pb407" class="pageref">407</a>; <br>view of divination, <a href="#pb372" class="pageref">372</a>; <br>aim of philosophy, <a href="#pb420" class="pageref">420</a>; <br>divide philosophy into three parts, <a href="#pb424" class="pageref">424</a>; <br>indifferent to explaining phenomena, <a href="#pb434" class="pageref">434</a>; <br>refer them to natural causes, <a href="#pb437" class="pageref">437</a>; <br>consider the earth the centre of the universe, <a href="#pb450" class="pageref">450</a>; <br>on the relations of body and soul, <a href="#pb454" class="pageref">454</a>, <a href="#pb479" class="pageref">479</a>, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>; <br>negative attitude of, towards popular faith, <a href="#pb471" class="pageref">471</a>; <br>averse to public affairs, <a href="#pb491" class="pageref">491</a>; <br>build a rational system on a base of the senses, <a href="#pb500" class="pageref">500</a>; <br>hold theory of atoms, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>; <br>irreligious freethinkers, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>; <br>practical philosophy of, <a href="#pb416" class="pageref">416</a>; <br>onesidedness of, <a href="#pb424" class="pageref">424</a>; <br>explain man’s origin naturally, <a href="#pb451" class="pageref">451</a>; <br>materialism of, <a href="#pb456" class="pageref">456</a>; <br>sincerity of, <a href="#pb465" class="pageref">465</a>; <br>view of the Gods, <a href="#pb468" class="pageref">468</a>; <br>on bodily pleasures, <a href="#pb478" class="pageref">478</a>, <a href="#pb506" class="pageref">506</a>; <br>moral science of, <a href="#pb485" class="pageref">485</a>; <br>friends of monarchy, <a href="#pb492" class="pageref">492</a>; <br>view of friendship, <a href="#pb494" class="pageref">494</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Epicurus, school of, subordinate theory to practice, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>view of the world as unlimited, <a href="#pb203" class="pageref">203</a>, <a href="#pb409" class="pageref">409</a>; <br>of empty space, <a href="#pb445" class="pageref">445</a>, <a href="#pb446" class="pageref">446</a>; <br>life of, <a href="#pb404" class="pageref">404</a>; <br>writings unread in Cicero’s time, <a href="#pb419" class="pageref">419</a>; <br>despised learning, <a href="#pb421" class="pageref">421</a>, <a href="#pb501" class="pageref">501</a>; <br>theory of knowledge, <a href="#pb423" class="pageref">423</a>; <br>on certainty of the senses, <a href="#pb427" class="pageref">427</a>; <br>on standard of truth, <a href="#pb431" class="pageref">431</a>; <br>a voluminous writer, <a href="#pb47" class="pageref">47</a>; <br>views on colour, <a href="#pb433" class="pageref">433</a>; <br>undervalues logic, <a href="#pb434" class="pageref">434</a>, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>; <br>undervalues natural science, <a href="#pb436" class="pageref">436</a>, <a href="#pb438" class="pageref">438</a>, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>and mind, <a href="#pb440" class="pageref">440</a>, <a href="#pb513" class="pageref">513</a>; <br>relations to Democritus, <a href="#pb439" class="pageref">439</a>, <a href="#pb414" class="pageref">414</a>, <a href="#pb502" class="pageref">502</a>, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>; <br>does not investigate psychologically, <a href="#pb459" class="pageref">459</a>; <br>does not give up belief in Gods, <a href="#pb465" class="pageref">465</a>, <a href="#pb466" class="pageref">466</a>; <br>position of, contrasted with the Stoics, <a href="#pb481" class="pageref">481</a>, <a href="#pb456" class="pageref">456</a>, <a href="#pb484" class="pageref">484</a>, <span class="pageNum" id="pb574">[<a href="#pb574">574</a>]</span>504, <a href="#pb512" class="pageref">512</a>; <br>view on friendship, <a href="#pb495" class="pageref">495</a>, <a href="#pb496" class="pageref">496</a>; <br>system of, bears a definite stamp, <a href="#pb503" class="pageref">503</a>; <br>dogmatism of, <a href="#pb418" class="pageref">418</a>; <br>explains phenomena, <a href="#pb435" class="pageref">435</a>; <br>and the origin of things, <a href="#pb444" class="pageref">444</a>; <br>view of history, <a href="#pb453" class="pageref">453</a>; <br>of the soul, <a href="#pb454" class="pageref">454</a>; <br>moral science of, <a href="#pb472" class="pageref">472</a>, <a href="#pb485" class="pageref">485</a>; <br>on the wise man, <a href="#pb483" class="pageref">483</a>, <a href="#pb506" class="pageref">506</a>; <br>connection with others, <a href="#pb490" class="pageref">490</a>; <br>deprecated family life, <a href="#pb492" class="pageref">492</a>; <br>his apotheosis of nature, <a href="#pb453" class="pageref">453</a>; <br>view of pleasure as the highest good, <a href="#pb235" class="pageref">235</a>, <a href="#pb420" class="pageref">420</a>, <a href="#pb473" class="pageref">473</a>, <a href="#pb474" class="pageref">474</a>, <a href="#pb475" class="pageref">475</a>, <a href="#pb477" class="pageref">477</a>, <a href="#pb478" class="pageref">478</a>, <a href="#pb480" class="pageref">480</a>, <a href="#pb488" class="pageref">488</a>, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>; <br>difficulties of, <a href="#pb499" class="pageref">499</a>; <br>view of philosophy, <a href="#pb500" class="pageref">500</a>; <br>objection to predecessors, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>; <br>personal vanity of, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>; <br>labours of, <a href="#pb407" class="pageref">407</a>; <br>writings of, <a href="#pb419" class="pageref">419</a>; <br>death of, <a href="#pb409" class="pageref">409</a>; <br>garden of, <a href="#pb410" class="pageref">410</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb21" class="pageref">21</a>, <a href="#pb406" class="pageref">406</a>, <a href="#pb501" class="pageref">501</a>; <br>scholars of, <a href="#pb408" class="pageref">408</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Epochē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐποχὴ</span></span> of Sceptics, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Eratosthenes, a Cyrenaic, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>; <br>gained for Stoicism, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Eschewable things, <a href="#pb278" class="pageref">278</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Esprit de corps of Greeks, <a href="#pb15" class="pageref">15</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Eteroiōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἐτεροίωσις</span></span>, <a href="#pb78" class="pageref">78</a>
+</p>
+<p>Ethics, <a href="#pb67" class="pageref">67</a>; <br>Stoic views on, <a href="#pb213" class="pageref">213</a>, <a href="#pb382" class="pageref">382</a>; <br>Epicurean views on, <a href="#pb423" class="pageref">423</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ether, God as the, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>, <a href="#pb154" class="pageref">154</a>, <a href="#pb201" class="pageref">201</a>.
+</p>
+<p>E<span class="trans" title="yboulia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὺβουλία</span></span>, <a href="#pb548" class="pageref">548</a>
+</p>
+<p>E<span class="trans" title="ydaimonia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὺδαιμονία</span></span>, <a href="#pb352" class="pageref">352</a>
+</p>
+<p>Euemerus, rationalism of, <a href="#pb350" class="pageref">350</a>.
+</p>
+<p>E<span class="trans" title="ypatheia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὺπάθεια</span></span>, <a href="#pb291" class="pageref">291</a>.
+</p>
+<p>E<span class="trans" title="ytychēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ὺτυχής</span></span>, <a href="#pb270" class="pageref">270</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Evil, existence of physical, <a href="#pb188" class="pageref">188</a>; <br>of moral, <a href="#pb189" class="pageref">189</a>; <br>compared with good, <a href="#pb230" class="pageref">230</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hexis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἕξις</span></span>, <a href="#pb208" class="pageref">208</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Expansion, cause of, <a href="#pb140" class="pageref">140</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Expression of Stoics, <a href="#pb132" class="pageref">132</a> [<i>see</i> Utterance]; <br>incomplete, <a href="#pb94" class="pageref">94</a>; <br>perfect, <a href="#pb94" class="pageref">94</a>, <a href="#pb110" class="pageref">110</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Faith, popular, and Stoicism, <a href="#pb343" class="pageref">343</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Fallacies, Stoic refutation of, <a href="#pb122" class="pageref">122</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Family, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb320" class="pageref">320</a>; <br>Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb490" class="pageref">490</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Fate or destiny, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>; <br>fates, <a href="#pb365" class="pageref">365</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Fear, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Fire, God as, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>, <a href="#pb154" class="pageref">154</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Fluvius explained by the Stoics, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Folly, <a href="#pb268" class="pageref">268</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Force and matter, <a href="#pb139" class="pageref">139</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb141" class="pageref">141</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Foreknowledge, an argument for Providence, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Form, Stoic category of, <a href="#pb102" class="pageref">102</a>, <a href="#pb104" class="pageref">104</a>; <br>antithesis of, and matter, <a href="#pb6" class="pageref">6</a>, <a href="#pb173" class="pageref">173</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Formal logic of Stoics, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Freedom, Stoic views of, <a href="#pb219" class="pageref">219</a>; <br>of will defended by Carneades, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Friendship, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb317" class="pageref">317</a>; <br>Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb493" class="pageref">493</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Galenus, <a href="#pb246" class="pageref">246</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Galilæo, Aristarchus of Samos, the, of antiquity, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Generative reason, <a href="#pb172" class="pageref">172</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Germanic character, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>.
+</p>
+<p>God, conception of, <a href="#pb84" class="pageref">84</a>, <a href="#pb343" class="pageref">343</a>, <a href="#pb344" class="pageref">344</a>, <a href="#pb347" class="pageref">347</a>, <a href="#pb349" class="pageref">349</a>; <br>Stoic view of, <a href="#pb147" class="pageref">147</a>; <br>as original matter, <a href="#pb155" class="pageref">155</a>; <br>identical with the world, <a href="#pb156" class="pageref">156</a>; <br>Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb465" class="pageref">465</a>, <a href="#pb466" class="pageref">466</a>; <br>criticism of, <a href="#pb462" class="pageref">462</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb466" class="pageref">466</a>; <br>as Providence, <a href="#pb463" class="pageref">463</a>; <br>Sceptic view of, <a href="#pb548" class="pageref">548</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Good, Stoic conception of<span>,</span> <a href="#pb84" class="pageref">84</a>, <a href="#pb128" class="pageref">128</a>; <br>Stoic view of, highest, <a href="#pb225" class="pageref">225</a>; <br>and evil, <a href="#pb230" class="pageref">230</a>; <br>and pleasure, <a href="#pb235" class="pageref">235</a>; <br>as law, <a href="#pb240" class="pageref">240</a>; <br>secondary, <a href="#pb250" class="pageref">250</a>; <br>Epicurean view of highest, <a href="#pb472" class="pageref">472</a>; <br>discussed by Carneades, <a href="#pb557" class="pageref">557</a>, <a href="#pb558" class="pageref">558</a>, <a href="#pb561" class="pageref">561</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Graces, Chrysippus’ view of, <a href="#pb365" class="pageref">365</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Grammar of words, <a href="#pb94" class="pageref">94</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Greece, state of, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>, <a href="#pb407" class="pageref">407</a>; <br>helplessness of, <a href="#pb16" class="pageref">16</a>; <br>a Roman province, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>; <br>loss of nationality, <a href="#pb34" class="pageref">34</a>; <br>intellect of, <a href="#pb10" class="pageref">10</a>, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>, <a href="#pb513" class="pageref">513</a>; <br><span class="pageNum" id="pb575">[<a href="#pb575">575</a>]</span>Stoics in, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>change in views of, <a href="#pb8" class="pageref">8</a>; <br>mental tone of, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>; <br>brilliant career of, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>; <br>political degradation of, <a href="#pb10" class="pageref">10</a>; <br>philosophic spirit of, <a href="#pb23" class="pageref">23</a>; <br>influence of Rome on, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>; <br>common opinions of, <a href="#pb286" class="pageref">286</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Greek, <a href="#pb327" class="pageref">327</a>, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>; <br>culture, <a href="#pb34" class="pageref">34</a>, <a href="#pb342" class="pageref">342</a>, <a href="#pb344" class="pageref">344</a>; <br>mind, <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>; <br>propriety of conduct, <a href="#pb8" class="pageref">8</a>; <br>all branches of, family, <a href="#pb10" class="pageref">10</a>; <br>religion, <a href="#pb34" class="pageref">34</a>; <br>mythology, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>; <br>philosophy, <a href="#pb563" class="pageref">563</a>, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>; <br>the offspring of freedom, <a href="#pb15" class="pageref">15</a>; <br>lent itself to Eclecticism, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a><span id="xd33e51868">;</span> <br>setting of, <a href="#pb34" class="pageref">34</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Greeks, <a href="#pb15" class="pageref">15</a>, <a href="#pb127" class="pageref">127</a>; <br>national exclusiveness of, <a href="#pb8" class="pageref">8</a>; <br>and foreigners, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>; <br>the Bible of, <a href="#pb356" class="pageref">356</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hades, Stoic interpretation of, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Happiness connected with virtue, <a href="#pb191" class="pageref">191</a>; <br>negative character of, <a href="#pb239" class="pageref">239</a>; <br>intellectual, according to Epicureans, <a href="#pb476" class="pageref">476</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hecato, <a href="#pb285" class="pageref">285</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Helios, claim of, to be a God, <a href="#pb550" class="pageref">550</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hellas, seat of learning, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>; <br>religion of, <a href="#pb8" class="pageref">8</a>; <br>the playball of changing rulers, <a href="#pb12" class="pageref">12</a>; <br>denuded of her population, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hellenism, age of, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hephæstus, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>, <a href="#pb366" class="pageref">366</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Heraclea, birthplace of Dionysius the Stoic, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Heraclitus, of Ephesus, <a href="#pb393" class="pageref">393</a>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>relation of Stoics to, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>, <a href="#pb161" class="pageref">161</a>, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>, <a href="#pb393" class="pageref">393</a>, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>, <a href="#pb439" class="pageref">439</a>, <a href="#pb502" class="pageref">502</a>, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>; <br>views on cosmogony, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>, <a href="#pb204" class="pageref">204</a>, <a href="#pb393" class="pageref">393</a>, <a href="#pb394" class="pageref">394</a>; <br>not the cause of Stoic materialism, <a href="#pb134" class="pageref">134</a>; <br>sceptical arguments of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>pantheism of, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>; <br>flux of things, <a href="#pb394" class="pageref">394</a>; <br>physics of, borrowed by Stoics, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>; <br>view of Zeno, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>; <br> of Proteus, <a href="#pb360" class="pageref">360</a>; <br> of Apollo, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>; <br> of Cerberus, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Heraclitus, a Stoic philosopher, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>; <br>explains the Odyssey, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Herbart, <a href="#pb262" class="pageref">262</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hercules, <a href="#pb292" class="pageref">292</a>; <br>Stoic view of, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Here, legend of, explained, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Herillus the Stoic, <a href="#pb41" class="pageref">41</a>; <br>of Carthage, <a href="#pb42" class="pageref">42</a>, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>; <br>approximates to Peripatetic School, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>; <br>declared knowledge to be the chief good, <a href="#pb58" class="pageref">58</a>; <br>and the end of life, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>; <br>fellow-student of Cleanthes, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hermarchus, an Epicurean, succeeded Epicurus as president, <a href="#pb409" class="pageref">409</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hermes, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hesiod, appealed to by the Stoics, <a href="#pb356" class="pageref">356</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hestia, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hippoclides, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb410" class="pageref">410</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Homer, appealed to by the Stoics, <a href="#pb356" class="pageref">356</a>; <br>interpretation of, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Homeric, Theomachy, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>; <br>story of Apollo’s reconciliation, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Hypothetical judgment, <a href="#pb111" class="pageref">111</a>, <a href="#pb113" class="pageref">113</a>; <br>inference, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>; <br>sentences, five original forms of, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Iapetos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἰαπετος</span></span>, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ida, Mount, <a href="#pb360" class="pageref">360</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Idealism of Plato, <a href="#pb130" class="pageref">130</a>; <br>and Aristotle, <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ideas, <a href="#pb75" class="pageref">75</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Idiōs poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ἰδίως ποιόν</span></span>, <a href="#pb104" class="pageref">104</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Immortality, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb219" class="pageref">219</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Imperfect expression of Stoics, <a href="#pb94" class="pageref">94</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Imperialism, Byzantine, <a href="#pb33" class="pageref">33</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Imperturbability, mental, of Sceptics, <a href="#pb18" class="pageref">18</a>, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Impressions the basis of perceptions, <a href="#pb77" class="pageref">77</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Incorporeal, the, <a href="#pb132" class="pageref">132</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Indefinite, the, the highest conception, <a href="#pb98" class="pageref">98</a>, <a href="#pb99" class="pageref">99</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb576">[<a href="#pb576">576</a>]</span></p>
+<p>India, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a><span>.</span>
+</p>
+<p>Indicative sign of Stoics, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Indifferent things, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Individual, the, Epicurean views of, <a href="#pb485" class="pageref">485</a>; <br>relation of, to Providence, <a href="#pb177" class="pageref">177</a>; <br>importance of, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Inference, Stoic, <a href="#pb116" class="pageref">116</a>; <br>hypothetical, <a href="#pb117" class="pageref">117</a>; <br>composite forms of, <a href="#pb117" class="pageref">117</a>; <br>from a single premiss, <a href="#pb121" class="pageref">121</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Innate ideas, <a href="#pb80" class="pageref">80</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Intelligence, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>; <br>Epicurean, <a href="#pb476" class="pageref">476</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Intermediate duties, <a href="#pb287" class="pageref">287</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Intermingling, universal, Stoic theory of, <a href="#pb136" class="pageref">136</a><span>.</span>
+</p>
+<p>Irrational parts of nature, <a href="#pb204" class="pageref">204</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Irresistible perceptions, standard of truth with Stoics, <a href="#pb87" class="pageref">87</a>; <br>this theory attacked by Sceptics, <a href="#pb530" class="pageref">530</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Italian allies of Greece, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Jewish notion of demons, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Jews, ethics of, <a href="#pb240" class="pageref">240</a>; <br>follow Zeno, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Judgment, Stoic, <a href="#pb110" class="pageref">110</a>; <br>simple, <a href="#pb111" class="pageref">111</a>; <br>composite, <a href="#pb113" class="pageref">113</a>; <br>modality of, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>; <br>Sceptic, withholding of, <a href="#pb523" class="pageref">523</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Jupiter, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Justice, <a href="#pb315" class="pageref">315</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Katalēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Καταληψις</span></span>, <a href="#pb90" class="pageref">90</a>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Katalēptikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Καταληπτικόν</span></span>, <a href="#pb91" class="pageref">91</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Katorthōma"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κατόρθωμα</span></span>, <a href="#pb265" class="pageref">265</a>, <a href="#pb287" class="pageref">287</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Knowledge, Stoic theory of, <a href="#pb75" class="pageref">75</a>; <br>general character of, <a href="#pb75" class="pageref">75</a>; <br>particular points in, <a href="#pb77" class="pageref">77</a>; <br>artificially formed, <a href="#pb82" class="pageref">82</a>; <br>a standard, <a href="#pb77" class="pageref">77</a>; <br>impossible with Sceptics, <a href="#pb521" class="pageref">521</a>; <br>denied by Arcesilaus, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>denied by Carneades, <a href="#pb538" class="pageref">538</a>, <a href="#pb541" class="pageref">541</a>; <br>Epicurean theory of, <a href="#pb426" class="pageref">426</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Koinai ennoiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι</span></span> of Stoics, <a href="#pb81" class="pageref">81</a>, <a href="#pb90" class="pageref">90</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Koinōs poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κοινῶς ποιόν</span></span>, <a href="#pb104" class="pageref">104</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Koios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κοῖος</span></span>, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Krasis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Κρᾶσις</span></span>, <a href="#pb106" class="pageref">106</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>; <br><span class="trans" title="di’ holōn"><span lang="grc" class="grek">δι’ ὅλων</span></span>, <a href="#pb137" class="pageref">137</a>; <br>defined, <a href="#pb137" class="pageref">137</a>, n. <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>.
+</p>
+<p><i>See also</i> C.
+</p>
+<p>Laconian, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Lacydes, a philosopher of Middle Academy, <a href="#pb46" class="pageref">46</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Lathe biōsas"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λάθε βιώσας</span></span>, Epicurean watchword, <a href="#pb491" class="pageref">491</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Latin, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Law, Universal, God as, <a href="#pb150" class="pageref">150</a>, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>; <br>Highest Good as, <a href="#pb241" class="pageref">241</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Leading clause, <a href="#pb113" class="pageref">113</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Leibnitz on the marvellous, <a href="#pb374" class="pageref">374</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λεκτόν</span></span>, the Stoic, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>, <a href="#pb132" class="pageref">132</a>, <a href="#pb135" class="pageref">135</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Lēgon"><span lang="grc" class="grek"><span class="corr" id="xd33e52718" title="Source: Δῆγον">Λῆγον</span></span></span>, <a href="#pb113" class="pageref">113</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Leto, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb361" class="pageref">361</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Logic of Stoics, <a href="#pb70" class="pageref">70</a>; <br>formal, <a href="#pb75" class="pageref">75</a>, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>, <a href="#pb123" class="pageref">123</a>; <br>estimate of, <a href="#pb123" class="pageref">123</a>; <br>an outpost of their system, <a href="#pb124" class="pageref">124</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Logismos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λογισμός</span></span>, <a href="#pb214" class="pageref">214</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Logistikon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λογιστικόν</span></span>, <a href="#pb214" class="pageref">214</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Logos endiathetos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος</span></span>, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>; <br><span class="trans" title="spermatikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">σπερματικός</span></span>, <a href="#pb172" class="pageref">172</a>, <a href="#pb360" class="pageref">360</a>, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>; <br><span class="trans" title="physikoi logoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φυσικοὶ λόγοι</span></span> of the Stoics, <a href="#pb355" class="pageref">355</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Lotoides, birth of, explained, <a href="#pb362" class="pageref">362</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Lotophagi explained, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Lucretius, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb415" class="pageref">415</a>; <br>view of atoms, <a href="#pb447" class="pageref">447</a>; <br>view on the origin of animals, <a href="#pb451" class="pageref">451</a>; <br>view of religion, <a href="#pb462" class="pageref">462</a>; <br>view of the Gods, <a href="#pb467" class="pageref">467</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Macedonian supremacy, <a href="#pb12" class="pageref">12</a>, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a>; <br>conqueror, <a href="#pb327" class="pageref">327</a>; <br>empire, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Macedonians, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Man, Stoic views on, <a href="#pb210" class="pageref">210</a>, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a>; <br>and the course of the world, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a>; <br>Epicurean views on, <a href="#pb451" class="pageref">451</a>; <br>origin of, <a href="#pb457" class="pageref">457</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Marcus Aurelius, a Stoic, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>, <a href="#pb184" class="pageref">184</a>, <a href="#pb299" class="pageref">299</a>; <br>the last of the Stoics, <a href="#pb314" class="pageref">314</a>; <br>a later Stoic, <a href="#pb316" class="pageref">316</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Mars, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Material, <a href="#pb100" class="pageref">100</a>, <a href="#pb172" class="pageref">172</a>; <br>reality belonging to, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>; <br>causes of action, <a href="#pb130" class="pageref">130</a>; <br>wide extension of, <a href="#pb131" class="pageref">131</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Materialism, Stoic, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>, <a href="#pb210" class="pageref">210</a>, <a href="#pb384" class="pageref">384</a>, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>; <br>causes of, <a href="#pb132" class="pageref">132</a>; <br>consequences of, <a href="#pb135" class="pageref">135</a>; <br><span class="pageNum" id="pb577">[<a href="#pb577">577</a>]</span>not an expansion of Peripatetic views, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Materialistic nature of the soul, <a href="#pb210" class="pageref">210</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Matter, antithesis of, and form, <a href="#pb6" class="pageref">6</a>, <a href="#pb101" class="pageref">101</a>, <a href="#pb155" class="pageref">155</a>; <br>and force, <a href="#pb139" class="pageref">139</a>; <br>identical with God, <a href="#pb155" class="pageref">155</a>; <br>resolved into primary being, <a href="#pb164" class="pageref">164</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Mechanical combination, <a href="#pb106" class="pageref">106</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Megarian criticism, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Megarians, fallacies fostered by, <a href="#pb122" class="pageref">122</a>; <br>teaching of, <a href="#pb255" class="pageref">255</a>; <br>sophisms of, <a href="#pb533" class="pageref">533</a>; <br>logical accuracy of, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>; <br>subtleties of, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>, <a href="#pb533" class="pageref">533</a>; <br>relation of Stoics to, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>; <br>criticism, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Mercury, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Mercy, <a href="#pb315" class="pageref">315</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Meteorology, Stoic, <a href="#pb206" class="pageref">206</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Metrodorus, an Epicurean, and pupil of Epicurus, <a href="#pb408" class="pageref">408</a>; <br>writings unread in Cicero’s time, <a href="#pb419" class="pageref">419</a>; <br>favourite pupil of Epicurus, <a href="#pb478" class="pageref">478</a>; <br>asserts that everything good has reference to the belly, <a href="#pb479" class="pageref">479</a>; <br>on the wise man, <a href="#pb483" class="pageref">483</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Might, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Mind, God as, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a><span>,</span> <a href="#pb154" class="pageref">154</a>.
+</p>
+<p>M<span class="trans" title="ixis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ῖξις</span></span>, <a href="#pb106" class="pageref">106</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>; <br>Stoic theory of, <a href="#pb136" class="pageref">136</a>; <br>definition of, <a href="#pb137" class="pageref">137</a>, n. <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Mnaseas, the father of Zeno the Stoic, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Modality, Stoic, of judgments, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Moon, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Moral, responsibility, indicated, <a href="#pb179" class="pageref">179</a>; <br>theory of the world, <a href="#pb186" class="pageref">186</a>; <br>evil, <a href="#pb188" class="pageref">188</a>; <br>science applied, <a href="#pb297" class="pageref">297</a>; <br>connection of, and scientific elements in Stoicism, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>; <br>view of Stoics attacked, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>; <br>of Sceptics, <a href="#pb556" class="pageref">556</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Muses, <a href="#pb365" class="pageref">365</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Musonius, a later Stoic, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>, <a href="#pb316" class="pageref">316</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Myths, interpretation of, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>; <br>Stoic interpretation of, <a href="#pb356" class="pageref">356</a>, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb362" class="pageref">362</a>, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Natural science, <a href="#pb67" class="pageref">67</a>; <br>of Stoics <a href="#pb125" class="pageref">125</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Nature, Stoic study of, <a href="#pb125" class="pageref">125</a>; <br>God as, <a href="#pb150" class="pageref">150</a>; <br>Epicurean views of, <a href="#pb434" class="pageref">434</a>; <br>object of study, <a href="#pb434" class="pageref">434</a>; <br>mechanical explanation of, <a href="#pb437" class="pageref">437</a>; <br>general ideas on, <a href="#pb194" class="pageref">194</a>; <br>the same as primary being, <a href="#pb171" class="pageref">171</a>; <br>irrational parts of, <a href="#pb204" class="pageref">204</a>; <br>submission to the course of, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Necessity, a proof of Providence, <a href="#pb174" class="pageref">174</a>; <br>meaning of, <a href="#pb188" class="pageref">188</a>; <br>difficulties of theory of, <a href="#pb117" class="pageref">117</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Negative character of happiness, <a href="#pb239" class="pageref">239</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Neocles, father of Epicurus, <a href="#pb404" class="pageref">404</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Neoplatonic School, <a href="#pb135" class="pageref">135</a>; <br>doctrine of revelation, <a href="#pb380" class="pageref">380</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Neoplatonism produced by a real interest in knowledge, <a href="#pb23" class="pageref">23</a>; <br>on the same platform as other post-Aristotelian philosophy, <a href="#pb24" class="pageref">24</a>; <br>of Alexandria, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>; <br>transition to, <a href="#pb31" class="pageref">31</a>; <br>united previous elements, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>; <br>the intellectual reproduction of Byzantine Imperialism, <a href="#pb33" class="pageref">33</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Neopythagorean doctrine of revelation, <a href="#pb380" class="pageref">380</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Neopythagoreans, <a href="#pb22" class="pageref">22</a>, <a href="#pb23" class="pageref">23</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Nominalism, Cynic, <a href="#pb84" class="pageref">84</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Non-material, the, of the Stoics <a href="#pb132" class="pageref">132</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Notions, Epicurean, <a href="#pb428" class="pageref">428</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Odyssey, explained by Stoics, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Olympians pull down Zeno, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Opinion, Epicurean, <a href="#pb429" class="pageref">429</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Oriental modes of thought, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>; <br>emperors of Rome, <a href="#pb31" class="pageref">31</a>; <br>despotism, <a href="#pb33" class="pageref">33</a>; <br>mysticism, <a href="#pb33" class="pageref">33</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Original or primary being, <a href="#pb158" class="pageref">158</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Horthos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὁρθὸς λόγος</span></span>, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Horpē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὁρπή</span></span>, <a href="#pb242" class="pageref">242</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pain, freedom from, <a href="#pb474" class="pageref">474</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pan, <a href="#pb366" class="pageref">366</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb578">[<a href="#pb578">578</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Panætius, a later Stoic and scholar of Antipater, <a href="#pb51" class="pageref">51</a>; <br>not a severe Stoic, <a href="#pb286" class="pageref">286</a>; <br>teacher of Posidonius, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>; <br>treatise of, <a href="#pb302" class="pageref">302</a>; <br>followed by Cicero, <a href="#pb315" class="pageref">315</a>; <br>treatise on divination, <a href="#pb371" class="pageref">371</a>; <br>denies omens, <a href="#pb374" class="pageref">374</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pantheism of Stoics, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>, <a href="#pb156" class="pageref">156</a>, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>; <br>dissented from by Boëthus, <a href="#pb159" class="pageref">159</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Parathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Παράθεσις</span></span>, <a href="#pb106" class="pageref">106</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>; <br>defined, <a href="#pb137" class="pageref">137</a>, n. <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Parmenides, sceptical arguments of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Patro, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb414" class="pageref">414</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Peloponnesian war, <a href="#pb10" class="pageref">10</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Peloponnesus, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Penelope, suitors of, <a href="#pb60" class="pageref">60</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Perceptions derived by Stoics from impressions, <a href="#pb77" class="pageref">77</a>; <br>the basis of conceptions, <a href="#pb79" class="pageref">79</a>, <a href="#pb83" class="pageref">83</a>; <br>a standard, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>; <br>irresistible, the standard of truth, <a href="#pb87" class="pageref">87</a>; <br>sole source of truth, <a href="#pb135" class="pageref">135</a>; <br>Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Perfect duties, <a href="#pb287" class="pageref">287</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pericles, age of, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Peripatetic School, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>; <br>approached by Herillus the Stoic, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>; <br>on the human soul, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>; <br>materialism, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>view of emotions, <a href="#pb253" class="pageref">253</a>; <br>goes back to earlier view, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>; <br>philosophy, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>debt of Stoics to, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>; <br>notion, <a href="#pb244" class="pageref">244</a>; <br>doctrine, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>; <br>views, <a href="#pb398" class="pageref">398</a>, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>; <br>view of goods, <a href="#pb559" class="pageref">559</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Peripatetics, opposed to the Stoics, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>, <a href="#pb66" class="pageref">66</a>; <br>the Sorites of the, <a href="#pb120" class="pageref">120</a>; <br>logic of, <a href="#pb124" class="pageref">124</a>; <br>ground occupied by, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>view of emotions, <a href="#pb253" class="pageref">253</a>; <br>teaching of, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>, <a href="#pb398" class="pageref">398</a>, <a href="#pb564" class="pageref">564</a>; <br>theory of goods, <a href="#pb559" class="pageref">559</a>; <br>attacked by Stoics, <a href="#pb233" class="pageref">233</a>; <br>not the cause of Zeno’s materialism, <a href="#pb134" class="pageref">134</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Persæus, a Stoic and pupil of Zeno, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>; <br>fellow pupil of Aristo, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Persian war, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>; <br>Greek dependence on empire, <a href="#pb12" class="pageref">12</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Phantasiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Φαντασίαι</span></span>, <a href="#pb77" class="pageref">77</a>; <br><span class="trans" title="katalēptikai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">καταληπτικαί</span></span>, <a href="#pb89" class="pageref">89</a>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>, <a href="#pb541" class="pageref">541</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Phædrus, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb413" class="pageref">413</a>, <a href="#pb414" class="pageref">414</a>, <a href="#pb417" class="pageref">417</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Philo, a pupil of Diodorus, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Philodemus, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb413" class="pageref">413</a>, <a href="#pb468" class="pageref">468</a>; <br>view of the Gods, <a href="#pb468" class="pageref">468</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Philosophy, Stoic divisions of, <a href="#pb66" class="pageref">66</a>; <br>Epicurean divisions of, <a href="#pb424" class="pageref">424</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Phlius, birthplace of Timon, <a href="#pb519" class="pageref">519</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Phrygian, Epictetus, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Physis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Φύσις</span></span>, <a href="#pb228" class="pageref">228</a>, <a href="#pb350" class="pageref">350</a>, <a href="#pb209" class="pageref">209</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Pithanē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πιθανή</span></span>, <a href="#pb555" class="pageref">555</a>
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Pithanotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πιθανότης</span></span>, <a href="#pb555" class="pageref">555</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Planets, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb208" class="pageref">208</a>; <br>Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb451" class="pageref">451</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Plato, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>, <a href="#pb305" class="pageref">305</a>, <a href="#pb323" class="pageref">323</a>, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>, <a href="#pb513" class="pageref">513</a>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>perfection of Greek philosophy in, <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>; <br>the study of, <a href="#pb126" class="pageref">126</a>; <br>example, <a href="#pb187" class="pageref">187</a>; <br>many-sidedness of, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>; <br>merits and defects of, <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>; <br>idealism of, <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>, <a href="#pb130" class="pageref">130</a>; <br>flaws in teaching of, <a href="#pb3" class="pageref">3</a>; <br>dialectical exclusiveness of, <a href="#pb4" class="pageref">4</a>; <br>antagonistic currents in, <a href="#pb45" class="pageref">45</a>; <br>general conceptions of, <a href="#pb18" class="pageref">18</a>; <br>denies virtue in great men, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>; <br>view of demons, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>; <br>theory of final causes, <a href="#pb396" class="pageref">396</a>; <br>system of, connected with Greek character, <a href="#pb7" class="pageref">7</a>; <br>doctrine of the four elements, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>; <br>view of the stars, <a href="#pb205" class="pageref">205</a>; <br>of the seat of life, <a href="#pb214" class="pageref">214</a>; <br>view of the soul, <a href="#pb215" class="pageref">215</a>; <br>on the regulation of emotions, <a href="#pb252" class="pageref">252</a>; <br>permits a lie, <a href="#pb305" class="pageref">305</a>; <br>prejudice against foreigners, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>; <br>view of pleasure, <a href="#pb474" class="pageref">474</a>; <br>places knowledge above action, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>; <br>advocates community of wives, <a href="#pb310" class="pageref">310</a>; <br>distinguishes supreme and popular gods, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>; <br>known to Epicurus, <a href="#pb405" class="pageref">405</a>; <br>sceptical arguments of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>pure speculation of, <a href="#pb57" class="pageref">57</a>; <br>metaphysical notions of, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>example of, <a href="#pb187" class="pageref">187</a>, <a href="#pb258" class="pageref">258</a>; <br>time of, <a href="#pb178" class="pageref">178</a>; <br>teaching of, <a href="#pb252" class="pageref">252</a>, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>, <a href="#pb405" class="pageref">405</a>; <br>formal and final causes of, <a href="#pb141" class="pageref">141</a>; <br>relation of <span class="pageNum" id="pb579">[<a href="#pb579">579</a>]</span>Stoics to, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>; <br>relation of Epicureans to, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>view of the stars, <a href="#pb205" class="pageref">205</a>; <br>view of the soul, <a href="#pb213" class="pageref">213</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Platonic, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>, <a href="#pb221" class="pageref">221</a>, <a href="#pb304" class="pageref">304</a>, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>; <br>theory of conceptions, <a href="#pb5" class="pageref">5</a>; <br>system, <a href="#pb31" class="pageref">31</a>; <br>speculations, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>; <br>School at Alexandria, <a href="#pb328" class="pageref">328</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Platonism, <a href="#pb342" class="pageref">342</a>, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>Seneca’s resemblance to, <a href="#pb222" class="pageref">222</a>; <br>a religious system, <a href="#pb342" class="pageref">342</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Platonists, <a href="#pb22" class="pageref">22</a>, <a href="#pb30" class="pageref">30</a>, <a href="#pb61" class="pageref">61</a>; <br>apologetical writings of, <a href="#pb25" class="pageref">25</a>; <br>School of, converted to Scepticism, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>; <br>opposed to Stoics, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pleasure, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>; <br>and the good, <a href="#pb235" class="pageref">235</a>; <br>Epicureans, <a href="#pb472" class="pageref">472</a>; <br>freedom from pain, <a href="#pb474" class="pageref">474</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Plotinus, <a href="#pb23" class="pageref">23</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Plutarch, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>treats virtues as many, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>treatise against Colotes, <a href="#pb409" class="pageref">409</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Pneumata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πνεύματα</span></span>, the Stoic, <a href="#pb129" class="pageref">129</a>, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Poion"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ποιόν</span></span>, <a href="#pb100" class="pageref">100</a>, <a href="#pb104" class="pageref">104</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Poiotēs"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ποιότης</span></span>, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a><span>.</span>
+</p>
+<p>Polemo, a teacher of Stoic Zeno, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Political life, <a href="#pb318" class="pageref">318</a>; <br>Stoic aversion to, <a href="#pb324" class="pageref">324</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Polyænus, an Epicurean, pupil of Epicurus, <a href="#pb408" class="pageref">408</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Polybius, as an authority, <a href="#pb565" class="pageref">565</a>
+</p>
+<p>Polystratus, third president of the Epicurean School, <a href="#pb410" class="pageref">410</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Polytheism, truth in, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>; <br>attacked by Sceptics, <a href="#pb549" class="pageref">549</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pontus, birthplace of Dionysius the Stoic, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πῶς ἔχον</span></span>, <a href="#pb100" class="pageref">100</a>, <a href="#pb107" class="pageref">107</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Poseidon, Stoic interpretation of, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>; <br>claim of, to be a god, discussed, <a href="#pb550" class="pageref">550</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Posidonius, the Stoic, <a href="#pb206" class="pageref">206</a>, <a href="#pb208" class="pageref">208</a>, <a href="#pb293" class="pageref">293</a>, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>; <br>popular notion of demons, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>; <br>views on divination, <a href="#pb371" class="pageref">371</a>, <a href="#pb373" class="pageref">373</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Possible, <a href="#pb178" class="pageref">178</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Post-Aristotelian philosophy, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>, <a href="#pb484" class="pageref">484</a>, <a href="#pb542" class="pageref">542</a>, <a href="#pb566" class="pageref">566</a>; <br>causes producing, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>; <br>character of, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>subordinates theory to practice, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>peculiar mode of dealing with practical questions, <a href="#pb21" class="pageref">21</a>; <br>its development, <a href="#pb25" class="pageref">25</a>; <br>unlike that of Socrates, <a href="#pb18" class="pageref">18</a>; <br>times, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>, <a href="#pb561" class="pageref">561</a>; <br>systems, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>, <a href="#pb512" class="pageref">512</a>; <br>Scepticism, <a href="#pb514" class="pageref">514</a>, <a href="#pb561" class="pageref">561</a>; <br>common characteristics of, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>subordinates science to ethics, <a href="#pb542" class="pageref">542</a>; <br>refers man back to himself, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>includes Stoicism and Neoplatonism, <a href="#pb24" class="pageref">24</a>; <br>variously modified, <a href="#pb24" class="pageref">24</a>; <br>personal character of, <a href="#pb33" class="pageref">33</a>; <br>reverses relations, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>; <br>practical tendency of, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>; <br>aims at independence of man, <a href="#pb484" class="pageref">484</a>; <br>common characteristics of, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>materialism, <a href="#pb512" class="pageref">512</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Predestination of the Stoics, <a href="#pb376" class="pageref">376</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Preferential things, <a href="#pb278" class="pageref">278</a>, <a href="#pb289" class="pageref">289</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pre-Socratic philosophy, influence of, on Stoicism, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Prepon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πρέπον</span></span>, <a href="#pb303" class="pageref">303</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Primary conceptions a standard of truth, <a href="#pb90" class="pageref">90</a>; <br>being, <a href="#pb161" class="pageref">161</a>, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>; <br>fire, <a href="#pb172" class="pageref">172</a>, <a href="#pb198" class="pageref">198</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Probability, Arcesilaus’ theory of, <a href="#pb534" class="pageref">534</a>; <br>Carneades’ theory of, <a href="#pb553" class="pageref">553</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Proēgmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Προηγμένον</span></span>, <a href="#pb283" class="pageref">283</a>, <a href="#pb289" class="pageref">289</a>, <a href="#pb290" class="pageref">290</a>, <a href="#pb560" class="pageref">560</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Progress, state of, <a href="#pb293" class="pageref">293</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Prokopē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Προκοπή</span></span>, <a href="#pb294" class="pageref">294</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Prolēpseis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Προλήψεις</span></span>, Stoic, <a href="#pb80" class="pageref">80</a>, <a href="#pb90" class="pageref">90</a>; <br>Epicurean, <a href="#pb428" class="pageref">428</a>, <a href="#pb461" class="pageref">461</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Property, Stoic category of, <a href="#pb102" class="pageref">102</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Prophecy, Stoic explanation of, <a href="#pb374" class="pageref">374</a>, <a href="#pb403" class="pageref">403</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Prophetic powers, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Prophorikos logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Προφορικὸς λόγος</span></span>, <a href="#pb73" class="pageref">73</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Proposition, <a href="#pb110" class="pageref">110</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Pros ti pōs echon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Πρός τι πῶς ἔχον</span></span>, <a href="#pb100" class="pageref">100</a>, <a href="#pb107" class="pageref">107</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Proserpine, rape of, <a href="#pb365" class="pageref">365</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Protagoras, language on truth, <a href="#pb431" class="pageref">431</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Protarchus, of <span class="corr" id="xd33e54790" title="Source: Bargyllium">Bargylium</span>, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Proteus, story of, explained, <a href="#pb360" class="pageref">360</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb580">[<a href="#pb580">580</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Providence, <a href="#pb156" class="pageref">156</a>, <a href="#pb171" class="pageref">171</a>, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb403" class="pageref">403</a>; <br>God as, <a href="#pb150" class="pageref">150</a>; <br>in the Stoic system, <a href="#pb341" class="pageref">341</a>; <br>Zeus as, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>; <br>Stoic arguments in favour of, <a href="#pb173" class="pageref">173</a>, <a href="#pb372" class="pageref">372</a>; <br>argument from general conviction, <a href="#pb174" class="pageref">174</a>; <br>from God’s perfection, <a href="#pb174" class="pageref">174</a>; <br>from necessity, <a href="#pb174" class="pageref">174</a>; <br>from God’s foreknowledge, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>; <br>from divination, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>; <br>the idea of, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>; <br>as necessity, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>; <br>relation to individuals, <a href="#pb176" class="pageref">176</a>; <br>difficulties of, <a href="#pb177" class="pageref">177</a>; <br>rule of, <a href="#pb331" class="pageref">331</a>; <br>Stoic theory of, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>, <a href="#pb396" class="pageref">396</a>, <a href="#pb403" class="pageref">403</a>; <br>Epicurean denial of, <a href="#pb435" class="pageref">435</a>, <a href="#pb462" class="pageref">462</a>, <a href="#pb463" class="pageref">463</a>; <br>denied by Carneades, <a href="#pb544" class="pageref">544</a>; <br>criticism of, <a href="#pb542" class="pageref">542</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ptolemy Soter, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ptolemæan dynasty, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pyrrho, the Sceptic, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>, <a href="#pb562" class="pageref">562</a>; <br>teaching of, <a href="#pb518" class="pageref">518</a>, <a href="#pb519" class="pageref">519</a>, <a href="#pb520" class="pageref">520</a>–525; <br>agrees with Arcesilaus, <a href="#pb533" class="pageref">533</a>; <br>and his followers, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>; <br>receives from Democritus an impulse to doubt, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>example of, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>teaching of, <a href="#pb521" class="pageref">521</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb524" class="pageref">524</a>, <a href="#pb526" class="pageref">526</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pythagoras, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pythagorean, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>; <br>School at Alexandria, <a href="#pb28" class="pageref">28</a>; <br>system, <a href="#pb31" class="pageref">31</a>; <br>friendship, <a href="#pb496" class="pageref">496</a>; <br>influence on the older Academy, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Pytho, defeat of, explained, <a href="#pb362" class="pageref">362</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Reason, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>; <br>external to man, <a href="#pb6" class="pageref">6</a>; <br>a standard, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Reason, right, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>; <br>generative, <a href="#pb172" class="pageref">172</a>; <br>of the world, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>; <br>identical with God, <a href="#pb147" class="pageref">147</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Reasoners, School of, <a href="#pb66" class="pageref">66</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Relation, category of, <a href="#pb108" class="pageref">108</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Religion of Stoics, <a href="#pb341" class="pageref">341</a>; <br>of Epicureans, <a href="#pb462" class="pageref">462</a>; <br>of Sceptics, <a href="#pb556" class="pageref">556</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Republic, last days of, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Rhea, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Rhetoric, a branch of Stoic logic, <a href="#pb70" class="pageref">70</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Rhodes, a centre of philosophy, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Roman, period, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>; <br>world, <a href="#pb31" class="pageref">31</a>; <br>province, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>; <br>jurisprudence, <a href="#pb240" class="pageref">240</a>; <br>character, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>; <br>dominion, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a>; <br>Empire, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Romans, <a href="#pb521" class="pageref">521</a>; <br>uphold traditional faith, <a href="#pb344" class="pageref">344</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Rome, <a href="#pb325" class="pageref">325</a>, <a href="#pb413" class="pageref">413</a>, <a href="#pb414" class="pageref">414</a>, <a href="#pb415" class="pageref">415</a>, <a href="#pb492" class="pageref">492</a>, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>; <br>relations between Greece and, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>; <br>a centre of philosophy, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>; <br>statesmanship in, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>; <br>Stoicism in, <a href="#pb492" class="pageref">492</a>; <br>influence of, on philosophy, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>; <br>conquests of, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>; <br>decline of, <a href="#pb31" class="pageref">31</a>; <br>Gods of, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>; <br>Epicureans in, <a href="#pb411" class="pageref">411</a>, <a href="#pb413" class="pageref">413</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Samian picture, <a href="#pb360" class="pageref">360</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Samos, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>; <br>birthplace of Epicurus, <a href="#pb404" class="pageref">404</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Saturn, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sceptic, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>, <a href="#pb526" class="pageref">526</a>, <a href="#pb562" class="pageref">562</a>; <br>imperturbability, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>; <br>suspension of judgment, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>; <br>Schools deny every dogmatic position, <a href="#pb514" class="pageref">514</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sceptical theory, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>; <br>Schools, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Scepticism, <a href="#pb26" class="pageref">26</a>, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>, <a href="#pb514" class="pageref">514</a>, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>; <br>influences producing, <a href="#pb27" class="pageref">27</a>; <br>involves <span class="corr" id="xd33e55329" title="Source: electicism">eclecticism</span>, <a href="#pb30" class="pageref">30</a>; <br>intellectual objections to, <a href="#pb86" class="pageref">86</a>; <br>pure, <a href="#pb523" class="pageref">523</a>; <br>object of, <a href="#pb526" class="pageref">526</a>; <br>dogmatic, <a href="#pb26" class="pageref">26</a>; <br>historical position of, <a href="#pb514" class="pageref">514</a>; <br>relations to dogmatism, <a href="#pb514" class="pageref">514</a>; <br>of New Academy, <a href="#pb529" class="pageref">529</a>, <a href="#pb537" class="pageref">537</a>, <a href="#pb563" class="pageref">563</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>; <br>positive side of, <a href="#pb538" class="pageref">538</a>; <br>starts from earlier philosophy, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>causes of, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>relations to Epicureanism and Stoicism, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sceptics, <a href="#pb512" class="pageref">512</a>, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>, <a href="#pb549" class="pageref">549</a>; <br>School of the, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>opposed by Stoics, <a href="#pb21" class="pageref">21</a>; <br>New School of, <a href="#pb22" class="pageref">22</a>; <br>happiness, the starting-point with, <a href="#pb521" class="pageref">521</a>; <br>ethics of, <a href="#pb556" class="pageref">556</a>; <br>later, <a href="#pb562" class="pageref">562</a>; <br>more ancient, <a href="#pb538" class="pageref">538</a>, <a href="#pb553" class="pageref">553</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Schleiermacher, <a href="#pb219" class="pageref">219</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb581">[<a href="#pb581">581</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Sciro, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb413" class="pageref">413</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Scylla, Stoic explanation of, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Secondary goods, <a href="#pb280" class="pageref">280</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Seleucia, birthplace of Diogenes, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Seneca, <a href="#pb219" class="pageref">219</a>, <a href="#pb239" class="pageref">239</a>, <a href="#pb285" class="pageref">285</a>, <a href="#pb299" class="pageref">299</a>, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>, <a href="#pb316" class="pageref">316</a>, <a href="#pb319" class="pageref">319</a>, <a href="#pb325" class="pageref">325</a>, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>, <a href="#pb335" class="pageref">335</a>, <a href="#pb337" class="pageref">337</a>, <a href="#pb339" class="pageref">339</a>, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>; <br>a Stoic, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>; <br>in harmony with the Stoics, <a href="#pb154" class="pageref">154</a>; <br>opinion on wickedness, <a href="#pb273" class="pageref">273</a>; <br>defends external possessions, <a href="#pb285" class="pageref">285</a>; <br>views on customs, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>; <br>age of, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>; <br>a later Stoic, <a href="#pb316" class="pageref">316</a>; <br>his views on friendship, <a href="#pb318" class="pageref">318</a>, <a href="#pb319" class="pageref">319</a>; <br>on the wise man’s independence, <a href="#pb335" class="pageref">335</a>; <br>on suicide, <a href="#pb337" class="pageref">337</a>, <a href="#pb339" class="pageref">339</a>; <br>denies the use of prayer, <a href="#pb344" class="pageref">344</a>; <br>view of demons, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sensation, Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>, <a href="#pb457" class="pageref">457</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Senses, Epicurean superiority to, <a href="#pb478" class="pageref">478</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Septimius Severus, Emperors after, <a href="#pb32" class="pageref">32</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sextus Empiricus, a Stoic authority, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sidon, birthplace of Zeno the Epicurean, <a href="#pb412" class="pageref">412</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Simple judgment, <a href="#pb110" class="pageref">110</a>, <a href="#pb111" class="pageref">111</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sirens explained, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Social relations, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb311" class="pageref">311</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Society, origin and use of, <a href="#pb311" class="pageref">311</a>; <br>Epicurean views on, <a href="#pb490" class="pageref">490</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Socrates, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>, <a href="#pb292" class="pageref">292</a>, <a href="#pb305" class="pageref">305</a>, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>, <a href="#pb501" class="pageref">501</a>, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>definition of the good, <a href="#pb229" class="pageref">229</a>; <br>of virtue, <a href="#pb59" class="pageref">59</a>, <a href="#pb255" class="pageref">255</a>; <br>sceptical arguments of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>view of natural science, <a href="#pb60" class="pageref">60</a>; <br>line of thought presupposed by Epicureanism, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>philosophic ideas of, <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>; <br>practical philosophy of, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>; <br>differs from past Aristotelian philosophy, <a href="#pb18" class="pageref">18</a>; <br>view of means and ends, <a href="#pb185" class="pageref">185</a>; <br>time of, <a href="#pb225" class="pageref">225</a>; <br>defines the good as the useful, <a href="#pb229" class="pageref">229</a>; <br>an example of wisdom, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>, <a href="#pb292" class="pageref">292</a>, <a href="#pb306" class="pageref">306</a>; <br>permitted a lie, <a href="#pb305" class="pageref">305</a>; <br>sceptical arguments of, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>on the derivation of the soul, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>; <br>relations of Stoics to, <a href="#pb387" class="pageref">387</a>, <a href="#pb391" class="pageref">391</a>, <a href="#pb396" class="pageref">396</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Socratic, old, teaching, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>; <br>dictum, <a href="#pb245" class="pageref">245</a>, <a href="#pb247" class="pageref">247</a>; <br>introspection, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>views, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>; <br>theory of conceptions, <a href="#pb9" class="pageref">9</a>; <br>teaching, <a href="#pb255" class="pageref">255</a>; <br>philosophy, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>; <br>School, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Soli, birthplace of Chrysippus, <a href="#pb45" class="pageref">45</a>; <br>of Aratus, <a href="#pb43" class="pageref">43</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Something, the highest conception, <a href="#pb98" class="pageref">98</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sophists, practical philosophy of, <a href="#pb18" class="pageref">18</a>; <br>fallacies fostered by, <a href="#pb122" class="pageref">122</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sorites, the, of the Peripatetics developed by the Stoics, <a href="#pb120" class="pageref">120</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Soul, parts of the, <a href="#pb213" class="pageref">213</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb210" class="pageref">210</a>; <br>the individual, <a href="#pb216" class="pageref">216</a>; <br>God as <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>; <br>Stoic views of, <a href="#pb210" class="pageref">210</a>; <br>Epicurean views of, <a href="#pb453" class="pageref">453</a>; <br>materialistic view of, <a href="#pb210" class="pageref">210</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Space, <a href="#pb196" class="pageref">196</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sparta, rivalry of, with Athens, <a href="#pb11" class="pageref">11</a>, <a href="#pb13" class="pageref">13</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Spartan reformer, Cleomenes, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Spartans, <a href="#pb14" class="pageref">14</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Spermatikoi logoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σπερματικοὶ λόγοι</span></span>. <i>See</i> <span class="trans" title="Logos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Λόγος</span></span>.
+</p>
+<p>Sphærus, a Stoic and pupil of Zeno, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>; <br>from the Bosporus, <a href="#pb44" class="pageref">44</a>; <br>logical researches of, <a href="#pb64" class="pageref">64</a>; <br>treatise on divination, <a href="#pb371" class="pageref">371</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Spinoza, <a href="#pb219" class="pageref">219</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Standard of truth. <i>See</i> Knowledge. <br>Stoic, <a href="#pb86" class="pageref">86</a>; <br>need of, <a href="#pb86" class="pageref">86</a>; <br>irresistible impressions, <a href="#pb87" class="pageref">87</a>; <br>primary conceptions, <a href="#pb90" class="pageref">90</a>; <br>Epicurean, <a href="#pb431" class="pageref">431</a>. <br> <i>See</i> Canonic.
+</p>
+<p>Stars, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb204" class="pageref">204</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Stilpo, combined Cynic and Megarian teaching, <a href="#pb37" class="pageref">37</a>; <br>School of, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>; <br>connected with Zeno, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Stoa poikilē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Στοὰ ποικιλή</span></span>, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>, <a href="#pb327" class="pageref">327</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Stobæus has preserved extracts from writings of Teles, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>; <br>and definitions of virtues, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Stoic, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>, <a href="#pb132" class="pageref">132</a>, <a href="#pb251" class="pageref">251</a>, <a href="#pb313" class="pageref">313</a>, <a href="#pb324" class="pageref">324</a>, <a href="#pb346" class="pageref">346</a>, <a href="#pb374" class="pageref">374</a>, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>apathy, <a href="#pb121" class="pageref">121</a>; <br>doctrine <span class="pageNum" id="pb582">[<a href="#pb582">582</a>]</span>fully expanded by Chrysippus, <a href="#pb47" class="pageref">47</a>, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>; <br>appeal to the senses, <a href="#pb530" class="pageref">530</a>; <br>assertion, <a href="#pb185" class="pageref">185</a>; <br>bias, <a href="#pb304" class="pageref">304</a>; <br>citizenship of the world, <a href="#pb327" class="pageref">327</a>, <a href="#pb328" class="pageref">328</a>, <a href="#pb507" class="pageref">507</a>; <br>notions of Providence, <a href="#pb177" class="pageref">177</a>, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>; <br>conception, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>; <br>theory of the good, <a href="#pb290" class="pageref">290</a>, <a href="#pb559" class="pageref">559</a>; <br>wise man, <a href="#pb335" class="pageref">335</a>; <br>enquiries, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>; <br><i>Ethics</i>, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>, <a href="#pb278" class="pageref">278</a>, <a href="#pb383" class="pageref">383</a>; <br>two currents of thought in, <a href="#pb382" class="pageref">382</a>; <br>main features of, <a href="#pb383" class="pageref">383</a>; <br>explanation of myths, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>; <br>fatalism, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>; <br>influence of, <a href="#pb529" class="pageref">529</a>; <br>insensibility to pain, <a href="#pb477" class="pageref">477</a>; <br><span class="trans" title="katalēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">κατάληψις</span></span>, <a href="#pb531" class="pageref">531</a>; <br>virtue, <a href="#pb398" class="pageref">398</a>, <a href="#pb334" class="pageref">334</a>, <a href="#pb58" class="pageref">58</a>, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>; <br>apathy, <a href="#pb316" class="pageref">316</a>; <br>pantheism, <a href="#pb176" class="pageref">176</a>; <br>morality, <a href="#pb229" class="pageref">229</a>, <a href="#pb333" class="pageref">333</a>, <a href="#pb390" class="pageref">390</a>, <a href="#pb342" class="pageref">342</a>; <br>necessity, <a href="#pb176" class="pageref">176</a>; <br>philosophers, <a href="#pb298" class="pageref">298</a>, <a href="#pb322" class="pageref">322</a>; <br>materialism, <a href="#pb384" class="pageref">384</a>, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>; <br><i>Philosophy</i>, <a href="#pb334" class="pageref">334</a>; <br>authorities for, <a href="#pb53" class="pageref">53</a>; <br>divisions of, <a href="#pb66" class="pageref">66</a>; <br>practical character of, <a href="#pb134" class="pageref">134</a>; <br>scope of, <a href="#pb381" class="pageref">381</a>; <br>as a whole, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>political antecedents of, <a href="#pb16" class="pageref">16</a>; <br>doctrine expanded, <a href="#pb47" class="pageref">47</a>; <br>problem proposed to, <a href="#pb56" class="pageref">56</a>; <br>enquiries into duties, <a href="#pb302" class="pageref">302</a>; <br>practical character, <a href="#pb56" class="pageref">56</a>; <br>necessity for knowledge, <a href="#pb58" class="pageref">58</a>; <br>position towards logic and natural science, <a href="#pb59" class="pageref">59</a>; <br>relative importance of parts, <a href="#pb68" class="pageref">68</a>; <br>one-sidedness of, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>; <br>place in history, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>theory of intermingling, <a href="#pb137" class="pageref">137</a>; <br>of irresistible impressions, <a href="#pb530" class="pageref">530</a>; <br><i>Logic</i> of, <a href="#pb70" class="pageref">70</a>, <a href="#pb121" class="pageref">121</a>; <br>field of, <a href="#pb70" class="pageref">70</a>; <br>words and thoughts, <a href="#pb73" class="pageref">73</a>; <br>formality of, <a href="#pb75" class="pageref">75</a>, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>; <br>estimate of, <a href="#pb123" class="pageref">123</a>; <br>categories, <a href="#pb97" class="pageref">97</a>; <br>theory of illation, <a href="#pb121" class="pageref">121</a>; <br><i>Knowledge</i>, theory of, <a href="#pb75" class="pageref">75</a>, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>; <br>prominent points in, <a href="#pb77" class="pageref">77</a>; <br>prophecy, <a href="#pb379" class="pageref">379</a>; <br>platform, <a href="#pb335" class="pageref">335</a>, <a href="#pb353" class="pageref">353</a>; <br>point of view, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>, <a href="#pb90" class="pageref">90</a>; <br>polytheism, <a href="#pb549" class="pageref">549</a>; <br>preference for argument, <a href="#pb65" class="pageref">65</a>; <br>principles, logical result of, <a href="#pb311" class="pageref">311</a>; <br>principles, <a href="#pb153" class="pageref">153</a>, <a href="#pb219" class="pageref">219</a>, <a href="#pb225" class="pageref">225</a>, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>, <a href="#pb293" class="pageref">293</a>; <br>propositions, <a href="#pb310" class="pageref">310</a>, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>; <br>views on nature, <a href="#pb194" class="pageref">194</a>; <br><i>School</i>, <a href="#pb29" class="pageref">29</a>, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>, <a href="#pb64" class="pageref">64</a>, <a href="#pb69" class="pageref">69</a>, <a href="#pb168" class="pageref">168</a>, <a href="#pb274" class="pageref">274</a>, <a href="#pb286" class="pageref">286</a>, <a href="#pb297" class="pageref">297</a>, <a href="#pb299" class="pageref">299</a>, <a href="#pb300" class="pageref">300</a>, <a href="#pb307" class="pageref">307</a>, <a href="#pb336" class="pageref">336</a>, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>; <br>founded by Zeno, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>Chrysippus president of, <a href="#pb45" class="pageref">45</a>; <br>a School of reasoners, <a href="#pb66" class="pageref">66</a>; <br><span class="trans" title="phantasia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">φαντασία</span></span>, <a href="#pb541" class="pageref">541</a>; <br>severity, <a href="#pb286" class="pageref">286</a>; <br>skill, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>; <br>speculation, <a href="#pb173" class="pageref">173</a>; <br><i>System</i>, <a href="#pb91" class="pageref">91</a>, <a href="#pb394" class="pageref">394</a>, <a href="#pb68" class="pageref">68</a>, <a href="#pb91" class="pageref">91</a>, <a href="#pb125" class="pageref">125</a>, <a href="#pb138" class="pageref">138</a>, <a href="#pb152" class="pageref">152</a>, <a href="#pb173" class="pageref">173</a>, <a href="#pb223" class="pageref">223</a>, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>, <a href="#pb277" class="pageref">277</a>, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>, <a href="#pb381" class="pageref">381</a>, <a href="#pb394" class="pageref">394</a>, <a href="#pb504" class="pageref">504</a>, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>, <a href="#pb543" class="pageref">543</a>; <br>inner connection of, <a href="#pb381" class="pageref">381</a>; <br>teaching, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>, <a href="#pb59" class="pageref">59</a>, <a href="#pb67" class="pageref">67</a>, <a href="#pb69" class="pageref">69</a>, <a href="#pb84" class="pageref">84</a>, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>, <a href="#pb221" class="pageref">221</a>, <a href="#pb257" class="pageref">257</a>, <a href="#pb316" class="pageref">316</a>, <a href="#pb456" class="pageref">456</a>; <br>theology, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>; <br>treatment of science, <a href="#pb542" class="pageref">542</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Stoicism, <a href="#pb26" class="pageref">26</a>, <a href="#pb69" class="pageref">69</a>, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>, <a href="#pb339" class="pageref">339</a>, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>, <a href="#pb380" class="pageref">380</a>; <br>growing out of Cynicism, <a href="#pb17" class="pageref">17</a>, <a href="#pb91" class="pageref">91</a>, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>; <br>relation of, to previous system, <a href="#pb387" class="pageref">387</a>; <br>related to Cynics, <a href="#pb387" class="pageref">387</a>; <br>to Socrates, <a href="#pb387" class="pageref">387</a>; <br>to Aristotle, <a href="#pb396" class="pageref">396</a>; <br>to Megarians, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>; <br>to Heraclitus, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>; <br>to Plato, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>; <br>later, founded by Chrysippus, <a href="#pb45" class="pageref">45</a>; <br>historical ingredients of, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>form fixed, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>; <br>Eratosthenes won for, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>; <br>as traditionally known, <a href="#pb56" class="pageref">56</a>; <br>features of, <a href="#pb239" class="pageref">239</a>; <br>a religious system, <a href="#pb342" class="pageref">342</a>; <br>essentially practical, <a href="#pb380" class="pageref">380</a>, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>; <br>insists on self-sufficiency of virtue, <a href="#pb389" class="pageref">389</a>; <br>preserved original character of Socratic philosophy, <a href="#pb391" class="pageref">391</a>; <br>stern tone of, <a href="#pb498" class="pageref">498</a>; <br>and the theory of pleasure, <a href="#pb560" class="pageref">560</a>; <br>entered the Roman world under Panætius, <a href="#pb51" class="pageref">51</a>; <br>declared man independent of his fellows, <a href="#pb311" class="pageref">311</a>; <br>makes a dogma of fatalism, <a href="#pb332" class="pageref">332</a>; <br>connection with religion, <a href="#pb341" class="pageref">341</a>; <br>with popular faith, <a href="#pb343" class="pageref">343</a>; <br>ethical side of, <a href="#pb382" class="pageref">382</a>; <br>scientific side of, <a href="#pb383" class="pageref">383</a>; <br>elements combined in, <a href="#pb386" class="pageref">386</a>; <br>relation of Epicurean system to, <a href="#pb503" class="pageref">503</a>, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>, <a href="#pb509" class="pageref">509</a>, <a href="#pb514" class="pageref">514</a>, <a href="#pb517" class="pageref">517</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Stoics [<i>see Table of Contents</i>], <a href="#pb276" class="pageref">276</a>, <a href="#pb314" class="pageref">314</a>, <a href="#pb393" class="pageref">393</a>, <a href="#pb398" class="pageref">398</a>, <a href="#pb512" class="pageref">512</a>; <br>of the Roman period, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>, <a href="#pb492" class="pageref">492</a>; <br>School of the, <a href="#pb19" class="pageref">19</a>; <br>feel the need of philosophic <span class="pageNum" id="pb583">[<a href="#pb583">583</a>]</span>speculation, <a href="#pb20" class="pageref">20</a>; <br>history of, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a> <i>sq.</i>; <br>take their name from Stoa <span class="trans" title="poikilē"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ποικιλή</span></span>, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>; <br>highest conception of, <a href="#pb99" class="pageref">99</a>; <br>look at accuracy of expression, <a href="#pb118" class="pageref">118</a>; <br>seek a standard of truth, <a href="#pb20" class="pageref">20</a>; <br>demand a knowledge of conceptions, <a href="#pb479" class="pageref">479</a>; <br>logic of, <a href="#pb96" class="pageref">96</a>, <a href="#pb97" class="pageref">97</a>,123, <a href="#pb223" class="pageref">223</a>; <br>sorites, <a href="#pb120" class="pageref">120</a>; <br>did little for natural science, <a href="#pb20" class="pageref">20</a>; <br>opposed to Sceptics, <a href="#pb21" class="pageref">21</a>; <br>teach original unity of human family, <a href="#pb21" class="pageref">21</a>, <a href="#pb490" class="pageref">490</a>; <br>apologetical writings of, <a href="#pb25" class="pageref">25</a>; <br>regard universal element, <a href="#pb25" class="pageref">25</a>; <br>belief from idea, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>develop the doctrine of the syllogism, <a href="#pb65" class="pageref">65</a>; <br>problem proposed to, <a href="#pb56" class="pageref">56</a>; <br>view of virtue, <a href="#pb59" class="pageref">59</a>, <a href="#pb128" class="pageref">128</a>, <a href="#pb272" class="pageref">272</a>, <a href="#pb300" class="pageref">300</a>; <br>unity of virtue, <a href="#pb266" class="pageref">266</a>; <br>differ generally from Aristo, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>; <br>their views expanded by Chrysippus, <a href="#pb64" class="pageref">64</a>; <br>make three divisions of philosophy, <a href="#pb66" class="pageref">66</a>; <br>development of teaching, <a href="#pb69" class="pageref">69</a>; <br>their view of thoughts and words, <a href="#pb74" class="pageref">74</a>; <br>had no distinct theory of knowledge before Chrysippus, <a href="#pb76" class="pageref">76</a>; <br>attach importance to the senses, <a href="#pb77" class="pageref">77</a>; <br>make perceptions the source of notions, <a href="#pb82" class="pageref">82</a>, <a href="#pb91" class="pageref">91</a>; <br><span class="trans" title="lekton"><span lang="grc" class="grek">λεκτὸν</span></span> of, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>; <br>consider material objects alone real, <a href="#pb84" class="pageref">84</a>, <a href="#pb94" class="pageref">94</a>; <br>admit the existence of immaterial attributes, <a href="#pb106" class="pageref">106</a>; <br>enumerate sentences, <a href="#pb110" class="pageref">110</a>; <br>discuss modality of judgments, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>; <br>attached great value to the theory of illation, <a href="#pb116" class="pageref">116</a>; <br>strive to find firm ground, <a href="#pb123" class="pageref">123</a>; <br>their view of knowledge, <a href="#pb129" class="pageref">129</a>; <br>ground occupied by, <a href="#pb134" class="pageref">134</a>, <a href="#pb135" class="pageref">135</a>; <br>deny the freedom of the will, <a href="#pb179" class="pageref">179</a>, <a href="#pb217" class="pageref">217</a>; <br>distinguished from Epicureans, <a href="#pb183" class="pageref">183</a>, <a href="#pb470" class="pageref">470</a>; <br>agreement with, <a href="#pb454" class="pageref">454</a>, <a href="#pb481" class="pageref">481</a>, <a href="#pb484" class="pageref">484</a>, <a href="#pb500" class="pageref">500</a>, <a href="#pb507" class="pageref">507</a>, <a href="#pb508" class="pageref">508</a>, <a href="#pb516" class="pageref">516</a>; <br>follow Aristotle, <a href="#pb194" class="pageref">194</a>; <br>do not explain irregular impulses, <a href="#pb248" class="pageref">248</a>; <br>classify errors, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>divide mankind into two classes, <a href="#pb269" class="pageref">269</a>; <br>the wise man of, <a href="#pb270" class="pageref">270</a>, <a href="#pb271" class="pageref">271</a>, <a href="#pb291" class="pageref">291</a>, <a href="#pb295" class="pageref">295</a>, <a href="#pb304" class="pageref">304</a>, <a href="#pb317" class="pageref">317</a>, <a href="#pb383" class="pageref">383</a>; <br>influenced by Academy, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>; <br>agrees with Arcesilaus, <a href="#pb532" class="pageref">532</a>; <br>opponent of Carneades, <a href="#pb542" class="pageref">542</a>, <a href="#pb564" class="pageref">564</a>; <br>driven into admissions, <a href="#pb287" class="pageref">287</a>; <br>compelled to recognise differences of degree, <a href="#pb293" class="pageref">293</a>; <br>connection with Cynics, <a href="#pb305" class="pageref">305</a>, <a href="#pb307" class="pageref">307</a>, <a href="#pb308" class="pageref">308</a>, <a href="#pb327" class="pageref">327</a>, <a href="#pb388" class="pageref">388</a>, <a href="#pb402" class="pageref">402</a>, <a href="#pb510" class="pageref">510</a>; <br>insist on justice and mercy, <a href="#pb315" class="pageref">315</a>; <br>pay great attention to domestic life, <a href="#pb321" class="pageref">321</a>; <br>view of suicide, <a href="#pb336" class="pageref">336</a>, <a href="#pb338" class="pageref">338</a>; <br>of lying, <a href="#pb305" class="pageref">305</a>; <br>ethical principles of, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>; <br>aim at independence, <a href="#pb488" class="pageref">488</a>; <br>inexorable sternness of, <a href="#pb497" class="pageref">497</a>; <br>subordinate logic and natural science to moral science, <a href="#pb507" class="pageref">507</a>; <br>adhere to fatalism, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>; <br>appeal to consensus gentium, <a href="#pb543" class="pageref">543</a>; <br>theological views of, attacked by Sceptics, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>; <br>view of the soul, <a href="#pb211" class="pageref">211</a>, <a href="#pb214" class="pageref">214</a>, <a href="#pb215" class="pageref">215</a>, <a href="#pb222" class="pageref">222</a>; <br>supposed connection with Heraclitus, <a href="#pb135" class="pageref">135</a>, <a href="#pb394" class="pageref">394</a>; <br>materialism of, <a href="#pb139" class="pageref">139</a>, <a href="#pb210" class="pageref">210</a>, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>; <br>hold one primary force, <a href="#pb143" class="pageref">143</a>, <a href="#pb146" class="pageref">146</a>; <br>view of Deity, <a href="#pb148" class="pageref">148</a>, <a href="#pb152" class="pageref">152</a>, <a href="#pb154" class="pageref">154</a>; <br>view of popular Gods, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb362" class="pageref">362</a>, <a href="#pb366" class="pageref">366</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>, <a href="#pb549" class="pageref">549</a>; <br>identify God and the world, <a href="#pb156" class="pageref">156</a>, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>, <a href="#pb349" class="pageref">349</a>; <br>theology of, <a href="#pb341" class="pageref">341</a>; <br>pantheism of, <a href="#pb159" class="pageref">159</a>; <br>view of nature, <a href="#pb194" class="pageref">194</a>, <a href="#pb223" class="pageref">223</a>, <a href="#pb351" class="pageref">351</a>, <a href="#pb373" class="pageref">373</a>; <br>view of the resolution of the world, <a href="#pb165" class="pageref">165</a>, <a href="#pb203" class="pageref">203</a>; <br>view of the seat of generative power, <a href="#pb173" class="pageref">173</a>; <br>view of divination, <a href="#pb175" class="pageref">175</a>, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>, <a href="#pb377" class="pageref">377</a>, <a href="#pb550" class="pageref">550</a>; <br>prophecy, <a href="#pb373" class="pageref">373</a>, <a href="#pb374" class="pageref">374</a>, <a href="#pb375" class="pageref">375</a>, <a href="#pb378" class="pageref">378</a>; <br>view of relation of man to destiny, <a href="#pb182" class="pageref">182</a>, <a href="#pb301" class="pageref">301</a>; <br>view of the unity of the world, <a href="#pb183" class="pageref">183</a>, <a href="#pb231" class="pageref">231</a>; <br>of the perfections of the world, <a href="#pb187" class="pageref">187</a>; <br>of physical evil, <a href="#pb188" class="pageref">188</a>; <br>view of moral evil, <a href="#pb189" class="pageref">189</a>, <a href="#pb191" class="pageref">191</a>; <br>inconsistencies of, <a href="#pb193" class="pageref">193</a>; <br>view of time and space, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>; <br>hold two active elements, <a href="#pb179" class="pageref">179</a>, <a href="#pb231" class="pageref">231</a>; <br>consider the stars living, <span class="pageNum" id="pb584">[<a href="#pb584">584</a>]</span>206; <br>meteorological investigations of, <a href="#pb207" class="pageref">207</a>; <br>view of plants and animals, <a href="#pb208" class="pageref">208</a>; <br>view of man, <a href="#pb225" class="pageref">225</a>, <a href="#pb490" class="pageref">490</a>; <br>view of good and evil, <a href="#pb230" class="pageref">230</a>, <a href="#pb233" class="pageref">233</a>, <a href="#pb269" class="pageref">269</a>, <a href="#pb293" class="pageref">293</a>; <br>view of pleasure, <a href="#pb237" class="pageref">237</a>; <br>of emotions, <a href="#pb244" class="pageref">244</a>, <a href="#pb245" class="pageref">245</a>, <a href="#pb248" class="pageref">248</a>, <a href="#pb253" class="pageref">253</a>, <a href="#pb473" class="pageref">473</a>; <br>theory of necessity, <a href="#pb246" class="pageref">246</a>; <br>classification of errors, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>highest good, <a href="#pb557" class="pageref">557</a>; <br>collisions with current views, <a href="#pb278" class="pageref">278</a>, <a href="#pb292" class="pageref">292</a>, <a href="#pb296" class="pageref">296</a>, <a href="#pb347" class="pageref">347</a>, <a href="#pb352" class="pageref">352</a>; <br>on secondary goods, <a href="#pb280" class="pageref">280</a>; <br>on things indifferent, <a href="#pb281" class="pageref">281</a>, <a href="#pb338" class="pageref">338</a>; <br>things preferential, <a href="#pb283" class="pageref">283</a>; <br>views of actions, <a href="#pb290" class="pageref">290</a>; <br>casuistry of, <a href="#pb299" class="pageref">299</a>, <a href="#pb552" class="pageref">552</a>; <br>moral science of, <a href="#pb302" class="pageref">302</a>; <br>on unchastity, <a href="#pb309" class="pageref">309</a>; <br>view of social relations, <a href="#pb311" class="pageref">311</a>; <br>relation of individual to society, <a href="#pb312" class="pageref">312</a>; <br>friendship of the wise, <a href="#pb320" class="pageref">320</a>; <br>on the rights of man, <a href="#pb329" class="pageref">329</a>; <br>citizenship of the world, <a href="#pb326" class="pageref">326</a>, <a href="#pb506" class="pageref">506</a>; <br>view of demons, <a href="#pb353" class="pageref">353</a>; <br>allegorical interpretation of, <a href="#pb354" class="pageref">354</a>; <br>on predestination, <a href="#pb376" class="pageref">376</a>; <br>encouraged superstition, <a href="#pb379" class="pageref">379</a>; <br>neglect scientific knowledge, <a href="#pb381" class="pageref">381</a>, <a href="#pb391" class="pageref">391</a>; <br>philosophical pedigree of, <a href="#pb387" class="pageref">387</a>; <br>expand Socratic philosophy, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>; <br>knowledge of conceptions, <a href="#pb479" class="pageref">479</a>; <br>speculatively orthodox, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>; <br>mental repose of, <a href="#pb515" class="pageref">515</a>; <br>law of causality, <a href="#pb551" class="pageref">551</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Strato, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Subject-matter, Stoic category of, <a href="#pb98" class="pageref">98</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Substance, Stoic category of, <a href="#pb98" class="pageref">98</a>; <br>universal, <a href="#pb156" class="pageref">156</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Suggestive symbol, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Synkatathesis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συγκατάθεσις</span></span>, <a href="#pb88" class="pageref">88</a>, <a href="#pb532" class="pageref">532</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Synchysis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σύγχυσις</span></span>, <a href="#pb106" class="pageref">106</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a><span id="xd33e57895">,</span> <a href="#pb137" class="pageref">137</a>, n. <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Suicide, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb335" class="pageref">335</a>, <a href="#pb489" class="pageref">489</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Symbebēkota"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συμβεβηκότα</span></span>, of Epicureans, <a href="#pb439" class="pageref">439</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Symptōmata"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συμπτώματα</span></span>, of Epicureans, <a href="#pb439" class="pageref">439</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Synaitia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συναίτια</span></span>, <a href="#pb142" class="pageref">142</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Synektikai aitiai"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συνεκτικαὶ αἴτιαι</span></span>, <a href="#pb142" class="pageref">142</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Synerga aitia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Σύνεργα αἰτία</span></span>, <a href="#pb142" class="pageref">142</a>, n. <a href="#pb2" class="pageref">2</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Synēmmenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Συνημμένον</span></span>, <a href="#pb113" class="pageref">113</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Sympathy of nature, <a href="#pb183" class="pageref">183</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Syria, Stoics in, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Syro, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb413" class="pageref">413</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Tarsus, a philosophic centre, <a href="#pb35" class="pageref">35</a>; <br>birthplace of Zeno the pupil of Chrysippus, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>; <br>birthplace of Antipater, <a href="#pb50" class="pageref">50</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Teles, a Stoic, and cotemporary of Chrysippus, <a href="#pb48" class="pageref">48</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Test-science of truth, <a href="#pb425" class="pageref">425</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Thebes, <a href="#pb11" class="pageref">11</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Theophrastus, followed by Chrysippus, <a href="#pb119" class="pageref">119</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Theory, modification of Stoic, <a href="#pb284" class="pageref">284</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Thoughts, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb73" class="pageref">73</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Time, <a href="#pb196" class="pageref">196</a>
+</p>
+<p>Timon of Phlius, <a href="#pb519" class="pageref">519</a>; <br>a follower of Pyrrho, <a href="#pb519" class="pageref">519</a>; <br>jealous of New Academy, <a href="#pb521" class="pageref">521</a>; <br>Scepticism of, <a href="#pb521" class="pageref">521</a>; <br>places true happiness in <span class="trans" title="ataraxia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">ἀταραξία</span></span>, <a href="#pb525" class="pageref">525</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Titans tear Dionysus to pieces, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Topos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Τόπος</span></span>, <a href="#pb196" class="pageref">196</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Trendelenburg on Aristotle, <a href="#pb104" class="pageref">104</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Tritogeneia"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Τριτογένεια</span></span>, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Troad, the birthplace of Cleanthes, <a href="#pb40" class="pageref">40</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Tropoi"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Τρόποι</span></span>, the, of the Sceptics, <a href="#pb523" class="pageref">523</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Truth, Stoic standard of, <a href="#pb86" class="pageref">86</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Typōsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Τύπωσις</span></span>, <a href="#pb78" class="pageref">78</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hylē apoios"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὕλη ἄποιος</span></span>, <a href="#pb100" class="pageref">100</a>, n. <a href="#pb4" class="pageref">4</a>; <a href="#pb140" class="pageref">140</a>, n. <a href="#pb1" class="pageref">1</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Ulysses, <a href="#pb292" class="pageref">292</a>, <a href="#pb363" class="pageref">363</a>, <a href="#pb368" class="pageref">368</a>; <br>a pattern of all virtues, <a href="#pb369" class="pageref">369</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Universal depravity, <a href="#pb272" class="pageref">272</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Universe, course of, <a href="#pb163" class="pageref">163</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>; <br>Epicurean arrangement of, <a href="#pb449" class="pageref">449</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hypokeimenon"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὑποκείμενον</span></span>, <a href="#pb100" class="pageref">100</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hypolēpsis"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὑπόληψις</span></span>, Epicurean, <a href="#pb430" class="pageref">430</a>.
+</p>
+<p><span class="trans" title="Hypomnēstikos"><span lang="grc" class="grek">Ὑπομνηστικός</span></span>, <a href="#pb115" class="pageref">115</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Uranos, <a href="#pb367" class="pageref">367</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Utterance, the Stoic theory of, <a href="#pb73" class="pageref">73</a>, <a href="#pb92" class="pageref">92</a>; <br>complete, <a href="#pb108" class="pageref">108</a>.
+<span class="pageNum" id="pb585">[<a href="#pb585">585</a>]</span></p>
+<p>Variety, Stoic category of, <a href="#pb107" class="pageref">107</a>; <br>of relation, <a href="#pb107" class="pageref">107</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Venus, <a href="#pb202" class="pageref">202</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Virtue, connection of happiness and, <a href="#pb191" class="pageref">191</a>; <br>emotions and, <a href="#pb243" class="pageref">243</a>; <br>Stoic idea of, <a href="#pb254" class="pageref">254</a>; <br>positive and negative aspects of, <a href="#pb254" class="pageref">254</a>; <br>virtues severally, <a href="#pb257" class="pageref">257</a>; <br>mutual relations of, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>unity of, <a href="#pb266" class="pageref">266</a>; <br>Epicurean, <a href="#pb478" class="pageref">478</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Will, Epicurean views on, <a href="#pb459" class="pageref">459</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Wisdom and folly, <a href="#pb268" class="pageref">268</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Wise man, Stoic, <a href="#pb268" class="pageref">268</a>; <br>Epicurean, <a href="#pb483" class="pageref">483</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Words, Stoic view of, <a href="#pb73" class="pageref">73</a>; <br>grammar of, <a href="#pb94" class="pageref">94</a>.
+</p>
+<p>World, Stoic view of as identical with God, <a href="#pb156" class="pageref">156</a>; <br>origin of, <a href="#pb161" class="pageref">161</a>; <br>end of, <a href="#pb163" class="pageref">163</a>; <br>cycles in, <a href="#pb165" class="pageref">165</a>; <br>government of, <a href="#pb170" class="pageref">170</a>; <br>nature of, <a href="#pb182" class="pageref">182</a>; <br>unity and perfection of, <a href="#pb183" class="pageref">183</a>; <br>moral theory of, <a href="#pb187" class="pageref">187</a>; <br>course of, <a href="#pb331" class="pageref">331</a>; <br>Epicurean view of, <a href="#pb444" class="pageref">444</a>; <br>origin of, <a href="#pb447" class="pageref">447</a>; <br>arrangement of, <a href="#pb448" class="pageref">448</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Xenocrates, <a href="#pb41" class="pageref">41</a>; <br>influence on Zeno, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>; <br>Cleanthes, his counterpart, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>known to Epicurus, <a href="#pb405" class="pageref">405</a>; <br>time of, <a href="#pb528" class="pageref">528</a>; <br>a teacher of the Stoic Zeno, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Zeno the Stoic, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>, <a href="#pb54" class="pageref">54</a>, <a href="#pb58" class="pageref">58</a>, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>, <a href="#pb246" class="pageref">246</a>, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>of Cytium, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>founder of Stoicism, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>son of Mnaseas, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>only half a Greek, <a href="#pb327" class="pageref">327</a>; <br>death of, <a href="#pb336" class="pageref">336</a>, <a href="#pb337" class="pageref">337</a>; <br>living at Athens, <a href="#pb36" class="pageref">36</a>; <br>a pupil of Crates, <a href="#pb37" class="pageref">37</a>; <br>views on logic and natural science, <a href="#pb62" class="pageref">62</a>; <br>relation to Heraclitus, <a href="#pb134" class="pageref">134</a>; <br>materialism of, <a href="#pb134" class="pageref">134</a>; <br>definition of time, <a href="#pb197" class="pageref">197</a>; <br>places force in heaven, <a href="#pb146" class="pageref">146</a>; <br>pupils of, <a href="#pb40" class="pageref">40</a>, <a href="#pb41" class="pageref">41</a>; <br>time of, <a href="#pb134" class="pageref">134</a>; <br>uncertainty as to motives of, <a href="#pb55" class="pageref">55</a>; <br>influenced by Peripatetics, <a href="#pb133" class="pageref">133</a>; <br>polity of the wise, <a href="#pb322" class="pageref">322</a>; <br>views on divination, <a href="#pb370" class="pageref">370</a>; <br>vindicates the supremacy of virtue, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>; <br>connected with Stilpo, <a href="#pb392" class="pageref">392</a>; <br>strictures on Aristotle, <a href="#pb511" class="pageref">511</a>; <br>not connected with Arcesilaus, <a href="#pb529" class="pageref">529</a>; <br>estimate of rational things, <a href="#pb545" class="pageref">545</a>; <br>deification of seasons, <a href="#pb349" class="pageref">349</a>; <br>leading thought of, <a href="#pb385" class="pageref">385</a>; <br>debt to Megarians,392; <br>debt to Polemo, <a href="#pb399" class="pageref">399</a>; <br>views on causation, <a href="#pb86" class="pageref">86</a>; <br>view of the world, <a href="#pb146" class="pageref">146</a>; <br>view of Ether, <a href="#pb201" class="pageref">201</a>; <br>of life according to nature, <a href="#pb228" class="pageref">228</a>; <br>distinguishes emotions, <a href="#pb249" class="pageref">249</a>; <br>Herillus, his pupil, <a href="#pb256" class="pageref">256</a>; <br>view of virtue, <a href="#pb257" class="pageref">257</a>, <a href="#pb261" class="pageref">261</a>; <br>offends against propriety, <a href="#pb308" class="pageref">308</a>; <br>on unnatural vice, <a href="#pb309" class="pageref">309</a>; <br>advocates community of wives, <a href="#pb310" class="pageref">310</a>; <br>contempt for religion, <a href="#pb344" class="pageref">344</a>, <a href="#pb347" class="pageref">347</a>; <br>seeks moral ideas, <a href="#pb355" class="pageref">355</a>; <br>draws on former systems, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref"><span class="corr" id="xd33e58705" title="Source: 586">400</span></a>; <br>distinguishes two kinds of fire, <a href="#pb397" class="pageref">397</a>; <br>aim of, <a href="#pb400" class="pageref">400</a>; <br>attracted by Cynicism, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>; <br>regards virtue as highest good, <a href="#pb401" class="pageref">401</a>, <a href="#pb505" class="pageref">505</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Zeno, of Sidon, an Epicurean, <a href="#pb412" class="pageref">412</a>, <a href="#pb416" class="pageref">416</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Zeno, of Tarsus, a Stoic and scholar of Chrysippus, <a href="#pb49" class="pageref">49</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Zenonians, original name of Stoics, <a href="#pb38" class="pageref">38</a>.
+</p>
+<p>Zeus, <a href="#pb171" class="pageref">171</a>, <a href="#pb271" class="pageref">271</a>, <a href="#pb348" class="pageref">348</a>, <a href="#pb364" class="pageref">364</a>, <a href="#pb487" class="pageref">487</a>, <a href="#pb550" class="pageref">550</a>; <br>distinguished from nature, <a href="#pb153" class="pageref">153</a>; <br>the will of, <a href="#pb171" class="pageref">171</a>; <br>happiness of, enjoyed by the wise man, <a href="#pb271" class="pageref">271</a>; <br>distinguished from other Gods, <a href="#pb357" class="pageref">357</a>, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>; <br>legends of, interpreted, <a href="#pb358" class="pageref">358</a>, <a href="#pb359" class="pageref">359</a>; <br>not envied by an Epicurean, <a href="#pb477" class="pageref">477</a>, <a href="#pb487" class="pageref">487</a>; <br>criticised by Sceptics, <a href="#pb550" class="pageref">550</a>.
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div class="div1 imprint"><span class="pageNum">[<a title="Go to the table of contents" href="#toc">Contents</a>]</span><div class="divBody">
+<p class="first center small"><i>Spottiswoode &amp; Co. Printers, New-street Square, London.</i>
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div class="transcriberNote">
+<h2 class="main">Colophon</h2>
+<p>The new cover art included with this eBook is hereby granted to the public domain.</p>
+<h3 class="main">Revision History</h3>
+<ul>
+<li>2025-03-17 Started. </li>
+</ul>
+<h3 class="main">Corrections</h3>
+<p>The following 409 corrections have been applied to the text:</p>
+<table class="correctionTable">
+<tr>
+<th>Page</th>
+<th>Source</th>
+<th>Correction</th>
+<th>Edit distance</th>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><i title="147 occurrences">Passim.
+</i></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><i title="24 occurrences">Passim.
+</i></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">,</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e2907">37</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e3039">38</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e4382">50</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e7769">87</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e16539">150</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e21063">197</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e22570">211</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e34489">355</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">,</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e2914">37</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e3362">41</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e3720">44</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e34781">358</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e35481">365</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e35895">370</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e35900">370</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e35912">370</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e36027">371</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e37304">408</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e47538">568</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">,</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e3343">41</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">drachmae</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">drachmæ</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e3469">42</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Tertul.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Tertull.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e4823">60</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e40792">456</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὀ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὁ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e4920">61</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ᾐμᾶς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἡμᾶς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5075">63</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5115">63</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5127">63</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5187">64</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5198">64</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5218">64</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5229">64</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">, B</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en"> B.</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5673">71</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τίνες</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τινὲς</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5752">71</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">βʹ</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e5795">71</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Diog.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en"><i>Diog.</i></td>
+<td class="bottom">0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e6082">73</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐνδιαθετὸς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐνδιάθετος</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e6086">73</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑωλόν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕωλόν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e6437">75</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">)</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e6661">77</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τὴς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τῆς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e6684">78</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ενεργῶν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐνεργῶν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e7669">87</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συγκατατιθεμενους</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συγκατατιθεμένους</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e8283">93</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διάνοιας</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διανοίας</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e9041">96</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">παρασύμβαματα</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">παρασυμβάματα</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e9057">96</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e57895">584</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">;</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">,</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e9349">97</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e45699">537</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">(</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10373">103</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δε</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δὲ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10377">103</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συναφεια</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συνάφεια</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10419">103</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὑπόστασ ν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὑπόστασιν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10781">105</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10975">106</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑξις</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕξις</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10819">105</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10921">106</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10932">106</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e11099">106</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28708">261</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑξεις</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕξεις</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10823">105</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἄερας</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀέρας</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e10856">105</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑξιν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕξιν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e11034">106</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">subject-mat er</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">subject-matter</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e11103">106</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δεόν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δέον</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e11481">109</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">προσδεόνται</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">προσδέονται</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e11528">109</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τως</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">πως</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e11870">110</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Πλείον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Πλεῖον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e12490">112</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐνάντια</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐναντία</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e13333">118</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διάλ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διαλ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e13344">118</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οἰ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οἱ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e13765">120</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐπιβαλλοντές</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐπιβάλλοντές</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e13841">121</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e13926">121</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Annal.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Anal.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e14000">121</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Prokl.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Procl.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e14119">123</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">πιστόν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">πιστὸν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e14314">126</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Haer.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Hær.</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e14576">129</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">χαλκοτυπικην</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">χαλκοτυπικήν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e15594">142</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τα</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τὰ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e15632">143</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">utimately</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">ultimately</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e15760">145</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">προιε̈μενον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">προϊέμενον</td>
+<td class="bottom">3 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e15764">145</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">προίε̈ται</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">προΐεται</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e15898">147</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οὐράνῳ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οὐρανῷ</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e15955">147</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">ether</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">either</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e17172">157</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">vi</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">et</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e17699">164</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐπιδεικτόν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐπιδεκτικόν</td>
+<td class="bottom">3</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e17703">164</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐστὶ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐστι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e17852">165</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐξαγροῦσθαι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐξαεροῦσθαι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e17927">165</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">εῖν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ειν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e18004">166</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ενιαυτὸν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐνιαυτὸν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e18100">166</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αὕτω</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οὕτω</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e18821">172</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">;</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e19059">175</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἔσομενα</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐσόμενα</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e19315">178</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αὐτοματὸν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αὐτόματον</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e19543">181</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δέ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δὲ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e19767">183</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">εἶς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">εἷς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e19908">184</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τῆ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τῇ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e19930">185</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἡδεώς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἡδέως</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e20869">196</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Επίκουρος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Ἐπίκουρος</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e20901">196</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὅντος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὄντος</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e20905">196</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὂντος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὄντος</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e20989">196</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μέχι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μέχρι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e21037">196</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κονὸν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κενὸν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e21106">197</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">265</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">256</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e21215">198</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Δι’</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Δί’</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e21460">201</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">c</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en"><span class="asc">C</span></td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e22781">212</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φύσ.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φύσις</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e22802">212</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Iamb.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Iambl.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e22992">214</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μέχρ ιςὀφθαλμῶν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e22996">214</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">παρυστάτων</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">παραστάτων</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23049">215</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">θνητ’</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">θνήτ’</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23074">215</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φώνην</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φωνὴν</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23095">215</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τατοι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ταται</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23099">215</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οργάνων</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὀργάνων</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23334">216</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23338">216</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23342">216</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διείρηται</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διείργηται</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23560">221</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">cont nue</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">continue</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23748">224</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὁρμας</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὁρμὰς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23760">224</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀναξαπατησίαν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀνεξαπατησίαν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23764">224</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὅλῶς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὅλως</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e23982">226</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ποιησᾶσαν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ποιήσασαν</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e24102">227</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σκόπος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σκοπός</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e24706">231</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διάθεσεις</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διαθέσεις</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e24870">231</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αγαθὰ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀγαθὰ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e25547">238</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φυσιν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φύσιν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e25731">241</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">λογος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">λόγος</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e25808">241</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Georg.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Gorg.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e26548">245</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αἴτιας</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αἰτίας</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e26647">246</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ψυχὴς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ψυχῆς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e26842">246</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐνσεβοβημένον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐνσεσοβημένον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e26898">247</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">πανθ’</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">πάνθ’</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e27265">250</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕλεος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἔλεος</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e27334">250</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κήγησις</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κήλησις</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e27338">250</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐπιχαιρεκακίαι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐπιχαιρεκακία</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e27705">253</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e27730">253</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28996">264</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σόφον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σοφὸν</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e27797">254</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δίθενται</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τίθενται</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28219">258</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">theroretical</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">theoretical</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28313">259</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">παὶ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">καὶ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28455">260</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">·</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">:</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28491">260</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αἰρεῖσθαί</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αἱρεῖσθαί</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28668">261</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">θαῤῥαλιότης</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">θαῤῥαλεότης</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e28781">262</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κα ὰ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κατὰ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29135">265</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δυναται</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δύνανται</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29405">266</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="de">.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="de">
+[<i>Deleted</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29426">266</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὄρθον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὀρθὸν</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29481">267</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δεχεσθαι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δέχεσθαι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29595">269</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διαμέ ουσιν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">διαμένουσιν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29620">269</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">fo low</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">follow</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29650">269</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀστειον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀστεῖον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29728">270</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Sen.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en"><i>Sen.</i></td>
+<td class="bottom">0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29838">271</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">mehercule</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">mehercules</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29841">271</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">clausisse</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">clusisse</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29847">271</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">clauduntur</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">cluduntur</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29886">272</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φὴς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φῂς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29890">272</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σόφου</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σοφοῦ</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29894">272</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑνα δε</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕνα δὲ</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e29898">272</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σόφους</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σοφοὺς</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e30515">283</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δεύτεραν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δευτέραν</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e30539">283</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑνα</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕνα</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e30824">288</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δωῇ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ζωῇ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e30950">289</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">παρίστασιν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">περίστασιν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e31239">292</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἁγνειά</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἁγνεία</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e31546">297</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μέν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μὲν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e31928">305</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑξεως</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕξεως</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e32247">310</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">develope</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">develop</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e32895">323</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀκινδυνόν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀκίνδυνόν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e33256">330</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">p. </td>
+<td class="bottom">3</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e33345">331</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑκαστοι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕκαστοι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e33404">333</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">θελω</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">θέλω</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e33559">335</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">nacessitates</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">necessitates</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e33694">338</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μη δὲν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μηδὲν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e33808">343</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἔχε ν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἔχειν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e33827">343</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">;</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">:</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e34011">347</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συνίστασιν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σύστασιν</td>
+<td class="bottom">3 / 2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e34268">352</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑπεσθαι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕπεσθαι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e34617">356</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μύθου</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μύθους</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e35358">364</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">fo mer</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">former</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e37528">409</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e46169">550</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e46775">563</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e49526">571</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e50493">573</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">:</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">;</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e37699">411</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Herculanum</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Herculaneum</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e37929">413</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="de">Lections verz.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="de">Lectionsverz.</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e38436">421</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">.</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">:</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e38754">424</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">na uralem</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">naturalem</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e38759">425</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">indux runt</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">induxerunt</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e38993">428</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὑποτεταγμενα</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ὑποτεταγμένα</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39026">429</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οὐτε</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οὔτε</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39082">429</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑξομεν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕξομεν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39086">429</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δοξαζομενον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">δοξαζόμενον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39293">433</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">χρωμα</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">χρῶμα</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39297">433</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44379">522</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44424">522</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44911">526</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἑκαστον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἕκαστον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39343">433</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μεν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μὲν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39433">435</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἔτ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἔτι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39480">435</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μόνο</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μόνον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39654">439</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">tert a</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">tertia</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39749">440</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συμπτωτάτων</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συμπτωμάτων</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e39823">440</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">συνοδος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">σύνοδος</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e40087">444</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">towa ds</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">towards</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e40174">446</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">251</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">261</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e40265">447</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Orig</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Origin</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e40923">458</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐτων</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐτῶν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e41091">462</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">’</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e41459">467</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αὐτῶ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">αὐτῷ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e41594">469</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μερος</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μέρος</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e41689">470</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">probab y</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">probably</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e42426">481</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">ministram</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">magistram</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e42444">481</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">των</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τῶν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e42468">481</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">pulcræque</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="la">pulchræque</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e42767">486</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">)</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">:</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e43254">492</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">
+[<i>Not in source</i>]
+</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">(2) <i>Family life.</i></td>
+<td class="bottom">16</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e43295">493</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">γαμήσεω</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">γαμήσειν</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e43572">497</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μεγαλοπρεπως</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">μεγαλοπρεπῶς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e43618">497</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κατατιθεσθαι</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">κατατίθεσθαι</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44016">518</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">c mpilers</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">compilers</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44167">519</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">n r</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">nor</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44612">524</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">qu tations</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">quotations</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44768">525</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">S xt</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Sext.</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44779">525</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ῥῃστα</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ῥῇστα</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44873">526</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">λεγει</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">λέγει</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44891">526</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀκολ υθεῖν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἀκολουθεῖν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e44915">526</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Τιμων</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Τίμων</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e45157">531</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">thel atter</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">the latter</td>
+<td class="bottom">2</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e45278">532</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φαντασιᾷ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">φαντασίᾳ</td>
+<td class="bottom">2 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e45458">534</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τῶ</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">τῷ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e45567">536</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">[</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">(</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e45767">537</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἐχῆς</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἠχῆς</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e45797">538</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ου</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">οὐ</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e46899">565</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἤχασιτὴν</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">ἤχασι τὴν</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e47430">568</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Ἀποπροηγμενον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Ἀποπροηγμένον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1 / 0</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e49910">572</a>, <a class="pageref" href="#xd33e51868">575</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">,</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">;</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e52718">576</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Δῆγον</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="grc">Λῆγον</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e54790">579</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Bargyllium</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">Bargylium</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e55329">580</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">electicism</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">eclecticism</td>
+<td class="bottom">1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class="width20"><a class="pageref" href="#xd33e58705">585</a></td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">586</td>
+<td class="width40 bottom" lang="en">400</td>
+<td class="bottom">3</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+</div>
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77777 ***</div>
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/77777-h/images/new-cover.jpg b/77777-h/images/new-cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..55755a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/77777-h/images/new-cover.jpg
diff --git a/77777-h/images/titlepage.png b/77777-h/images/titlepage.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0a7b272
--- /dev/null
+++ b/77777-h/images/titlepage.png
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c72794
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This book, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..58b2920
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for eBook #77777
+(https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77777)
diff --git a/StoicsEpicureansSceptics-utf8.txt b/StoicsEpicureansSceptics-utf8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6e74331
--- /dev/null
+++ b/StoicsEpicureansSceptics-utf8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,21087 @@
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77777 ***
+
+
+
+                                  THE
+                           STOICS, EPICUREANS
+                                  AND
+                                SCEPTICS
+
+
+                     TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
+                              Dr E. ZELLER
+               Professor of the University of Heidelberg
+
+                                   BY
+                  REV. OSWALD J. REICHEL, B.C.L., M.A.
+              sometime Vice-Principal of Cuddesden College
+
+
+                        NEW AND REVISED EDITION
+
+                                 LONDON
+                        LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
+                   AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16th STREET
+                                  1892
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+The present translation aims at supplying an introductory volume to a
+later period of the history of mind in Greece, which may be
+collectively described as the post-Aristotelian. To the moralist and
+theologian no less than to the student of philosophy this period is one
+of peculiar interest; for it supplied the scientific mould into which
+Christianity in the early years of its growth was cast, and bearing the
+shape of which it has come down to us.
+
+The translation has been carefully revised for the present edition,
+with the view of rendering more clear any passages which seemed
+obscure.
+
+
+                                     À la Ronde, near Lympstone, Devon:
+                                                           August 1891.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+
+PART I.
+
+STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL STATE OF GREECE AT THE CLOSE OF THE
+FOURTH CENTURY B.C.
+
+                                                                   PAGE
+    A. Merits and defects of the systems of Plato and Aristotle       1
+    B. Connection between the theories of Aristotle and the
+       Greek character                                                6
+    C. Greece after the battle of Chæronea                           12
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+CHARACTER AND CHIEF FEATURES OF THE POST-ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY.
+
+    A. Causes forming the post-Aristotelian philosophy               15
+        1. Political causes                                          15
+        2. Intellectual causes                                       17
+    B. Common characteristics of the post-Aristotelian philosophy    19
+        1. Theory subordinated to practice                           19
+        2. Peculiar mode of treating the practical problem           21
+        3. These peculiarities illustrated by subsequent
+           philosophy                                                22
+    C. Development of the post-Aristotelian philosophy               25
+        1. Dogmatic Schools—Stoics and Epicureans, Dogmatic
+           Scepticism                                                25
+        2. Sceptical Schools—influences producing—Scepticism and
+           Eclecticism                                               26
+        3. Religious School of Neoplatonists                         31
+
+
+PART II.
+
+THE STOICS.
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+HISTORY OF THE STOICS UNTIL THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C.
+
+    A. Zeno                                                          36
+    B. Pupils of Zeno                                                40
+        1. Cleanthes                                                 40
+        2. Aristo and Herillus                                       41
+        3. Other pupils                                              43
+    C. Chrysippus and the later Stoics                               45
+        1. Chrysippus                                                45
+        2. Later Stoics                                              48
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+AUTHORITIES FOR THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY; ITS PROBLEM AND DIVISIONS.
+
+    A. Authorities                                                   53
+        1. Review of authorities                                     53
+        2. Use to be made of authorities                             55
+    B. Problem proposed to the Stoic philosophy                      56
+        1. Its practical character                                   56
+        2. Necessity for intellectual knowledge                      58
+        3. Attitude towards logic and natural science of Aristo—
+           of Zeno and Cleanthes                                     59
+    C. Divisions of philosophy                                       66
+        1. Threefold division                                        67
+        2. Relative importance of each part                          68
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+LOGIC OF THE STOICS.
+
+    A. General remarks                                               70
+        1. Field of Logic                                            70
+        2. Words and thoughts                                        73
+    B. Theory of knowledge                                           75
+        1. General character of this theory                          75
+        2. Prominent points in the theory—perceptions—
+           conceptions—standards of truth                            77
+    C. Formal logic                                                  92
+        1. Utterance in general                                      92
+        2. Incomplete expression—words—the categories                94
+        3. Complete utterance—judgment—inference—fallacies          110
+    D. Estimate of Stoic logic                                      123
+        1. Its shortcomings                                         123
+        2. Its value                                                123
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+THE STUDY OF NATURE: 1. FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONS.
+
+    A. Materialism                                                  126
+        1. Meaning of the Stoic Materialism                         126
+        2. Causes which led to Stoic Materialism                    132
+        3. Consequences of Stoic Materialism—individual
+           perceptions—theory of universal mingling                 135
+    B. Dynamical theory of Nature                                   139
+        1. Matter and force                                         139
+        2. Nature of force                                          141
+        3. Deity—God as force—God as matter                         148
+    C. Pantheism                                                    156
+        1. God identical with the world                             156
+        2. Relative difference between God and the world            158
+        3. Views of Boëthus                                         159
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+THE STUDY OF NATURE: 2. COURSE, CHARACTER, AND GOVERNMENT OF THE
+UNIVERSE.
+
+    A. The General Course of the Universe                           161
+        1. Origin of the world                                      161
+        2. End of the world                                         163
+        3. Cycles in the world’s course                             165
+    B. Government of the World                                      170
+        1. Nature of Destiny—as Providence—as Generative Reason     170
+        2. Arguments in favour of Providence                        173
+        3. The idea of Providence determined                        175
+    C. Nature of the world                                          182
+        1. Its unity and perfection                                 183
+        2. Moral theory of the world                                187
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THE STUDY OF NATURE: 3. IRRATIONAL NATURE. THE ELEMENTS.—THE UNIVERSE.
+
+    A. The most general ideas on Nature                             194
+    B. The Elements                                                 197
+    C. The Universe                                                 202
+        1. The stars                                                204
+        2. Meteorology                                              206
+        3. Plants and animals                                       208
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+THE STUDY OF NATURE: 4. MAN.
+
+    A. The Soul                                                     210
+        1. Materialistic nature of the soul                         210
+        2. Divisions of the soul                                    213
+    B. The Individual Soul and the Soul of the Universe             216
+    C. Freedom and Immortality                                      219
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+ETHICS: 1. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE STOIC ETHICS. ABSTRACT THEORY
+OF MORALITY.
+
+    A. The Highest Good                                             225
+        1. Nature of the Highest Good                               225
+        2. The Good and Evil                                        230
+        3. Pleasure and the Good                                    235
+        4. Negative character of Happiness                          239
+        5. The Highest Good as Law                                  240
+    B. Emotions and Virtue                                          243
+        1. The Emotions—their nature—varieties of                   243
+        2. Idea of Virtue—positive and negative aspects of—the
+           virtues severally—their mutual relations—unity of
+           virtue                                                   254
+    C. The Wise Man                                                 268
+        1. Wisdom and Folly                                         268
+        2. Universal Depravity                                      272
+        3. Conversion                                               275
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+ETHICS: 2. THE STOIC THEORY OF MORALS AS MODIFIED IN PRACTICE.
+
+    A. Things to be preferred and eschewed                          278
+        1. Secondary goods                                          280
+        2. Classes of things indifferent                            281
+        3. Collision of modified and abstract theory                284
+    B. Perfect and intermediate duties                              287
+    C. Emotions                                                     290
+        1. Permitted affections                                     290
+        2. Modification of apathy                                   292
+        3. The state of progress                                    293
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+ETHICS: 3. APPLIED MORAL SCIENCE.
+
+    A. The Individual                                               301
+        1. Importance attaching to the individual                   301
+        2. Cynicism of the Stoics                                   305
+    B. Social Relations                                             311
+        1. Origin and use of society                                311
+        2. Justice and mercy                                        315
+        3. Friendship                                               317
+        4. The family and civil life—aversion to political
+           life—citizenship of the world                            320
+    C. Man and the Course of the World                              332
+        1. Submission to the course of nature                       332
+        2. Suicide                                                  335
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+THE RELATION OF THE STOICS TO RELIGION.
+
+    A. General connection of Stoicism and Religion                  341
+        1. Connection of Stoicism with popular faith                343
+        2. Free criticism of popular belief                         344
+        3. The truth in Polytheism                                  348
+        4. Doctrine of Demons                                       351
+    B. The Allegorising spirit                                      354
+        1. Allegorical interpretation of myths                      354
+        2. Interpretation of myths respecting the Gods              357
+        3. Allegory applied to heroic myths                         367
+    C. Prophetic powers                                             369
+        1. Divination                                               370
+        2. Prophecy explained by natural causes                     374
+        3. Causes of divination                                     377
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY AS A WHOLE AND ITS HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS.
+
+    A. Inner connection of the system                               381
+        1. Ethical side of Stoicism                                 382
+        2. Scientific side of the Stoic system                      383
+        3. Connection of the moral and scientific elements          385
+    B. Relation of Stoicism to previous systems                     387
+        1. Its relation to Socrates and the Cynics                  387
+        2. Relation to Megarians and Heraclitus                     392
+        3. Relation to Aristotle                                    396
+        4. Relation to Plato                                        399
+    C. The Stoic philosophy as a whole                              400
+        1. Its place in history                                     400
+        2. Its onesidedness                                         402
+
+
+PART III.
+
+THE EPICUREANS.
+
+
+CHAPTER XV.
+
+EPICUREANS AND THE EPICUREAN SCHOOL.
+
+    A. Epicurus                                                     404
+    B. Scholars of Epicurus                                         408
+    C. Epicureans of the Roman period                               411
+
+CHAPTER XVI.
+
+CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THE EPICUREAN TEACHING. THE TEST-SCIENCE OF
+TRUTH.
+
+    A. Character of Epicurean system                                418
+        1. Its power of self-preservation                           418
+        2. Aim of philosophy according to the Epicureans            420
+        3. Divisions of philosophy                                  424
+    B. Canonic or the Test-Science of Truth                         425
+        1. Sensation and perception                                 425
+        2. Notions                                                  428
+        3. Opinions                                                 429
+        4. Standard of truth subjective                             431
+
+CHAPTER XVII.
+
+THE EPICUREAN VIEWS OF NATURE.
+
+    A. General Views on Nature                                      434
+        1. Object, value, and method of the study of nature         434
+        2. Mechanical explanation of nature                         437
+        3. Atoms and empty space                                    439
+    B. The World                                                    444
+        1. The swerving aside of atoms                              444
+        2. Origin of the world                                      447
+        3. Arrangement of the universe                              449
+        4. Plants and animals                                       451
+    C. Mankind                                                      451
+        1. Origin of the human race                                 451
+        2. The soul                                                 453
+        3. Sensation                                                457
+        4. Will                                                     459
+
+CHAPTER XVIII.
+
+VIEWS OF EPICURUS ON RELIGION.
+
+    A. Criticism of the Gods and the popular faith                  462
+    B. The Gods according to Epicurus                               464
+        1. Reasons for his belief                                   464
+        2. Nature of the Epicurean Gods                             467
+
+CHAPTER XIX.
+
+THE MORAL SCIENCE OF THE EPICUREANS: 1. GENERAL VIEWS.
+
+    A. Pleasure                                                     472
+        1. Pleasure the Highest Good                                472
+        2. Freedom from pain                                        474
+    B. Intellectual Happiness                                       476
+        1. Intelligence                                             476
+        2. Reasons for rising superior to the senses                478
+        3. Virtue                                                   480
+    C. The Wise Man                                                 483
+
+CHAPTER XX.
+
+THE EPICUREAN ETHICS CONTINUED: 2. SPECIAL POINTS.
+
+    A. The Individual                                               485
+    B. Civil Society and the Family                                 490
+        1. Civil society                                            490
+        2. Family life                                              492
+    C. Friendship                                                   493
+
+CHAPTER XXI.
+
+THE EPICUREAN SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. ITS POSITION IN HISTORY.
+
+    A. Coherence of the Epicurean teaching                          499
+    B. Historical position of Epicureanism                          503
+        1. Relation to Stoicism                                     503
+        2. Relation to Aristippus                                   508
+        3. Relation to Democritus                                   510
+        4. Relation to Aristotle and Plato                          511
+
+
+PART IV.
+
+THE SCEPTICS: PYRRHO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.
+
+
+CHAPTER XXII.
+
+PYRRHO.
+
+    A. Historical position of Scepticism                            514
+        1. Relation to cotemporary dogmatic systems                 514
+        2. Causes producing it                                      515
+        3. Pyrrho and his followers                                 517
+    B. Teaching of Pyrrho                                           521
+        1. Impossibility of knowledge                               521
+        2. Withholding of judgment                                  523
+        3. Mental imperturbability                                  525
+
+CHAPTER XXIII.
+
+THE NEW ACADEMY.
+
+    A. Arcesilaus                                                   528
+        1. Denial of knowledge                                      528
+        2. Probability                                              534
+    B. Carneades                                                    535
+        1. Negative views of                                        538
+        2. Positive views of                                        553
+    C. School of Carneades                                          563
+
+
+GENERAL INDEX                                                       567
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PART I.
+
+STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE.
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL STATE OF GREECE AT THE CLOSE OF THE
+FOURTH CENTURY.
+
+
+[A. Merits and defects of the systems of Plato and Aristotle.]
+
+In Plato and Aristotle Greek Philosophy reached its greatest
+perfection. In their hands the Socratic philosophy of conceptions grew
+into elaborate systems, which embraced the whole range of contemporary
+knowledge, and grouped it from definite points of view so as to afford
+a connected view of the universe. The study of nature was by them
+supplemented by careful enquiries into the subject of morals. It was,
+moreover, transformed, enlarged, and enriched by Aristotle. In
+metaphysics, the foundations for a philosophical structure were deeply
+laid, everything being referred to first principles, in a way which no
+previous philosopher had before attempted. A multitude of phenomena
+which earlier thinkers had carelessly passed over, more particularly
+the phenomena of mental life, were pressed into the service of
+research; new questions were raised; new answers given. New ideas had
+penetrated every branch of knowledge. That idealism in which the Greek
+mind so beautifully and lucidly found expression had been set forth by
+Plato in brilliant purity, and had been by Aristotle combined with
+careful observation. Practice and theory had brought the dialectical
+method to the position of an art. A valuable instrument of thought had
+been gained in the scientific use of terms of which Aristotle was the
+real originator. Within a few generations the intellectual treasures of
+Greece had been manifoldly increased, both in extent and value. The
+heritage received by Socrates from his predecessors could hardly be
+recognised as the same in that which Aristotle left to his successors.
+
+Great as was the progress made by Greek philosophy in the fourth
+century before Christ, quite as great were the difficulties with which
+it had perpetually to contend; quite as difficult the problems on the
+solution of which it had to labour. Aristotle had already pointed out
+the weak points in the system of Plato, which rendered it impossible
+for him to accept that system as satisfactory. From the platform of
+later knowledge still further objections might be raised to it. Even in
+Aristotle’s own system inconsistencies on some of the most important
+points might be found, concealed under a certain indefiniteness of
+expression, but fatal if once brought to light to the soundness of the
+whole. For with all his ingenuity, Aristotle never succeeded in
+harmoniously blending all the elements out of which his system was
+composed. Thus the divergencies of his immediate followers from the
+original Aristotelian teaching may be accounted for.
+
+Nor were these defects of a kind that could be easily disposed of. The
+deeper the enquiry is carried, the clearer it becomes that they were
+defects embedded in the foundations of the systems both of Plato and
+Aristotle, and underlying the whole previous range of philosophic
+thought. Omitting details and minor points, they may all be ultimately
+referred to two: either to an imperfect knowledge and experience of the
+world, or to the overhaste of idealistic philosophy to draw
+conclusions. To the former defect may be attributed the mistakes in
+natural science into which Plato and Aristotle fell, and the limited
+character of their view of history; to the latter, the Platonic theory
+of ideas with all that it involves—the antithesis of ideas and
+appearances, of reason and the senses, of knowledge and ignorance, of
+the present world and the world to come—and likewise the corresponding
+points in the system of Aristotle; such, for instance (to name some of
+the principal ones only), as the relation of the particular and the
+general, of form and matter, of God and the world, of the theory of
+final causes and natural explanations, of the rational and the
+irrational parts of the soul, of speculative theory and practice.
+
+Both defects are closely connected. The Greek philosophers were content
+with an uncertain and imperfect knowledge of facts, because they
+trusted conceptions too implicitly, and were ignorant of their origin
+and worth; and they had this unconditional trust in the truth of
+conceptions because the study of nature was yet in its infancy. Their
+knowledge of history was too limited for them to see the difference
+between the results of careful observation and those of ordinary
+unmethodical experience, to realise the uncertainty of most of the
+traditional principles and the necessity for a stricter method of
+induction. The fault common to both Plato and Aristotle lay in
+attaching undue prominence to the dialectical method inherited from
+Socrates to the neglect of observation, and in assuming that
+conceptions expressing the very essence of things can be deduced in a
+purely logical way from current beliefs and the use of language. In
+Plato this dialectical exclusiveness appears most strongly, and finds
+striking expression in his theory of recollection. If all conceptions
+are inherent from the moment of birth and need only the agency of
+sensible things to produce a consciousness of their existence, it is
+only legitimate to infer that, to know the essence of things, we must
+look within and not without, and obtain ideas by abstraction from the
+mind rather than by induction from experience. It is equally legitimate
+to infer that the ideas derived from the mind are the true standard by
+which experience must be judged. Whenever ideas and experience
+disagree, instead of regarding ideas as at fault, we ought to look upon
+the data of experience as imperfect, and as inadequately expressing the
+ideas which constitute the thing as it really exists. Thus the whole
+theory of ideas, and all that it implies, is seen to be a natural
+corollary from the Socratic theory of conceptions. Even those parts of
+this theory which seem most incongruous are best explained by being
+referred to the principles of the Socratic process.
+
+From this defective assumption Aristotle is only partially free. He
+attempted, it is true, to supply the defects in the Socratic and
+Platonic theory of conceptions by observation of a kind with which
+Plato’s experimental knowledge cannot be compared either for accuracy
+or extent. With that attempt he also combined a complete transformation
+of the Platonic metaphysics, whereby he secured the same position for
+particulars in relation to the universal that his predecessor had
+secured for observation in relation to conceptional knowledge. But
+Aristotle did not go far enough. In his theory of knowledge he cannot
+wholly discard the assumption that the soul has its knowledge by a
+process of development from within, and is not only endowed with the
+capacity of thinking, but possesses also from its birth the substance
+of ideas. In his scientific method a critical investigation of common
+notions and of idiom—that in fact which he himself calls proof by
+probabilities—is constantly taking the place of strict induction. His
+endeavours to harmonise the two antagonistic currents in Plato’s
+teaching may have been undertaken in all sincerity, but the antagonism
+was too deeply seated to yield to his efforts. It not only reappears in
+the fundamental ideas of his system, but it colours all its general
+results. Beginning with the antithesis between form and matter, it ends
+in the contrast between the world and a soul independent of the world,
+in the conception of reason as something above man, never combining
+with the lower parts of his nature to form one complete living unity.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Connection between the theories of Aristotle and Greek character.]
+
+Granting that the Socratic philosophy of conceptions is the source from
+which these peculiarities are derived, still that philosophy is itself
+only the expression of the character of the nation which produced it.
+In an earlier work it has been shown [1] that the most distinctive
+feature of Greek life lay in confounding the outer and the inner
+worlds, in ingenuously assuming that the two originally corresponded,
+and are still in perfect harmony with one another. When the whole
+mental life of a people bears this impress, it is sure to be reflected
+in its philosophy also. Together with the advantages which accrue from
+the confusion of the two, philosophy shares also the disadvantages
+which unavoidably attend any theory which ignores the real distinction
+between them. The mind only gradually and imperfectly becomes aware of
+the distinctive peculiarity of mental life, of the notion of
+personality, of the fact that moral rights and duties are independent
+of external circumstances, of the share of the individual will in
+creating ideas. It has also less hesitation in transferring phases of
+consciousness directly to things themselves, in regarding the world
+from ideal points of view borrowed from the sphere of mind, in
+accepting its own notions of things as realities without testing their
+actual truth, and even treating them as more real than the reality of
+the senses, and in confounding the critical analysis of a notion with
+the experimental investigation of a thing. If the philosophy of Greece
+in the time of its greatest perfection was not free from these defects;
+if, further, these defects were the cause of all the important faults
+in the systems of Plato and Aristotle; the creators of these systems
+and their immediate successors are not the only ones to blame; but the
+whole mental peculiarity of the people is at fault of which within the
+province of science these men were the greatest representatives.
+
+As the faults of the Platonic and Aristotelian systems are seen to be
+connected with the general character of Greek life, it becomes obvious
+how difficult it must have been for Greeks to emancipate themselves
+from them. To overcome the difficulty nothing short of a radical
+breaking away from old lines of thought would avail. The origin of
+ideas, the primary meaning of conceptions, must be enquired into with
+searching thoroughness; a sharper distinction must be drawn between
+what is supplied from without and what is supplied from within; the
+truth of axioms hitherto received in metaphysics must be more carefully
+investigated than had ever been done as yet. The intellect must
+accustom itself to an accuracy of observation, and to a strictness of
+inductive process, never before reached in Greece. Experimental
+sciences must attain a degree of completeness which it was vain to hope
+to reach by the methods and means then in vogue. The fashion of
+regarding nature as though it were a living being which allowed
+questions as to facts to be answered by speculations as to final causes
+or by the desire of nature to realise beauty, must be abandoned.
+Enquiries into a man’s moral nature and duties must be kept apart from
+the simple study of his conduct in relation to natural surroundings,
+the disastrous effects which flow from the confusion of the two being
+only too apparent in the national type of the Greeks, in the
+exclusively political character of their morality, and in their
+adherence to slavery.
+
+Before this pass could be reached how much was there not to alter in
+the condition and mental habit of Greece! Could it indeed be expected
+that a more vigorous and more scientific method would gain foothold so
+long as the tendency to look upon the life of nature as analogous to
+the life of man was kept alive by a religion such as that of Hellas? Or
+that moral science would liberate itself from the trammels of Greek
+propriety of conduct, whilst in all practical matters those trammels
+were in full force? Or that a clearer distinction would be drawn
+between what comes from without and what from within in ideas—a
+distinction which we vainly look for in Aristotle—until a depth and an
+intensity had been given to the inner life, and until the rights and
+value of the individual as such had obtained a recognition which it
+required the combined influence of Christianity and the peculiar
+Germanic character to bring about? The more vividly the national type
+and the national conditions surrounding Greek philosophy are realised,
+the firmer becomes the conviction, that to heal its defects—which are
+apparent even in its greatest and most brilliant achievements—nothing
+short of a revolution in the whole mental tone of Greece would
+avail—such as history has seen accomplished, but not till after many
+shifts and many centuries.
+
+On the platform of the ancient life of Greece such a change could not
+possibly have come about. It may be that under more favourable
+circumstances Greek philosophy might have further developed along the
+same course of purely intellectual enquiry which it had previously so
+successfully followed in the hands of its earlier representatives, more
+particularly of Aristotle. What results might in this way have been
+attained, we cannot exactly determine. Speculation is, however,
+useless. In point of fact, the historical circumstances under which
+philosophy had to grow cannot be ignored. Philosophy had become what it
+was under the influence of those circumstances. The Socratic theory of
+conceptions, and Plato’s theory of ideas, presuppose on the one hand
+the high culture of the age of Pericles, and the brilliant career of
+Athens and Greece following on the Persian war. They also presuppose
+the political degradation and the moral exhaustion of Greece during and
+after the Peloponnesian war. Aristotle, with his high intellectual
+culture, despairing of everything direct and practical, with his wide
+view of things, his knowledge of every kind, his system matured and
+elaborate, and embracing all the results of previous enquiry—appears as
+the child of an age which was bearing to the grave a great historical
+epoch, in which intellectual labour had begun to take the place of
+vigorous political action.
+
+The bloom of Greek philosophy was short-lived, but not more short-lived
+than the bloom of national life. The one was dependent on the other,
+and both were due to the action of the same causes. The Greeks, with a
+high appreciation of freedom, a ready aptitude for politics, and a
+genius for artistic creations, produced within the sphere of politics
+one result of its kind unrivalled and unique. They neglected, however,
+to lay the foundations wide and deep. Their political endurance was not
+equal to their versatility and restlessness. Communities limited in
+extent and simple in arrangement sufficed for them. But how could such
+communities include all branches of the Greek family, and satisfy at
+once all legitimate aspirations? It is the same within the department
+of science. Prematurely concluding and rashly advancing from isolated
+experiences without mediating links to the most general conceptions,
+they constructed theories upon a foundation of limited and imperfect
+experience, which it was wholly inadequate to bear. Whether, and in how
+far, the intellect of Greece, if left to itself, might have remedied
+these defects in a longer protracted calm of development, is a question
+which it is impossible to answer. As a fact, that intellect was far too
+intimately bound up with the political, the moral, and the religious
+life—in short, with the whole mental tone and culture of the people—not
+to be seriously affected by a change in any one of them. It lay, too,
+in the character and historical progress of that people to have only a
+brief period of splendour, and that soon over. At the time that the
+philosophy of Greece reached its highest point in Plato and Aristotle,
+Greece was in all other respects in a hopeless state of decline.
+Notwithstanding individual attempts to revive it, the old morality and
+propriety of conduct had disappeared since the beginning of the
+Peloponnesian war. The old belief in the gods was likewise gone. To the
+bulk of the people the rising philosophy with its ethics afforded no
+substitute. Art, although carefully cultivated, failed to come up to
+the excellence of the strictly classic period. Political relations
+became daily more unsatisfactory. In the fifth century before Christ
+the rivalry of Athens and Sparta had ranged the states of Greece into
+two groups. In the succeeding century disunion spread further. The
+effort made by Thebes under Epaminondas to found a new leadership only
+multiplied parties. Destitute of a political centre of gravity, the
+Greeks, of their own choice, drifted into a disgraceful dependence on
+the conquered and now declining Persian empire. Persian gold wielded an
+influence which Persian arms had been unable to exercise. The petty
+jealousies of tiny states and tribes frittered away in endless local
+feuds resources which with unity and leadership might have accomplished
+wonders. Civil order declined, and with it the well-being and martial
+prowess of the nation declined also. The growing pursuit of the art of
+war as a profession took the decision of battle more and more out of
+the hands of free citizens, and placed it in those of the numerous
+bands of mercenaries which are one of the most baneful phenomena of
+that age, a sure sign of the decline of freedom, and of the approach of
+a military despotism. When by the rise of the Macedonian power the
+danger of a military despotism loomed nearer, patriots in Greece
+continued to deceive themselves with the hope that their self-devotion
+would avert the danger, but any unbiassed reader of history sees in the
+failure of their attempts to avert it the natural and inevitable result
+of causes so deeply rooted in the Greek character and the course of
+Greek history, that neither the most heroic exertions of individuals,
+nor the united resistance of the divided states, which came too late,
+could for one moment have rendered the final issue doubtful.
+
+
+
+
+[C. Greece after the battle of Chæronea.]
+
+By the battle of Chæronea the doom of Greece was sealed. Never since
+then has Greece attained to real political freedom. All attempts to
+shake off the Macedonian supremacy ended in humiliating disasters. In
+the subsequent struggles Hellas, and Athens in particular, were the
+play-ball of changing rulers, the continual arena of their warfare. The
+second half of the third century was reached before a purely Grecian
+power—the Achæan League—was formed, round which the hopes of the nation
+rallied, but the attempt was wholly inadequate to meet the real
+requirements of the times. Soon it became apparent that no remedies
+were forthcoming to heal the ills from which the country was suffering.
+Discord, their old hereditary failing, rendered it impossible for
+Greeks to be independent in foreign relations, or to be united and
+settled at home. Their best resources were wasted in perpetual
+struggles between Achæans, Ætolians, and Spartans. The very individual
+who led the Achæans against the Macedonians in the cause of
+independence, called the Macedonians back to the Peloponnesus to gain
+their support against Sparta. When the supremacy of Macedonia was
+broken by the arms of Rome, a more avowed dependence on Italian allies
+succeeded. And when, in the year 146 B.C., the province of Achaia was
+incorporated into the Roman empire, even the shadow of freedom which up
+to that time had been assured departed for ever.
+
+Sad as were the external affairs of Greece at this period, and marked
+as was the decline of its intellectual power, its mental horizon,
+nevertheless, extended and its culture became more generally diffused.
+The Macedonian ascendency, which gave the death-blow to the
+independence of Greece, also broke down the barriers which had hitherto
+separated Greeks from foreigners. A new world was opened out before
+them, and a vast territory offered for their energies to explore.
+Greece was brought into manifold contact with the Eastern nations
+belonging to the Macedonian monarchy, whereby it secured for its
+culture the place of honour among them, but at the same time became
+subject to a slow, but, in the long run, important back-current of
+Oriental thought, traces of which appear in its philosophy a few
+centuries later. By the side of the old famed centres of learning in
+the mother country of Hellas, new centres arose, suited by position,
+inhabitants, and peculiar circumstances to unite the culture of East
+and West, and to fuse into one homogeneous mass the intellectual forces
+of different races. Whilst Hellas, by the number of emigrants who left
+her shores to settle in Asia and Egypt, was losing her population and
+the Greeks in their ancestral homes were being ousted by foreigners,
+they were gaining the most extensive intellectual conquests at the time
+over the very nations by and through whom they had been oppressed.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+CHARACTER AND CHIEF FEATURES OF THE POST-ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY.
+
+
+[A. Causes producing the post-Aristotelian philosophy.]
+
+The circumstances which have been briefly sketched in the preceding
+chapter are of the greatest importance in their bearing on the
+character of the post-Aristotelian philosophy. Greek philosophy, like
+Greek art, is the offspring of Greek political independence. In the
+whirl of public life every one is thrown on himself and his own
+resources. Thereby, and by the emulation begotten of unlimited
+competition for all the good things of life, the Greek had learned to
+make full use of his intellect. Consciousness of his dignity—which a
+Greek associated far more closely than we do with the privilege of
+citizenship—and independence of the necessity of struggling for daily
+food, had taught him independence of mind, and enabled him to devote
+himself to the pursuit of knowledge without any ulterior aim. [2]
+
+
+
+[(1) Political causes.]
+
+With the decline of political independence the mental powers of the
+nation were broken past remedy. No longer borne up by a powerful esprit
+de corps, weaned from the habit of working for the common weal, the
+majority gave themselves up to the petty interests of private life and
+personal affairs. Even the better disposed were too much occupied in
+contending against the low tone and corruption of their times, to be
+able to devote themselves in moments of relaxation to independent
+speculation. What could be expected in such an age as that which
+preceded the rise of the Stoic and Epicurean systems, but that
+philosophy would become practical itself, if indeed it were studied at
+all?
+
+An age like that did not require theoretical knowledge, but it did
+require moral bracing and strengthening. If these were not to be had
+from popular religion in its then state, was it matter for wonder that
+philosophy should be looked to to supply the deficiency, seeing that in
+all cultivated circles philosophy had already taken the place of
+religion? If we ask in what form, and in what form only, philosophy
+could supply the deficiency under the then circumstances, the answer is
+not far to seek. There was little room for creative effort, plenty for
+sustained endurance; little for activity without, plenty for activity
+within; little room for public life, plenty of room for private life.
+So utterly hopeless had the public state of Greece become, that even
+the few who made it their business to provide a remedy could only gain
+for themselves the honour of martyrdom. As matters stood, the only
+course open for the best-intentioned was to withdraw entirely within
+themselves, to entrench themselves within the safe barriers of their
+inner life against outward misfortunes, and to make happiness dependent
+entirely on their own inward state.
+
+Stoic apathy, Epicurean self-contentment, and Sceptic imperturbability,
+were the doctrines which suited the political helplessness of the age,
+and they were therefore the doctrines which met with the most general
+acceptance. There was yet another which suited it—viz., the sinking of
+national distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, the
+severance of morals from politics which characterises the philosophy of
+the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers which kept nations apart
+had been swept away, together with their national independence: East
+and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united in large empires, brought
+into communication and forced into comparison with one another in
+matters the most important. Philosophy declared that all men are of one
+blood and are equally privileged citizens of one empire, that morality
+rests on the relation of man to man, and is independent of nationality
+and position in the state; but in so doing it only explicitly stated a
+truth which was partly realised and partly implied in actual life.
+
+
+
+[(2) Intellectual causes.]
+
+The very course which philosophy itself had taken during the previous
+century and a half had prepared the way for the turn which now set in.
+Socrates and the Sophists, in different ways no doubt, had each devoted
+themselves to the practical side of life; and thus the Cynic School was
+the precursor of Stoicism, the Cyrenaic of Epicureanism. These two
+Schools are, however, only of minor importance in the general progress
+of philosophy in the fourth century, and sophistry by the close of the
+same century was already a thing of the past. Socrates, it is true,
+would have nothing to do with physical enquiries; yet he felt the
+desire for knowledge far too keenly to bear comparison with the
+post-Aristotelian philosophers. Proposing to concern himself only with
+subjects which were of practical use in life, he yet put forth a theory
+of knowledge which involved a reform quite as much of speculative as of
+practical philosophy, and that reform was accomplished on a grand scale
+by Plato and Aristotle.
+
+However little Greek philosophy as a whole developed during the fourth
+century along the lines of its subsequent expansion, still the
+speculations of Plato and Aristotle necessarily helped to prepare for
+the coming charge. The antagonism between the ideal and phenomenal
+worlds which Plato set up, and Aristotle vainly attempted to bridge
+over, leads ultimately to a contrast between the outer and the inner
+life, between thought and the object of thought. The generic
+conceptions or forms, which Plato and Aristotle regard as most truly
+real, are, after all, fabrications of the human mind. The conception of
+reason, even in its expanded form as the divine Reason, or reason of
+the world, is an idea formed by abstraction from the inner life. And
+what is really meant by identifying form in itself with what is, and
+matter with what is possible, or even (as Plato does) with what is not,
+or by placing God outside of and in contrast to the world, but the
+admission that man finds in his own mind a higher and more real
+existence than any which he finds outside of it, and that what is truly
+divine and unlimited must be in the mind as an idea, apart from and
+independent of all impressions from without? Plato and Aristotle in
+fact declared that reason constitutes the real essence of man—reason
+coming from above and uniting itself with the body, but in itself
+superior to the world of sense and life in time—and that man’s highest
+activity is thought, turned away from all external things, and
+meditating only on the inner world of ideas. It was only one step
+further in the same direction for the post-Aristotelian philosophy to
+contemplate man in complete severance from the outer world, and to
+refer him to himself for that satisfaction which he can find nowhere
+else in life.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Common characteristics of the post-Aristotelian philosophy.]
+
+This step was taken by the Schools of the Stoics, Epicureans, and
+Sceptics which appeared in the first half of the third century before
+Christ, superseded the influence of the older Schools, and asserted
+their supremacy without great variation in their teaching until the
+beginning of the first century. In whatever else these three Schools
+may differ, at least they agree in two fundamental points, (1) in
+subordinating theory to practice, and (2) in the peculiar character of
+their practical philosophy.
+
+
+
+[(1) Theory subordinated to practice.]
+
+The subordination of theory to practice is most apparent in the School
+of Epicurus. It is nearly as clear in the case of the Sceptics, who,
+denying all possibility of knowledge, left as the only ground of action
+conviction based on probabilities. Both Schools also agree in
+considering philosophy as only a means for securing happiness. By the
+Stoics, on the other hand, the need of philosophic speculation was felt
+more strongly; but even in their case it may be seen that speculation
+was not pursued simply for its own sake, but for practical purposes, by
+which it was also determined. Thus the Stoics, like the Epicureans, in
+the speculative part of their system confined themselves to current
+views—thereby showing that the source of their philosophical
+peculiarities lay elsewhere than in speculation, and that other studies
+had greater value in their eyes, in which also they considered
+themselves more proficient. They even expressly stated that the study
+of nature is only necessary as a help to the study of virtue. It is
+beyond question, that their chief peculiarities, and those which give
+them an importance in history, are ethical. The other parts of their
+system, more particularly those in which their distinctive tenets
+appear, are likewise regulated by practical considerations. This
+statement will hereafter be shown in detail. It may suffice to observe
+now, that the most important point in the logic of the Stoics—the
+question as to the standard of truth—was decided by a practical
+postulate; that the fundamental principles of the Stoic metaphysics are
+only intelligible from the ground of their ethics; that for natural
+science the Stoics did very little; that in their theory of final
+causes on which they lay so much stress nature is explained by moral
+considerations; and that their natural as well as their positive
+theology bears ample testimony to the practical tone of their system.
+Standing in advance of the Epicureans by their higher intellectual
+training and their learned energy, and in opposition to the Sceptics by
+their dogmatism, the Stoics nevertheless agree with both these Schools
+in the essentially practical character of their teaching.
+
+
+
+[(2) Peculiar mode of dealing with the practical problem.]
+
+This relationship is more strikingly seen in the way in which they deal
+with the practical problem. The Epicurean imperturbability is akin to
+that of the Sceptics; both resemble the Stoic apathy. All three Schools
+are agreed that the only way to happiness consists in peace of mind,
+and in avoiding all those disturbances which sometimes arise from
+external influences, at other times from internal emotions; they are
+only divided as to the means by which peace of mind may be secured.
+They are also agreed in making moral activity independent of external
+circumstances, and in separating morals from politics, although only
+the Stoics set up the doctrine of the original unity of the whole human
+family, and insist on being citizens of the world. Through all the
+Schools runs the common trait of referring everything to the subject,
+and constantly falling back on man and his own inner life, one
+consequence of which is the prominence given to action in preference to
+speculation, and another that action is determined by personal
+certainty, and a mental equilibrium which must be attained by the
+exercise of will and the cultivation of the intellect.
+
+
+
+[(3) Their peculiarities illustrated by subsequent philosophy.]
+
+The same character belongs to philosophy in the centuries succeeding
+the rise of these three Schools; during which the circumstances which
+produced that character were not materially altered. In addition to the
+followers of the old Schools, Eclectics are now met with, who gather
+from every system what seems true and probable. In this process of
+selection their guiding principle is regard for the practical wants of
+man. Hence the ultimate standard of truth is placed in personal
+consciousness. Everything is referred to the subject as its centre. In
+ethics and natural theology the Eclectics were mainly indebted to the
+Stoics. A new School of Sceptics also arose, not differing in its
+tendencies from the older one. Neopythagoreans and Platonists appeared,
+not satisfied with human knowledge, but aspiring to higher revelations.
+Professing to appeal to the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle, these
+philosophers betray their connection with the later post-Aristotelian
+Schools, not only by borrowing largely from the Stoics for the material
+for their theology and ethics, but also by their general tone;
+knowledge is for them less even than for the Stoics an end in itself,
+and they are further from natural science. With them philosophy is
+subservient to the interests of religion; its aim is to bring men into
+proper relation with God; and the religious needs of mankind are the
+highest authority for science.
+
+The same observations apply also to Plotinus and his successors. These
+philosophers are not lacking in an elaborate science of metaphysics.
+The care which they devoted to this science leaves no doubt as to their
+lively interest in scientific completeness and systematic arrangement.
+For all that their speculative efforts bear the same relation to the
+practical aim of philosophy as those of the Stoics, who in point of
+learning and logical elaboration of a system are quite their equals. A
+real interest in knowledge was no doubt one of the elements which
+brought Neoplatonism into being; but it was not strong enough to
+counterbalance another, the practical and religious sentiment. The mind
+was not sufficiently independent to be able to get on without appealing
+to intellectual and theological authorities; the scientific procedure
+was too mixed to lead to a simple study of things as they are. As in
+the case of the Neopythagoreans, the ultimate ground of the system is a
+religious want. The divine world is only a portion of human thought
+projected out of the mind, and incapable of being fully grasped by the
+understanding. The highest business of philosophy is to reunite man
+with the divine world external to himself. To attain this end, all the
+means which science supplies are employed. Philosophy endeavours to
+explain the steps by which the finite gradually came to be separated
+from the original infinite being; it seeks to bring about a return by a
+regular and systematic course; and in this attempt the philosophic
+spirit of Greece, by no means extinct, proved its powers by a result of
+its kind unrivalled. In the first instance, no doubt, the problem was
+so raised as to press philosophy into the service of religion; but, in
+the long run, it became apparent that, with the premises assumed, a
+scientific solution of the religious question was impossible. The idea
+of an original being with which the system started was a reflex of the
+religious sentiment, and not the result of scientific research, and the
+doctrine of a mystical union with a transcendental being was a
+religious postulate, the gratuitous assumption of which betrays an
+origin in the mind of the thinker. The platform of Neoplatonism is the
+same, therefore, as that of the other post-Aristotelian systems; and it
+is hardly necessary in proof of this position to point to the agreement
+of Neoplatonism in other respects with Stoicism, and especially in
+ethics. Far as the two systems lie asunder, the one standing at the
+beginning the other at the end of the post-Aristotelian philosophy,
+nevertheless both display one and the same attitude of thought; and we
+pass from one to the other by a continuous series of intermediate
+links.
+
+In passing from School to School the post-Aristotelian philosophy
+assumed, as might be expected, various modifications of character in
+course of time; nevertheless, it retained a certain mental habit and
+certain common elements. Such was the neglect of intellectual
+originality, which drove some thinkers to a sceptical denial of all
+knowledge, and induced others to take their knowledge at second hand
+from older authorities. Such was the prominence given to practical over
+speculative questions. Such was the disregard for natural science, and,
+in comparison with former times, the greater importance attached to
+theology, apparent not only in the controversy between the Epicureans
+and Stoics, but also in the apologetic writings of the Stoics and
+Platonists. Such, too, was the negative morality which aimed at
+independence of the outer world, at mental composure, and philosophic
+contentment; the separation of morals from politics; the moral
+universalism and citizenship of the world; the going within self into
+the depths of the soul, the will, and the thinking powers; the
+deepening of the consciousness accompanied at the same time by a
+narrowing and isolation of it, and the loss of a lively interest in the
+outer world, and in the simple scientific study thereof.
+
+
+
+
+[C. Development of post-Aristotelian philosophy.]
+
+[(1) Dogmatic Schools.]
+
+[(a) Stoics and Epicureans.]
+
+This mental habit, first of all, found simple dogmatic expression in
+philosophical systems. Not only moral science, but also logic and
+natural science, were treated in a way consonant with it, although they
+were partially built upon older views. In dealing with the moral
+problem, two Schools come to view, markedly different and decided in
+their peculiarities. The Stoics regard almost exclusively the universal
+element in man who seeks contentment within, the Epicureans catch at
+the individual side of his being. The Stoics regard man exclusively as
+a thinking being, the Epicureans as a creature of feeling. The Stoics
+make happiness to consist in subordination to the law of the whole, in
+the suppression of personal feelings and inclinations, in virtue; the
+Epicureans in individual independence of everything external, in the
+unruffled serenity of the inner life, in painlessness. The theoretical
+bases of their teaching correspond with these fundamental ethical
+positions.
+
+
+[(b) Dogmatic scepticism.]
+
+Although the rivalry between these two Schools was great, both,
+nevertheless, stand on the same platform. Absolute composure of mind,
+freedom of the inner life from all disturbance from without, is the
+goal at which both aim, although they follow different methods. Hence
+it becomes necessary to insist on the common element as the essential
+aim and matter of philosophy. If the philosophic axioms of the two
+systems contradict one another, it may be thence inferred that the aim
+of both may be attained independently of any definite dogmatic view; in
+short, knowledge may be despaired of in order to pass from a
+recognition of ignorance to a general indifference to everything and to
+an unconditional repose of mind. Thus Scepticism is connected with
+Stoicism and Epicureanism, as the third chief form of the philosophy of
+that age. Apart from Pyrrho’s School, it is most effectually
+represented in the New Academy.
+
+
+
+[(2) Sceptical Schools.]
+
+[(a) Influences producing Scepticism.]
+
+[(α) Political influence of Rome.]
+
+The rise, the growth, and the conflict of these three Schools, by the
+side of which the older Schools have only a subordinate value, occupies
+the first portion of the period of post-Aristotelian philosophy, and
+extends from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the first
+century before Christ. The distinctive features of this epoch consist
+partly in the predominance of the above tendencies, and partly in their
+separate existence, without modification by intermixture. After the
+middle of the second century a gradual change may be observed. Greece
+had then become a Roman province, and the intellectual intercourse
+between Greece and Rome was continually on the increase. Many learned
+Greeks resided at Rome, frequently as the companions of families of
+high birth; others living in their own country, were visited by Roman
+pupils. Was it possible that in the face of the clearly-defined and
+sharply-expressed Roman character, the power and independence of the
+Greek intellect, already unquestionably on the decline, would assert
+its ancient supremacy? Or that Greeks could become the teachers of
+Romans without accommodating themselves to their demands, and
+experiencing in turn a reflex influence? Even Greek philosophy could
+not withdraw itself from this influence. Its creative power was long
+since in abeyance, and in Scepticism it had openly avowed that it could
+place no trust in itself. To the practical sense of a Roman no
+philosophical system commended itself which did not make for practical
+results by the shortest possible route. To him practical needs were the
+ultimate standard of truth. Little did he care for strict logic and
+argumentative accuracy in scientific procedure. Differences of schools,
+so long as they had no practical bearing, were for him of no
+importance. No wonder that Greek philosophy, touched by the breath of
+Rome, lent itself to Eclecticism!
+
+[(β) Intellectual influence of Alexandria.]
+
+Whilst on the one side of the world the Greeks were falling under the
+influence of the nation that had subdued them, on the other they were
+assimilating the views of the Oriental nations whom they had subdued by
+martial as well as by mental superiority. For two centuries, in
+philosophy at least, Greece had held her own against Oriental modes of
+thought. Now that her intellectual incapacity continually increased,
+those modes of thought gained for themselves a foothold in her
+philosophy. Alexandria was the place where the connection of Greece
+with the East was first and most completely brought about. In that
+centre of commerce for all parts of the globe, East and West entered
+into a connection more intimate and more lasting than in any other
+centre. Nor was this connection a mere accident of circumstances; it
+was also a work of political forecast. From its founder, Ptolemy Soter,
+the Ptolemæan dynasty inherited as the principle of government the rule
+always to combine what is native with what is foreign, and to clothe
+new things in the old and venerable forms of Egyptian custom and
+religious ceremony. At Alexandria, accordingly, there arose, towards
+the beginning of the first century before Christ, a School calling
+itself at first Platonic, afterwards Pythagorean, which later still, in
+the shape of Neoplatonism, gained the ascendency over the whole domain
+of philosophy. The very fact, however, that such a change in
+philosophic views did not appear sooner, is sufficient to show that it
+was produced by external circumstances. But notwithstanding external
+circumstances it would never have come about had not the intellect of
+Greece in the course of its own development been ripe for it.
+
+
+[(b) Scepticism and Eclecticism.]
+
+The same remark holds good of the rise of that practical Eclecticism
+which we have before traced to the influence of Rome. Even in the
+period of intellectual exhaustion, Greek philosophy was not simply the
+resultant of its outward surroundings, but, under the influence of
+outward surroundings, took shape in a way indicated by its previous
+progress. If the lingering remains of a few small Schools, which soon
+expired, are excepted, there existed, after the beginning of the third
+century before Christ, only four great philosophic Schools—the
+Peripatetic, the Stoic, the Epicurean, and the School of Platonists.
+The last-named of these was converted to Scepticism by Arcesilaus.
+These four Schools were all permanently established at Athens, where a
+lively interchange of thought took place between them, which renders a
+thorough comparison of their several teachings comparatively easy. It
+was only natural that they would not long exist side by side without
+making overtures towards union and agreement. These overtures were
+favoured by Scepticism, which, denying the possibility of knowledge,
+only allowed a choice between probabilities, and decided that choice by
+the standard of practical needs. Hence, towards the close of the second
+century before Christ, these philosophic Schools may be observed to
+emerge more or less from their exclusiveness. An eclectic tendency
+steals over philosophy, aiming not so much at scientific knowledge as
+at attaining certain results for practical use. The distinctive
+doctrines of each School drop into the background; and in the belief
+that infallibility resides solely in the mind itself, such portions are
+selected from each system as seem most in harmony with the selecting
+mind. The germ of this eclectic mode of thought lay in Scepticism. On
+the other hand, Eclecticism involves doubt. Hence, soon after the
+Christian era, a new school of doubt developed, which continued until
+the third century. There was thus, on the one hand, a lively interest
+in knowledge, which was desired in the practical interest of religion
+and morals; and, on the other hand, a disbelief in the truths of
+existing knowledge, and, indeed, of knowledge generally, openly avowed
+by some as Sceptics, secretly betrayed by others in the unsettledness
+of their Eclecticism. These two currents coalescing, led to the thought
+that truth, which cannot be found in knowledge, exists somewhere
+outside of it, and must be looked for partly in the religious
+traditions of the early days of Greece and the East, partly in direct
+divine revelation. Then came in such a notion of God, and of His
+relations to the world, as accords with this belief in revelation. Man
+knowing that truth lies outside himself, and doubting his own
+capacities to attain it, removes deity, as the absolute source of
+truth, into another world; and because the need of a revelation of
+truth still exists, the interval between God and the world is peopled
+with intermediate beings, who are sometimes conceived of as
+metaphysical entities, and at other times appear as the demons of
+popular belief. This mental habit, which is connected with Plato and
+Pythagoras, among the older systems, forms the transition to
+Neoplatonism. The appearance of Neoplatonism introduces the last stage
+in the development of Greek philosophy.
+
+
+
+[(3) Religious School of Neoplatonists.]
+
+Yet even this turn in Greek philosophy was not uninfluenced by the
+circumstances of the times. Since the end of the second century after
+Christ, the decline of the Roman Empire progressed apace. Dread of the
+dangers which threatened it on all sides, the pressure of the times and
+distress made startling progress. All means of defence hitherto
+employed had proved unavailing to stem destruction. With ruin
+everywhere impending, the desire and longing for higher assistance
+increased. No such assistance was forthcoming from the old gods of Rome
+or the religious faith of the day; despite which circumstances were
+daily becoming more hopeless. Then it was that the desire for foreign
+forms of worship which had been gradually spreading over the Roman
+world since the last days of the Republic, and which the circumstances
+of the Empire had stimulated, gained ground. That desire was favoured
+by the highest power in the state, under the Oriental and half Oriental
+emperors who for nearly half a century after Septimius Severus occupied
+the imperial throne. The state and the gods of the state were
+continually losing their hold on the respect of men. Meanwhile, on the
+one hand, Oriental worships, mysteries old and new, and foreign heathen
+religions of the most varying kinds, were ever gaining fresh adherents.
+On the other, Christianity was rapidly acquiring a power which enabled
+it openly to enter the lists for supremacy among the recognised
+religions of the state. The powerful monarchs who about the middle of
+the third century attempted to refound the Empire, had not for their
+object to restore a specifically Roman form of government, but to bring
+the various elements which composed the Empire under one sovereign will
+by fixed forms of administration. In this attempt Diocletian and
+Constantine succeeded. The Roman character asserted itself, as a ruling
+and regulating power, but it did so under the influence of another
+originally foreign character. The Empire was a congeries of nations
+artificially held together, and arranged on a carefully-designed plan;
+its centre of gravity lay not within the nation, but in the simple will
+of the prince, himself exalted above all rules and laws of state, and
+deciding everything without appeal and without responsibility.
+
+In like manner Neoplatonism united all the elements of previous
+philosophical Schools into one comprehensive and well-arranged system,
+in which each class of existences had its definite place assigned to
+it. The initial point in this system, the all-embracing unity, was a
+being lying beyond the world, high above every notion that experience
+and conception can supply, unmixed with the process of life going on in
+the world, and from his unattainable height causing all things, but
+himself subject to no conditions of causality. Neoplatonism is the
+intellectual reproduction of Byzantine Imperialism. As Byzantine
+Imperialism combines Oriental despotism with the Roman idea of the
+state, so Neoplatonism supplements the scientific forms of Greek
+philosophy with Oriental mysticism.
+
+In Neoplatonism the post-Aristotelian philosophy had manifestly veered
+round into its opposite. Self-dependence and the self-sufficingness of
+thought made way for implicit resignation to higher powers, for a
+craving for revelation, for an ecstatic departure from the sphere of
+conscious mental activity. Man has abandoned the idea of truth within
+for truth to be found only in God. God stands there as abstract
+spirituality removed into another world in contrast to man and the
+world of appearances. Speculation has but one aim—to explain the
+procession of the finite from the infinite, and the conditions of its
+return into the absolute; but neither of these problems can meet with a
+satisfactory intellectual solution. Even this form of thought betrays
+undeniably the personal character of the post-Aristotelian philosophy,
+and is the natural outcome of previous teaching, as will be more fully
+seen in the sequel. With it the creative powers of the Greek mind were
+exhausted. After being driven step by step during centuries from the
+platform of their own national philosophy, the Greeks were eventually
+entirely dislodged therefrom by the victory of Christianity.
+Neoplatonism made one more futile attempt to rescue the forms of Greek
+culture from its mighty rival, but when that attempt failed Greek
+religion and Greek philosophy went down together.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PART II.
+
+THE STOICS.
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+HISTORY OF THE STOICS UNTIL THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C.
+
+
+A striking feature in the history of the post-Aristotelian philosophy,
+and one which at the same time brings forcibly home the thorough change
+in its surroundings, is the fact that so many of its representatives
+come from eastern countries in which Greek and Oriental modes of
+thought met and mingled. Although for centuries Athens still continued
+to have the reputation of being the chief seat of Greek philosophy, and
+did not cease to be one of the most important seminaries of philosophy,
+even when it had to share that reputation with other cities, such as
+Alexandria, Rome, Rhodes, and Tarsus, yet at Athens itself there were
+teachers not a few whose foreign extraction indicates the age of
+Hellenism. This remark applies primarily to the later Neoplatonic
+School: next to it it is of none more true than of the Stoic. With this
+fact may be also associated the world-citizenship of this School,
+though it would be unfair to attribute a general characteristic of the
+then state of the world to purely external circumstances. Nearly all
+the most important Stoics before the Christian era belong by birth to
+Asia Minor, to Syria, and to the islands of the Eastern Archipelago.
+Then follow a series of Roman Stoics, by the side of whom the Phrygian
+Epictetus occupies a prominent place; but Greece proper is represented
+only by men of third or fourth rate capacity.
+
+
+
+
+[A. Zeno.]
+
+The founder of the Stoic School, Zeno [3] by name, was the son of
+Mnaseas, [4] and a native of Citium [5] in Cyprus. Leaving his home, he
+repaired to Athens, [6] about the year 320 B.C., [7] where he at first
+joined the Cynic Crates. [8] He appears to have soon become disgusted
+with the extravagances of the Cynics’ mode of life, [9] and his keen
+desire for knowledge could find no satisfaction in a teaching so meagre
+as theirs. [10] To supply their defects he had recourse to Stilpo, who
+united to the moral teaching of the Cynics the logical acumen of the
+Megarians. He also studied under Polemo, and it is said under
+Xenocrates and Diodorus the logician, with whose pupil Philo [11] he
+was on terms of intimacy. After a long course of intellectual
+preparation, he at last appeared as a teacher, soon after the beginning
+of the third, or perhaps during the last years of the fourth century
+B.C. From the Stoa ποικιλὴ, the place which he selected for delivering
+his lectures, his followers derived their name of Stoics, having first
+been called after their master Zenonians. [12] Such was the universal
+respect inspired by his earnestness, moral strictness, [13] and
+simplicity of life, [14] and the dignity, modesty, and affability of
+his conduct, [15] that Antigonus Gonatas vied with the city of Athens
+in showing appreciation of him. [16] Although lacking smoothness of
+style and using a language far from pure, [17] Zeno had nevertheless an
+extensive following. Leading a life of singular moderation, he reached
+an advanced age untouched by disease, although he naturally enjoyed
+neither robust health nor an attractive person. [18] A slight injury
+having at length befallen him, which he regarded as a hint of destiny,
+he put an end to his own life. [19] His not very numerous writings [20]
+have been lost, with the exception of a few fragments, some no doubt
+dating from the time when, as a pupil of Crates, he adhered more
+strictly to Cynic ideas than was afterwards the case. [21] This point
+ought not to be forgotten in sketching his teaching.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Pupils of Zeno.]
+
+[(1) Cleanthes.]
+
+The successor to the chair of Zeno was Cleanthes, [22] a native of
+Assos in the Troad, [23] a man of strong and firm character, of unusual
+endurance, energy, and contentment, but also slow of apprehension, and
+somewhat heavy in intellect. Resembling Xenocrates in mind, Cleanthes
+was in every way adapted to uphold his master’s teaching, and to
+recommend it by the moral weight of his own character, but he was
+incapable of expanding it more completely, or of establishing it on a
+wider basis. [24]
+
+
+
+[(2) Aristo and Herillus.]
+
+Besides Cleanthes, the best known among the pupils of Zeno are Aristo
+of Chios, [25] and Herillus of Carthage, [26] who diverged from his
+teaching in the most opposite directions, Aristo confining himself
+rigidly to Cynicism, Herillus approximating to the leading positions
+held by the Peripatetic School.
+
+
+
+[(3) Other pupils.]
+
+Other pupils of Zeno were Persæus, a countryman and companion of Zeno;
+[27] Aratus, the well-known poet of Soli; [28] Dionysius of Heraclea in
+Pontus, who afterwards joined the Cyrenaic or Epicurean School; [29]
+and Sphærus from the Bosporus, who studied first in the School of Zeno,
+and afterwards in that of Cleanthes, and was the friend and adviser of
+Cleomenes, the unfortunate Spartan reformer. [30] Of a few other pupils
+of Zeno the names are also known; [31] but nothing beyond their names.
+No appreciable addition was made to the Stoic doctrine by any one of
+them.
+
+
+
+
+[C. Chrysippus and the later Stoics.]
+
+[(1) Chrysippus.]
+
+It was therefore fortunate for Stoicism that Cleanthes was followed in
+the presidency of the School by a man of learning and argumentative
+power like Chrysippus. [32] In the opinion of the ancients, Chrysippus
+was the second founder of Stoicism. [33] Born [34] in the year 280
+B.C., [35] at Soli in Cilicia, [36] after being a pupil of Cleanthes
+[37] and it is said even of Zeno [38] himself, he succeeded, on the
+death of Cleanthes, to the conduct of his School. [39] He is also said
+to have attended the lectures of Arcesilaus and Lacydes, philosophers
+of the Middle Academy; [40] whose critical methods he so thoroughly
+appropriated, that later Stoics accused him of furnishing Carneades
+with the necessary weapons for attacking them, [41] by the masterly
+manner in which he raised philosophical doubts without being able to
+answer them satisfactorily. This critical acuteness and skill, more
+than anything else, entitle him to be regarded as the second founder of
+Stoicism. [42] In learning, too, he was far in advance of his
+predecessors, and passed for the most industrious and learned man of
+antiquity. [43] Independent in tone, as his general conduct and
+intellectual self-reliance [44] often proved, [45] he deviated from the
+teaching of Zeno and Cleanthes, as might be expected, in many respects.
+[46] Still, the fundamental principles of the system were not altered
+by him; only their intellectual treatment was perfected and deepened.
+In fact, the Stoic doctrine was expanded by him with such completeness
+in details, that hardly a gleaning was left for his successors to
+gather up. [47] In multitude of writings [48] he exceeded Epicurus;
+[49] their titles, and a comparatively small number of fragments, being
+all that have come down to us. [50] With such an extraordinary literary
+fertility, it will be easily understood that their artistic value is
+not very high. The ancients are unanimous in complaining of their
+careless and impure language, of their dry and often obscure style, of
+their prolixity, their endless repetitions, their frequent and lengthy
+citations, and their too frequent appeals to etymologies, authorities,
+and other irrelevant proofs. [51] But by Chrysippus the Stoic teaching
+was brought to completeness; and when he died, in the year 206 B.C.,
+[52] the form was in every respect fixed in which Stoicism would be
+handed down for the next following centuries.
+
+
+
+[(2) Later Stoics.]
+
+A cotemporary of Chrysippus, but probably somewhat his senior, was
+Teles, from whose writings a few extracts [53] have been preserved by
+Stobæus, [54] in the shape of popular moral considerations written from
+a Cynic or Stoical point of view. The same age also produced the
+Cyrenaic Eratosthenes, [55] a man distinguished in every branch of
+knowledge, but particularly celebrated for his mathematical
+attainments, who was gained for Stoicism by Aristo. [56] Another
+cotemporary of Chrysippus, and perhaps his fellow-student, [57] who in
+many respects approximated to the teaching of the Peripatetics, [58]
+was the Stoic Boëthus. The proper scholars of Chrysippus were without
+doubt numerous; [59] but few of their names are known to us. [60] The
+most important among them appear to have been Zeno of Tarsus, [61] and
+Diogenes of Seleucia, [62] who succeeded Chrysippus in the presidency
+of the School. [63] The pupil and successor of Diogenes, in his turn,
+was Antipater of Tarsus, [64] in connection with whom Archedemus his
+countryman is frequently mentioned. [65] Under Panætius, Antipater’s
+scholar, Stoicism entered the Roman world, and there underwent internal
+changes, to which attention will be drawn in the sequel. [66]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+AUTHORITIES FOR THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY: ITS PROBLEM AND DIVISIONS.
+
+
+[A. Authorities for the Stoic philosophy.]
+
+[(1) Review of authorities.]
+
+To give a faithful exposition of the Stoic philosophy is a work of more
+than ordinary difficulty, owing to the circumstance that all the
+writings of the earlier Stoics, with the exception of a few fragments,
+have been lost. [67] Those Stoics whose complete works are still
+extant—Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Heraclitus, Cornutus—lived
+under the Roman Empire, and therefore belong to a time in which all
+Schools alike exposed to foreign influences had surrendered or lost
+sight of many of their original peculiarities, and had substituted new
+elements in their place. The same remark applies to writers like
+Cicero, Plutarch, Diogenes, Sextus Empiricus, and the commentators on
+Aristotle, who may be considered as authorities at second hand for the
+teaching of the Stoics; but it is more than doubtful whether everything
+which they mention as Stoic teaching really belongs to the older
+members of that School. That teaching can, however, be ascertained with
+sufficient certainty on most of the more important points, partly by
+comparing accounts when they vary, partly by looking to definite
+statements on which authorities agree for the teaching and points of
+difference between individual philosophers, such as Zeno, Cleanthes,
+Chrysippus; partly too by consulting such fragments of their writings
+as are still extant. Yet, when the chief points have been settled in
+this way, many difficulties still remain. In the first place, it will
+be found that only isolated points of their teaching, with at most a
+few arguments on which to base them, are recorded; but the real
+connection of their tenets, and the motives which gave rise to them,
+can only be known by conjecture. Had the writings of Zeno and
+Chrysippus come down to us in their entirety, we should have had a much
+surer foundation on which to build, and far less would have been left
+to conjecture. An opportunity, too, would then have been afforded of
+tracing the inward growth of the Stoic teaching, and of deciding how
+much of that teaching was due to Zeno, and how much to Chrysippus. That
+this work of discrimination can now only be done very imperfectly, is
+the second difficulty, and it arises from the nature of the
+authorities. It may be ascertained without difficulty what the teaching
+of the Stoics was since the time of Chrysippus, but only on a few
+points are the differences between Chrysippus and his predecessors
+known. For the most part, the authorities do not hesitate to attribute
+to the founder of the School all that was known to them as belonging to
+its later members, just as everything Pythagorean was directly
+attributed to Pythagoras, and everything Platonic to Plato. Still,
+there can be no doubt that the Stoic teaching was very considerably
+expanded by Chrysippus, and altered in many ways. But how considerable
+the alterations were, and in what they consisted, are questions upon
+which there is little direct evidence.
+
+
+
+[(2) Use to be made of authorities.]
+
+The path is thus marked out, which must be followed in giving an
+exposition of the Stoic philosophy. If full information were
+forthcoming respecting the rise of the Stoic system and the form it
+assumed under each one of its representatives, it would be most natural
+to begin by reviewing the motives which led Zeno to his peculiar
+teaching, and by describing the system as it grew up. Next it would be
+right to trace step by step the changes and expansions which it
+received at the hands of each succeeding teacher. In default of the
+necessary information for such a treatment of the subject, it will be
+better to pursue another course. The Stoic teaching will have to be
+treated as a whole, in which the contributions of individuals can no
+longer be distinguished. It will have to be set forth in the form which
+it assumed after the time of Chrysippus. The share of individuals in
+constructing the system, and their deviations from the general type,
+cannot be considered, except in cases where they are placed beyond
+doubt by the statements of the ancients, or by well-founded historical
+surmises. Stoicism will have to be described in the first place as it
+is traditionally known, without having its principles explained or
+resolved into their component factors; without even considering how
+they grew out of previous systems. Not till this has been done will it
+be possible to analyse the purport and structure of the system, so as
+to fathom its leading motives, to understand the connection of its
+various parts, and thus to ascertain its true position in history.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Problem proposed to the Stoic philosophy.]
+
+Proceeding next to ask in what form the problem of philosophy presented
+itself to the Stoics, three points deserve to be specially noticed. 1.
+In the first place, philosophy was determined practically by an end in
+view. 2. The character of this end was decided by the idea of
+conformity with reason; and 3, this view was substantiated by
+intellectual proof.
+
+
+
+[(1) Its practical character.]
+
+The real business of all philosophy, according to the Stoics, is the
+moral conduct of man. Philosophy is the exercise of an art, and more
+particularly of the highest art—virtue: [68] it is therefore the
+learning of virtue. Now virtue can only be learnt by exercise, and
+therefore philosophy is at the same time virtue, [69] and the several
+parts of philosophy are so many distinct virtues. [70] Morality is the
+central point towards which all other enquiries converge. Even natural
+science, although lauded as the inmost shrine of philosophy, is,
+according to Chrysippus, only necessary for the philosopher to enable
+him to distinguish between things good and evil, between what should be
+done and what should be left undone. [71] So far from approving pure
+speculation, which Plato and Aristotle had commended as the height of
+human happiness, Chrysippus plainly asserted that to live for
+speculation is equivalent to living only for pleasure. [72] With this
+view of Chrysippus most of the statements of the Stoics as to the
+relation of various branches of philosophy to each other agree,
+although there is a certain amount of vagueness about them, owing to
+reasons which will shortly be mentioned; and on no other hypothesis can
+the internal structure and foundation of their system be satisfactorily
+explained. It is enough to remark here, as has been done before, [73]
+that the most important and most distinctive points established by the
+Stoic School belong to the sphere of ethics. In logic and natural
+science the School displays far less independence, for the most part
+following older teachers; and it is expressly noted, as a deviation
+from the ordinary teaching of the School, that Herillus, the pupil of
+Zeno, declared knowledge to be the highest good, thus making it the
+chief end in philosophy. [74]
+
+
+
+[(2) Necessity for intellectual knowledge.]
+
+This view of the problem of philosophy is more precisely defined by the
+Stoic doctrine of virtue. Philosophy should lead to right action and to
+virtue. But right action is, according to the Stoics, only rational
+action, and rational action is action which is in harmony with human
+and inanimate nature. Virtue consists therefore in bringing man’s
+actions into harmony with the laws of the universe, and with the
+general order of the world. This is only possible when man knows that
+order and those laws; and thus the Stoics are brought back to the
+principles of Socrates, that virtue may be learnt; that knowledge is
+indispensable for virtue, or rather that virtue is identical with right
+knowledge. They define virtue in so many words as knowledge, vice as
+ignorance. If sometimes they seem to identify virtue with strength of
+will, it is only because they consider strength of will to be
+inseparable from knowledge, so that the one cannot be conceived without
+the other. Hence the practical study of philosophy conducts with them
+to the intellectual; philosophy is not only virtue, but without
+philosophy no virtue is possible. [75] Granting that the attainment of
+virtue, and the happiness of a moral life, are the chief ends which the
+Stoics propose to themselves, still the possession of a comprehensive
+scientific knowledge is indispensable, as the only means thereto.
+
+
+
+[(3) Position towards logic and natural science.]
+
+[(a) Aristo’s views.]
+
+These remarks prove the need for the Stoics of that kind of scientific
+knowledge which has to do with life, the morals and the actions of
+mankind, in short, of Ethics. Whether further scientific knowledge is
+necessary, was a question on which the earliest adherents of the Stoic
+teaching expressed different opinions. Zeno’s pupil, Aristo of Chios,
+held that the sole business of man is to pursue virtue, [76] and that
+the sole use of language is to purify the soul. [77] This purifying
+process, however, is neither to be found in logical subtleties nor in
+natural science. Logic, as doing more harm than good, he compared to a
+spider’s web, which is as useless as it is curious; [78] or else to the
+mud on a road. [79] Those who studied it he likened to people eating
+lobsters, who take a great deal of trouble for the sake of a little bit
+of meat enveloped in much shell. [80] Convinced, too, that the wise man
+is free from every deceptive infatuation, [81] and that doubt, for the
+purpose of refuting which logic has been invented, can be more easily
+overcome by a healthy tone of mind [82] than by argument, he felt no
+particular necessity for logic. Nay, more, he considered that excessive
+subtlety transforms the healthy action of philosophy into an unhealthy
+one. [83] Just as little was Aristo disposed to favour the so-called
+encyclical knowledge: those who devote themselves to this knowledge
+instead of to philosophy he compared to the suitors of Penelope, who
+won the maids but not the mistress. [84] Natural science would probably
+have received a more favourable treatment at the hands of Aristo, had
+he not shared the opinion of Socrates, that it is a branch of knowledge
+which transcends the capacity of the human mind; [85] and having once
+embraced this notion, he was inclined to pronounce all physical
+enquiries useless. His attitude towards other sciences has therefore
+been generally expressed by saying that he excluded from philosophy
+both logic and natural science, on the ground that both are useless;
+the former being irrelevant, and the latter transcending our powers.
+[86] Even ethics was limited by Aristo to most fundamental notions—to
+enquiries into good and evil, virtue and vice, wisdom and folly. The
+special application of these notions to the moral problems suggested by
+particular relations in life, he declared to be useless and futile;
+proper for nursemaids and trainers of young children, but not becoming
+for philosophers; [87] wherever there is a proper knowledge and a right
+disposition, such particular applications will come of themselves
+without teaching; but when these are wanting, all exhortations are
+useless. [88]
+
+
+[(b) Views of Zeno and Cleanthes.]
+
+These views are mentioned as peculiar to Aristo, and as points in which
+he differed from the rest of his School; and, to judge from his
+controversial tone, the opposite views were those almost universally
+entertained by Stoics. That controversial tone, in fact, appears to
+have been directed not only against assailants from without—such as the
+Peripatetics and Platonists—but far more against those members of the
+Stoic School, who attached greater importance than he did to special
+ethical investigations, and to logical and physical enquiries. Among
+their number must have been Zeno and Cleanthes; for Zeno set the
+example to his School of dividing philosophy into logic, ethics, and
+natural science; [89] witness the titles of his logical and physical
+treatises [90] and also the statements in reference to theoretical
+knowledge and natural science which are expressly attributed to him.
+Moreover, Zeno himself recommended to others, and himself pursued,
+logical enquiries. [91] Indeed, his whole mental habit, [92] with its
+keen appreciation of even the subtleties of the Megarians, bears
+testimony to an intellectual type of thought which is far removed from
+that of Aristo. [93] It was, moreover, Zeno who chose that curt and
+unadorned logical style, which is found in its greatest perfection in
+Chrysippus. [94] Logical and scientific treatises are also known to
+have been written by Cleanthes, [95] who, in his division of
+philosophy, allotted separate parts to logic, to rhetoric, and to
+natural science, [96] and the name of Cleanthes is one of frequent
+occurrence, not only in the natural science, but more particularly in
+the theology of the Stoics. Still more exhaustive enquiries into logic
+and natural science appear to have been set on foot by Sphærus. [97]
+These prove that the energies of the Stoic School must have been
+directed to these subjects before the time of Chrysippus, although
+these branches of science were no doubt subservient to ethics, whilst
+ethics held the most important and highest place in their philosophy.
+At a later time, when Chrysippus had expanded the system of the Stoics
+in every direction, and especial attention had been devoted to logic,
+the necessity for these sciences came to be generally recognised. More
+especially was this the case with regard to natural science, including
+‘theology.’ All ethical enquiries must start, according to Chrysippus,
+with considering the universal order and arrangement of the world. Only
+by a study of nature, and a knowledge of what God is, can anything
+really satisfactory be stated touching good and evil, and all that is
+therewith connected. [98]
+
+Less obvious is the connection between logic and the ultimate aim of
+all philosophical enquiries. Logic is compared by the Stoics to the
+shell of an egg, or to the wall of a city or garden; [99] and is
+considered to be of importance, because it contributes towards the
+discovery of truth and the avoiding of error. [100] The value of logic
+in their eyes is, therefore, essentially due to its scientific method;
+its proper aim is the art of technical reasoning; and thus, following
+Aristotle, an unusually full treatment is allowed to the doctrine of
+the syllogism. [101] That the value attached to logic must have been
+considerable is proved by the extraordinary care which Chrysippus
+devoted to the subject; [102] hence, the Stoics would never allow, in
+dispute with the Peripatetics, that logic was only an instrument, and
+not a part of philosophy. To later writers that stiff logical mode of
+description, regardless of all beauty of language, appeared to be a
+peculiarity of the Stoic school, [103] and hence that School was
+characteristically known as the School of the Reasoners. [104] Frequent
+instances will be found hereafter of the Stoic preference for dry
+argument and formal logic; [105] in Chrysippus this fondness
+degenerated to a dry formalism devoid of taste. [106]
+
+
+
+
+[C. Divisions of philosophy.]
+
+The foregoing remarks have already established the three main divisions
+of philosophy [107] which were universally acknowledged by the Stoics
+[108]—Logic, Natural Science, and Ethics. As regards the relative worth
+and sequence of these divisions, very opposite views may be deduced
+from the principles of the [(1) Threefold division.] Stoic teaching.
+There can be no doubt, and, indeed, all are agreed in allowing, that
+logic was subservient to the other two branches of science, being only
+an outpost of the system. If therefore in arranging the parts the
+advance is from the less important to the more important, logic will
+hold the first place. It will occupy the last place if the opposite
+mode of procedure is followed. But the relation existing between ethics
+and natural science is an open question. On the one hand, ethics
+appears to be the higher science, the crowning point of the system, the
+subject towards which the whole philosophical activity of the School
+was directed; for philosophy is practical knowledge, and its object is
+to lead to virtue and happiness. On the other hand, virtue and the
+destiny of man consist in conformity to the laws of nature, which it is
+the province of science to investigate. Therefore, natural science has
+the higher object. It lays down the universal laws which in ethics are
+applied to man. To it, therefore, in the graduated scale of sciences,
+belongs the higher rank.
+
+
+
+[(2) Relative importance of each part.]
+
+In attempting to harmonise these opposite considerations, the Stoics
+did not always succeed. At one time natural science is preferred to
+ethics, at another time ethics to natural science, [109] in the
+enumeration of the several branches of philosophy. In the comparisons
+by means of which their relations to each other were explained, [110]
+ethics appears at one time, at another time natural science, to be the
+aim and soul of the whole system. Different views were even entertained
+in reference to the order to be followed in teaching these sciences.
+[111] In describing the Stoic system, preference will be here given to
+that arrangement which begins with logic and goes on to natural
+science, ending with ethics; not only because that arrangement has
+among its supporters the oldest and most distinguished adherents of the
+Stoic School, but also because in this way the internal relation of the
+three parts to each other can be most clearly brought out. Allowing
+that, in many essential respects, natural science is modified by
+ethical considerations; still, in the development of the system, the
+chief results of science are used as principles on which ethical
+doctrines are founded; and logic, although introduced later than the
+other two branches of study, is the instrument by means of which they
+are put into scientific shape. If the opportunity were afforded of
+tracing the rise of the Stoic teaching in the mind of its founder, it
+would probably be possible to show how the physical and logical parts
+of the system gradually gathered around the original kernel of ethics.
+But knowing Stoicism only as we do from the form which it attained
+after the time of Chrysippus, it will be enough, in analysing that
+form, to proceed from without to within, and to advance from logic
+through natural science to ethics. When this has been done it will be
+time to go back over the same ground, and to explain how from the
+ethical tone of Stoicism its peculiar speculative tenets may be
+deduced.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+LOGIC OF THE STOICS.
+
+
+[A. General remarks.]
+
+[(1) Field of logic.]
+
+Under the head of Logic, in the Stoic use of the term after the time of
+Chrysippus, a number of intellectual enquiries are included which would
+not now be considered to belong to philosophy at all. One common
+element, however, characterised them all—they all referred to the
+formal conditions of thought and expression. Logic was primarily
+divided into two parts, sharply marked off from each other, roughly
+described as the art of speaking continuously and the art of
+conversing. The former is known as Rhetoric, the latter as Dialectic.
+[112] To these two was added, as a third part, the doctrine of a
+standard of truth, or the theory of knowledge; and, according to some
+authorities, [113] a fourth part, consisting of enquiries into the
+formation of conceptions. By others, these enquiries were regarded as
+the third main division, the theory of knowledge being included under
+dialectic. [114] By rhetoric, however, little else was meant than a
+collection of artificial rules, of no philosophical value; [115] and
+dialectic was in great measure occupied with enquiries referring to
+precision of expression. Dialectic is defined to be the science or art
+of speaking well; [116] and since speaking well consists in saying what
+is becoming and true, [117] dialectic is used to express the knowledge
+of what is true or false, or what is neither one nor the other, [118]
+correctness of expression being considered inseparable [(2) Words and
+thoughts.] from correctness of thought. Words and thoughts are,
+according to this view, the very same things regarded under different
+aspects. The same idea (λόγος), which is a thought as long as it
+resides within the breast, is a word as soon as it comes forth. [119]
+Accordingly, dialectic consists of two main divisions, treating
+respectively of utterance and the thing uttered, thoughts and words.
+[120] Both divisions, again, have several subdivisions, [121] which are
+only imperfectly known to us. [122] Under the science of utterance,
+which was generally placed before the science of things uttered, [123]
+are included, not only instruction as to sounds and speech, but also
+the theories of poetry and music, these arts being ranked under the
+head of the voice and of sound on purely external considerations. [124]
+What is known of the teaching of the Stoics on these subjects,
+consisting, as it does, of a mass of definitions, differences, and
+divisions, has so little philosophical value, that it need not detain
+attention longer. [125] Two parts only of the Stoic logic possess any
+real interest—the theory of knowledge, and that part of dialectic which
+treats of ideas, and which in the main agrees with our formal logic.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Theory of knowledge.]
+
+[(1) General character of this theory.]
+
+The Stoic theory of knowledge turns about the enquiry for a criterion
+or standard by which what is true in notions may be distinguished from
+what is false. Since every kind of knowledge, no matter what be its
+object, must be tested by this standard, it follows that the standard
+cannot be sought in the subject-matter of notions, but, on the
+contrary, in their form. The enquiry after a standard becomes therefore
+identical with another—the enquiry as to what kind of notions supply a
+knowledge that may be depended upon, or what activity of the power of
+forming conceptions carries with it a pledge of its own truth. It is
+impossible to answer these questions without investigating the origin,
+the various kinds, and the value and importance of notions. Hence the
+problem proposed to the Stoics is reduced to seeking by an analysis of
+notions to obtain a universally valid standard by which their truth may
+be tested.
+
+Whether this enquiry was pursued by the older Stoics in all its
+comprehensiveness is a point on which we have no information. Boëthus,
+whose views on this subject were attacked by Chrysippus, had assumed
+the existence of several standards, such as Reason, Perception, Desire,
+Knowledge. Others, in the vaguest manner, had spoken of Right Reason
+(ὀρθὸς λόγος) as being the standard of truth. [126] Hence it may be
+inferred that before the time of Chrysippus the Stoics had no
+distinctly developed theory of knowledge. Nevertheless there are
+expressions of Zeno and Cleanthes still extant which prove that the
+essential parts of the later theory were already held by these
+philosophers, [127] although it is no doubt true that it first received
+that scientific form in which alone it is known to us at the hands of
+Chrysippus.
+
+
+
+[(2) Prominent points in the theory of knowledge.]
+
+The character of this theory of knowledge appears mainly in three
+particulars:—(1) In the importance attached by the Stoics to the
+impressions of the senses. This feature they inherited from the Cynics
+and shared with the Epicureans. (2) In the exaltation of expression
+into a conception—a trait distinguishing this from either of the two
+other contemporary Schools. (3) In the practical turn given to the
+question of a criterion or standard of truth. We proceed to the
+expansion of this theory in detail.
+
+
+[(a) Perceptions the result of impressions from without.]
+
+The origin of all perceptions (φαντασίαι) may be referred to the action
+of some object (φανταστὸν) on the soul, [128] the soul at birth
+resembling a blank page, and only receiving definite features by
+experience from without. [129] By the elder Stoics, this action of
+objects on the soul was regarded as grossly material, Zeno defining a
+perception to be an impression (τύπωσις) made on the soul, [130] and
+Cleanthes took this definition so literally as to compare the
+impression on the soul to the impression made by a seal on wax. [131]
+Being himself a very exact pupil of Zeno, Cleanthes probably rendered
+the views of Zeno correctly in this comparison. The difficulties of
+this view were recognised by Chrysippus, who accordingly defined a
+perception to be the change (ἑτεροίωσις) produced in the soul by an
+object, or, more accurately, the change produced thereby in the ruling
+part of the soul; [132] and whereas his predecessors had only
+considered sensible things to be objects, he included among objects
+conditions and activities of the mind. [133] The mode, however, in
+which the change was produced in the soul did not further engage his
+attention.
+
+
+[(b) Conceptions formed from perceptions.]
+
+It follows, as a necessary corollary from this view, that the Stoics
+regarded sensation as the only source of all perceptions: the soul is a
+blank leaf, sensation is the hand which fills it with writing. But this
+is not all. Perceptions give rise to memory, repeated acts of memory to
+experience, [134] and conclusions based on experience suggest
+conceptions which go beyond the sphere of direct sensation. These
+conclusions rest either upon the comparison, or upon the combination of
+perceptions, or else upon analogy; [135] some add, upon transposition
+and contrast. [136] The formation of conceptions by means of these
+agencies sometimes takes place methodically and artificially, at other
+times naturally and spontaneously. [137] [(α) Κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι formed
+naturally.] In the latter way are formed the primary conceptions,
+προλήψεις or κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι, which were regarded by the Stoics as the
+natural types of truth and virtue, and as the distinctive possession of
+rational beings. [138] To judge by many expressions, it might seem that
+by primary conceptions, or κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι, [139] innate ideas were
+meant; but this view would be opposed to the whole character and
+connection of the system. In reality, these primary conceptions, or
+κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι, are only those conceptions which, by reason of the
+nature of thought, can be equally deduced by all men from experience;
+even the highest ideas, those of good and evil, having no other origin.
+[140] The artificial formation of conceptions gives rise to knowledge,
+which is defined by the Stoics to be a fixed and immovable conception,
+or system of such conceptions. [141] Persistently maintaining, [(β)
+Knowledge formed artificially.] on the one hand, that knowledge is a
+system of artificial conceptions, impossible without a logical process,
+they must, on the other hand, have felt it imperative from this
+platform that knowledge should agree in its results with primary
+conceptions, [142] agreement with nature being in every department
+their watchword. For them it was as natural to derive support for their
+system from a supposed agreement with nature, as it was easy for their
+opponents to show that this agreement with nature was imaginary, and
+that many of their assertions were wholly opposed to general opinions.
+[143]
+
+
+[(c) Relation of perceptions and conceptions.]
+
+Perceptions, and the conclusions based upon them, [144] being thus,
+according to the Stoics, the two sources of all notions, the further
+question arises, How are these two sources related to each other? It
+might have been expected that only perceptions would be stated to be
+originally and absolutely true, since all general conceptions are based
+on them. Nevertheless, the Stoics are far from saying so. Absolute
+certainty of conviction they allow only to knowledge, and therefore
+declare that the truth of the perceptions of the senses depends on
+their relation to thought. [145] Truth and error do not belong to
+disconnected notions, but to notions combined in the form of a
+judgment, and a judgment is produced by an effort of thought. Hence
+sensations, taken alone, are the source of no knowledge, knowledge
+first arising when the activity of the understanding is allied to
+sensation. [146] Or, starting from the relation of thought to its
+object, since like can only be known by like according to the
+well-known adage, the rational element in the universe can only be
+known by the rational element in man. [147] But again, the
+understanding has no other material to work upon but that supplied by
+sensation, and general conceptions are only obtained from sensation by
+conclusions. The mind, therefore, has the capacity of formally working
+up the material supplied by the senses, but to this material it is
+limited. Still, it can progress from perceptions to notions not
+immediately given in sensation, such as the conceptions of what is good
+and of God. And since, according to the Stoic teaching, material
+objects only possess reality, the same vague inconsistency may be
+observed in their teaching as has been noticed in Aristotle
+[148]—reality attaching to individuals, truth to general notions. This
+inconsistency, however, is more marked in their case than in that of
+Aristotle, because the Stoics so far adhere to the Cynic nominalism
+[149] as to assert that no reality attaches to thought. [150] Such an
+assertion makes it all the more difficult to understand how greater
+truth can be attributed to thought, unreal as it is said to be, than to
+sensations of real and material objects. Do we then ask in what the
+peculiar character of thought consists, the Stoics, following
+Aristotle, reply that in thought the idea of universality is added to
+that which presents itself in sensation as a particular. [151] More
+importance was attached by them to another point—the greater certainty
+which belongs to thought than to sensation. All the definitions given
+above point to the immovable strength of conviction as the distinctive
+feature of knowledge; [152] and of like import is the language
+attributed to Zeno, [153] comparing simple sensation with an extended
+finger, assent, as being the first activity of the power of judgment,
+with a closed hand, conception with the fist, and knowledge with one
+fist firmly grasped by the other. According to this view, the whole
+difference between the four processes is one of degree, and depends on
+the greater or less strength of conviction, on the mental exertion and
+tension. [154] It is not an absolute difference in kind, but a relative
+difference, a gradual shading off of one into the other.
+
+
+[(d) The standard of truth.]
+
+[(α) Practical need of such a standard.]
+
+From these considerations it follows that in the last resort only a
+relative distinction is left whereby the truth of notions may be
+tested. Even the general argument for the possibility of knowledge
+starts with the Stoics by practically taking something for granted.
+Without failing to urge intellectual objections—and often most
+pertinent ones [155]—against Scepticism, as was indeed natural,
+particularly since the time of Chrysippus, [156] the Stoics
+nevertheless specially took up their stand on one point, which was
+this, that, unless the knowledge of truth were possible, it would be
+impossible to act on fixed principles and convictions. [157] Thus, as a
+last bulwark against doubt, practical needs are appealed to.
+
+[(β) Irresistible perceptions the standard of truth.]
+
+The same result is obtained from a special enquiry into the nature of
+the standard of truth. If the question is asked, How are true
+perceptions distinguished from false ones? the immediate reply given by
+the Stoics is, that a true perception is one which represents a real
+object as it really is. [158] You are no further with this answer, and
+the question has again to be asked, How may it be known that a
+perception faithfully represents a reality? The Stoics can only reply
+by pointing to a relative, but not to an absolute, test—the degree of
+strength with which certain perceptions force themselves on our notice.
+By itself a perception does not necessarily carry conviction or assent
+(συγκατάθεσις); for there can be no assent until the faculty of
+judgment is directed towards the perception, either for the purpose of
+allowing or of rejecting it, truth and error residing in judgment.
+Assent therefore, generally speaking, rests with us, as does also the
+power of decision; and a wise man differs from a fool quite as much by
+conviction as by action. [159] Some of our perceptions are, however, of
+such a kind that they at once oblige us to bestow on them assent,
+compelling us not only to regard them as probable, but also as true
+[160] and conformable to the actual nature of things. Such perceptions
+produce in us that strength of conviction which the Stoics call a
+conception; they are therefore termed conceptional perceptions.
+Whenever a perception forces itself upon us in this irresistible form,
+we are no longer dealing with a fiction of the imagination, but with
+something real; but whenever the strength of conviction is wanting, we
+cannot be sure of the truth of our perception. Or, expressing the same
+idea in the language of Stoicism, conceptional or irresistible
+perceptions, φαντασίαι καταληπτικαὶ, are the standard of truth. [161]
+The test of irresistibility [(γ) Primary conceptions a standard as well
+as irresistible perceptions.] (κατάληψις) was, in the first place,
+understood to apply to sensations from without, such sensations,
+according to the Stoic view, alone supplying the material for
+knowledge. An equal degree of certainty was, however, attached to terms
+deduced from originally true data, either by the universal and natural
+exercise of thought, or by scientific processes of proof. Now, since
+among these derivative terms some—the primary conceptions (κοιναὶ
+ἔννοιαι), for instance—serve as the basis for deriving others, it may
+in a certain sense be asserted that sensation and primary conceptions
+are both standards of truth. [162] In strict accuracy, neither
+sensation nor primary conceptions (πρόληψεις) can be called standards.
+The real standard, whereby the truth of a perception is ascertained,
+consists in the power, inherent in certain perceptions, of carrying
+conviction—τὸ καταληπτικὸν—a power which belongs, in the first place,
+to sensations, whether of objects without or within, and, in the next
+place, to primary conceptions formed from them in a natural way—κοιναὶ
+ἔννοιαι or προλήψεις. On the other hand, conceptions and terms formed
+artificially can only have their truth established by being subjected
+to a scientific process of proof. How, after these statements, the
+Stoics could attribute a greater strength of conviction to artificial
+than to primary conceptions; [163] how they could raise doubts as to
+the trustworthiness of simple sensations, [164] is one of the paradoxes
+of the Stoic system, which prove the existence, as in so many other
+systems, of a double current of thought. There is, on the one hand, a
+seeking for what is innate and original, a going back to nature, an
+aversion to everything artificial and of human device, inherited by
+Stoicism from its ancestral Cynicism. On the other hand, there is a
+desire to supplement the Cynic appeal to nature by a higher culture,
+and to assign scientific reasons for truths which the Cynics laid down
+as self-evident.
+
+The latter tendency will alone explain the care and precision which the
+Stoics devoted to studying the forms and rules which govern
+intellectual processes. Attention to this branch of study may be
+noticed in Zeno and his immediate successors at the first separation of
+Stoicism from Cynicism. [165] Aristo is the only Stoic who is opposed
+to it, his whole habit of mind being purely that of a Cynic. In
+Chrysippus it attained its greatest development, and by Chrysippus the
+formal logic of the Stoics reached scientific completeness. In later
+times, when Stoicism reverted more nearly to its original Cynic type,
+and appealed directly to the immediate suggestions of the mind, it lost
+its interest in logic, as may be observed in Musonius, Epictetus, and
+others. For the present, however, let it suffice to consider the logic
+of Chrysippus, as far as that is known to us.
+
+
+
+
+[C. Formal logic.]
+
+[(1) Utterance in general.]
+
+The term formal logic is here used to express those investigations
+which the Stoics included under the doctrine of utterance. [166] The
+common object of those enquiries is that which is thought, or, as the
+Stoics called it, that which is uttered (λεκτόν), understanding thereby
+the substance of thought—thought regarded by itself as a distinct
+something, differing alike from the external object to which it refers,
+from the sound by which it is expressed, and from the power of mind
+which produces it. For this reason, they maintain that only utterance
+is not material; things are always material; even the process of
+thought consists in a material change within the soul, and an uttered
+word, in a certain movement of the atmosphere. [167] A question is here
+suggested in passing, which should not be lost sight of, viz. How far
+was it correct for the Stoics to speak of thoughts as existing, seeing
+they are not material, since, according to their teaching, reality only
+belongs to material things? [168]
+
+Utterance may be either perfect or imperfect. It is perfect when it
+contains a proposition; imperfect when the proposition is incomplete.
+[169] The portion of logic, therefore, which treats of utterance falls
+into two parts, devoted respectively to the consideration of complete
+and incomplete expression.
+
+
+
+[(2) Incomplete expression.]
+
+[(a) The grammar of words.]
+
+In the section devoted to incomplete expression, much is found which we
+should include under grammar rather than under logic. Thus all
+incomplete expressions are divided into two groups—one group includes
+proper names and adjectives, the other includes verbs. [170] These two
+groups are used respectively to express what is essential and what is
+accidental, [171] and are again divided into a number of subdivisions
+and varieties. [172] To this part of logic investigations into the
+formation and division of conceptions, and the doctrine of the
+categories, properly belong; but it cannot be said with certainty what
+place they occupy in the logic of the Stoics. [173]
+
+Certain it is that these researches introduced little new matter. All
+that is known of the Stoic views in reference to the formation, the
+mutual relation and the analysis of conceptions, differs only from the
+corresponding parts in the teaching of Aristotle by the change of a few
+expressions, and a slightly altered order of treatment. [174]
+
+
+[(b) The Stoic Categories.]
+
+Of greater importance is the Stoic doctrine of the categories. [175] In
+this branch of logic, the Stoics again follow Aristotle, but not
+without deviating from him in three points. Aristotle referred his
+categories to no higher conception, but looked upon them severally as
+the highest class-conceptions; the Stoics referred them all to one
+higher conception. Aristotle enumerated ten categories; the Stoics
+thought that they could do with four, [176] which four only partially
+coincide with those of Aristotle. Aristotle placed the categories side
+by side, as co-ordinate, so that no object could come under a second
+category in the same respect in which it came under the first one;
+[177] the Stoics placed them one under the other, as subordinate, so
+that every preceding category is more accurately determined by the next
+succeeding one.
+
+[(α) Highest Conception—an indefinite Something.]
+
+The highest conception of all was apparently by the older Stoics
+declared to be the conception of Being. Since, however, speaking
+strictly, only what is material can be said to have any being, and many
+of our notions refer to incorporeal and therefore unreal objects, the
+conception of Something [178] was in later times put in the place of
+the conception of Being. This indefinite Something comprehends alike
+what is material and what is not material—in other words, what has
+being and what has not being; and the Stoics appear to have made this
+contrast the basis of a real division of things. [179] When it becomes
+a question, however, of formal elementary conceptions or categories,
+other points are emphasised which have no connection with the division
+into things material and things not material. Of this kind are the four
+highest conceptions, [180]—all subordinate to the conception of
+Something, viz. subject-matter or substance (τὸ ὑποκείμενον) property
+or form (τὸ ποιὸν), variety (τὸ πὼς ἔχον), and variety of relation (τὸ
+πρός τί πως ἔχον). [181]
+
+[(β) Category of subject-matter or substance.]
+
+The first of these categories [182] denotes the subject-matter of
+things in themselves (τὸ ὑποκείμενον), the material of which they are
+made, irrespective of any and every quality, [183] the something which
+underlies all definite being, and which alone has a substantial value.
+[184] Following Aristotle, the Stoics distinguish, [185] in this
+category of matter, between matter in general, or universal matter, and
+the particular matter or material out of which individual things are
+made. The former alone is incapable of being increased or diminished.
+Far otherwise is the material of which particular things are made. This
+can be increased and diminished, and, indeed, is ever undergoing
+change; so much so, that the only feature which continues the same
+during the whole term of its existence [186] and constitutes its
+identity, is its quality.
+
+[(γ) The category of property.]
+
+The second category, that of property [187] or form, comprises all
+those essential attributes, by means of which a definite character is
+impressed on matter otherwise indeterminate. [188] If the definite
+character be one which belongs to a group or class, it is called a
+common quality—κοινῶς ποιόν·—or, if it be something peculiar and
+distinctive, it is called a distinctive quality—ἰδίως ποιόν. [189]
+Properties therefore combined with matter constitute the special
+materials out of which individual things are made; [190] and quality in
+this combination (ποιόν), corresponds, as Trendelenburg has well shown,
+[191] with the form (εἶδος) of Aristotle. [192] It may, in fact, like
+that, be described as the active and efficient part of a thing. [193]
+Aristotle’s form, however, expresses only the non-material side of a
+thing, whereas quality is regarded by the Stoics as something
+material—in fact, as an air-current. [194] Hence the mode in which a
+quality is conceived to reside in matter is that of an intermingling of
+elements. [195] The same theory of intermingling applies of course to
+the union of several properties in one and the same matter, [196] and
+likewise to the combination of several attributes to produce a single
+conception of quality. [197] In all cases the relation is supposed to
+be materialistic, and is explained by the doctrine of the mutual
+interpenetration of material things. [198] This explanation, indeed,
+could not apply to every kind of attributes. Unable to dispense
+entirely with things not material, [199] the Stoics were obliged to
+admit the existence of attributes belonging to immaterial things, these
+attributes being, of course, themselves not material. [200] What idea
+they formed to themselves of these incorporeal attributes, when reality
+was considered to belong only to things corporeal, it is, of course,
+impossible for us to say. [201]
+
+[(δ) The categories of variety and variety of relation.]
+
+The two remaining categories include everything which may be excluded
+from the conception of a thing on the ground of being either
+non-essential or accidental. In as far as such things belong to an
+object taken by itself alone, they come under the category of variety
+(πὼς ἔχον); but when they belong to it, because of its relation to
+something else, they come under the category of variety of relation
+(πρός τί πως ἔχον). Variety includes all accidental qualities, which
+can be assigned to any object independently of its relation to any
+other object. [202] Size, colour, place, time, action, passion,
+possession, motion, state, in short, all the Aristotelian categories,
+with the exception of substance, whenever they apply to an object
+independently of its relation to other objects, belong to the category
+of variety [203] (πὼς ἔχον). On the other hand, those features and
+states which are purely relative—such as right and left, sonship and
+fatherhood, &c.—come under the category of variety of relation (πρός τί
+πως ἔχον); and from this category the simple notion of relation (πρὸς
+τὶ) must be distinguished. Simple relation (πρὸς τὶ) is not treated as
+a distinct category, since it includes not only accidental relations,
+but also those essential properties (ποιὰ) which presuppose a definite
+relation to something else—such as knowledge and perception. [204]
+
+
+[(c) Relation of the categories to one another.]
+
+The relation of these four categories to one another is such, that each
+preceding category is included in the one next following, and receives
+from it a more definite character. [205] Substance never occurs in
+reality without property, but has always some definite quality to give
+it a character. On the other hand, property is never met with alone,
+but always in connection with some subject-matter. [206] Variety
+presupposes some definite substance, and variety of relation supposes
+the existence of variety. [207] It will hereafter be seen how closely
+these deductions, and, indeed, the whole doctrine of the categories,
+depend on the metaphysical peculiarities of the Stoic system.
+
+
+
+[(3) Complete utterance.]
+
+[(a) Judgment.]
+
+Passing from incomplete to complete utterance, we come, in the first
+place, to sentences or propositions, [208] all the various kinds of
+which, as they may be deduced from the different forms of syntax, are
+enumerated by the Stoics with the greatest precision. [209] Detailed
+information is, however, only forthcoming in reference to the theory of
+judgment (ἀξίωμα), which certainly occupied the chief and most
+important place in their speculations. A judgment is a perfect
+utterance, which is either true or false. [210] Judgments are divided
+into two classes: simple judgments, and composite judgments. [211] By a
+simple judgment the Stoics understand a judgment which is purely
+categorical. [212] Under the head of composite judgments are comprised
+hypothetical, corroborative, copulative, disjunctive, comparative, and
+causal [(α) Simple judgment.] judgments. [213] In the case of simple
+judgments, a greater or less definiteness of expression is substituted
+in place of the ordinary difference in respect of quantity; [214] and
+with regard to quality, they not only make a distinction between
+affirmative and negative judgments, [215] but, following the various
+forms of language, they speak of judgments of general negation,
+judgments of particular negation, and judgments of double negation.
+[216] Only affirmative and negative judgments have a contradictory
+relation to one another; all other judgments stand to each other in the
+relation of contraries. [217] Of two propositions which are related as
+contradictories, according to the old rule, one must be true and the
+other false. [218]
+
+[(β) Composite judgments.]
+
+Among composite judgments the most important are the hypothetical and
+the disjunctive. As regards the latter, next to no information has
+reached us. [219] A hypothetical judgment (συνημμένον) is a judgment
+consisting of two clauses, connected by the conjunction ‘if,’ and
+related to one another as cause and effect; the former being called the
+leading (ἡγούμενον), and the latter the concluding or inferential
+clause (λῆγον). [220] In the correctness of the inference the truth of
+a hypothetical judgment consists. As to the conditions upon which the
+accuracy of an inference rests, different opinions were entertained
+within the Stoic School itself. [221] In as far as the leading clause
+states something, from the existence of which an inference may be drawn
+for the statement in the concluding clause, it is also called an
+indication or suggestive sign. [222]
+
+[(γ) Modality of judgments.]
+
+The modality of judgments, which engaged the attention of Aristotle and
+his immediate pupils so much, was likewise treated by the Stoics at
+considerable length; but of this branch of enquiry so much only is
+known to us as concerns possible and necessary judgments, and it is the
+outcome chiefly of the contest between Chrysippus and the Megarian
+Diodorus. [223] It is in itself of no great value. By the Stoics,
+nevertheless, great value was attached to it, in the hope of escaping
+thereby the difficulties which necessarily result from their views on
+freedom and necessity. [224]
+
+
+[(b) Inference.]
+
+In their theory of illation, [225] to which the Stoics attached special
+value, and on which they greatly prided themselves, [226] chief
+attention was paid to hypothetical and disjunctive inferences. [227] In
+regard to these forms of inference, the rules they laid down are well
+known: [228] and from these forms they invariably take their examples,
+even when treating of inference [(α) Hypothetical inference the
+original form.] in general. [229] According to Alexander, [230] the
+hypothetical and disjunctive forms are held to be the only regular
+forms of inference; [231] the categorical form is considered correct in
+point of fact, but defective in syllogistic form. [232] In hypothetical
+inferences a distinction was also made between such as are connected
+and such as are disconnected. [233] In connected inferences the Stoics
+look principally at the greater or less accuracy of expression, [234]
+and partly at the difference between correctness of form and truth of
+matter. [235] They also remark that true conclusions do not always
+extend the field of knowledge; and that those which do frequently
+depend on reasons conclusive for the individual, but not on proofs
+universally acknowledged. [236] The main point, however, to be
+considered in dividing inferences is their [(β) The five simple forms
+of hypothetical inference.] logical form. There are, according to
+Chrysippus, [237] who herein adopted the division of Theophrastus, five
+original forms of hypothetical inference, the accuracy of which is
+beyond dispute, and to which all other forms of inference may be
+referred and by which they may be tested. [238] Yet even among these
+five, importance is attached to some in which the same sentence is
+repeated tautologically in the form of a conclusion, [239] which proves
+how mechanical and barren must have been the formalism with which the
+Stoic logic abounds.
+
+[(γ) Composite forms of inference.]
+
+The combination of these five simple forms of inference gives rise to
+the composite forms of inference, [240] all of which may be again
+resolved into their simple forms. [241] Among composite forms of
+inference, those composed of similar parts are distinguished from those
+composed of dissimilar parts; [242] in the treatment of the former,
+however, such a useless formality is displayed, that it is hard to say
+what meaning the Stoics attached to them. [243] If two or more
+inferences, the conclusion of one of which is the first premiss of the
+other, are so combined that the judgment which constitutes the
+conclusion and premiss at once is omitted in each case, the result is a
+Sorites or Chain-inference. The rules prescribed by the Peripatetics
+for the Chain-inference are developed by the Stoics with a minuteness
+far transcending all the requirements of science. [244] With these [(δ)
+Inference from a single premiss.] composite forms of inference
+Antipater contrasted other forms having only a single premiss, [245]
+but it was an addition to the field of logic of very doubtful worth. On
+a few other points connected with the Stoic theory of illation, we have
+very imperfect information. [246] The loss, however, is not to be
+regretted, seeing that in what we already possess there is conclusive
+evidence that the objections brought against the Stoic logic were
+really well deserved, because of the microscopic care expended by them
+on the most worthless logical forms. [247]
+
+
+[(c) Refutation of fallacies.]
+
+Next to describing inferences which are valid, another subject engaged
+the close attention of the Stoics, and afforded opportunity for
+displaying their dialectical subtlety. This is the enumeration and
+refutation of false inferences, [248] and in particular the exposing of
+the many fallacies which had become current since the age of the
+Sophists and Megarians. In this department, as might be expected,
+Chrysippus led the way. [249] Not that Chrysippus was always able to
+overcome the difficulties that arose; witness his remarkable attitude
+towards the Chain-inference, from which he thought to escape by
+withholding judgment. [250] The fallacies, however, to which the Stoics
+devoted their attention, and the way in which they met them, need not
+occupy our attention further. [251]
+
+
+
+
+[D. Estimate of Stoic Logic.]
+
+[(1) Its shortcomings.]
+
+In all these researches the Stoics were striving to find firm ground
+for a scientific process of proof. Great as was the value which they
+attached to such a process, they nevertheless admitted, as Aristotle
+had done before, that everything could not be proved. Here was their
+weak point. Instead, however, of strengthening this weak point by means
+of induction, and endeavouring to obtain a more complete theory of
+induction, they were content with conjectural data, sometimes
+self-evident, at other times depending for their truth on the truth of
+their inferences. [252] Thus, their theory of method, like their theory
+of knowledge, ended by an ultimate appeal to what is directly certain.
+
+
+
+[(2) Its value.]
+
+No very high estimate can therefore be formed of the formal logic of
+the Stoics. Incomplete as our knowledge of that logic may be, still
+what is known is enough to determine the judgment absolutely. We see
+indeed that the greatest care was expended by the Stoics since the time
+of Chrysippus in tracing the forms of intellectual procedure into their
+minutest ramifications, and referring them to fixed types. At the same
+time, we see that the real business of logic was lost sight of in the
+process, the business of portraying the operations of thought, and
+giving its laws, whilst the most useless trifling with forms was
+recklessly indulged in. The Stoics can have made no discoveries of
+importance even as to logical forms, or they would not have been passed
+over by writers ever on the alert to note the slightest deviation from
+the Aristotelian logic. Hence the whole contribution of the Stoics to
+the field of logic consists in their having clothed the logic of the
+Peripatetics with a new terminology, and having developed certain parts
+of it with painful minuteness, whilst they wholly neglected other
+parts, as was the fate of the part treating of inference. Assuredly it
+was no improvement for Chrysippus to regard the hypothetical rather
+than the categorical as the original form of inference. Making every
+allowance for the extension of the field of logic, in scientific
+precision it lost more than it gained by the labours of Chrysippus. The
+history of philosophy cannot pass over in silence this branch of the
+Stoic system, so carefully cultivated by the Stoics themselves, and so
+characteristic of their intellectual attitude. Yet, when all has been
+said, the Stoic logic is only an outpost of their system, and the care
+which was lavished on it since the time of Chrysippus indicates the
+decline of intellectual originality.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+THE STUDY OF NATURE. FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONS.
+
+
+Of far more importance in the Stoic system than the study of logic was
+the study of nature. This branch of learning, notwithstanding an appeal
+to older views, was treated by them with more independence than any
+other. The subjects which it included may be divided under four heads,
+viz.: 1. Fundamental positions; 2. The course, character, and
+government of the universe; 3. Irrational nature; and 4. Man. [253]
+
+The present chapter will be devoted to considering the first of these
+groups—the fundamental positions held by the Stoics in regard to
+nature; among which three specially deserve notice—their Materialism;
+their Dynamical view of the world; and their Pantheism.
+
+
+
+
+[A. Materialism.]
+
+[(1) Meaning of the Stoic materialism.]
+
+[(a) Material or corporeal objects.]
+
+[(α) Reality belongs to material objects only.]
+
+Nothing appears more striking to a reader fresh from the study of Plato
+or Aristotle than the startling contrast to those writers presented by
+the Materialism of the Stoics. Whilst so far following Plato as to
+define a real thing [254] to be anything possessing the capacity of
+acting or being acted upon, the Stoics nevertheless restricted the
+possession of this power to material objects. Hence followed their
+conclusion that nothing real exists except what is material; or, if
+they could not deny existence in some sense or other to what is
+incorporeal, they were fain to assert that essential and real Being
+only belongs to what is material, whereas of what is incorporeal only a
+certain modified kind of Being can be predicated. [255] Following out
+this view, it was natural that they should regard many things as
+corporeal which are not generally considered such; for instance, the
+soul and virtue. Nevertheless, it would not be correct to say [256]
+that the Stoics gave to the conception of matter or corporeity a more
+extended meaning than it usually bears. For they define a body to be
+that which has three dimensions, [257] and they also lay themselves out
+to prove how things generally considered to be incorporeal may be
+material in the strictest sense of the term. Thus besides upholding the
+corporeal character of all substances, including the human soul and
+God, [258] they likewise assert that properties or forms are material:
+all attributes by means of which one object is distinguished from
+another are produced by the existence [(β) Theory of air-currents.] of
+certain air-currents, [259] which, emanating from the centre of an
+object, diffuse themselves to its extremities, and having reached the
+surface, return again to the centre to constitute the inward unity.
+[260] Nor was the theory of air-currents confined to bodily attributes.
+It was applied quite as much to mental attributes. Virtues and vices
+are said to be material, [261] and are deduced from the tension
+imparted to the soul by atmospheric substances therein subsisting.
+[262] For the same reason the Good is called a body, for according to
+the Stoics the Good is only a virtue, and virtue is a definite
+condition of that material which constitutes the soul. [263] In the
+same sense also truth is said to be material, personal and not
+independent, truth being of course meant, [264] that is to say,
+knowledge, or a property of the soul that knows. And since according to
+the Stoics knowledge consists in the presence of certain material
+elements within the soul, truth in the sense of knowledge may be
+rightly called something material. Even emotions, impulses, notions and
+judgments, in so far as they are due to material causes—the
+air-currents pouring into the soul (πνεύματα)—were regarded as material
+objects, and for the same reason not only artistic skill but individual
+actions were said to be corporeal. [265] Yet [(γ) The causes of
+actions material.] certain actions, such as walking and dancing, can
+hardly have been called bodies by the Stoics, any more than being wise
+was called a body; [266] but the objects which produced these actions,
+as indeed everything which makes itself felt, were considered to be
+corporeal. To us it appears most natural to refer these actions to the
+soul as their originating cause; but the Stoics, holding the theory of
+subject-matter and property, preferred to refer each such action to
+some special material as its cause, considering that an action is due
+to the presence of this material. The idealism of Plato was thus
+reproduced in a new form by the materialism of the Stoics. Plato had
+said, a man is just and musical when he participates in the idea of
+justice and music; the Stoics said, a man is virtuous when the material
+producing virtue is in him; musical, when he has the material producing
+music.
+
+[(δ) Wide extension of material.]
+
+Moreover, these materials produce the phenomena of life. Hence, not
+content with calling them bodies, the Stoics actually went so far as to
+call them living beings. It seems, however, strange to hear such things
+as day and night, and parts of the day and parts of the night, months
+and years, even days of the month and seasons of the year, called
+bodies; [267] but by these singularly unhappy expressions Chrysippus
+appears to have meant little more than that the realities corresponding
+to these names depend on certain material conditions: by summer is
+meant a certain state of the air when highly heated by the sun; by
+month the moon for a certain definite period during which it gives
+light to the earth. [268] From all these examples one thing is clear,
+how impossible the Stoics found it to assign reality to what is not
+material.
+
+
+[(b) The incorporeal or non-material.]
+
+In carrying out this theory, they could not, as might be expected,
+wholly succeed. Hence a Stoic could not deny that there are certain
+things which it is absurd to call material. Among such include empty
+space, place, time, and expression (λεκτόν). [269] Admitting these to
+be incorporeal, they still would not allow that they do not exist at
+all. This view belongs only to isolated members of the Stoic School,
+for which they must be held personally responsible. [270] How they
+could harmonise belief in incorporeal things with their tenet that
+existence alone belongs to what is material is not on record.
+
+
+
+[(2) Causes which produced the Stoic materialism.]
+
+The question next before us is: What led the Stoics to this
+materialism? It might be supposed that their peculiar theory of
+knowledge based on sensation was the cause; but this theory did not
+preclude the possibility of advancing from the sensible to the
+super-sensible. It might quite as well be said that their theory of
+knowledge was a consequence of their materialism, and that they
+referred all knowledge to sensation, because they could allow no real
+being to anything which is not material. The probability therefore
+remains that their theory of knowledge and their materialistic view of
+nature both indicate one and the same habit of mind, and that both are
+due to the action of the same causes.
+
+
+[(a) The Stoic materialism not an expansion of Peripatetic views.]
+
+Nor will it do to seek for these causes in the influence exercised by
+the Peripatetic or pre-Socratic philosophy on the Stoic School. At
+first sight, indeed, it might appear that the Stoics had borrowed from
+Heraclitus their materialism, together with their other views on
+nature; or else their materialism might seem to be an expansion of the
+metaphysical notions of Plato and Aristotle. For if Aristotle denied
+Plato’s distinction of form and matter to such an extent that he would
+hardly allow form to exist at all except in union with matter, might it
+not appear to others more logical to do away with the distinction
+between them in thought, thus reducing both to a property of matter?
+Were there not difficulties in the doctrine of a God external to the
+world, of a passionless Reason? Were there not even difficulties in the
+antithesis of form and matter, which Aristotle’s system was powerless
+to overcome? And had not Aristoxenus and Dicæarchus before the time of
+Zeno, and Strato immediately after his time, been led from the ground
+occupied by the Peripatetics to materialistic views? And yet we must
+pause before accepting this explanation. The founder of Stoicism
+appears, from what is recorded of his intellectual growth, to have been
+repelled by the Peripatetic School more than by any other; nor is there
+the least indication in the records of the Stoic teaching that that
+teaching resulted from a criticism of the Aristotelian and Platonic
+views of a double origin of things. Far from it, the proposition that
+everything capable of acting or being acted upon must be material,
+appears with the Stoics as an independent axiom needing no further
+proof.
+
+
+[(b) The Stoic materialism not due to Heraclitus.]
+
+The supposed connection between the Stoics and Heraclitus, so far from
+explaining their materialistic views, already presumes their existence.
+Yet long before Zeno’s time the philosophy of Heraclitus as a living
+tradition had become extinct. No historical connection therefore, or
+relation of original dependence, can possibly exist between the two,
+but at most a subsequent perception of relationship can have directed
+Zeno to Heraclitus. Zeno’s own view of the world was not a consequence,
+but the cause, of his sympathy with Heraclitus. In short, neither the
+Peripatetics nor Heraclitus can have given the first impulse to Zeno’s
+materialism, although they may have helped in many ways to strengthen
+his views on that subject, when already formed.
+
+
+[(c) Practical turn of the Stoic philosophy the cause.]
+
+The real causes for these views must therefore be sought elsewhere, and
+will be found in the central idea of the whole system of the Stoics—the
+practical character of their philosophy. Devoting themselves from the
+outset with all their energies to practical enquiries, the Stoics in
+their theory of nature occupied the ground of common views, which know
+of no real object excepting what is grossly sensible and corporeal.
+Their aim in speculation was to discover a firm basis for human
+actions. [271] In action, however, men are brought into direct and
+experimental contact with objects. The objects thus presented to the
+senses we are brought face to face with in naked reality, nor is an
+opportunity afforded for doubting their real being. Their reality is
+proved practically, inasmuch as it affects us and offers itself for the
+exercise of our powers. In every such exercise of power, both subject
+and object are always material. Even when an impression is conveyed to
+the soul of man, the direct instrument is something material—the voice
+or the gesture. In the region of experience there are no such things as
+non-material impressions. This was the ground occupied by the Stoics: a
+real thing is what either acts on us, or is acted upon by us. Such a
+thing is naturally material; and the Stoics with their practical ideas
+not being able to soar above that which is most obvious, declared that
+reality belongs only to the world of bodies.
+
+
+
+[(3) Consequences of the Stoic materialism.]
+
+Herefrom it would appear to follow that only individual perceptions are
+true, and that all general conceptions without exception must be false.
+If each notion (λεκτὸν) is incorporeal, and consequently unreal, [272]
+will not absence of reality in a much higher degree belong to the
+notion of what is general? [(a) Individual perceptions alone true; yet
+a higher truth assigned to general conceptions.] Individual notions
+refer directly to perceptions, i.e. to things incorporeal; nevertheless
+they indirectly refer to the things perceived, i.e. to what is
+material. But general notions do not even indirectly refer to anything
+corporeal; they are pure fabrications of the mind, which have nothing
+real as their object. This the Stoics explicitly maintained. [273] It
+was therefore a gross inconsistency to attribute notwithstanding to
+these general conceptions, to which no real objects correspond, a
+higher truth and certainty than belongs to the perceptions of
+individual objects, but an inconsistency which the Stoic system made
+not the slightest attempt to overcome.
+
+
+[(b) Theory of universal intermingling.]
+
+The materialism of the Stoics likewise led to some remarkable
+assertions in the province of natural science. If the attributes of
+things, the soul and even the powers of the soul, are all corporeal,
+the relation of attributes to their objects, of the soul to the body,
+of one body to another body, is that of mutual intermingling. [274]
+Moreover, inasmuch as the essential attributes of any definite material
+belong to every part of that material, and the soul resides in every
+part of the body, without the soul’s being identical with the body, and
+without the attributes being identical with the material to which they
+belong, or with one another; it follows that one body may intermingle
+with another not only by occupying the vacant spaces in that body, but
+by interpenetrating all its parts, without, however, being fused into a
+homogeneous mass with it. [275] This view involves not only a denial of
+the impenetrability of matter, but it further supposes that a smaller
+body when mingled with a greater body will extend over the whole of the
+latter. It is known as the Stoic theory of universal intermingling
+(κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων), and is alike different from the ordinary view of
+mechanical mixture and from that of chemical mixture. It differs from
+the former in that every part of the one body is interpenetrated by
+every part of the other; from the latter, because the bodies after
+mixture still retain their own properties. [276] This peculiar theory,
+which is one of the much debated but distinctive features of the Stoic
+system, [277] cannot have been deduced from physical causes. On the
+contrary, the arguments by which Chrysippus supported it prove that it
+was ultimately the result of metaphysical considerations. [278] We
+have, moreover, no reason to doubt it as a fact, inasmuch as the
+materialistic undercurrent of the Stoic system affords the best
+explanation of it.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Dynamical theory of nature.]
+
+[(1) Matter and force.]
+
+Although the stamp of materialism was sharply cut, and its application
+fearlessly made by the Stoics, they were yet far from holding the
+mechanical theory of nature, which appears to us to be a necessary
+consequence of strict materialism. The universe was explained on a
+dynamical theory; the notion of force was placed above the notion of
+matter. To matter, they held, alone belongs real existence; but the
+characteristic of real existence they sought in causation, in the
+capacity to act and to be acted upon. [279] This capacity belongs to
+matter only by virtue of certain inherent forces, which impart to it
+definite attributes. Let pure matter devoid of every attribute be
+considered, the matter which underlies all definite materials, and out
+of which all things are made; [280] it will be found to be purely
+passive, a something subject to any change, able to assume any shape
+and quality, but taken by itself devoid of quality and unable to
+produce any change whatsoever. [281] This inert and powerless matter is
+first reduced into shape by means of attributes, [282] all of which
+suppose tension in the air-currents which produce them, and
+consequently suppose a force producing tension. [283] Even the shape of
+bodies, and the place they occupy in space, is, according to the
+Stoics, something derivative, the consequence of tension; tension
+keeping the different particles apart in one or the other particular
+way. [284] Just as some modern physiologists construct nature by
+putting together a sum of forces of attraction and repulsion, so the
+Stoics refer nature to two forces, or, speaking more accurately, to a
+double kind of motion—expansion and condensation. Expansion works
+outwardly, condensation inwardly; condensation produces being, or what
+is synonymous with it, matter; expansion gives rise to the attributes
+of things. [285] Whilst, therefore, they assert that everything really
+existing must be material, they still distinguish in what is material
+two component parts—the part which is acted upon, and the part which
+acts, or in other words matter and force. [286]
+
+
+
+[(2) The nature of force.]
+
+[(a) Force limited to the notion of efficient cause.]
+
+The Stoics, however, would not agree with Plato and Aristotle so far as
+to allow to formal and final causes a place side by side with this
+acting force or efficient cause. If in general anything may be called a
+cause which serves to bring about a definite result [287]—and various
+kinds of causes may be distinguished, according as they bring about
+this result directly or indirectly, by themselves alone or by the help
+of others [288]—in the highest sense there can be, according to the
+Stoics, only one acting or efficient cause. The form is due to the
+workman, and is therefore only a part of the efficient cause. The
+type-form is only an instrument, which the workman employs in his work.
+The final cause or end-in-chief, in as far as it represents the
+workman’s intention, is only an occasional cause; in as far as it
+belongs to the work he is about, it is not a cause at all, but a
+result. There can be but one pure and unconditional cause, just as
+there can be but one matter; and to this efficient cause everything
+that exists and everything that takes place must be referred. [289]
+
+
+[(b) Character of this efficient cause.]
+
+In attempting to form a more accurate notion of this efficient cause,
+the first point which deserves attention is, that the Stoics believed
+every kind of action ultimately to proceed from one source. For how
+could the world be such a self-circumscribed unity, such an harmonious
+whole, unless it were governed by one and the same force? [290] Again,
+as everything which acts is material, the highest efficient cause must
+likewise be considered material; and since all qualities and forces are
+produced by vapour-like or fiery elements, can it be otherwise with the
+highest acting force? [291] Everywhere warmth is the cause of
+nourishment and growth, life and motion; all things have in themselves
+their own natural heat, and are preserved and kept in life by the heat
+of the sun. What applies to parts of the world must apply to the world
+as a whole; hence heat or fire is the power to which the life and the
+existence of the world must be referred. [292]
+
+This power must be further defined to be the soul of the world, the
+highest reason, a kind, beneficent, and philanthropic being; in short,
+deity. The universal belief and the universal worship of God prove
+this, as the Stoics think, beyond a doubt; [293] still more accurate
+investigation confirms it. Matter can never move or fashion itself;
+nothing but a power inherent as the soul is in man can produce these
+results. [294] The world would not be the most perfect and complete
+thing it is unless Reason were inherent therein; [295] nor could it
+contain any beings possessed of consciousness, unless it were conscious
+itself. [296] It could not produce creatures endowed with a soul and
+reason, unless it were itself endowed with a soul and reason. [297]
+Actions so far surpassing man’s power could not exist, unless there
+were a cause for them in perfection equally surpassing man. [298] The
+subordination of means to ends which governs the world in every part
+down to the minutest details would be inexplicable, unless the world
+owed its origin to a reasonable creator. [299] The graduated rank of
+beings would be incomplete, unless there were a highest Being of all
+whose moral and intellectual perfection cannot be surpassed. [300]
+Although this perfection belongs, in the first place, to the world as a
+whole, [301] nevertheless, as in everything consisting of many parts,
+so in the world the ruling part must be distinguished from other parts.
+It is the part from which all acting forces emanate and diffuse
+themselves over the world, [302] whether the seat of this efficient
+force be placed in the heaven, as was done by Zeno, Chrysippus, and the
+majority of the Stoics; [303] or in the sun, as by Cleanthes; [304] or
+in the centre of the world, as by Archedemus. [305] This primary source
+of all life and motion, the highest Cause and the highest Reason, is
+God. God, therefore, and formless matter, are the two ultimate grounds
+of things. [306]
+
+
+
+[(3) Deity.]
+
+[(a) The conception of Deity more accurately defined.]
+
+The language used by the Stoics in reference to the Deity at one time
+gives greater prominence to the material, at another to the spiritual
+side of their conception of God. As a rule, both are united in
+expressions which only cease to be startling when taken in connection
+with Stoic views in general. God is spoken of as being Fire, Ether,
+Air, most commonly as being πνεῦμα or Atmospheric-Current, pervading
+everything without exception, what is most base and ugly, as well as
+what is most beautiful. [307] He is further described [308] as the
+Soul, the Mind, or the Reason of the world; as a united Whole,
+containing in Himself the germs of all things; as the Connecting
+element in all things; as Universal Law, Nature, Destiny, Providence;
+as a perfect, happy, ever kind and all-knowing Being; nor was it hard
+to show that no conception could be formed of God without these
+attributes. [309] Both kinds of expression are combined in the
+assertion that God is the fiery Reason of the World, the Mind in
+Matter, the reasonable Air-Current, penetrating all things, and
+assuming various names according to the material in which He resides,
+the artistically moulding Fire, containing in Himself the germs of
+everything, and producing according to an unalterable law the world and
+all that is therein. [310]
+
+As used in the Stoic system, these expressions generally mean one and
+the same thing. It is an unimportant difference whether the original
+cause is described as an Air-Current or as Ether, or as Heat or as
+Fire. It is an Air-Current, for Air-Currents are, as we have already
+seen, the causes of the properties of things, giving them shape and
+connection. It is also Fire, for by fire is only meant the warm air, or
+the fiery fluid, which is sometimes called Ether, at other times Fire,
+at other times Heat, [311] and which is expressly distinguished from
+ordinary fire. [312] Moreover the terms, Soul of the world, Reason of
+the world, Nature, Universal Law, Providence, Destiny—all mean the same
+thing, the one primary force penetrating the whole world. Even the more
+abstract expressions, Law, Providence, Destiny, have with the Stoics an
+essentially gross meaning, implying not only the form according to
+which the world is arranged and governed, but also the essential
+substance of the world, as a power above everything particular and
+individual. [313] If Nature must be distinguished from Destiny, and
+both of these notions again from Zeus, [314] the distinction can only
+consist herein, that the three conceptions describe one original Being
+at different stages of His manifestation and growth. Viewed as the
+whole of the world it is called Zeus; viewed as the inner power in the
+world, Providence or Destiny; [315] and to prove this identity at the
+close of every period, so taught Chrysippus, Zeus goes back into
+Providence. [316]
+
+Upon closer examination, even the difference between the materialistic
+and idealistic description of God vanishes. God, according to Stoic
+principles, can only be invested with reality when He has a material
+form. Hence, when He is called the Soul, the Mind, or the Reason of the
+world, this language does not exclude, but rather presupposes, that
+these conceptions have bodies; and such bodies the Stoics thought to
+discern in that heated fluid which they at one time call the
+all-penetrating Breath, at another Ether, or primary Fire. [317] Each
+of these two determinations appeared to them indispensable, [318] and
+both became identical by assuming, as the Stoics did, that the infinite
+character of the divine Reason depends on the purity and lightness of
+the fiery material which composes it. [319] Seneca is therefore only
+following out the principles of his School when he pronounces it
+indifferent whether God is regarded as Destiny or as an all-pervading
+Breath. [320] Those who charge the Stoics with inconsistency for
+calling God at one time Reason, at another Soul of the universe, at
+another Destiny, at another Fire, Ether, or even the Universe, [321]
+forget that they are attaching to these terms a meaning entirely
+different from that in which they were used by them. [322]
+
+
+[(b) God original matter.]
+
+The more the two sides of the conception of God—the material and the
+ideal—are compared, the clearer it becomes that there is no difference
+between God and primary Matter. Both are one and the same substance,
+which, when regarded as the universal substratum, is known as
+undetermined matter; but when conceived of as acting force, is called
+all-pervading Ether, all-warming Fire, all-penetrating Air, Nature,
+Soul of the world, Reason of the world, Providence, Destiny, God.
+Matter and power, material and form, are not, as with Aristotle, things
+radically different, though united from all eternity. Far from it, the
+forming force resides in matter as such; it is in itself something
+material; it is identical with Ether, or Fire-element, or Breath. Hence
+the difference between efficient and material cause, between God and
+matter, resolves itself into the difference between Breath and other
+elements. This difference, too, is no original or ultimate difference.
+According to the Stoic teaching, every particular element has in
+process of time developed out of primary fire or God, and to God it
+will return at the end of every period of the world. [323] It is
+therefore only a derivative and passing difference with which we are
+here concerned. But taking the conception of Deity in its full meaning,
+it may be described as primary matter, as well as primary power. The
+sum total of all that is real is the divine Breath, moving forth from
+itself and returning to itself again. [324] Deity itself is primary
+fire, containing in itself in germ both God and matter; [325] the world
+in its original gaseous condition; [326] the Universal Substance
+changing into particular elements, and from them returning to itself
+again, which regarded in its real form as God includes at one time
+everything, at another only a part of real existence. [327]
+
+
+
+
+[C. Pantheism.]
+
+[(1) God identical with the world.]
+
+From what has been said it follows that the Stoics admitted no
+essential difference between God and the world. Their system was
+therefore strictly pantheistic. The world is the sum of all real
+existence, and all real existence is originally contained in deity,
+which is at once the matter of everything and the creative force which
+moulds this matter into particular individual substances. We can,
+therefore, think of nothing which is not either immediately deity or a
+manifestation of deity. In point of essence, therefore, God and the
+world are the same; indeed, the two conceptions are declared by the
+Stoics to be absolutely identical. [328] If they have nevertheless to
+be distinguished, the distinction is only derivative and partial. The
+same universal Being is called God when it is regarded as a whole,
+World when it is regarded as progressive in one of the many forms
+assumed in the course of its development. The difference, therefore, is
+tantamount to assigning a difference of meaning to the term world,
+according as it is used to express the whole of what exists, or only
+the derivative part. [329]
+
+
+
+[(2) Difference between God and the world only relative.]
+
+Still this distinction does not depend only upon our way of looking at
+things, but it is founded in the nature of things. Primary force, as
+such, primary fire, primary reason, constitute what is primarily God.
+Things into which this primary substance has changed itself are only
+divine in a derivative sense. Hence deity, which is ultimately
+identical with the whole of the world, may again be described as a part
+of the world, as the leading part (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν), as the Soul of the
+world, as the all-pervading fiery Breath. [330] The distinction,
+however, is only a relative one. What is not immediately divine is
+nevertheless divine derivatively, as being a manifestation of primary
+fire; and if the soul of the world is not identical with the body, at
+least it pervades every part of that body. [331] It is a distinction,
+too, which applies only to a part of the conditions of the world. At
+the end of every period, the sum of all derivative things reverts to
+the unity of the divine Being, and the distinction between what is
+originally and what is derivatively divine, in other words, the
+distinction between God and the world, ceases.
+
+
+
+[(3) Boëthus dissents from the pantheism of the Stoics.]
+
+Boëthus alone dissented from the pantheism of the Stoics by making a
+real distinction between God and the world. Agreeing with the other
+Stoics in considering deity to be an ethereal Substance, [332] he would
+not allow that it resided, as the Soul, within the whole world, and,
+consequently, he refused to call the world a living being. [333]
+Instead of doing so, he placed the seat of deity in the highest of the
+heavenly spheres, the sphere of the fixed stars, and made it operate
+upon the world from this abode. [334] The opposite view detracted, in
+his eyes, from the unchangeable and exalted character of the divine
+Being. How anxious he was to vindicate that character will also be seen
+in the way in which he differed from his fellow-Stoics in reference to
+the destruction of the world.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+THE STUDY OF NATURE. COURSE, CHARACTER, AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSE.
+
+
+[A. The general course of the universe.]
+
+[(1) Origin of the world.]
+
+By virtue of a law inherent in nature, Primary Being passes over into
+particular objects; for, involving as it does the conception of a
+forming and creating force, it must as necessarily develop into a
+universe, as a seed or ovum must develop into a plant or animal. [335]
+Primary fire—so taught the Stoics, following Heraclitus—first goes over
+into vapour, then into moisture; one part of this moisture is
+precipitated in the form of earth, another remains as water, whilst a
+third part evaporating constitutes atmospheric air, and air, again,
+enkindles fire out of itself. By the mutual play of these four elements
+the world is formed, [336] built round the earth as a centre; [337]
+heat, as it is developed out of water, [338] moulding the chaotic mass.
+By the separation of these elements, a distinction between the active
+and the passive powers of nature—between the soul of the world and the
+body of the world—becomes apparent. The moisture into which the primary
+fire was first changed represents the body, just as the heat [339]
+latent in it represents the soul; [340] or, taking the later fourfold
+division of the elements, the two lower ones correspond to matter, the
+two higher ones to acting force. [341]
+
+
+
+[(2) End of the world.]
+
+As the distinction between matter and force has its origin in time, so
+it will also have an end in time. [342] Matter which primary Being has
+separated from itself to form its body is being gradually resolved into
+primary Being again; so that, at the end of the present course of
+things, a general conflagration of the world will restore all things to
+their original form, in which everything derivative will have ceased to
+exist, and pure Deity, or primary fire, will alone remain in its
+original purity. [343] This resolution of the world into fire or ether,
+[344] the Stoics thought, would take place, through the same
+intermediate stages as its generation from the primary fire. [345]
+Cleanthes, following his peculiar view as to the seat of the governing
+[346] force in the world, supposed that its destruction would come from
+the sun. [347]
+
+
+
+[(3) Cycles in the world’s course.]
+
+No sooner, however, will everything have returned to its original
+unity, [348] and the course of the world have come to an end, than the
+formation of a new world will begin, [349] so exactly corresponding
+with the previous world that every particular thing, every particular
+person, and every occurrence will recur in it, [350] precisely as they
+occurred in the world preceding. Hence the history of the world and of
+Deity—as, indeed, with the eternity of matter and acting force, must
+necessarily be the case—revolves in an endless cycle through exactly
+the same stages. [351] Still there were not wanting, even in
+comparatively early times, members of the Stoic School who entertained
+doubts on this teaching; and among the most distinguished of the later
+Stoics some gave it up altogether. [352] Besides the periodical
+destruction by fire, periodical destructions by floods [353] were also
+assumed; there being, however, a difference of opinion as to whether
+the whole universe, or only the earth and its inhabitants, were subject
+to these floods. [354]
+
+
+
+
+[B. Government of the world.]
+
+[(1) Nature of Destiny.]
+
+[(a) Destiny as Providence.]
+
+One point established by the generation and destruction of the
+world—the uncertainty of all particular things, and the unconditional
+dependence of everything on a universal law and the course of the
+universe—is a leading one in the Stoic enquiries into nature. All
+things in nature come about by virtue of a natural and unchangeable
+connection of cause and effect, as the nature of the universe and the
+general law require. This absolute necessity, regulating all Being and
+Becoming, is expressed in the conception of Fate or Destiny (ἡ
+εἱμαρμένη). [355] Viewed from the point of view of natural science,
+Destiny is only another name for primary Being, for the all-pervading,
+all-producing Breath, for the artistic fire which is the soul of the
+world. [356] But again the activity of this Being being always rational
+and according to law, Destiny may also be described as the Reason of
+the World, as universal Law, as the rational form of the world’s
+course. [357] When regarded as the groundwork of natural formations,
+this primary Being or general Law is called Nature; but when it appears
+as the cause of the orderly arrangement and development of the world,
+it is known as Providence; [358] or in popular language it is called
+Zeus, or the will of Zeus; and in this sense it is said that nothing
+happens without the will of Zeus. [359]
+
+
+[(b) Destiny as generative reason.]
+
+In action as the creative force in nature, this universal Reason also
+bears the name of Generative Reason (λόγος σπερματικός). It bears this
+name more immediately in relation to the universe, not only as being
+the generating power by which all things are produced from primary fire
+as from seed according to an inner law, but because in the present
+condition of things all form and shape, all life and reason, grow out
+of it, in short, because primary fire and reason contain in themselves
+the germ of all things. [360] In the same sense, generative powers in
+the plural, or λόγοι σπερματικοί, are spoken of as belonging to Deity
+and Nature; and in treating of man, λόγοι σπερματικοί denote the
+generative powers as a part of the soul, and must be thought of as
+bearing the same relation to the individual soul that the generative
+powers of Nature do to the soul of nature. [361] By the term Generative
+Reason, therefore, must be understood the creative and forming forces
+in nature, which have collectively produced the universe, and
+particular exercises of which produce individual things. These forces,
+agreeably with the ordinary Stoic speculations, are spoken of as the
+original material, or material germ of things. On the other hand, they
+also constitute the form of things—the law which determines their shape
+and qualities, the λόγος—only we must beware of trying to think of form
+apart from matter. Just as the igneous or ethereal material of primary
+Being is in itself the same as the forming and creating element in
+things, the Reason of the world or the Soul of nature; so the
+atmospheric substance in the seeds of individual things, in which the
+Stoics thought the generative power (σπέρμα) alone resides, [362] is in
+itself the germ out of which the corresponding thing is produced by
+virtue of an inherent law. [363] The inward form is the only permanent
+element in things amid the perpetual change of materials. [364] It
+constitutes the identity of the universe; and whereas matter is
+constantly changing from one form to another, [365] the universal law
+of the process alone continues unchangeably the same.
+
+
+
+[(2) Arguments in favour of Providence.]
+
+All parts of the Stoic system lead so unmistakeably to the conclusion,
+not only that the world as a whole is governed by Providence, but that
+every part of it is subject to the same unchangeable laws, that no
+definite arguments would appear necessary to establish this point.
+Nevertheless, the Stoics lost no opportunity of meeting objections to
+their views [(a) Argument from the general convictions of mankind.] in
+the fullest manner. [366] In the true spirit of a Stoic, Chrysippus
+appealed to the general conviction of mankind, as expressed in the
+names used to denote fate and destiny, [367] and to the language of
+poetry. [368] [(b) Argument from the perfection of God.] Nor was it
+difficult to show [369] that a divine government of the world followed
+of necessity from the Stoic conception of the perfection of God.
+Besides, in proving the existence of a God by the argument drawn from
+the adaptation of means to ends, a providential government of the world
+was at the same [(c) Argument from the theory of necessity.] time
+proved. [370] Chrysippus also thought to defend his theory of necessity
+in the same strictly logical manner. For must not every judgment be
+either true or false? [371] And does not this apply to judgments which
+refer to future events, as well as to others? Judgments, however,
+referring to the future can only be true when what they affirm must
+come to pass of necessity; they can only be false when what they affirm
+is impossible; and, accordingly, everything that takes place must
+follow of necessity from the causes which produce it. [372]
+
+
+[(d) Argument from foreknowledge of God.]
+
+The same process of reasoning, transferred from the outer world to the
+inner world of mind, underlies the argument from the foreknowledge of
+God. [373] If in the one case it is alleged that whatever is true,
+before it comes to pass, is necessary, so in the other it is said to be
+necessary, if it can be truly known before it comes to pass.
+
+
+[(e) Argument from the existence of divination.]
+
+To this argument may be added a further one to which the Stoics
+attached great importance—the argument from the existence of
+divination. [374] If it is impossible to know beforehand with certainty
+what is accidental, it is also impossible to predict it.
+
+
+
+[(3) The idea of Providence determined.]
+
+[(a) Providence as necessity.]
+
+But the real kernel of the Stoic fatalism is expressed in the maxim,
+that nothing can take place without a sufficient cause, nor, under
+given circumstances, can happen differently from what has happened.
+[375] This were as impossible, according to the Stoics, as for
+something to come out of nothing; [376] were it possible, the unity of
+the world would be at an end, consisting, as it does, in the chain-like
+dependence of cause upon cause, and in the absolute necessity of
+everything and of every change. [377] The Stoic doctrine of necessity
+was the direct consequence of the Stoic pantheism. The divine power
+which rules the world could not be the absolute uniting cause of all
+things, if there existed anything in any sense independent of it, and
+unless one unchanging causal connection governed every thing.
+
+
+[(b) Providence directed immediately to the universe, indirectly to
+individuals.]
+
+Divine Providence, therefore, does not extend to individual things
+taken by themselves, but only to things in their relation to the whole.
+Everything being in every respect determined by this relation, and
+being consequently subject to the general order of the world, it
+follows that we may say that God cares not only for the universe, but
+for all individual members of the universe. [378] The converse of this
+may also be asserted with equal justice, viz. that God’s care is
+directed to the whole, and not to individuals, and that it extends to
+things great, but not to things small. [379] Directly it always extends
+to the whole, indirectly to individuals throughout the whole, in so far
+as they are therein contained, and their condition is determined by its
+condition. [380] The Stoic notion of Providence is therefore entirely
+based on a view of the universe as a whole; individual things and
+persons can only come into consideration as dependent parts of this
+whole.
+
+
+[(c) Difficulties connected with the theory of necessity.]
+
+[(α) Statement of several difficulties.]
+
+The Stoics were thus involved in a difficulty which besets every theory
+of necessity—the difficulty of doing justice to the claims of morality,
+and of vindicating the existence of moral responsibility. This
+difficulty became for them all the more pressing the higher those
+claims were advanced, and the more severely they judged the great
+majority of their fellow-men. [381] To overcome it, Chrysippus appears
+to have made most energetic efforts. [382] The existence of chance he
+could not allow, it being his aim to establish that what seems to be
+accidental has always some hidden cause. [383] Nor would he allow that
+everything is necessary, since that can only be called necessary which
+depends on no external conditions, and is therefore always true; [384]
+in other words, what is eternal and unchangeable, not that which comes
+to pass in time, however inevitable it may be. [385] And, by a similar
+process of reasoning, he still tried to rescue the idea of the
+Possible, little as that idea accords with the Stoic system. [386]
+
+[(β) Moral responsibility vindicated.]
+
+In reference to human actions, the Stoics did not allow the freedom of
+the will, in the proper sense of the term; [387] but were of opinion
+that absence of freedom does not prejudice the character of the will as
+a deciding power. For is not one and the same all-determining power
+everywhere active, working in each particular being according to the
+law of its nature, in one way in organic beings, in another in
+inorganic beings, differently again in animals and plants, in rational
+and irrational creatures? [388] And albeit every action may be brought
+about by the co-operation of causes depending on the nature of things
+and the character of the agent, is it not still free, the resultant of
+our own impulses and decision? [389] Involuntary it would only be were
+it produced by external causes alone, without any co-operation, on the
+part of our wills, with external causes. [390] Moral responsibility,
+according to the Stoics, depends only on freedom of the will. What
+emanates from my will is my action, no matter whether it be possible
+for me to act differently or not. [391] Praise and blame, rewards and
+punishment, express the judgment of society relative to the character
+of certain persons or actions. [392] Whether they could have been
+different, or not, is irrelevant. Otherwise virtue and vice must be set
+down as things not in our power, for which, consequently, we are not
+responsible, seeing that when a man is once virtuous or vicious, he
+cannot be otherwise; [393] and the highest perfection, that of the
+Gods, is absolutely unchangeable. [394] Chrysippus [395] even
+endeavoured to show, not only that his whole theory of destiny was in
+harmony with the claims of morality and moral responsibility, but that
+it presupposed their existence. The arrangement of the universe, he
+argued, involves law, and law involves the distinction between what is
+conventionally right and what is conventionally wrong, between what
+deserves praise and what deserves blame. [396] Moreover, it is
+impossible to think of destiny without thinking of the world, or to
+think of the world without thinking of the Gods, who are supremely
+good. Hence the idea of destiny involves also that of goodness, which
+again includes the contrast between virtue and vice, between what is
+praiseworthy and what is blameworthy. [397] If his opponents objected
+that, if everything is determined by destiny, individual action is
+superfluous, since what has been once foreordained must happen, come
+what may, Chrysippus replied:—There is a distinction to be made between
+simple and complex predestination; the consequences of human actions
+being simply results of those actions, are quite as much foreordained
+as the actions themselves. [398]
+
+From these observations, it appears that the Stoics never intended to
+allow man to hold a different position, in regard to destiny, from that
+held by other beings. All the actions of man—in fact, his destiny—are
+decided by his relation to things: one individual only differs from
+another in that one acts on his own impulse, and agreeably with his own
+feelings, whereas another, under compulsion and against his will,
+conforms to the eternal law of the world. [399]
+
+
+
+
+[C. Nature of the world.]
+
+Everything in the world being produced by one and the same divine
+power, the world, as regards its structure, is an organic whole, in
+respect of its [(1) Its unity and perfections.] constitution perfect.
+The unity of the world, a doctrine distinguishing the Stoics from the
+Epicureans, followed as a corollary from the unity of primary substance
+and of primary force. [400] It was further proved by the intimate
+connection, or, as the Stoics called it, the sympathy of all its parts,
+and, in particular, by the coincidence of the phenomena of earth and
+heaven. [401] The perfection of the world follows generally from a
+consideration of fundamental principles. [402] But the Stoics made use
+of many arguments in support of its perfection, appealing, after the
+example of preceding philosophers, sometimes to its beauty, and, at
+other times, to the adaptation of means to ends. [403] An appeal to
+beauty is the assertion of Chrysippus, that nature made many creatures
+for the sake of beauty, the peacock, for instance, for the sake of its
+tail [404];—and the dictum of Marcus Aurelius, that what is purely
+subsidiary and subservient to no purpose, even what is ugly or
+frightful in nature, has peculiar attractions of its own; [405] and the
+same kind of consideration may have led to the Stoic assertion, that no
+two things in nature are altogether alike. [406] Their chief argument,
+however, for the beauty of the world, was based on the shape, the size,
+and the colour of the heavenly structure. [407]
+
+The other line of argument is followed not so much in individual
+expressions. But owing no doubt to the pre-eminently practical
+character of its treatment of things, the Stoic view of nature, like
+the Socratic, has ever an eye on the adaptation of means to ends in the
+world. As, on the one hand, this adaptation of means to ends is the
+most convincing proof of the existence of deity, so, on the other hand,
+by it, more than by anything else, the divine government of the world
+makes itself manifest. [408] Like Socrates, however, they took a very
+superficial view of the adaptation of means to ends, arguing that
+everything in the world was created for the benefit of some other
+thing—plants for the support of animals, animals for the support and
+the service of man, [409] the world for the benefit of Gods and men
+[410]—not unfrequently degenerating into the ridiculous and pedantic,
+in their endeavours to trace the special end for which each thing
+exists. [411] But, in asking the further question, For what purpose do
+Gods and men exist? they could not help being at length carried beyond
+the idea of a relative end to the idea of an end-in-itself. The end for
+which Gods and men exist is that of mutual society. [412] Or,
+expressing the same idea in language more philosophical, the end of man
+is the contemplation and imitation of the world; man has only
+importance as being a part of a whole; only this whole is perfect and
+an end-in-itself. [413]
+
+
+
+[(2) Moral theory of the world.]
+
+The greater the importance attached by the Stoics to the perfection of
+the world, the less were they able to avoid the difficult problem of
+reconciling the various forms of evil in the world. By the attention
+which, following the example of Plato, they gave to this question, they
+may be said to be the real creators of the moral theory of the world.
+[414] The character of this moral theory was already determined by
+their system. Subordinating individuals, as that system did, to the law
+of the whole, it met the charges preferred against the evil found in
+the world by the general maxim, that imperfection in details is
+necessary for the perfection of the whole. [415] This maxim, however,
+might be explained in several ways, according to the meaning assigned
+to the term necessary. If necessity is taken to be physical, the
+existence of evil is excused as being a natural necessity, from which
+not even deity could grant exemption. If, on the other hand, the
+necessity is not a physical one, but one arising from the relation of
+means to ends, evil is justified as a condition or necessary means for
+bringing about good. Both views are combined in the three chief
+questions involved in the moral theory of the world: the existence of
+physical evil, the existence of moral evil, and the relation of outward
+circumstances to morality.
+
+
+[(a) Existence of physical evil.]
+
+The existence of physical evil gave the Stoics little trouble, since
+they refused to regard it as an evil at all, as will be seen in
+treating of their ethical system. It was enough for them to refer evils
+of this kind—diseases, for instance—to natural causes, and to regard
+them as the inevitable consequences of causes framed by nature to serve
+a definite purpose. [416] Still, they did not fail to point out that
+many things only become evil by a perverted use, [417] and that other
+things, ordinarily regarded as evils, are of the greatest value. [418]
+
+
+[(b) Existence of moral evil]
+
+Greater difficulty was found by the Stoics to beset the attempt to
+justify the existence of moral evil, and the difficulty was enhanced in
+their case by the prevalence and intensity of moral evil in the world
+[419] according to their view. By their theory of necessity they were
+prevented from shifting the responsibility for moral evil from natural
+law or deity on to man, which is one way out of the difficulty. In not
+altogether eschewing this course, and yet refusing to allow to deity
+any participation in evil, and referring evil to the free will and
+intention of man, [420] they acted as other systems of necessity have
+done before, [421] reserving the final word. The real solution which
+they gave to the difficulty is to be found partly in the assertion that
+even the deity is not able to keep human nature free from faults, [422]
+and partly in the consideration that the existence of evil is
+necessary, as a counterpart and supplement to good, [423] and that, in
+the long run, evil will be turned by the deity into good. [424]
+
+
+[(c) Connection between virtue and happiness.]
+
+The third point in their moral theory of the world, the connection
+between moral worth and happiness, engaged all the subtlety of
+Chrysippus and his followers. To deny any connection between them would
+have been to contradict the ordinary views of the relation of means to
+ends. Besides, they were prepared to regard some part of the evils of
+life as divine judgments. [425] Still there were facts which could not
+be reconciled with this view—the misfortunes of the virtuous, the good
+fortune of the vicious—and these required explanation. The task of
+explaining them appears to have involved the Stoics in considerable
+embarrassment, nor were their answers altogether satisfactory. [426]
+The spirit of their system, however, rendered only one explanation
+possible: no real evil could happen to the virtuous, no real good
+fortune could fall to the lot of the vicious. [427] Apparent misfortune
+will be regarded by the wise man partly as a natural consequence,
+partly as a wholesome training for his moral powers; [428] there is
+nothing which is not matter for rational action: everything that
+happens, when rightly considered, contributes to our good; nothing that
+is secured by moral depravity is in itself desirable. [429] With this
+view it was possible to connect a belief in divine punishment, by
+saying that what to a good man is a training of his powers, is a real
+misfortune and consequently a punishment to a bad man; but we are not
+in a position to say whether the scattered hints of Chrysippus really
+bear this meaning.
+
+The whole investigation is one involving much doubt and inconsistency.
+Natural considerations frequently intertwine with considerations based
+on the adaptation of means to ends; the divine power is oftentimes
+treated as a will working towards a definite purpose, at one time
+arranging all things for the best with unlimited power, at another time
+according to an unchangeable law of nature; [430] but all these
+inconsistencies and defects belong to other moral theories of the
+world, quite as much as they belong to that of the Stoics.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+IRRATIONAL NATURE. THE ELEMENTS. THE UNIVERSE.
+
+
+Turning from the questions which have hitherto engaged our attention to
+natural science in the stricter sense of the term, we must first touch
+upon [A. The most general ideas on nature.] a few characteristic
+questions affecting the general conditions of all existence. In these
+the Stoics hold little that is of a distinctive character. The matter
+or substance of which all things are made is corporeal. [431] All that
+is corporeal is infinitely divisible, although it is never infinitely
+divided. [432] At the same time, all things are exposed to the action
+of change, since one material is constantly going over into another.
+[433] Herein the Stoics follow Aristotle, in contrast to the mechanical
+theory of nature, [434] and distinguish change in quality from mere
+motion in space. They enumerate several varieties of each kind. [435]
+Nevertheless, they look upon motion in space as the primary form of
+motion. [436] Under the conception of motion, they, moreover, include
+action and suffering. [437] The condition of all action is contact;
+[438] and since the motions of different objects in nature are due to
+various causes, and have a variety of characters, the various kinds of
+action must be distinguished which correspond with them. [439] In all
+these statements there is hardly a perceptible deviation from
+Aristotle.
+
+Of a more peculiar character are the views of the Stoics as to the
+intermingling of substances, to which reference has already been made.
+[440] With regard to Time and Space, they found some innovations on
+Aristotle’s theory to be necessary. Space (τόπος), according to their
+view, is the room occupied by a body, [441] the distance enclosed
+within the limits of a body. [442] From Space they distinguish the
+Empty. The Empty is not met with in the universe, but beyond the
+universe it extends indefinitely. [443] And hence they assert that
+Space is limited, like the world of matter, and that the Empty is
+unlimited. [444] Nay, not only Space, but Time also, is by them set
+down as immaterial; [445] and yet to the conception of Time a meaning
+as concrete as possible is given, in order that Time may have a real
+value. Zeno defined Time as the extension of motion; Chrysippus defines
+it, more definitely, as the extension of the motion of the world. [446]
+The Stoics affirm the infinite divisibility of Time and Space, [447]
+but do not appear to have instituted any deep researches into this
+point.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Elements.]
+
+In expanding their views on the origin of the world, the Stoics begin
+with the doctrine of the four elements, [448] a doctrine which, since
+the time of Aristotle and Plato, was the one universally accepted. They
+even refer this doctrine to Heraclitus, desiring, above all things, to
+follow his teaching in natural science. [449] On a previous occasion,
+the order and the stages have been pointed out, according to which
+primary fire developed into the several elements in the formation of
+the world. [450] In the same order, these elements now go over one into
+the other. Yet, in this constant transformation of materials, in the
+perpetual change of form to which primary matter is subject, in this
+flux of all its parts, the unity of the whole still remains untouched.
+[451] The distinctive characteristic of fire is heat; that of air is
+cold; that of water, moisture; dryness that of the earth. [452] These
+essential qualities, however, are not always found in the elements to
+which they belong in a pure state, [453] and hence every element has
+several forms and varieties. [454] Among the four essential qualities
+of the elements, Aristotle had already singled out two, viz. heat and
+cold, as the active ones, calling dryness and moisture the passive
+ones. The Stoics do the same, only more avowedly. They consider the two
+elements to which these qualities properly belong to be the seat of all
+active force, and distinguish them from the other two elements, as the
+soul is distinguished from the body. [455] In their materialistic
+system, the finer materials, as opposed to the coarser, occupy the
+place of incorporeal forces.
+
+The relative density of the elements also determines their place in the
+universe. Fire and air are light; water and earth are heavy. Fire and
+air move away from the centre of the universe; [456] water and earth
+are drawn towards it; [457] and thus, from above to below—or, what is
+the same thing, from without to within—the four layers of fire, air,
+water, and earth are formed. [458] The fire on the circumference goes
+by the name of Ether. [459] Its most remote portion was called by Zeno
+Heaven; [460] and it differs from earthly fire not only by its greater
+purity, [461] but also because the motion of earthly fire is in a
+straight line, whereas the motion of the Ether is circular. [462]
+Because of this difference of motion, Aristotle supposed a radical
+difference to exist between these two kinds of fire, but the Stoics did
+not feel it necessary to admit such a difference. [463] They could
+always maintain that, when beyond the limits of its proper locality,
+fire tried to return to it as quickly as possible, whereas within those
+limits it moved in the form of a circle.
+
+
+
+
+[C. The universe.]
+
+Holding this view of the elements, the Stoics, it will be seen, did not
+deviate to any very great extent, in their ideas of the World, from
+Aristotle and the views which were generally entertained. In the centre
+of the Universe reposes the globe of the earth; [464] around it is
+water, above the water is air. These three strata form the kernel of
+the world, which is in a state of repose, [465] and around these the
+Ether revolves in a circle, together with the stars which are set
+therein. At the top, in one stratum, are all the fixed stars; under the
+stratum containing the fixed stars are the planets, in seven different
+strata—Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, then the Sun, and in the
+lowest stratum, bordering on the region of air, is the Moon. [466] Thus
+the world consists, as with Aristotle, of a globe containing many
+strata, one above another. [467] That it cannot be unlimited, as
+Democritus and Epicurus maintain, follows from the very nature of body.
+[468] The space within the world is fully occupied by the material of
+the world, without a vacant space being anywhere left. [469] Outside
+the world, however, is empty space, or else how—the Stoics asked—would
+there be a place into which the world could be resolved at the general
+conflagration? [470] Moreover, this empty space must be unlimited; for
+how can there be a limit, or any kind of boundary, to that which is
+immaterial and non-existent? [471] But although the world is in empty
+space, it does not move, for the half of its component elements being
+heavy, and the other half light, as a whole it is neither heavy nor
+light. [472]
+
+
+
+[(1) Stars.]
+
+The stars are spherical masses, [473] consisting of fire; but the fire
+is not in all cases equally pure, [474] and is sustained, as Heraclitus
+taught, by evaporations from the earth and from water. [475] With this
+process of sustentation the motion of the stars is brought into
+connection, their orbit extending over the space in which they obtain
+their nutriment. [476] Not only the sun, but the moon also, was
+believed to be larger than the earth. [477] Plato and Aristotle had
+already held that the stars are living rational divine beings; and the
+same view was entertained by the Stoics, not only because of the
+wonderful regularity of their motion and orbits, but also from the very
+nature of the material of which they consist. [478] The earth,
+likewise, is filled by an animating soul; or else how could it supply
+plants with animation, and afford nutriment to the stars? [479] Upon
+the oneness of the soul, which permeates all its parts, depends, in the
+opinion of the Stoics, the oneness of the universe.
+
+
+
+[(2) Meteorology.]
+
+Most thoroughly, however, did the Stoics—and, in particular, Posidonius
+[480]—devote themselves to investigating those problems, which may be
+summed up under the name of meteorology. This portion, however, of
+their enquiries is of little value for illustrating their philosophical
+tenets, and it may suffice to mention in a note the objects which it
+included, and the sources whence information may be obtained. [481] The
+same treatment may be given to the few maxims laid down by the Stoics
+on the subject of inorganic nature which have come down to us. [482]
+Nor need we mention here the somewhat copious writings of Posidonius,
+[483] on the subjects of geography, history, and mathematics.
+
+
+
+[(3) Plants and animals.]
+
+Little attention was devoted by the Stoics to the world of plants and
+animals. About this fact there can be no doubt, since we neither hear
+of any treatises by the Stoics on this subject, nor do they appear to
+have advanced any peculiar views. The most prominent point is, that
+they divided all things in nature into four classes—those of inorganic
+beings, plants, animals, and rational beings. In beings belonging to
+the first class a simple quality (ἕξις) constitutes the bond of union;
+in those of the second class, a forming power (φύσις); in those of the
+third class, a soul; and in those of the fourth class, a rational soul.
+[484] By means of this division, the various branches of a science of
+nature were mapped out, based on a gradually increasing development of
+the powers of life. No serious attempt was made by the Stoics to work
+out this thought. With the single exception of man, we know exceedingly
+little of their views on organic beings. [485]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+THE STUDY OF NATURE. MAN.
+
+
+[A. The soul.]
+
+[(1) Materialistic nature of the soul.]
+
+The Stoic teaching becomes peculiarly interesting, when it treats of
+Man; and the line it here follows is decided by the tone of the whole
+system. On the one hand, the Stoic materialism shows itself most
+unmistakeably in the department of anthropology; on the other hand, the
+conviction that all actions must be referred to active powers, and all
+the several active powers to one original power, can not be held
+without leading to a belief in the oneness and in the regulating
+capacity of the soul. Not only does it follow, as a corollary from the
+materialistic view of the world, that the soul must be in its nature
+corporeal, but the Stoics took pains to uphold this view by special
+arguments. Whatever, they said, influences the body, and is by it
+influenced in turn, whatever is united with the body and again
+separated from it, must be corporeal. How, then, can the soul be other
+than corporeal? [486] Whatever has extension in three dimensions is
+corporeal; this is the case with the soul, since it extends in three
+directions over the whole body. [487] Thought, moreover, and motion are
+due to animal life. [488] Animal life is nurtured and kept in health by
+the breath of life. [489] Experience proves that mental qualities are
+propagated by natural generation; they must, therefore, be connected
+with a corporeal substratum. [490] As therefore, the mind is nothing
+but fiery breath, so the human soul is described by the Stoics
+sometimes as fire, sometimes as breath, at other times, more
+accurately, as warm breath, diffused throughout the body, and forming a
+bond of union for the body, [491] in the very same way that the soul of
+the world is diffused throughout the world, and forms a bond of union
+for the world. [492] This warm breath was believed to be connected with
+the blood; and hence the soul was said to be fed by vapours from the
+blood, just as the stars are fed by vapours from the earth. [493]
+
+The same hypothesis was also used to explain the origin of the soul.
+One part of the soul was believed to be transmitted to the young in the
+seed. [494] From the part so transmitted there arises, by development
+within the womb, first the soul of a plant; and this becomes the soul
+of a living creature after birth by the action of the outer air. [495]
+This view led to the further hypothesis that the seat of the soul must
+be in the breast, not in the brain; since not only breath and warm
+blood, but also the voice, the immediate expression of thought, comes
+from the breast. [496]
+
+
+
+[(2) Divisions of the soul.]
+
+Nor is this hypothesis out of harmony with the notions otherwise
+entertained by the Stoics as to the nature of man. Plato and Aristotle
+had already fixed on the heart as the central organ of the lower
+powers; the brain they assigned to reason, with the view of
+distinguishing the rational from the mere animal soul. [497] When,
+therefore, the Stoics assimilated man’s rational activity to the
+activity of the senses, deducing both from one and the same source, it
+was natural that they would depart from Aristotle’s view. Accordingly,
+the various parts of the soul were supposed to discharge themselves
+from their centre in the heart into the several organs, in the form of
+atmospheric currents. Seven such parts are enumerated, besides the
+dominant part or reason, which was also called ἡγεμονικὸν, διανοητικὸν,
+λογιστικὸν, or λογισμός. These seven parts consist of the five senses,
+the power of reproduction, and the power of speech; [498] and,
+following out their view of the close relation of speech and thought,
+[499] great importance is attached to the power of speech. [500] At the
+same time, the Stoics upheld the oneness of the substance of the soul
+with greater vigour than either Plato or Aristotle had done. Reason, or
+τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, is with them the primary power, of which all other
+powers are only parts, or derivative powers. [501] Even feeling and
+desire they derive from it, in direct contradiction to the teaching of
+Plato and Aristotle; [502] and this power is declared to be the seat of
+personal identity, a point on which former philosophers had refrained
+from expressing any opinion. [503]
+
+
+
+
+[B. The individual soul and the soul of the universe.]
+
+The individual soul bears the same relation to the soul of the universe
+that a part does to the whole. The human soul is not only a part, as
+are all other living powers, of the universal power of life, but,
+because it possesses reason, it has a special relationship to the
+Divine Being [504]—a relationship which becomes closer in proportion as
+we allow greater play to the divine element in ourselves, i.e. to
+reason. [505] On this very account, however, the soul cannot escape the
+law of the Divine Being, in the shape of general necessity, or destiny.
+It is a mere delusion to suppose that the soul possesses a freedom
+independent of the world’s course. The human will, like everything else
+in the world, is bound into the indissoluble chain of natural causes,
+and that irrespectively of our knowing by what causes the will is
+decided or not. Its freedom consists in this, that, instead of being
+ruled from without, it obeys the call of its own nature, external
+circumstances concurring. [506] To this power of self-determination,
+however, the greatest value is attached. Not only are our actions due
+to it to such an extent that only because of it can they be considered
+ours, [507] but even our judgments are, as the Stoics thought,
+dependent on it. The soul itself being open to truth or error,
+convictions are quite as much in our power as actions: [508] both are
+alike the necessary result of the will. And just as the individual soul
+does not possess activity independently of the universal soul, no more
+can the individual soul escape the law of destiny. It, too, at the end
+of the world’s course, will be resolved into the primary substance, the
+Divine Being. The only point about which the Stoics were undecided was,
+whether all souls would last until that time as separate souls, which
+was the view of Cleanthes, or only the souls of the wise, as Chrysippus
+held. [509]
+
+
+
+
+[C. Freedom and immortality.]
+
+The effects of the Stoic principles appear unmistakeably in the above
+statements. They, however, pervade the whole body of the Stoical views
+on man. [510] From one point of view, the theory of necessity, and the
+denial of everlasting life after death, seem quite unintelligible in a
+system the moral tone of which is so high; yet the connection of these
+theories with the Stoic ethics is very intimate. These theories
+commended themselves to the Stoics, as they have done in later times to
+Spinoza and Schleiermacher, because they corresponded with their
+fundamental view of morality, according to which the individual is the
+instrument of reason in general, and a dependent portion of the
+collective universe. Moreover, since the Stoics admitted a future
+existence, of limited, but yet indefinite, length, the same practical
+results followed from their belief as from the current belief in
+immortality. The statements of Seneca, [511] that this life is a
+prelude to a better; that the body is a lodging-house, from which the
+soul will return to its own home; his joy in looking forward to the day
+which will rend the bonds of the body asunder, which he, in common with
+the early Christians, calls the birthday of eternal life; [512] his
+description of the peace of the eternity there awaiting us, of the
+freedom and bliss of the heavenly life, of the light of knowledge which
+will there be shed on all the secrets of nature; [513] his language on
+the future recognition and happy society of souls made perfect; [514]
+his seeing in death a great day of judgment, when sentence will be
+pronounced on every one; [515] his making the thought of a future life
+the great stimulus to moral conduct here; [516] even the way in which
+he consoles himself for the destruction of the soul by the thought that
+it will live again in another form hereafter [517]—all contain nothing
+at variance with the Stoic teaching, however near they may approach to
+Platonic or even Christian modes of thought. [518] Seneca merely
+expanded the teaching of his School in one particular direction, in
+which it approaches most closely to Platonism; and, of all the Stoics,
+Seneca was the most distinctly Platonic.
+
+Excepting the two points which have been discussed at an earlier time,
+[519] and one other point relating to the origin of ideas and emotions,
+which will be considered subsequently, little is on record relating to
+the psychological views of the Stoics.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+ETHICS. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE STOIC ETHICS. ABSTRACT THEORY OF
+MORALITY.
+
+
+Whatever attention the Stoics paid to the study of nature and to logic,
+the real kernel of their system lies, as has been already observed, in
+their Ethics; even natural science, that ‘most divine part of
+philosophy,’ was only pursued as an intellectual preparation for
+Ethics. In the field of Ethics the true spirit of the Stoic system may
+therefore be expected to appear, and it may be anticipated that this
+subject will be treated by them with special care. Nor is this
+expectation a vain one; for here the springs of information flowing
+freely give ample data respecting the Stoic doctrine of morality.
+Nevertheless, respecting the formal grouping of these data only vague
+and contradictory statements are forthcoming. Moreover, the Stoics
+appear to have followed such different courses and to have been so
+little afraid of repetition, that it is hardly possible to obtain a
+complete survey of their whole system by following any one of the
+traditional divisions. [520]
+
+Proceeding to group the materials in such a way as to give the clearest
+insight into the peculiarities and connection of the Stoic principles,
+the first distinction to be made will be one between morality in
+general and particular points in morality. In considering morality in
+general, those statements which give the abstract theory of morals will
+be distinguished from those which modify it with a view to meet
+practical wants. The former again may be grouped round three
+points:—the enquiry into the highest good, that into the nature of
+virtue, and that relating to the wise man.
+
+
+
+
+[A. The highest good.]
+
+[(1) Nature of the highest good.]
+
+The enquiry into the destiny and end of man turns, with the Stoics, as
+it did with all moral philosophers since the time of Socrates, about
+the fundamental conception of the good, and the ingredients necessary
+to make up the highest good or happiness. [521] Happiness, they
+consider, can only be sought in rational activity or virtue. Speaking
+more explicitly, [522] the primary impulse of every being is towards
+self-preservation and self-gratification. [523] It follows that every
+being pursues those things which are most suited to its nature, [524]
+and that such things only have for it a value (ἀξία). Hence the highest
+good—the end-in-chief, [525] or happiness—can only be found in what is
+conformable to nature. [526]—Nothing can be conformable to nature for
+any individual thing, unless it be in harmony with the law of the
+universe, [527] or with the universal reason of the world; nor, in the
+case of a conscious and reasonable being, unless it proceeds from a
+recognition of this general law—in short, from rational intelligence.
+[528] In every enquiry into what is conformable to nature, all turns
+upon agreement with the essential constitution of the being, and this
+essential constitution consists, in the case of a man, simply in
+reason. [529] One and the same thing, therefore, is always meant,
+whether, with Zeno, life according to nature is spoken of as being in
+harmony with oneself, or whether, following Cleanthes, it is simply
+said to be the agreement of life with nature, and whether, in the
+latter case, φύσις is taken to mean the world at large, or is limited
+to human nature in particular. [530] In every case the meaning is, that
+the life of the individual approximates to or falls short of the goal
+of happiness, exactly in proportion as it approaches to or departs from
+the universal law of the world and the particular rational nature of
+man. In a word, a rational life, an agreement with the general course
+of the world, constitutes virtue. The principle of the Stoic morality
+might therefore be briefly expressed in the sentence: Only virtue is
+good, and happiness consists exclusively in virtue. [531] If, however,
+following Socrates, the good is defined as being what is useful, [532]
+then the sentence would run thus: Only Virtue is useful; advantage
+cannot be distinguished from duty, whilst to a bad man nothing is
+useful, [533] since, in the case of a rational being, good and evil
+does not depend on what happens to him, but simply on his own conduct.
+[534] A view of life is here presented to us in which happiness
+coincides with virtue, the good and the useful with duty and reason.
+There is neither any good independently of virtue, nor is there in
+virtue and for virtue any evil.
+
+
+
+[(2) The good and evil.]
+
+The Stoics accordingly refused to admit the ordinary distinction,
+sanctioned by popular opinion and the majority of philosophers, between
+various kinds and degrees of good; nor would they allow bodily
+advantages and external circumstances to be included among good things,
+together with mental and moral qualities. A certain difference between
+goods they did not indeed deny, and various kinds are mentioned by them
+in their formal division of goods. [535] But these differences amount,
+in the end, to no more than this, that whilst some goods are good and
+useful in themselves, others are only subsidiary to them. The existence
+of several equally primary goods appears to the Stoics to be at
+variance with the conception of the good. That only is a good,
+according to their view, which has an unconditional value. That which
+has a value only in comparison with something else, or as leading to
+something else, does not deserve to be called a good. The difference
+between what is good and what is not good is not only a difference of
+degree, but also one of kind; and what is not a good per se can never
+be a good under any circumstances. [536] The same remarks apply to
+evil. That which is not in itself an evil can never become so from its
+relation to something else. Hence only that which is absolutely good,
+or virtue, can be considered a good; and only that which is absolutely
+bad, or vice, [537] can be considered an evil. All other things,
+however great their influence may be on our state, belong to a class of
+things neither good nor evil, but indifferent, or ἀδιάφορα. [538]
+Neither health, nor riches, nor honour, not even life itself, is a
+good; and just as little are the opposite states—poverty, sickness,
+disgrace, and death—evils. [539] Both are in themselves indifferent, a
+material which may either be employed for good or else for evil. [540]
+
+The Academicians and Peripatetics were most vigorously attacked by the
+Stoics for including among goods external things which are dependent on
+chance. For how can that be a good under any circumstances, which bears
+no relation to man’s moral nature, and is even frequently obtained at
+the cost of morality? [541] If virtue renders a man happy, it must
+render him perfectly happy in himself, since no one can be happy who is
+not happy altogether. Were anything which is not in man’s power allowed
+to influence his happiness, it would detract from the absolute worth of
+virtue, and man would never be able to attain to that imperturbable
+serenity of mind without which no happiness is conceivable. [542]
+
+
+
+[(3) Pleasure and the good.]
+
+Least of all, can pleasure be considered a good, or be regarded, as it
+was by Epicurus, as the ultimate and highest object in life. He who
+places pleasure on the throne makes a slave of virtue; [543] he who
+considers pleasure a good ignores the real conception of the good and
+the peculiar value of virtue; [544] he appeals to feelings, rather than
+to actions; [545] he requires reasonable creatures to pursue what is
+unreasonable, and souls nearly allied to God to go after the enjoyments
+of the lower animals. [546] Pleasure must never be the object of
+pursuit, not even in the sense that true pleasure is invariably
+involved in virtue. That it no doubt is. [547] It is true that there is
+always a peculiar satisfaction, and a quiet cheerfulness and peace of
+mind, in moral conduct, just as in immoral conduct there is a lack of
+inward peace; and in this sense it may be said that the wise man alone
+knows what true and lasting pleasure is. [548] But even the pleasure
+afforded by moral excellence ought never to be an object, but only a
+natural consequence, of virtuous conduct; otherwise the independent
+value of virtue is impaired. [549]
+
+Nor may pleasure be placed side by side with virtue, as a part of the
+highest good, or be declared to be inseparable from virtue. Pleasure
+and virtue are different in essence and kind. Pleasure may be immoral,
+and moral conduct may go hand in hand with difficulties and pains.
+Pleasure is found among the worst of men, virtue only amongst the good;
+virtue is dignified, untiring, imperturbable; pleasure is grovelling,
+effeminate, fleeting. Those who look upon pleasure as a good are its
+slaves; those in whom virtue reigns supreme control pleasure, and hold
+it in check. [550] In no sense can pleasure be allowed to weigh in a
+question of morals; seeing it is not an end-in-itself, but only the
+result of an action; [551] not a good, but something absolutely
+indifferent. The only point on which the Stoics are not unanimous is,
+whether every pleasure is contrary to nature, [552] as the stern
+Cleanthes, in the spirit of Cynicism, asserted, or whether there is
+such a thing as a natural and desirable pleasure. [553] Virtue, on the
+other hand, needs no extraneous additions, but contains in itself all
+the conditions of happiness. [554] The reward of virtuous conduct, like
+the punishment of wickedness, consists only in the character of those
+actions, one being according to nature, the other contrary to nature.
+[555] And so unconditional is this self-sufficiency of virtue, [556]
+that the happiness which it affords is not increased by length of time.
+[557] Rational self-control is here recognised as the only good;
+thereby man makes himself independent of all external circumstances,
+absolutely free, and inwardly satisfied. [558]
+
+
+
+[(4) Negative character of happiness.]
+
+The happiness of the virtuous man—and this is a very marked feature in
+Stoicism—is thus more negative than positive. It consists in
+independence and peace of mind rather than in the enjoyment which moral
+conduct brings with it. In mental disquietude—says Cicero, speaking as
+a Stoic—consists misery; in composure, happiness. How can he be
+deficient in happiness, he enquires, whom courage preserves from care
+and fear, and self-control guards from passionate pleasure and desire?
+[559] How can he fail to be absolutely happy who is in no way dependent
+on fortune, but simply and solely on himself? [560] To be free from
+disquietude, says Seneca, is the peculiar privilege of the wise; [561]
+the advantage which is gained from philosophy is, that of living
+without fear, and rising superior to the troubles of life. [562] Far
+more emphatical than any isolated expressions is the support which this
+negative view of moral aims derives from the whole character of the
+Stoic ethics, the one doctrine of the apathy of the wise man
+sufficiently proving that freedom from disturbances, an unconditional
+assurance, and self-dependence, are the points on which these
+philosophers lay especial value.
+
+
+
+[(5) The highest good as law.]
+
+The Good, in as far as it is based on the general arrangement of the
+world, to which the individual is subordinate, appears to man in the
+character of Law. Law being, however, the law of man’s own nature, the
+Good becomes the natural object of man’s desire, and meets his natural
+impulse. The conception of the Good as law was a view never unfamiliar
+to moral philosophy, but it was cultivated by the Stoics with peculiar
+zeal; [563] and forms one of the points on which Stoicism subsequently
+came into contact, partly with Roman jurisprudence, partly with the
+ethics of the Jews and Christians. Moreover, as the Stoics considered
+that the Reason which governs the world is the general Law of all
+beings, [564] so they recognised in the moral demands of reason the
+positive and negative aspects of the Law of God. [565] Human law comes
+into existence when man becomes aware of the divine law, and recognises
+its claims on him. [566] Civil and moral law are, therefore, commands
+absolutely imperative on every rational being. [567] No man can feel
+himself to be a rational being without at the same time feeling himself
+pledged to be moral. [568] Obedience to this law is imposed upon man,
+not only by external authority, but by virtue of his own nature. The
+good is for him that which deserves to be pursued—the natural object of
+man’s will; on the other hand, evil is that against which his will
+revolts. [569] The former arouses his desire (ὁρμή), the latter his
+aversion (ἀφορμή): [570] and thus the demands of morality are called
+forth by the natural impulse of a reasonable being, and are, at the
+same time, also the object towards which that impulse is naturally
+directed. [571]
+
+
+
+
+[B. Emotions and virtue.]
+
+[(1) The emotions.]
+
+[(a) Their nature.]
+
+However simple this state of things may be to a purely rational being,
+it must be remembered that man is not purely rational. [572] He has,
+therefore, irrational as well as rational impulses. [573] He is not
+originally virtuous, but he becomes virtuous by overcoming his
+emotions. Emotion or passion [574] is a movement of mind contrary to
+reason and nature, an impulse transgressing the right mean. [575] The
+Peripatetic notion, that certain emotions are in accordance with
+nature, was flatly denied by the Stoics. [576] The seat of the
+emotions—and, indeed, of all impulses and every activity of the soul
+[577]—is man’s reason, the ἡγεμονικόν. [578] Emotion is that state of
+the ἡγεμονικόν in which it is hurried into what is contrary to nature
+by excess of impulse. Like virtue, emotion is due to a change taking
+place simultaneously, not to the effect of a separate extraneous force.
+[579] Imagination, therefore, alone calls it into being, as it does
+impulse in general. [580] All emotions arise from faults in judgment,
+from false notions of good and evil, and may therefore be called, in so
+many words, judgments or opinions; [581]—avarice, for instance, is a
+wrong opinion as to the value of money, [582] fear is a wrong opinion
+as regards future, trouble as regards present ills. [583] Still, as
+appears from the general view of the Stoics respecting impulses, [584]
+this language does not imply that emotion is only a theoretical
+condition. On the contrary, the effects of a faulty imagination—the
+feelings and motions of will, to which it gives rise—are expressly
+included in its conception; [585] nor is it credible, as Galenus
+states, [586] that this was only done by Zeno, and not by Chrysippus.
+[587] The Stoics, therefore, notwithstanding their theory of necessity,
+did not originally assent to the Socratic dictum, that no one does
+wrong voluntarily. [588] Younger members of the School may have used
+the dictum as an excuse for human faults, [589] fearing lest, in
+allowing freedom to emotions, they should admit that they were morally
+admissible and give up the possibility of overcoming them. [590] Nay
+more, as all that proceeds from the will and impulse is voluntary,
+[591] so too emotions are also in our power; and it is for us to say,
+in the case of convictions out of which emotions arise, as in the case
+of every other conviction, [592] whether we will yield or withhold
+assent. [593] Just as little would they allow that only instruction is
+needed in order to overcome emotions; for all emotions arise, as they
+say, from lack of self-control, [594] and differ from errors in that
+they assert themselves and oppose our better intelligence. [595] How
+irregular and irrational impulses arise in reason was a point which the
+Stoics never made any serious attempt to explain.
+
+
+[(b) Varieties of emotion.]
+
+Emotions being called forth by imagination, their character depends on
+the kind of imagination which produces them. Now all impulses are
+directed to what is good and evil, and consist either in pursuing what
+appears to be a good, or in avoiding what appears to be an evil. [596]
+This good and this evil is sometimes a present, and sometimes a future
+object. Hence there result four chief classes of faulty imagination,
+and, corresponding with them, four classes of emotions. From an
+irrational opinion as to what is good there arises pleasure, when it
+refers to things present; desire, when it refers to things future. A
+faulty opinion of present evils produces care; of future evils, fear.
+[597] Zeno had already distinguished these four principal varieties of
+emotions. [598] The same division was adopted by his pupil Aristo,
+[599] and afterwards became quite general. Yet the vagueness, already
+mentioned, appears in the Stoic system in the definition of individual
+emotions. By some, particularly by Chrysippus, the essence of emotions
+is placed in the imagination which causes them; by others, in the state
+of mind which the imagination produces. [600] The four principal
+classes of emotions are again subdivided into numerous subordinate
+classes, in the enumeration of which the Stoic philosophers appear to
+have been more guided by the use of language than by psychology. [601]
+
+In treating the subject of emotions in general, far less importance was
+attached by the Stoics to psychological accuracy than to considerations
+of moral worth. That the result could not be very satisfactory, follows
+from what has been already stated. [602] Emotions are impulses,
+overstepping natural limits, upsetting the proper balance of the soul’s
+powers, contradicting reason—in a word, they are failures, disturbances
+of mental health, and, if indulged in, become chronic diseases of the
+soul. [603] Hence a Stoic demands their entire suppression: true virtue
+can only exist where this process has succeeded. As being contrary to
+nature and symptoms of disease, the wise man must be wholly free from
+them. [604] When we have once learnt to value things according to their
+real worth, and to discover everywhere nature’s unchanging law, nothing
+will induce us to yield to emotion. [605] Hence the teaching of Plato
+and Aristotle, requiring emotions to be regulated, but not uprooted,
+was attacked in the most vigorous manner by these philosophers. A
+moderate evil, they say, always remains an evil. What is faulty and
+opposed to reason, ought never to be tolerated, not even in the
+smallest degree. [606] On the other hand, when an emotion is regulated
+by and subordinated to reason, it ceases to be an emotion, the term
+emotion only applying to violent impulses, which are opposed to reason.
+[607] The statement of the Peripatetics, that certain emotions are not
+only admissible, but are useful and necessary, appears of course to the
+Stoics altogether wrong. [608] To them, only what is morally good
+appears to be useful: emotions are, under all circumstances, faults;
+and were an emotion to be useful, virtue would be advanced by means of
+what is wrong. [609] The right relation, therefore, towards
+emotions—indeed, the only one morally tenable—is an attitude of
+absolute hostility. The wise man must be emotionless. [610] Pain he may
+feel, but, not regarding it as an evil, he will suffer no affliction,
+and know no fear. [611] He may be slandered and ill-treated, but he
+cannot be injured or degraded. [612] Being untouched by honour and
+dishonour, he has no vanity. To anger [613] he never yields, nor needs
+this irrational impulse, not even for valour and the championship of
+right. But he also feels no pity, [614] and exercises no indulgence.
+[615] For how can he pity others for what he would not himself consider
+an evil? How can he yield to a diseased excitement for the sake of
+others, which he would not tolerate for his own sake? If justice calls
+for punishment, feelings will not betray him into forgiveness. We shall
+subsequently have an opportunity for learning the further application
+of these principles.
+
+
+
+[(2) Idea of virtue.]
+
+[(a) Positive and negative aspects.]
+
+Virtue is thus negatively defined as the being exempt from emotions, as
+apathy. [616] There is also a positive side to supplement this negative
+view. Looking at the matter of virtuous action, this may be said to
+consist in subordination to the general law of nature; looking at its
+manner, in rational self-control. [617] Virtue is exclusively a matter
+of reason [618]—in short, it is nothing else but rightly ordered
+reason. [619] To speak more explicitly, virtue contains in itself two
+elements—one practical, the other speculative. At the root, and as a
+condition of all rational conduct, lies, according to the Stoics, right
+knowledge. On this point they are at one with the well-known Socratic
+doctrine, and with the teaching of the Cynics and Megarians. Natural
+virtue, or virtue acquired only by exercise, they reject altogether.
+After the manner of Socrates, they define virtue as knowledge, vice as
+ignorance, [620] and insist on the necessity of learning virtue. [621]
+Even the avowed enemy of all speculative enquiry, Aristo of Chios, was
+on this point at one with the rest of the School. All virtues were by
+him referred to wisdom, [622] and, consequently, he denied the claims
+of most to be virtues at all. [623]
+
+However closely the Stoics cling to the idea that all virtue is based
+on knowledge, and is in itself nothing else but knowledge, they are not
+content with knowledge, or with placing knowledge above practical
+activity, as Plato and Aristotle had done. As we have seen already,
+knowledge with them was only a means towards rational conduct, [624]
+and it is expressly mentioned, as a deviation from the teaching of the
+School, that Herillus of Carthage, Zeno’s pupil, declared knowledge to
+be the end of life, and the only unconditional good. [625] Virtue may,
+it is true, be called knowledge, but it is, at the same time,
+essentially health and strength of mind, a right state of the soul
+agreeing with its proper nature; [626] and it is required of man that
+he should never cease to labour and contribute towards the common good.
+[627] Thus, according to Stoic principles, virtue is a combination of
+theory and practice, in which action is invariably based on
+intellectual knowledge, but, at the same time, knowledge finds its
+object in moral conduct—it is, in short, power of will based on
+rational understanding. [628] This definition must not, however, be
+taken to imply that moral knowledge precedes will, and is only
+subsequently referred to will, nor conversely that the will only uses
+knowledge as a subsidiary instrument. In the eyes of a Stoic, knowledge
+and will are not only inseparable, but they are one and the same thing.
+Virtue cannot be conceived without knowledge, nor knowledge without
+virtue. [629] The one, quite as much as the other, is a right quality
+of the soul, or, speaking more correctly, is the rightly endowed
+soul,—reason, when it is as it ought to be. [630] Hence virtue may be
+described, with equal propriety, either as knowledge or as strength of
+mind; and it is irrelevant to enquire which of these two elements is
+anterior in point of time.
+
+
+[(b) The virtues severally.]
+
+But how are we to reconcile with this view the Stoic teaching of a
+plurality of virtues and their mutual relations? As the common root
+from which they spring, Zeno, following Aristotle, regarded
+understanding, Cleanthes, strength of mind, Aristo, at one time health,
+at another the knowledge of good and evil. [631] Later teachers, after
+the time of Chrysippus, thought that it consisted in knowledge or
+wisdom, understanding by wisdom absolute knowledge, the knowing all
+things, human and divine. [632] From this common root, a multiplicity
+of virtues was supposed to proceed, which, after Plato’s example, are
+grouped round four principal virtues [633]—intelligence, bravery,
+justice, self-control. [634] Intelligence consists in knowing what is
+good and bad, and what is neither the one nor the other, the
+indifferent; [635] bravery, in knowing what to choose, what to avoid,
+and what neither to choose nor to avoid; or, substituting the
+corresponding personal attitude for knowledge, bravery is fearless
+obedience to the law of reason, both in boldness and endurance. [636]
+Self-control consists in knowing what to choose, and what to eschew,
+and what neither to choose nor eschew; [637] justice, in knowing how to
+give to everyone what is his due. [638] In a corresponding manner, the
+principal faults are traced back to the conception of ignorance. [639]
+Probably all these definitions belong to Chrysippus. [640] Other
+definitions are attributed to his predecessors, [641] some more nearly,
+others more remotely, agreeing with him in their conception of virtue.
+Within these limits, a great number of individual virtues were
+distinguished, their differences and precise shades of meaning being
+worked out with all the pedantry which characterised Chrysippus. [642]
+The definitions of a portion of them have been preserved by Diogenes
+and Stobæus. [643] In a similar way, too, the Stoics carried their
+classification of errors into the minutest details. [644]
+
+
+[(c) Mutual relation of the several virtues.]
+
+The importance attaching to this division of virtues, the ultimate
+basis on which it rests, and the relation which virtues bear, both to
+one another and to the common essence of virtue, are topics upon which
+Zeno never entered. Plutarch, at least, blames him [645] for treating
+virtues as many, and yet inseparable, and at the same time for finding
+in all virtues only certain manifestations of the understanding. Aristo
+attempted to settle this point more precisely. According to his view,
+virtue is in itself only one; in speaking of many virtues, we only
+refer to the variety of objects with which that one virtue has to do.
+[646] The difference of one virtue from another is not one of inward
+quality, but depends on the external conditions under which they are
+manifested; it only expresses a definite relation to something else,
+or, in the language of Herbart, an accidental aspect. [647] The same
+view would seem to be implied in the manner in which Cleanthes
+determines the relations of the principal virtues to one another. [648]
+It was, however, opposed by Chrysippus. The assumption of many virtues,
+he believed, rested upon an inward difference; [649] each definite
+virtue, as also each definite fault, becoming what it does by a
+peculiar change in the character of the soul itself; [650] in short,
+for a particular virtue to come into being, it is not enough that the
+constituent element of all virtue should be directed towards a
+particular object, but to the common element must be superadded a
+further characteristic element, or differentia; the several virtues
+being related to one another, as the various species of one genus.
+
+All virtues have, however, one and the same end, which they compass in
+different ways, and all presuppose the same moral tone and conviction,
+[651] which is only to be found where it is to be found perfect, and
+ceases to exist the moment it is deprived of one of its component
+parts. [652] They are, indeed, distinct from one another, each one
+having its own end, towards which it is primarily directed; but, at the
+same time, they again coalesce, inasmuch as none can pursue its own end
+without pursuing that of the others at the same time. [653]
+Accordingly, no part of virtue can be separated from its other parts.
+Where one virtue exists, the rest exist also, and where there is one
+fault, there all is faulty. Even each single virtuous action contains
+all other virtues, for the moral tone of which it is the outcome
+includes in itself all the rest. [654] What makes virtue virtue, and
+vice vice, is simply and solely the intention. [655] The will, although
+it may lack the means of execution, is worth quite as much as the deed;
+[656] a wicked desire is quite as criminal as the gratification of that
+desire. [657] Hence only that action can be called virtuous which is
+not only good in itself, but which proceeds from willing the good; and
+although, in the first instance, the difference between the discharge
+and the neglect of duty (κατόρθωμα and ἁμάρτημα) depends on the real
+agreement or disagreement of our actions with the moral law, [658] yet
+that alone can be said to be a true and perfect discharge of duty which
+arises from a morally perfect character. [659]
+
+
+[(d) Unity of virtue.]
+
+Such a character, the Stoics held, must either exist altogether, or not
+at all; for virtue is an indivisible whole, which we cannot possess in
+part, but must either have or not have. [660] He who has a right
+intention and a right appreciation of good and evil, is virtuous; he
+who has not these requisites is lacking in virtue; there is no third
+alternative. Virtue admits neither of increase nor diminution, [661]
+and there is no mean between virtue and vice. [662] This being the
+case, and the value of an action depending wholly on the intention, it
+follows, necessarily, that virtue admits of no degrees. If the
+intention must be either good or bad, the same must be true of actions;
+and if a good intention or virtue has in it nothing bad, and a bad
+intention has in it nothing good, the same is true of actions. A good
+action is unconditionally praiseworthy; a bad one, unconditionally
+blameworthy, the former being only found where virtue exists pure and
+entire; the latter, only where there is no virtue at all. All good
+actions are, on the one hand, according to the well-known paradox,
+equally good; all bad actions, on the other, equally bad. The standard
+of moral judgment is an absolute one; and when conduct does not
+altogether conform to this standard, it falls short of it altogether.
+[663]
+
+
+
+
+[C. The wise man.]
+
+[(1) Wisdom and folly.]
+
+From what has been said, it follows that there can be but one
+thoroughgoing moral distinction for all mankind, the distinction
+between the virtuous and the vicious; and that within each of these
+classes there can be no difference in degree. He who possesses virtue
+possesses it whole and entire; he who lacks it lacks it altogether; and
+whether he is near or far from possessing it is a matter of no moment.
+He who is only a hand-breadth below the surface of the water will be
+drowned just as surely as one who is five hundred fathoms deep; he who
+is blind sees equally little whether he will recover his sight
+to-morrow or never. [664] The whole of mankind are thus divided by the
+Stoics into two classes—those who are wise and those who are foolish;
+[665] and these two classes are treated by them as mutually exclusive,
+each one being complete in itself. Among the wise no folly, among the
+foolish no wisdom of any kind, is possible. [666] The wise man is
+absolutely free from faults and mistakes: all that he does is right; in
+him all virtues centre; he has a right opinion on every subject, and
+never a wrong one, nor, indeed, ever what is merely an opinion. The bad
+man, on the contrary, can do nothing aright; he has every kind of vice;
+he has no right knowledge, and is altogether rude, violent, cruel, and
+ungrateful. [667]
+
+The Stoics delight in insisting upon the perfection of the wise man,
+and contrasting with it the absolute faultiness of the foolish man, in
+a series of paradoxical assertions. [668] The wise man only is free,
+because he only uses his will to control himself; [669] he only is
+beautiful, because only virtue is beautiful and attractive; [670] he
+only is rich and happy (εὐτυχὴς), because goods of the soul are the
+most valuable, true riches consisting in being independent of wants.
+[671] Nay, more, he is absolutely rich, since he who has a right view
+of everything has everything in his intellectual treasury, [672] and he
+who makes the right use of everything bears to everything the relation
+of owner. [673] The wise only know how to obey, and they also only know
+how to govern; they only are therefore kings, generals, pilots; [674]
+they only are orators, poets, and prophets; [675] and since their view
+of the Gods and their worship of the Gods is the true one, only amongst
+them can true piety be found—they are the only priests and friends of
+heaven; all foolish men, on the contrary, are impious, profane, and
+enemies of the Gods. [676] Only the wise man is capable of feeling
+gratitude, love, and friendship, [677] he only is capable of receiving
+a benefit, nothing being of use or advantage to the foolish man. [678]
+To sum up, the wise man is absolutely perfect, absolutely free from
+passion and want, absolutely happy; [679] as the Stoics conclusively
+assert, he in no way falls short of the happiness of Zeus, [680] since
+time, the only point in which he differs from Zeus, does not augment
+happiness at all. [681] On the other hand, the foolish man is
+altogether foolish, unhappy, and perverse; or, in the expressive
+language of the Stoics, every foolish man is a madman, he being a
+madman who has no knowledge of himself, nor of what most closely
+affects him. [682]
+
+
+
+[(2) Universal depravity.]
+
+This assertion is all the more trenchant because the Stoics recognised
+neither virtue nor wisdom outside their own system or one closely
+related to it, and because they took a most unfavourable view of the
+moral condition of their fellow-men. That they should do so was
+inevitable from their point of view. A system which sets up its own
+moral idea against current notions so sharply as that of the Stoics can
+only be the offspring of a thorough disapproval of existing
+circumstances, and must, on the other hand, contribute thereto.
+According to the Stoic standard, by far the majority, indeed, almost
+the whole of mankind, belong to the class of the foolish. If all
+foolish people are equally and altogether bad, mankind must have seemed
+to them to be a sea of corruption and vice, from which, at best, but a
+few swimmers emerge at spots widely apart. [683] Man passes his
+life—such had already been the complaint of Cleanthes [684]—in
+wickedness. Only here and there does one, in the evening of life, after
+many wanderings, attain to virtue. And that this was the common opinion
+among the successors of Cleanthes, is witnessed by their constant
+complaints of the depravity of the foolish, and of the rare occurrence
+of a wise man. [685]
+
+No one probably has expressed this opinion more frequently or more
+strongly than Seneca. We are wicked, he says; we have been wicked; we
+shall be wicked. Our ancestors complained of the decline of morals; we
+complain of their decline; and posterity will utter the very same
+complaint. The limits within which morality oscillates are not far
+asunder; the modes in which vice shows itself change, but its power
+remains the same. [686] All men are wicked; and he who has as yet done
+nothing wicked is at least in a condition to do it. All are thankless,
+avaricious, cowardly, impious; all are mad. [687] We have all done
+wrong—one in a less, the other in a greater degree; and we shall all do
+wrong to the end of the chapter. [688] One drives the other into folly,
+and the foolish are too numerous to allow the individual to improve.
+[689] He who would be angry with the vices of men, instead of pitying
+their faults, would never stop. So great is the amount of iniquity!
+[690]
+
+No doubt the age in which Seneca lived afforded ample occasion for such
+effusions, but his predecessors must have found similar occasions in
+their own days. Indeed, all the principles of the Stoic School, when
+consistently developed, made it impossible to consider the great
+majority of men as anything else than a mass of fools and sinners. From
+this sweeping verdict, even the most distinguished names were not
+excluded. If asked for examples of wisdom, they would point to
+Socrates, Diogenes, Antisthenes, [691] and, in later times, to Cato;
+[692] but not only would they deny philosophic virtue, as Plato had
+done before them, to the greatest statesmen and heroes of early times,
+but they would deny to them all and every kind of virtue. [693] Even
+the admission that general faults belong to some in a lower degree than
+to others can hardly be reconciled with their principle of the equality
+of all who are not wise. [694]
+
+
+
+[(3) Conversion.]
+
+The two moral states being thus at opposite poles, a gradual transition
+from one to the other is, of course, out of the question. There may be
+a progress from folly and wickedness in the direction of wisdom, [695]
+but the actual passage from one to the other must be momentary and
+instantaneous. [696] Those who are still progressing belong, without
+exception, to the class of the foolish; [697] and one who has lately
+become wise is in the first moment unconscious of his new state. [698]
+The transition takes place so rapidly, and his former state affords so
+few points of contact with the one on which he has newly entered, that
+the mind does not keep pace with the change, and only becomes conscious
+of it by subsequent experience.
+
+In this picture of the wise man, the moral idealism of the Stoic system
+attained its zenith. A virtuous will appears here so completely
+sundered from all outward conditions of life, so wholly free from all
+the trammels of natural existence, and the individual has become so
+completely the organ of universal law, that it may be asked, What right
+has such a being to call himself a person? How can such a being be
+imagined as a man living among fellow-men? Nor was this question
+unknown to the Stoics themselves. Unless they are willing to allow that
+their theory was practically impossible, and their ideal scientifically
+untenable, how could they escape the necessity of showing that it might
+be reconciled with the wants of human life and the conditions of
+reality? Let the attempt be once made, however, and withal they would
+be forced to look for some means of adapting it to those very feelings
+and opinions towards which their animosity had formerly been so great.
+Nor could the attempt be long delayed. Daily a greater value was
+attached to the practical working of their system, and to its agreement
+with general opinion. The original direction of Stoic morality aimed at
+the absolute and unconditional submission of the individual to the law
+of the universe, yet, in developing that theory, the rights of the
+individual asserted themselves unmistakably. From this confluence of
+opposite currents arose a deviation from the rigid type of the Stoic
+system, some varieties of which, in the direction of the ordinary view
+of life, deserve now further consideration.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+THE STOIC THEORY OF MORALS AS MODIFIED BY PRACTICAL NEEDS.
+
+
+[A. Things to be preferred and eschewed.]
+
+The Stoic theory of Ethics is entirely rooted in the proposition, that
+only virtue is a good and only vice an evil. This proposition, however,
+frequently brought the Stoics into collision with current views; nor
+was it without its difficulties for their own system. In the first
+place, virtue is made to depend for its existence upon certain
+conditions, and to lead to certain results, from which it is
+inseparable. These results, we have already seen, [699] were included
+by the Stoics in the list of goods. Moreover, virtue is said to be the
+only good, because only what is according to nature is a good, and
+rational conduct is for man the only thing according to nature. But can
+this be so absolutely and unconditionally stated? According to the
+Stoic teaching the instinct of self-preservation being the primary
+impulse, does not this instinct manifestly include the preservation and
+advancement of outward life? The Stoics, therefore, could not help
+including physical goods and activities among things according to
+nature—for instance, health, a right enjoyment of the senses, and such
+like. [700] Practically, too, the same admission was forced upon them
+by the consideration [701] that, if there is no difference in value
+between things in themselves, rational choice—and, indeed, all acting
+on motives—is impossible. At the same time, they reject the notion that
+what is first according to nature must therefore be perfect or good,
+just as in theory they allow that the source of knowledge, but not
+truth itself, is derived from the senses. When man has once recognised
+the universal law of action, he will, according to their view, think
+little of what is sensuous and individual, and only look upon it as an
+instrument in the service of virtue and reason. [702]
+
+
+
+[(1) Secondary goods.]
+
+Still, there remains the question, How can this be possible? and this
+is no easy one to answer. The contemporary opponents of the Stoics
+already took exception to the way in which the first demands of nature
+were by them excluded from the aims of a life [703] according to
+nature; and we, too, cannot suppress a feeling of perplexity at being
+told that all duties aim at attaining what is primarily according to
+nature, but that what is according to nature must not be looked upon as
+the aim of our actions; [704] since not that which is simply according
+to nature, but the rational choice and combination of what is according
+to nature constitutes the good. [705] Even if the Stoics pretend to
+dispose of this difficulty, they cannot, at least, fail to see that
+whatever contributes to bodily well-being must have a certain positive
+value, and must be desirable in all cases in which no higher good
+suffers in consequence; and, conversely, that whatever is opposed to
+bodily well-being, when higher duties are not involved, must have a
+negative value (ἀπαξία), and, consequently, deserve to be avoided.
+[706] Such objects and actions they would not, however, allow to be
+included in the class of goods which are absolutely valuable. [707] It
+was therefore a blending of Peripatetic with Stoic teaching when
+Herillus, the fellow-student of Cleanthes, enumerated bodily and
+outward goods as secondary and subsidiary aims besides virtue. [708]
+
+
+
+[(2) Classes of things indifferent.]
+
+Nor were the Stoics minded to follow the contemporary philosopher,
+Aristo of Chios (who in this point, too, endeavoured to place their
+School on the platform of the Cynic philosophy), in denying any
+difference in value between things morally indifferent [709] and in
+making the highest aim in life consist in indifference to all external
+things. [710] Virtue with them bears, in comparison with the Cynic
+virtue, a more positive character, that of an energetic will; they,
+therefore, required some definite relation to the outward objects and
+conditions of this activity which should regulate the choosing or
+rejecting—or, in other words, the practical decision. Accordingly, they
+divided things indifferent into three classes. To the first class
+belong all those things which, from a moral or absolute point of view,
+are neither good nor evil, but yet which have a certain value; no
+matter whether this value belongs to them properly, because they are in
+harmony with human nature, or whether it belongs to them improperly,
+because they are means for advancing moral and natural life, or whether
+it belongs to them on both grounds. The second class includes
+everything which, either by itself or in its relation to higher aims,
+is opposed to nature and harmful. The third, things which, even in this
+conditional sense, have neither positive nor negative value. The first
+class bears the name of things preferential (προηγμένον), or things
+desirable; the second is the class of things to be eschewed
+(ἀποπροηγμένον); the third is the class of things intermediate. [711]
+The last is called, in the strict sense, indifferent, ἀδιάφορον. [712]
+It includes not only what is really indifferent, but whatever has such
+a slight negative or positive value that it neither enkindles desire
+nor aversion. Hence the terms προηγμένον and ἀποπροηγμένον are defined
+to mean respectively that which has an appreciable positive or negative
+value. [713] Under things preferential, the Stoics include partly
+mental qualities and conditions, such as talents and skill, even
+progress towards virtue, in as far as it is not yet virtue; partly
+bodily advantage—beauty, strength, health, life itself; partly external
+goods—riches, honour, noble birth, relations, &c. Under things to be
+eschewed, they understand the opposite things and conditions; under
+things indifferent, whatever has no appreciable influence on our
+choice, such as the question whether the number of hairs on the head is
+even or uneven; whether I pick up a piece of waste paper from the
+floor, or leave it; whether one piece of money or another is used in
+[(3) Collision of modified and abstract theory.] payment of a debt.
+[714] Yet they drew a sharp distinction between the purely relative
+value of things preferential, and the absolute value of things morally
+good. Only the latter are really allowed to be called good, because
+they only, under all circumstances, are useful and necessary. Of things
+morally indifferent, on the other hand, the best may, under certain
+circumstances, be bad, and the worst—sickness, poverty, and the
+like—may, under certain circumstances, be useful. [715] Just as little
+would they allow that the independence of the wise man suffered by the
+recognition outside himself of a class of things preferential. For the
+wise man, said Chrysippus, [716] uses such things without requiring
+them. Nevertheless, the admission of classes of things to be preferred
+and to be declined obviously undermines their doctrine of the good.
+Between what is good and what is evil, a third group is introduced, of
+doubtful character; and since we have seen the term ἀδιάφορον is only
+applied to this group in its more extended meaning, it became
+impossible for them to refuse to apply the term good to things
+desirable, [717] or to exclude unconditionally from the highest good
+many of the things which they were in the habit of pronouncing
+indifferent. [718] Nor was this concession merely the yielding of a
+term, as will appear when particular instances are considered. Not only
+may Seneca [719] be heard, in Aristotelian manner, defending external
+possessions as aids to virtue—not only Hecato, and even Diogenes,
+uttering ambiguous sentences as to permitted and forbidden gains
+[720]—not only Panætius giving expression to much that falls short of
+Stoic severity [721]—but even Chrysippus avows that in his opinion it
+is silly not to desire health, wealth, and freedom from pain, [722] and
+that a statesman may treat honour and wealth as real goods; [723]
+adding that the whole Stoic School agrees with him in thinking it no
+disparagement for a wise man to follow a profession which lies under a
+stigma in the common opinion of Greece. [724] He did not even hesitate
+to assert that it is better to live irrationally than not to live at
+all. [725] It is impossible to conceal the fact that, in attempting to
+adapt their system to general opinion and to the conditions of
+practical life, the Stoics were driven to make admissions strongly at
+variance with their previous theories. It may hence be gathered with
+certainty that, in laying down those theories, they had overstrained a
+point.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Perfect and intermediate duties.]
+
+By means of this doctrine of things to be preferred and things to be
+eschewed, a further addition was made to the conception of duty. Under
+duty, or what is proper, [726] we have already seen, the Stoics
+understand rational action in general, which becomes good conduct, or
+κατόρθωμα, by being done with a right intention. [727] The conception
+of duty, therefore, contains in itself the conception of virtuous
+conduct, and is used primarily to express what is good or rational.
+Duty thus appears to have a twofold meaning, in consequence of the
+twofold characters of things desirable and things good. If the good
+were the only permitted object of desire, there would, of course, be
+but one duty—that of realising the good; and the various actions which
+contribute to this result would only be distinguished by their being
+employed on a different material, but not in respect of their moral
+value. But if, besides what is absolutely good, there are things
+relatively good, things not to be desired absolutely, but only in cases
+in which they may be pursued without detriment to the absolute good or
+virtue—if, moreover, besides vice, as the absolute evil, there are also
+relative evils, which we have reason to avoid in the same cases—the
+extent of our duties is increased likewise; a number of conditional
+duties are placed by the side of duties unconditional, differing from
+the latter in that they aim at pursuing things to be preferred, and
+avoiding things to be eschewed. From this platform, all that accords
+with nature is regarded as proper, or a duty in the more extended sense
+of the term; and the conception of propriety is extended to include
+plants and animals. [728] Proper and dutiful actions are then divided
+into those which are always such and those which are only such under
+peculiar circumstances—the former being called perfect, the latter
+intermediate duties; [729] and it is stated, as a peculiarity of the
+latter, that, owing to circumstances, a course of conduct may become a
+duty which would not have been a duty without those peculiar
+circumstances. [730] In the wider sense of the term, every action is
+proper or in accordance with duty which consists in the choice of a
+thing to be preferred (προηγμένον) and in avoiding a thing to be
+eschewed. On the other hand, a perfect duty is only fulfilled by
+virtuous action. A virtuous life and a wish to do good constitute the
+only perfect duty. [731]
+
+Some confusion is introduced into this teaching by the fact that in
+setting up the standard for distinguishing perfect from imperfect
+duties, the Stoics sometimes look at the real, sometimes at the
+personal value, of actions, without keeping these two aspects distinct.
+They therefore use the terms perfect and imperfect sometimes to express
+the difference between conditional and unconditional duties; at other
+times, to express that between morality and law. [732] Far worse than
+the formal defect is the grouping in this division under the conception
+of duty things of the most varied moral character. If once things which
+have only a conditional value are admitted within the circle of duties,
+what is there to prevent their being defended, in the practical
+application of the Stoic teaching, on grounds altogether repugnant to
+the legitimate consequences of the Stoic principles?
+
+
+
+
+[C. Emotions.]
+
+[(1) Permitted affections.]
+
+In accordance with these admissions, the Stoic system sought in another
+respect to meet facts and practical wants by abating somewhat from the
+austerity of its demands. Consistently carried out, those demands
+require the unconditional extirpation of the whole sensuous nature,
+such as was originally expressed by the demand for apathy. But just as
+the stricter Stoic theory of the good was modified by the admission of
+προηγμένα, so this demand was modified in two ways; the first elements
+of the forbidden emotions were allowed under other names; and whilst
+emotions were still forbidden, certain mental affections were
+permitted, and even declared to be desirable. Taking the first point,
+it is allowed by the Stoics that the wise man feels pain, and that at
+certain things he does not remain wholly calm. [733] This admission
+shows that their system was not identical with that of the Cynics.
+[734] It is not required that men should be entirely free from all
+mental affections, but only that they should refuse assent to them, and
+not suffer them to obtain the mastery. [735] With regard to the other
+point, they propound the doctrine of εὐπάθειαι, or rational
+dispositions, which, as distinct from emotions, are to be found in the
+wise man, and in the wise man only. Of these rational dispositions,
+they distinguish three chief besides several subordinate varieties.
+[736] Although this admission was intended to vindicate the absence of
+emotions in the wise man, since the permitted feelings are not
+emotions, still it made the boundary-line between emotions and feelings
+so uncertain that in practice the sharply-defined contrast between the
+wise and the foolish threatened wellnigh to disappear altogether.
+
+
+
+[(2) Modification of apathy.]
+
+This danger appears more imminent when we observe the perplexity in
+which the Stoics were placed when asked to point out the wise man in
+experience. For not only do opponents assert that, according to their
+own confession, no one, or as good as no one, can be found in actual
+history who altogether deserves that high title, [737] but even their
+own admissions agree therewith. [738] They describe even Socrates,
+Diogenes, and Antisthenes as not completely virtuous, but only as
+travellers towards virtue. [739] It was of little avail to point to
+Hercules or Ulysses, [740] or, with Posidonius, [741] to the mythical
+golden age, in which the wise are said to have ruled. The pictures of
+those heroes would have to be changed altogether, to bring them into
+harmony with the wise man of the Stoics; and Posidonius might be easily
+disposed of on Stoic principles, by the rejoinder that virtue and
+wisdom are things of free exercise, and, since free exercise was
+wanting in the case of the first men, their condition can only have
+been a state of unconscious ignorance, and not one of perfection. [742]
+If, in reality, there are no wise men, the division of men into wise
+and foolish falls at once to the ground: all mankind belong to the
+class of fools; the conception of the wise man is an unreal fancy. It
+becomes, then, difficult to maintain the assertion that all fools are
+equally foolish, and all the wise are equally wise. If, instead of
+producing real wisdom, philosophy can only produce progress towards
+wisdom, it can hardly be expected to take such a modest estimate of its
+own success as to allow that there is no real distinction between a
+zealous student and a bigoted despiser of its doctrines.
+
+
+
+[(3) The state of progress.]
+
+It was therefore natural that the Stoics, notwithstanding their own
+maxims, found themselves compelled to recognise differences among the
+bad and differences among the good. In reference to their system these
+differences were, indeed, made to depend in the case of the bad upon
+the greater or less difficulty of healing the moral defects, or, in the
+case of the good, upon qualities morally indifferent. [743] It was also
+natural that they should so nearly identify the state of προσκοπὴ—or
+progress towards wisdom, the only really existing state—with wisdom
+that it could hardly be distinguished therefrom. If there is a stage of
+progress at which a man is free from all emotions, discharges all his
+duties, knows all that is necessary, and is even secure against the
+danger of relapse, [744] such a stage cannot be distinguished from
+wisdom, either by its want of experience or by the absence of a clear
+knowledge of oneself. For has it not been frequently asserted that
+happiness is not increased by length of time, and that the wise man is
+at first not conscious of his wisdom? [745] If, however, the highest
+stage of approximation to wisdom is supposed still to fall short of
+wisdom, because it is not sure of its continuance, and though free from
+mental diseases, it is not free from emotions, [746] how, it may be
+asked, do these passing emotions differ from the mental affections
+which are found in the wise man? Is there any real distinction between
+them? If the progressing candidate has attained to freedom from
+diseased mental states, is the danger of a relapse very great? Besides,
+the Stoics were by no means agreed that the really wise man is free
+from all danger. Cleanthes held with the Cynics that virtue can never
+be lost; Chrysippus admitted that, in certain cases, it is defectible.
+[747] After all this admission is only one among many traits which
+prove that the Stoics were obliged to abate from the original severity
+of their demands.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+APPLIED MORAL SCIENCE.
+
+
+All that has hitherto been stated has regard to the general principles
+only of the Stoics touching the end and the conditions of moral action.
+Whether the mere exposition of principles be enough, or whether the
+practical application of these principles to the special relations of
+life does not also form part of moral science—is a question as to which
+the Stoic School was not originally unanimous. Aristo, a Cynic on this
+as on other points, was of opinion that this whole branch of moral
+science is useless and unnecessary; the philosopher must confine
+himself exclusively to things which have a practical value, the
+fundamental ground of morality. [748] Within the Stoic School, however,
+this view did not gain much support. Even Cleanthes, who otherwise
+agreed with Aristo, did not deny the value of the application of theory
+to details, provided the connection of details with general principles
+were not lost sight of. [749] Nor can there be any doubt that, after
+the time of Chrysippus, details engrossed much of the attention of the
+Stoic philosophers. Posidonius enumerates, as belonging to the province
+of moral philosophy, precept, exhortation, and advice. [750] His
+teacher, Panætius, had discussed the hortatory side of morality [751]
+in three books on duties, which are imitated in Cicero’s well-known
+treatise. [752] The division of ethics attributed to Diogenes, [753]
+and by him referred to Chrysippus, leaves place for such discussions;
+[754] and, not to mention Aristo’s opposition, which supposes the
+existence of applied moral science, the example of his fellow-student
+Persæus, whose precepts for a science of banqueting [755] have been
+already referred to, proves how early practical ethics had obtained a
+footing within the Stoic School. Moreover, the elaborate theory of
+virtue propounded by Chrysippus and his followers [756] can hardly have
+failed to include many of the principal occurrences in life. Thus a
+number of particular precepts are known to us, which are partly quoted
+by other writers as belonging to the Stoics, and are partly to be found
+in the pages of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, and in Cicero’s
+treatise on duties. Indeed, the Stoics were the first who went at all
+deeply into the subject of casuistry. [757] At a later epoch, when more
+general questions had been settled by Chrysippus, the preference for
+particular enquiries within the domain of applied moral science appears
+to have increased among the Stoics. [758] Probably none but the later
+members of the School advanced the unscientific assertion [759] that we
+ought to confine ourselves to precepts for particular cases, since only
+these have any practical value.
+
+In this extension of the moral theory, besides the desire for
+scientific completeness, the endeavour may also be observed to
+subordinate all sides of human activity to moral considerations. In the
+virtuous man, as the Stoics held, everything becomes virtue; [760] and
+hence everything is included in moral philosophy. Thereby, without
+doubt, the Stoic School contributed in no small degree towards settling
+and defining moral ideas, not only for its immediate contemporaries,
+but also for all subsequent times. Nevertheless, the more the teaching
+of the School entered into the details of every-day life, the more
+impossible it became to prevent practical considerations from
+overriding the natural severity of Stoic principles, or to keep the
+strictness of scientific procedure from yielding to considerations of
+experience.
+
+The order and division which the Stoics adopted for discussing details
+in the hortatory part of moral science are not known to us; nor,
+indeed, is it known whether that order was uniform in all cases. [761]
+It will be most convenient for the purpose of our present description
+to distinguish, in the first place, those points which refer to the
+moral activity of the individual as such, and afterwards to go on to
+those which relate to social life. Subsequently, the teaching of the
+Stoics on the relation of man to the course of the world and to
+necessity will engage our attention.
+
+
+
+
+[A. The individual.]
+
+[(1) Importance attached to the individual.]
+
+It was in keeping with the whole tone of the Stoic system to devote, in
+ethics, more attention to the conduct and duties of the individual than
+had been done by previous philosophy. Not that previous philosophers
+had altogether ignored this side. Indeed, Aristotle, in his
+investigations into individual virtue, had been led to enquire
+carefully into individual morality. Still, with Aristotle, the
+influence of classic antiquity on the border-land of which he stands
+was sufficiently strong to throw the individual into the background as
+compared with the community, and to subordinate ethics to politics. In
+the post-Aristotelian philosophy, this relation was exactly reversed.
+With the decline of public life in Greece, intellectual interest in the
+state declined also; and, in equal degree, the personality of the
+individual and circumstances of private life came into prominence. This
+feature may be already noticed in some of the older Schools, for
+instance, in the Academy and Peripatetic School. The Peripatetic, in
+particular, had, in the time of its first adherents, travelled far on
+the road which the founder had struck out. Among the Stoics, the same
+feature was required by the whole spirit of their system. If happiness
+depends upon man’s internal state and nothing external has power to
+affect it, the science which professes to lead man to happiness must
+primarily busy itself with man’s moral nature. It can only consider
+human society in as far as action for society forms part of the moral
+duty of the individual. Hence, in the Stoic philosophy, researches into
+the duties of the individual occupy a large space, and there is a
+corresponding subordination of politics. These duties form the subject
+of by far the greater part of the applied moral science of the Stoics;
+and it has been already set forth [762] how minutely they entered in
+that study into possible details. At the same time, the scientific
+harvest resulting from these researches is by no means in proportion to
+their extent.
+
+Confining our attention to the two first books of Cicero’s work, De
+Officiis, to form some idea of the treatise of Panætius on duties, we
+find, after a few introductory remarks, morality as such (honestum)
+described, according to the scheme of the four cardinal virtues (i.
+5–42). In discussing the first of these, intelligence, love of research
+is recommended, and useless subtlety is deprecated. Justice and
+injustice are next discussed, in all their various forms, due regard
+being had to the cases of ordinary occurrence in life. Liberality,
+kindness, and benevolence are treated as subdivisions of justice; and
+this leads to a consideration of human society in all its various forms
+(c. 16–18, 60). Turning next to bravery (18, 61), the philosopher draws
+attention to the fact that bravery is inseparably connected with
+justice. He then describes it partly as it appears in the forms of
+magnanimity and endurance, regardless of external circumstances, partly
+in the form of energetic courage; and, in so doing, he discusses
+various questions which suggest themselves, such as the nature of true
+and false courage, military and civil courage, and the exclusion of
+anger from valour. Lastly, the object of the fourth chief virtue (c.
+27) is described, in general terms, as what is proper (decorum,
+πρέπον), and the corresponding state as propriety, both in controlling
+the impulses of the senses, in jest and play, and in the whole personal
+bearing. The peculiar demands made by individual nature, by time of
+life, by civil position, are discussed. Even outward proprieties—of
+speech and conversation, of domestic arrangement, tact in behaviour,
+[763] honourable and dishonourable modes of life—do not escape
+attention. [764]
+
+In the second book of his work, Cicero considers the relation of
+interest to duty; and having proved, at length, [765] that most that is
+advantageous and disadvantageous is brought on us by other men, he
+turns to the means by which we may gain the support of others, and by
+which affection, trust, and admiration may be secured. He reviews
+various kinds of services for individuals and the state, and embraces
+the opportunity to give expression to his abhorrence of despotism and
+republican servility to the people. The principles on which this review
+is conducted are such that objection can rarely be taken to them from
+the platform of modern morality. Yet the Stoic bias is unmistakeably
+present in the conception and support of the rules of life, and
+particularly in the definitions of various virtues; few of the moral
+judgments, however, are other than might have been expressed from the
+platform of the Platonic and Aristotelian ethics. [766] The same remark
+holds good of some other recorded points by means of which the Stoics
+gave a further expansion to their picture of the wise man. [767]
+Revolting as their tenets at times appear, there is yet little in their
+application that deviated from the moral ideas generally current.
+
+
+
+[(2) Cynicism of the Stoics.]
+
+[(a) Connection of Stoics with Cynics.]
+
+More peculiar, and at the same time more startling, is another feature
+about the Stoics. Let not too much be made of the fact that they, under
+certain circumstances, permitted a lie. [768] Were not Socrates and
+Plato, at least, of the same opinion? And, to be frank, we must admit
+that, although in this respect moral theories are strict enough, yet
+practice is commonly far too lax now. Very repulsive, however, are many
+assertions attributed to the Stoics, respecting the attitude of the
+wise man to the so-called intermediate things. Was not the very
+independence of externals, the indifference to everything but the moral
+state, which found expression in the doctrine of things indifferent and
+of the wise man’s apathy, at the root of that imperfection of life and
+principle which is so prominent in the Cynic School, the parent School
+of the Stoics? Granting that in the Stoic School this imperfection was
+toned down and supplemented by other elements, still the tendency
+thereto was too deeply rooted from its origin, and too closely bound up
+with its fundamental view of life, to be ever properly eradicated. It
+did not require, indeed, a Cynic life from its members; nay, more, it
+avowed that, except in rare cases, such a life ought not to be
+followed; [769] still the Cynic’s life was its ideal; and when it
+asserted that it was not necessary for a wise man to be a Cynic, it
+implied that, if once a Cynic, he would always be a Cynic. [770]
+Stoicism took for its patterns [771] Antisthenes and Diogenes quite as
+much as Socrates; even those who held, with Seneca, [772] that a
+philosopher ought to accommodate himself to prevailing customs, and,
+from regard to others, do what he would not himself approve, did not
+therefore cease to bestow their highest admiration on Diogenes’s
+independence of wants, notwithstanding his eccentricities. [773] More
+consistent thinkers even approximated to Cynicism in their moral
+precepts, [774] and in later times a School of younger Cynics actually
+grew out of the Stoic School.
+
+
+[(b) Instances of Cynicism.]
+
+Bearing, as the Stoics did, this close relationship to the Cynics, it
+cannot astonish us to find amongst them many instances of the most
+revolting traits in Cynicism. Their contempt for cultured habits and
+violation of right feelings fully justify the righteous indignation of
+their opponents. Chrysippus regarded many things as perfectly harmless
+in which the religious feeling of Greece saw pollution, [775] and
+pleaded in defence of his opinion the example of animals, to show that
+they were according to nature. The care for deceased relatives he not
+only proposed to limit to the simplest mode of burial, but would have
+it altogether put aside; and he made the horrible suggestion, which he
+even described in full, of using for purposes of nourishment the flesh
+of amputated limbs and the corpses of the nearest relatives. [776]
+Great offence, too, was given by the Stoics, and, in particular, by
+Chrysippus, in their treatment of the relation of the sexes to each
+other; nor can it be denied that some of their language on this subject
+sounds exceedingly offensive. The Cynic assertion, that anything which
+is in itself allowed may be mentioned plainly and without a
+periphrasis, is also attributed to the Stoics. [777] By his proposals
+for the dress of women, Zeno offended against propriety and modesty,
+[778] and both he and Chrysippus advocated community of wives in their
+state of wise men. [779] It is, moreover, asserted that the Stoics
+raised no objection to the prevalent profligacy and the trade in
+unchastity, [780] nor to the still worse vice of unnatural crime. [781]
+Marriage among the nearest relatives was held to be consonant to nature
+by the leaders of the School; [782] and the atrocious shamelessness of
+Diogenes found supporters in Chrysippus, [783] perhaps, too, in Zeno.
+[784]
+
+
+[(c) Cynicism a theoretical consequence of Stoic principles.]
+
+It would, however, be doing the Stoics a great injustice to take these
+statements for more than theoretical conclusions drawn from the
+principles to which they were pledged. The moral character of Zeno,
+Cleanthes, and Chrysippus is quite above suspicion. It seems,
+therefore, strange that they should have felt themselves compelled to
+admit in theory what strikes the natural feeling with horror. It
+cannot, however, be unconditionally accepted that the statements laid
+to their charge as they used them imply all that historians find in
+them. Far from it; of some of their statements it may be said not only
+that they do not justify conduct recognised to be immoral, but that
+they are directed against actions customarily allowed, the argument
+being, that between such actions and actions admittedly immoral there
+is no real difference. This remark applies, in particular, to Zeno’s
+language on unnatural vice. [785] It was not, therefore, in opposition
+to the older Stoics, or a denial of their maxim that love is permitted
+to a wise man, [786] for the younger Stoics to condemn most explicitly
+any and every form of unchastity, and, in particular, the worst form of
+all, unnatural vice. [787] In the same way, the language permitting
+marriage between those nearest of kin, when examined, is very much
+milder than it seems. [788] And Zeno’s proposition for a community of
+wives may be fairly laid to the charge of Plato, and excused by all the
+charitable excuses of which Plato is allowed the benefit. [789]
+
+Taking the most unprejudiced view of the Stoic propositions, there are
+enough of them to arouse extreme dislike, even if they could, without
+difficulty, be deduced from the fundamental principles of the system. A
+moral theory which draws such a sharp distinction between what is
+without and what is within, that it regards the latter as alone
+essential, the former as altogether indifferent, which attaches no
+value to anything except virtuous intention, and places the highest
+value in being independent of everything—such a moral theory must of
+necessity prove wanting, whenever the business of morality consists in
+using the senses as instruments for expressing the mind, and in raising
+natural impulses to the sphere of free will. If its prominent features
+allow less to the senses than naturally belongs to them, there is a
+danger that, in particular cases in which intentions are not so
+obvious, the moral importance of actions will often be ignored, and
+such actions treated as indifferent.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Social relations.]
+
+The same observation will have to be made with regard to the positions
+which the Stoics laid down in reference to social relations. Not that
+it was their intention to detach man from his natural relation [(1)
+Origin and use of society.] to other men. On the contrary, they hold
+that the further man carries the work of moral improvement [(a) Origin
+of social claims.] in himself, the stronger he will feel drawn to
+society. But by the introduction of the idea of society, opposite
+tendencies arise in their ethics—one towards individual independence,
+the other in the direction of a well-ordered social life. The former
+tendency is the earlier one, and continues to predominate throughout;
+still, the latter was not surreptitiously introduced—nay, more, it was
+the logical result of the Stoic principles, and to the eye of an
+Epicurean must have seemed a distinctive feature of Stoicism. In
+attributing absolute value only to rational thought and will, Stoicism
+had declared man to be independent of anything external, and,
+consequently, of his fellow-men. But since this value only attaches to
+rational thought and intention, the freedom of the individual also
+involves the recognition of the community, and brings with it the
+requirement that everyone must subordinate his own wishes to the wishes
+and needs of others. Rational conduct and thought can only then exist
+when the conduct of the individual is in harmony with general law.
+General law is the same for all rational beings. All rational beings
+must therefore aim at the same end, and recognise themselves subject to
+the same law. All must feel themselves portions of one connected whole.
+Man must not live for himself, but for society.
+
+This connection between the individual and society is clearly set forth
+by the Stoics. The desire for society, they hold, is immediately
+involved in reason. By the aid of reason, man feels himself a part of a
+whole, and, consequently, is bound to subordinate his private interests
+to the interests of the whole. [790] As like always attracts like, this
+remark holds true of everything endowed with reason, since the rational
+soul is in all cases identical. From the consciousness of this unity,
+the desire for society at once arises in individuals endowed with
+reason. [791] They are all in the service of reason; there is,
+therefore, for all, but one right course and one law, [792] and they
+all contribute to the general welfare in obeying this law. The wise
+man, as a Stoic expresses it, is never a private man. [793]
+
+At other times, social relations were explained by the theory of final
+causes. [794] Whilst everything else exists for the sake of what is
+endowed with reason, individual beings endowed with reason exist for
+the sake of each other. Their social connection is therefore a direct
+natural command. [795] Towards animals we never stand in a position to
+exercise justice, nor yet towards ourselves. [796] Justice can only be
+exercised towards other men and towards God. [797] On the combination
+of individuals and their mutual support rests all their power over
+nature. A single man by himself would be the most helpless of
+creatures. [798]
+
+The consciousness of this connection between all rational beings finds
+ample expression in Marcus Aurelius, the last of the Stoics. The
+possession of reason is, with him, love of society (vi. 14; x. 2).
+Rational beings can only be treated on a social footing (κοινωνικῶς)
+(vi. 23), and can only feel happy themselves when working for the
+community (viii. 7); for all rational beings are related to one another
+(iii. 4), all form one social unit (πολιτικὸν σύστημα), of which each
+individual is an integral part (συμπληρωτικός) (ix. 23); one body, of
+which every individual is an organic member (μέλος) (ii. 1; vii. 13).
+Hence the social instinct is a primary instinct in man (vii. 55), every
+manifestation of which contributes, either directly or indirectly, to
+the good of the whole (ix. 23). Our fellow-men ought to be loved from
+the heart. They ought to be benefited, not for the sake of outward
+decency, but because the benefactor is penetrated with the joy of
+benevolence, and thereby benefits himself. [799] Whatever hinders union
+with others has a tendency to separate the members from the body, from
+which all derive their life (viii. 34); and he who estranges himself
+from one of his fellow-men voluntarily severs himself from the stock of
+mankind (xi. 8). We shall presently see that the language used by the
+philosophic emperor is quite in harmony with the Stoic principles.
+
+
+
+[(2) Justice and mercy.]
+
+In relation to our fellow-men, two fundamental points are insisted on
+by the Stoics—the duty of justice and the duty of mercy. Cicero,
+without doubt following Panætius, [800] describes these two virtues as
+the bonds which keep human society together, [801] and, consequently,
+gives to each an elaborate treatment. [802] In expanding these duties,
+the Stoics were led by the fundamental principles of their system to
+most distracting consequences. On the one hand, they required from
+their wise men that strict justice which knows no pity and can make no
+allowances; [803] hence their ethical system had about it an air of
+austerity, and an appearance of severity and cruelty. On the other
+hand, their principle of the natural connection of all mankind imposed
+on them the practice of the most extended and unreserved charity, of
+beneficence, gentleness, meekness, of an unlimited benevolence, and a
+readiness to forgive in all cases in which forgiveness is possible.
+This last aspect of the Stoic teaching appears principally in the later
+Stoics—in Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Musonius; [804] and
+it is quite possible that they may have given more prominence to it
+than their predecessors. But the fact is there, that this aspect is
+due, not only to the peculiar character of these individuals, but is
+based on the spirit and tone of the whole system. [805]
+
+The question then naturally arises, how these two opposites may be
+reconciled—how stern justice may be harmonised with forgiveness and
+mercy. Seneca, who investigated the question fully, replies: Not
+severity, but only cruelty, is opposed to mercy; for no one virtue is
+opposed to another: a wise man will always help another in distress,
+but without sharing his emotion, without feeling misery or compassion;
+he will not indulge, but he will spare, advise, and improve; he will
+not remit punishments in cases in which he knows them to be deserved,
+but, from a sense of justice, he will take human weakness into
+consideration in allotting punishments, and make every possible
+allowance for circumstances. [806] Every difficulty is not, indeed,
+removed by these statements; still, those which remain apply more to
+the Stoic demand for apathy than to the reconciliation of the two
+virtues which regulate our relations to our fellow-men. [807]
+
+
+
+[(3) Friendship.]
+
+The society for which all rational beings are intended will naturally
+be found to exist principally among those who have become alive to
+their rational nature and destiny—in other words, among the wise. All
+who are wise and virtuous are friends, because they agree in their
+views of life, and because they all love one another’s virtue. [808]
+Thus every action of a wise man contributes to the well-being of every
+other wise man—or, as the Stoics pointedly express it, if a wise man
+only makes a rational movement with his finger, he does a service to
+all wise men throughout the world. [809] On the other hand, only a wise
+man knows how to love properly; true friendship only exists between
+wise men. [810] Only the wise man possesses the art of making friends,
+[811] since love is only won by love. [812] If, however, true
+friendship is a union between the good and the wise, its value is
+thereby at once established; and hence it is distinctly enumerated
+among goods by the Stoics. [813]
+
+On this point, difficulties reappear. How can this need of society be
+reconciled with the wise man’s freedom from wants? If the wise man is
+self-sufficient, how can another help him? How can he stand in need of
+such help? The answers given by Seneca are not satisfactory. To the
+first question, he replies, that none but a wise man can give the right
+inducement to a wise man to call his powers into exercise. [814] He
+meets the second by saying, that a wise man suffices himself for
+happiness, but not for life. [815] Everywhere the wise man finds
+inducements to virtuous action; if friendship is not a condition of
+happiness, it is not a good at all. Nor are his further observations
+more satisfactory. The wise man, he says, [816] does not wish to be
+without friends, but still he can be without friends. But the question
+is not whether he can be, but whether he can be without loss of
+happiness. If the question so put is answered in the negative, it
+follows that the wise man is not altogether self-sufficing; if in the
+affirmative—and a wise man, as Seneca affirms, will bear the loss of a
+friend with calmness, because he comforts himself with the thought that
+he can have another at any moment—then friendship is not worth much.
+Moreover, if a wise man can help another by communicating to him
+information and method, since no wise man is omniscient, [817] is not a
+wise man, if not in possession of all knowledge, at least in possession
+of all knowledge contributing to virtue and happiness? If it be added,
+that what one learns from another he learns by his own powers, and in
+consequence of himself helping himself, does not this addition still
+overlook the fact that the teacher’s activity is the condition of the
+learner’s? True and beautiful as is the language of Seneca: Friendship
+has its value in itself alone; every wise man must wish to find those
+like himself; the good have a natural love for the good; the wise man
+needs a friend, not to have a nurse in sickness and an assistant in
+trouble, but to have some one whom he can tend and assist, and for whom
+he can live and die [818]—nevertheless, this language does not meet the
+critical objection, that one who requires the help of another, be it
+only to have an object for his moral activity, cannot be wholly
+dependent on himself. If friendship, according to a previously quoted
+distinction, [819] belongs to external goods, it makes man, in a
+certain sense, dependent on externals. If its essence is placed in an
+inward disposition of friendliness, such a disposition depends on the
+existence of those for whom it can be felt. Besides, it involves the
+necessity of being reciprocated, and of finding expression in outward
+conduct, to such an extent that it is quite subversive of the absolute
+independence of the individual.
+
+
+
+[(4) The family and political life.]
+
+Nor is the friendship of the wise the only form of society which
+appeared to the Stoics necessary and essential. If man is intended
+[820] to associate with his fellow-men in a society regulated by
+justice and law, how can he withdraw from the most common
+institution—the state? If virtue does not consist in idle
+contemplation, but in action, how dare he lose the opportunity of
+promoting good and repressing evil by taking part in political life?
+[821] If laws further the well-being and security of the citizens, if
+they advance virtue and happiness, how can the wise man fail to regard
+them as beautiful and praiseworthy? [822] For the same reason,
+matrimony will command his respect. He will neither deny himself a
+union so natural and intimate, nor will he deprive the state of relays
+of men nor society of the sight of well-ordered family life. [823]
+Hence, in their writings and precepts, the Stoics paid great attention
+to the state and to domestic life. [824] In marriage they required
+chastity and moderation. Love was to be a matter of reason, not of
+emotion—not a yielding to personal attractions, nor a seeking sensual
+gratification. [825] As to their views on the constitution of a state,
+we know [826] that they prefer a mixed constitution, compounded of the
+three simple forms, without objecting to other forms of government. The
+wise man, according to Chrysippus, will not despise the calling of a
+prince, if his interest so require, and, if he cannot govern himself,
+will reside at the court and in the camp of princes, particularly of
+good princes. [827]
+
+The ideal of the Stoics, however, was not realised in any one of the
+existing forms of government, but in that polity of the wise which Zeno
+described, undoubtedly when a Cynic, [828] but which was fully set
+forth by Chrysippus [829]—a state without marriage, or family, or
+temples, or courts, or public schools, or coins [830]—a state excluding
+no other states, because all differences of nationality have been
+merged in a common brotherhood of all men. [831] Such an ideal may show
+that, for the Stoic philosophers, there could be no hearty sympathy
+with the state or the family, their ideal state being, in truth, no
+longer a state. Indeed, the whole tone of Stoicism, and still more, the
+circumstances of the times to which it owed its rise and growth, were
+against such a sympathy. If Plato could find no place for a philosopher
+in the political institutions of his time, how could a Stoic, who
+looked for happiness more exclusively in seclusion from the world, who
+contrasted, too, the wise man more sharply with the multitude of fools,
+and lived for the most part under political circumstances far less
+favourable than Plato? To him the private life of a philosopher must
+have seemed beyond compare more attractive than a public career. An
+intelligent man, taking advice from Chrysippus, [832] avoids business;
+he withdraws to peaceful retirement; and, though he may consider it his
+duty not to stand aloof from public life, still he can only actively
+take a part in it in states which present an appreciable progress
+towards perfection. [833] But where could such states be found? Did not
+Chrysippus state it as his conviction that a statesman must either
+displease the Gods or displease the people? [834] And did not later
+Stoics accordingly advise philosophers not to intermeddle at all in
+civil matters? [835] Labour for the commonwealth is only then a duty
+when there is no obstacle to such labour; but, as a matter of fact,
+there is always some obstacle, and in particular, the condition of all
+existing states. [836] A philosopher who teaches and improves his
+fellow-men benefits the state quite as much as a warrior, an
+administrator, or a civil functionary. [837]
+
+
+[(b) Practical aversion to political life.]
+
+Following out this idea, [838] Epictetus dissuades from matrimony and
+the begetting of children. Allowing that the family relation may be
+admitted in a community of wise men, he is of opinion that it is
+otherwise under existing circumstances; for how can a true philosopher
+engage in connections and actions which withdraw him from the service
+of God? The last expression already implies that unfavourable times
+were not the only cause deterring the Stoics from caring for family or
+the state, but that the occupation in itself seemed to them a
+subordinate and limited one. This is stated in plain terms by Seneca
+and Epictetus: He who feels himself a citizen of the world finds in an
+individual state a sphere far too limited, and prefers devoting himself
+to the universe; [839] man is no doubt intended to be active, but the
+highest activity is intellectual research. [840] On the subject of
+civil society, opinions were likely to vary, according to the
+peculiarities and circumstances of individuals. The philosopher on the
+throne was more likely than the freedman Epictetus to feel himself a
+citizen of Rome as well as a citizen of the world, [841] and to lower
+the demands made on a philosophic statesman. [842] At the same time,
+the line taken by the Stoic philosophy cannot be ignored. A philosophy
+which attaches moral value to the cultivation of intentions only, and
+considers all external circumstances as indifferent, can hardly produce
+a taste or a skill for overcoming those outward interests and
+circumstances with which a politician is chiefly concerned. A system
+which regards the mass of men as fools, which denies to them every
+healthy endeavour and all true knowledge, can hardly bring itself
+unreservedly to work for a state, the course and institutions of which
+depend upon the majority of its members, and are planned with a view to
+their needs, prejudices, and customs. Undoubtedly, there were able
+statesmen among the Stoics of the Roman period; but Rome, and not
+Stoicism, was the cause of their statesmanship. Taken alone, Stoicism
+could form excellent men, but hardly excellent statesmen. And, looking
+to facts, not one of the old masters of the School ever had or desired
+to have any public office. Hence, when their opponents urged that
+retirement was a violation of their principles, [843] Seneca could with
+justice meet the charge by replying, that the true meaning of their
+principles ought to be gathered from their actual conduct. [844]
+
+
+[(c) Citizenship of the world.]
+
+The positive substitute wherewith the Stoics thought to replace the
+ordinary relations of civil society was by a citizenship of the world.
+No preceding system had been able to overcome the difficulty of
+nationalities. Even Plato and Aristotle shared the prejudice of the
+Greeks against foreigners. The Cynics alone appear as the precursors of
+the Stoa, attaching slight value to the citizenship of any particular
+state, in comparison with citizenship of the world. [845] With the
+Cynics, this idea had not attained to the historical importance which
+afterwards belonged to it; nor was it used so much with a positive
+meaning, to express the essential oneness of all mankind, as, in a
+negative sense, to imply the philosopher’s independence of country and
+home. From the Stoic philosophy it first received a definite meaning,
+and was generally pressed into service. The causes of this change may
+be sought, not only in the historical surroundings amongst which
+Stoicism grew up, but also in the person of its founder. It was far
+easier for philosophy to overcome national dislikes, after the genial
+Macedonian conqueror had united the vigorous nationalities comprised
+within his monarchy, not only under a central government, but also in a
+common culture. [846] Hence the Stoic citizenship of the world may be
+appealed to, to prove the assertion, that philosophic Schools reflect
+the existing facts of history. On the other hand, taking into account
+the bias given to a philosopher’s teaching by his personal
+circumstances, Zeno, being only half a Greek, would be more ready to
+underestimate the distinction of Greek and barbarian than any one of
+his predecessors.
+
+However much these two causes—and, in particular, the first—must have
+contributed to bring about the Stoic ideal of a citizenship of the
+world, nevertheless the connection of this idea with the whole of their
+system is most obvious. If human society, as we have seen, has for its
+basis the identity of reason in individuals, what ground have we for
+limiting this society to a single nation, or feeling ourselves more
+nearly related to some men than to others? All men, apart from what
+they have made themselves by their own exertions, are equally near,
+since all equally participate in reason. All are members of one body;
+for one and the same nature has fashioned them all from the same
+elements for the same destiny. [847] Or, as Epictetus expresses it in
+religious language, [848] all men are brethren, since all have in the
+same degree God for their father. Man, therefore, who and whatever else
+he may be, is the object of our solicitude, simply as being man. [849]
+No hostility and ill-treatment should quench our benevolence. [850] No
+one is so low but that he has claims on the love and justice of his
+fellow-men. [851] Even the slave is a man deserving our esteem, and
+able to claim from us his rights. [852]
+
+In their recognition of the universal rights of mankind the Stoics did
+not go so far as to disapprove of slavery. Attaching in general little
+value to external circumstances, [853] they cared the less to throw
+down the gauntlet to the social institutions and arrangements of their
+time. Still, they could not wholly suppress a confession that slavery
+is unjust, [854] nor cease to aim at mitigating the evil both in theory
+and practice. [855] If all men are, as rational beings, equal, all men
+together form one community. Reason is the common law for all, and
+those who owe allegiance to one law are members of one state. [856] If
+the Stoics, therefore, compared the world, in its more extended sense,
+to a society, because of the connection of its parts, [857] they must,
+with far more reason, have allowed that the world, in the narrower
+sense of the term, including all rational beings, forms one community,
+[858] to which individual communities are related, as the houses of a
+city are to the city collectively. [859] Wise men, at least, if not
+others, will esteem this great community, to which all men belong, far
+above any particular community in which the accident of birth has
+placed them. [860] They, at least, will direct their efforts towards
+making all men feel themselves to be citizens of one community; and,
+instead of framing exclusive laws and constitutions, will try to live
+as one family, under the common governance of reason. [861] The
+platform of social propriety receives hereby a universal width. Man, by
+withdrawing from the outer world into the recesses of his own
+intellectual and moral state, becomes enabled to recognise everywhere
+the same nature as his own, and to feel himself one with the universe,
+by sharing with it the same nature and the same destiny.
+
+But, as yet, the moral problem is not exhausted. [C. Man and the course
+of the world.] Reason, the same as man’s, rules pure and complete in
+the universe; and if it is the business of man to give play to reason
+in his own conduct, and to recognise it in that of others, it is also
+his duty to subordinate himself to collective reason, and to the course
+of the world, over which it presides. In conclusion, therefore, the
+relation of man to the course of the world must be considered.
+
+
+
+[(1) Submission to the course of nature.]
+
+Firmly as the principles of the Stoic ethics insist upon moral conduct,
+those ethics, judged by their whole tone, cannot rest short of
+requiring an absolute resignation to the course of the universe. This
+requirement is based quite as much upon the historical surroundings of
+their system as upon its intellectual principles. How, in an age in
+which political freedom was crushed by the oppression of the Macedonian
+and subsequently of the Roman dominion, and the Roman dominion was
+itself smothered under the despotism of imperialism, in which Might,
+like a living fate, crushed every attempt at independent action—how, in
+such an age, could those aiming at higher objects than mere personal
+gratification have any alternative but to resign themselves placidly to
+the course of circumstances which individuals and nations were alike
+powerless to control? In making a dogma of fatalism, Stoicism was only
+following the current of the age. At the same time, as will be seen
+from what has been said, it was only following the necessary
+consequences of its own principles. All that is individual in the world
+being only the result of a general connection of cause and effect—only
+a carrying out of a universal law—what remains possible, in the face of
+this absolute necessity, but to yield unconditionally? How can yielding
+be called a sacrifice, when the law to which we yield is nothing less
+than the expression of reason? Hence resignation to the world’s course
+was a point chiefly insisted upon in the Stoic doctrine of morality.
+The verses of Cleanthes, [862] in which he submits without reserve to
+the leading of destiny, are a theme repeatedly worked out by the
+writers of this School. The virtuous man, they say, will honour God by
+resigning his will to the divine will; the divine will he will think
+better than his own will; he will remember that under all circumstances
+we must follow destiny, but that it is the wise man’s prerogative to
+follow of his own accord; that there is only one way to happiness and
+independence—that of willing nothing except what is in the nature of
+things, and what will realise itself independently of our will. [863]
+
+Similar expressions are not wanting amongst other philosophers.
+Nevertheless, by the Stoic philosophy, the demand is pressed with
+particular force, and is closely connected with its whole view of the
+world. In resignation to destiny, the Stoic picture of the wise man is
+completed. Therewith is included that peace and happiness of mind, that
+gentleness and benevolence, that discharge of all duties, and that
+harmony of life, which together make up the Stoic definition of virtue.
+[864] Beginning by recognising the existence of a general law, morality
+ends by unconditionally submitting itself to the ordinances of that
+law.
+
+The one case in which this resignation would give place to active
+resistance to destiny is when man is placed in circumstances calling
+for unworthy action or endurance. [865] Strictly speaking, the first
+case can[(2) Suicide.] never arise, since, from the Stoic platform, no
+state of life can be imagined which might not serve as an occasion for
+virtuous conduct. It does, however, seem possible that even the wise
+man may be placed by fortune in positions which are for him
+unendurable; and in this case he is allowed to withdraw from them by
+suicide. [866] The importance of this point in the Stoic ethics will
+become manifest from the language of Seneca, who asserts that the wise
+man’s independence of externals depends, among other things, on his
+being able to leave life at pleasure. [867] To Seneca, the deed of the
+younger Cato appears not only praiseworthy, but the crowning act of
+success over destiny, the highest triumph of the human will. [868] By
+the chief teachers of the Stoic School this doctrine was carried into
+practice. Zeno, in old age, hung himself, because he had broken his
+finger; Cleanthes, for a still less cause, continued his abstinence
+till he died of starvation, in order to traverse the whole way to
+death; and, in later times, the example of Zeno and Cleanthes was
+followed by Antipater. [869]
+
+In these cases suicide appears not only as a way of escape, possible
+under circumstances, but absolutely as the highest expression of moral
+freedom. Whilst all are far from being advised to adopt this course,
+[870] everyone is required to embrace the opportunity of dying with
+glory, when no higher duties bind him to life. [871] Everyone is urged,
+in case of need, to receive death at his own hand, as a pledge of his
+independence. Nor are cases of need decided by what really makes a man
+unhappy—moral vice or folly. Vice and folly must be met by other means.
+Death is no deliverance from them, since it makes the bad no better.
+The one satisfactory reason which the Stoics recognised for taking
+leave of life is, when circumstances over which we have no control make
+continuance in life no longer desirable. [872]
+
+Such circumstances may be found in the greatest variety of things. Cato
+committed suicide because of the downfall of the republic; Zeno,
+because of a slight injury received. According to Seneca, it is a
+sufficient reason for committing suicide to anticipate merely a
+considerable disturbance in our actions and peace of mind. [873] The
+infirmity of age, incurable disease, a weakening of the powers of the
+mind, a great degree of want, the tyranny of a despot from which there
+is no escape, justify us—and even, under circumstances, oblige us—to
+have recourse to this remedy. [874] Seneca, indeed, maintains that a
+philosopher should never commit suicide in order to escape suffering,
+but only to withdraw from restrictions in following out the aim of
+life; but he is nevertheless of opinion that anyone may rightly choose
+an easier mode of death instead of a more painful one in prospect, thus
+avoiding a freak of destiny and the cruelty of man. [875] Besides pain
+and sickness, Diogenes also mentions a case in which suicide becomes a
+duty, for the sake of others. [876] According to another authority,
+[877] five cases are enumerated by the Stoics in which it is allowed to
+put oneself to death; if, by so doing, a real service can be rendered
+to others, as in the case of sacrificing oneself for one’s country; to
+avoid being compelled to do an unlawful action; otherwise, on the
+ground of poverty, chronic illness, or incipient weakness of mind.
+
+In nearly all these cases, the things referred to belong to the class
+of things which were reckoned as indifferent by the Stoics; and hence
+arises the apparent paradox, with which their opponents immediately
+twitted them, that not absolute and moral evils, but only outward
+circumstances, are admitted as justifying suicide. [878] The paradox,
+however, loses its point when it is remembered that, to the Stoics,
+life and death are quite as much indifferent as all other external
+things. [879] To them, nothing really good appears to be involved in
+the question of suicide, but a choice between two things morally
+indifferent—one of which, life, is only preferable to the other, death,
+whilst the essential conditions for a life according to nature are
+satisfied. [880] The philosopher, therefore, says Seneca, [881] chooses
+his mode of death just as he chooses a ship for a journey or a house to
+live in. He leaves life as he would leave a banquet—when it is time. He
+lays aside his body when it no longer suits him, as he would lay aside
+worn-out clothes; and withdraws from life as he would withdraw from a
+house no longer weather-proof. [882]
+
+A very different question, however, it is, whether life can be treated
+in this way as something indifferent, and whether it is consistent with
+an unconditional resignation to the course of the world, to evade by
+personal interposition what destiny with its unalterable laws has
+decreed for us. Stoicism may, indeed, allow this course of action. But
+in so doing does it not betray its ill-success in the attempt to
+combine, without contradiction, two main tendencies so different as
+that of individual independence and that of submission to the universe?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+THE RELATION OF THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY TO RELIGION.
+
+
+[A. General connection of Stoicism and religion.]
+
+It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the
+Stoics without treating of their theology; for no early system is so
+closely connected with religion as that of the Stoics. Founded as is
+their whole view of the world upon the idea of one Divine Being,
+begetting from Himself and containing in Himself all finite creatures,
+upholding them by His might, ruling them according to an unalterable
+law, and thus manifesting Himself everywhere, their philosophy bears a
+decidedly religious character. Indeed, there is hardly a single
+prominent feature in the Stoic system which is not, more or less,
+connected with theology. A very considerable portion of that system,
+moreover, consists of strictly theological questions; such as arguments
+for the existence of deity, and for the rule of Providence;
+investigations into the nature of God, His government, and presence in
+the world; the relation of human activity to the divine ordinances; and
+all the various questions connected with the terms freedom and
+necessity. The natural science of the Stoics begins by evolving things
+from God; it ends with resolving them again into God. God is thus the
+beginning and end of the world’s development. In like manner, their
+moral philosophy begins with the notion of divine law, which, in the
+form of eternal reason, controls the actions of men; and ends by
+requiring submission to the will of God, and resignation to the course
+of the universe. A religious sanction is thus given to all moral
+duties. All virtuous actions are a fulfilment of the divine will and
+the divine law. That citizenship of the world, in particular, which
+constitutes the highest point in the Stoic morality, is connected with
+the notion of a common relationship of all men to God. Again, that
+inward repose of the philosopher, those feelings of freedom and
+independence, on which so much stress is laid, rest principally on the
+conviction that man is related to God. In a word, Stoicism is not only
+a system of philosophy, but also a system of religion. As such it was
+regarded by its first adherents, witness the fragments of Cleanthes;
+[883] and as such it afforded, in later times, together with Platonism,
+to the best and most cultivated men, whenever the influence of Greek
+culture extended, a substitute for declining natural religion, a
+satisfaction for religious cravings, and a support for moral life.
+
+This philosophic religion is quite independent of the traditional
+religion. The Stoic philosophy contains no feature of importance which
+we can pronounce with certainty to be taken from the popular faith. The
+true worship of God, according to their view, consists only in the
+mental effort to know God, and in a moral and pious life. [884] A
+really acceptable prayer can have no reference to external goods; it
+can only have for its object a virtuous and devout
+
+
+
+[(1) Connection of Stoicism, with popular faith.]
+
+mind. [885] Still, there were reasons which led the Stoics to seek a
+closer union with the popular faith. A system which attached so great
+an importance to popular opinion, particularly in proving the existence
+of God, [886] could not, without extreme danger to itself, declare the
+current opinions respecting the Gods to be erroneous. And again, the
+ethical platform of the Stoic philosophy imposed on its adherents the
+duty of upholding rather than overthrowing the popular creed—that creed
+forming a barrier against the violence of human passions. [887] The
+practical value of the popular faith may, then, be the cause of their
+theological orthodoxy. Just as the Romans, long after all faith in the
+Gods had been lost under the influence of Greek culture, [888] still
+found it useful and necessary to uphold the traditional faith, so the
+Stoics may have feared that, were the worship of the people’s Gods to
+be suspended, that respect for God and the divine law on which they
+depended for the support of their own moral tenets would at the same
+time be exterminated.
+
+
+
+[(2) Free criticism of popular belief.]
+
+Meantime, they did not deny that much in the popular belief would not
+harmonise with their principles; and that both the customary forms of
+religious worship, and also the mythical representations of the Gods,
+were altogether untenable. So little did they conceal their strictures,
+that it is clear that conviction, and not fear (there being no longer
+occasion for fear), was the cause of their leaning towards tradition.
+Zeno spoke with contempt of the erection of sacred edifices; for how
+can a thing be sacred which is erected by builders and labourers? [889]
+Seneca denies the good of prayer. [890] He considers it absurd to
+entertain fear for the Gods, who are ever-beneficent beings. [891] God
+he would have worshipped, not by sacrifices and ceremonies, but by
+purity of life; not in temples of stone, but in the shrine of the
+heart. [892] Of images of the Gods, and the devotion paid to them, he
+speaks with strong disapprobation; [893] of the unworthy fables of
+mythology, with bitter ridicule; [894] and he calls the popular Gods,
+without reserve, creations of superstition, whom the philosopher only
+invokes because it is the custom so to do. [895] Moreover, the Stoic in
+Cicero, and the elder authorities quoted by him, allow that the popular
+beliefs and the songs of the poets are full of superstition and foolish
+legends. [896] Chrysippus is expressly said to have declared the
+distinction of sex among the Gods, and other features in which they
+resemble men, to be childish fancies; [897] Zeno to have denied any
+real existence to the popular deities, and to have transferred their
+names to natural objects; [898] and Aristo [899] is charged with having
+denied shape and sensation to the Deity. [900]
+
+The Stoics were, nevertheless, not disposed to let the current beliefs
+quite fall through. Far from it, they thought to discover real germs of
+truth in these beliefs, however inadequate they were in form. They
+accordingly made it their business to give a relative vindication to
+the existing creed. Holding that the name of God belongs, in its full
+and original sense, only to the one primary Being, they did not
+hesitate to apply it, in a limited and derivative sense, to all those
+objects by means of which the divine power is especially manifested.
+Nay, more, in consideration of man’s relationship to God, they found it
+not unreasonable to deduce from the primary Being Gods bearing a
+resemblance to men. [901] Hence they distinguished, as Plato had done,
+between the eternal and immutable God and Gods created and transitory,
+[902] between God the Creator and Sovereign of the world, and
+subordinate Gods; [903] in other words, between the universal divine
+power as a Unity working in the world, and its individual parts and
+manifestations. [904] To the former they gave the name Zeus; to the
+latter they applied the names of the other subordinate Gods.
+
+
+
+[(3) The truth in Polytheism.]
+
+In this derivative sense, divinity was allowed to many beings by the
+Stoics, and, in particular, to the stars, which Plato had called
+created Gods, which Aristotle had described as eternal divine beings,
+and the worship of which lay so near to the ancient cultus of nature.
+Not only by their lustre and effect on the senses, but far more by the
+regularity of their motions, do these stars prove that the material of
+which they consist is the purest, and that, of all created objects,
+they have the largest share in the divine reason. [905] And so
+seriously was this belief held by the Stoics, that a philosopher of the
+unwieldy piety of Cleanthes so far forgot himself as to charge
+Aristarchus of Samoa, the discoverer of the earth’s motion round the
+sun, the Galilæo of antiquity, with impiety for wishing to remove the
+hearth of the universe from its proper place. [906] This deification of
+the stars prepares us to find years, months, and seasons called Gods,
+[907] as was done by Zeno, or at least by his School. Yet, it must be
+remembered, that the Stoics referred these times and seasons to
+heavenly bodies, as their material embodiments. [908]
+
+As the stars are the first manifestation, so the elements are the first
+particular forms of the Divine Being, and the most common materials for
+the exercise of the divine powers. It is, however, becoming that the
+all-pervading divine mind should not only be honoured in its primary
+state, but likewise in its various derivate forms, as air, water,
+earth, and elementary fire. [909]
+
+All other things, too, which, by their utility to man, display in a
+high degree the beneficent power of God, appeared to the Stoics to
+deserve divine honours, such honours not being paid to the things
+themselves, but to the powers active within them. They did not,
+therefore, hesitate to give the names of Gods to fruits and wine, and
+other gifts of the Gods. [910]
+
+How, then, could they escape the inference that among other beneficent
+beings, the heroes of antiquity in particular deserve religious
+honours, seeing that in these benefactors of mankind, whom legend
+commemorates, the Divine Spirit did not show Himself under the lower
+form of a ἕξις, as in the elements, nor yet as simple φύσις, as in
+plants, but as a rational soul? Such deified men had, according to the
+Stoic view—which, on this point, agrees with the well-known theory of
+Euemerus—greatly helped to swell the number of the popular Gods; nor
+had the Stoics themselves any objection to their worship. [911] Add to
+this the personification of human qualities and states of mind, [912]
+and it will be seen what ample opportunity the Stoics had for
+recognising everywhere in nature and in the world of man divine
+agencies and powers, and, consequently, Gods in the wider sense of the
+term. [913] When once it is allowed that the name of God may be
+diverted from the Being to whom it properly belongs and applied, in a
+derivative sense, to what is impersonal and a mere manifestation of
+divine power, the door is opened to everything; and, with such
+concessions, the Stoic system could graft into itself even exceptional
+forms of polytheism.
+
+
+
+[(4) Doctrine of demons.]
+
+With the worship of heroes is also connected the doctrine of demons.
+[914] The soul, according to the Stoic view already set forth, is of
+divine origin, a part of and emanation from God. Or, distinguishing
+more accurately in the soul one part from the rest, divinity belongs to
+reason only, as the governing part. Now, since reason alone protects
+man from evil and conducts him to happiness—this, too, was the popular
+belief—reason may be described as the guardian spirit, or demon, in
+man. Not only by the younger members of the Stoic School, by
+Posidonius, Seneca, Epictetus, and Antoninus, are the popular notions
+of demons, as by Plato aforetime, [915] explained in this sense, [916]
+but the same method is pursued by Chrysippus, who made εὐδαιμονία, or
+happiness, consist in a harmony of the demon in man (which, in this
+case, can only be his own will and understanding) with the will of God.
+[917] Little were the Stoics aware that, by such explanations, they
+were attributing to popular notions a meaning wholly foreign to them.
+But it does not therefore follow that they shared the popular belief in
+guardian spirits. [918] Their system, however, left room for believing
+that, besides the human soul and the spirits of the stars, other
+rational souls might exist, having a definite work to perform in the
+world, subject to the law of general necessity, and knit into the chain
+of cause and effect. Nay, more, such beings might seem to them
+necessary for the completeness of the universe. [919] What reason have
+we, then, to express doubt, when we are told that the Stoics believed
+in the existence of demons, playing a part in man and caring for him?
+[920] Is there anything extraordinary, from the Stoic platform, in
+holding that some of these demons are by nature inclined to do harm,
+and that these tormentors are used by the deity for the punishment of
+the wicked, [921] especially when in such a strict system of necessity
+these demons could only work, like the powers of nature, conformably
+with the laws of the universe and without disturbing those laws,
+occupying the same ground as lightning, earthquakes, and drought? And
+yet the language of Chrysippus, when speaking of evil demons who
+neglect the duties entrusted to them, [922] sounds as though it were
+only figurative and tentative language, not really meant. Besides, the
+later Stoics made themselves merry over the Jewish and Christian
+notions of demons and demoniacal possession. [923]
+
+
+
+
+[B. The Allegorising Spirit.]
+
+Even without accepting demons, there were not wanting in the Stoic
+system points with which the popular beliefs could be connected, if it
+was necessary to find in these beliefs some deeper meaning. It mattered
+not that these beliefs were often so distorted in the process of
+accommodation as to be no
+
+
+
+[(1) Allegorical interpretation of myths.]
+
+longer recognised. The process required a regular code of
+interpretation by means of which a philosophic mind could see its own
+thoughts in the utterances of commonplace thinkers. By the Stoics, as
+by their Jewish and Christian followers, this code of interpretation
+was found in the method of allegorical interpretation—a method which
+received a most extended application, in order to bridge over the gulf
+between the older and the more modern types of culture. [924] Zeno, and
+still more Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and their successors, sought to
+discover natural principles and moral ideas—the λόγοι φυσικοὶ, or
+physicæ rationes,—in the Gods of popular belief and the stories of
+these Gods, [925] and supposed that such principles and ideas were
+represented in these stories in a sensuous form. [926] In this attempt,
+they clung to the poems of Homer and Hesiod, the Bible of the Greeks,
+[927] without, however, excluding other mythology from the sphere of
+their investigation. One chief instrument which they, and modern lovers
+of the symbolical following in their footsteps, employed was a
+capricious playing with etymologies of which so many instances are on
+record. [928] Like most allegorisers, they also laid down certain
+principles of interpretation sensible enough theoretically, [929] but
+proving, by the use which was made of them, that their scientific
+appearance was only a blind to conceal the most capricious vagaries.
+Approaching in some of their explanations to the original bases of
+mythological formation, they were still unable to shake off the curious
+notion that the originators of myths, fully conscious of all their
+latent meanings, had framed them as pictures to appeal to the senses;
+[930] and, in innumerable cases, they resorted to explanations so
+entirely without foundation that they would have been impossible to
+anyone possessing a sound view of nature and the origin of legends. To
+make theory tally with practice, the founder of the School—following
+Antisthenes, and setting an example afterwards repeated by both Jews
+and Christians—maintained that Homer only in some places expressed
+himself according to truth, in others according to popular opinion.
+[931] Thus did Stoicism surround itself with the necessary instruments
+for the most extended allegorical and dogmatic interpretation.
+
+
+
+[(2) Interpretation of the myths respecting the gods.]
+
+Proceeding further to enquire how this method was applied to particular
+stories, the first point which attracts attention is the contrast which
+they draw between Zeus and the remaining Gods. From their belief in one
+divine principle everywhere at work, it followed as a corollary that
+this contrast, which elsewhere in Greek mythology is only a difference
+of degree, was raised to a specific and absolute difference. Zeus was
+compared to other Gods as an incorruptible God to transitory divine
+beings. To the Stoics, as to their predecessor Heraclitus, Zeus is the
+one primary Being, who has engendered, and again absorbs into himself,
+all things and all Gods. He is the universe as a unity, the primary
+fire, the ether, the spirit of the world, the universal reason, the
+general law or destiny. [932] All other Gods, as being parts of the
+world, are only parts and manifestations of Zeus—only special names of
+the one God who has many names. [933] That part of Zeus which goes over
+into air is called Here (ἀήρ); and its lower strata, full of vapours,
+Hades; that which becomes elementary fire is called Hephæstus; that
+which becomes water, Poseidon; that which becomes earth, Demeter,
+Hestia, and Rhea; lastly, that portion which remains in the upper
+region is called Athene in the more restricted sense. And since,
+according to the Stoics, the finer elements are the same as spirit,
+Zeus is not only the soul of the universe, but Athene, Reason,
+Intelligence, Providence. [934] The same Zeus appears in other respects
+as Hermes, Dionysus, Hercules. [935] The Homeric story of the binding
+and liberation of Zeus [936] points to the truth, already established
+in Providence, that the order of the world rests on the balance of the
+elements. The rise and succession of the elements is symbolised in the
+hanging of Here; [937] the arrangement of the spheres of the universe,
+in the golden chain by which the Olympians thought to pull down Zeus.
+[938] The lameness of Hephæstus goes partly to prove the difference of
+the earthly from the heavenly fire, and partly implies that earthly
+fire can as little do without wood as the lame can do without a wooden
+support; and if, in Homer, Hephæstus is hurled down from heaven, the
+meaning of the story is, that in ancient times men lighted their fires
+by lightning from heaven and the rays of the sun. [939] The connection
+of Here with Zeus [940] points to the relation of the ether to the air
+surrounding it; and the well-known occurrence on Mount Ida was referred
+to the same event. [941] The still more offensive scene in the Samian
+picture was expounded by Chrysippus as meaning that the fertilising
+powers (λόγοι σπερματικοὶ) of God are brought to bear upon matter.
+[942] A similar meaning is found by Heraclitus in the story of Proteus,
+[943] and in that of the shield of Achilles. If Hephæstus intended this
+shield to be a representation of this world, what else is thereby meant
+but that, by the influence of primary fire, matter has been shaped into
+a world? [944]
+
+In a similar way, the Homeric theomachy was explained by many to mean a
+conjunction of the seven planets, which would involve the world in
+great trouble. [945] Heraclitus, however, gives the preference to an
+interpretation, half physical and half moral, which may have been
+already advanced by Cleanthes. [946] Ares and Aphrodite, rashness and
+profligacy, are opposed by Athene, or prudence; Leto, forgetfulness, is
+attacked by Hermes, the revealing word; [947] Apollo, the sun, by
+Poseidon, the God of the water, with whom, however, he comes to terms,
+because the sun is fed by the vapours of the water; Artemis, the moon,
+is opposed by Here, the air, through which it passes, and which often
+obscures it; Fluvius, or earthly water, by Hephæstus, or earthly fire.
+[948] That Apollo is the sun, and Artemis the moon, no one doubts;
+[949] nor did it cause any difficulty to these mythologists to find the
+moon also in Athene. [950] Many subtle discussions were set on foot by
+the Stoics respecting the name, the form, and the attributes of these
+Gods, particularly by Cleanthes, for whom the sun had particular
+importance, [951] as being the seat of the power which rules the world.
+[952] The stories of the birth of the Lotoides and the defeat of the
+dragon Pytho are, according to Antipater, symbolical of events which
+took place at the formation of the world, and the creation of the sun
+and moon. [953] Others find in the descent of two Gods from Leto the
+simpler thought, that sun and moon came forth out of darkness. [954] In
+the same spirit, Heraclitus, without disparaging the original meaning
+of the story, sees in the swift-slaying arrows of Apollo a picture of
+devastating pestilence; [955] but then, in an extraordinary manner,
+misses the natural sense, in gathering from the Homeric story of
+Apollo’s reconciliation (Il. i. 53) the lesson, that Achilles stayed
+the plague by the medical science which Chiron had taught him. [956]
+
+Far more plausible is the explanation given of the dialogue of Athene
+with Achilles, and of Hermes with Ulysses. These dialogues are stated
+to be simply soliloquies of the two heroes respectively. [957] But the
+Stoic skill in interpretation appears in its fullest glory in supplying
+the etymological meanings of the various names and epithets which are
+attributed to Athene. [958] We learn, for instance, that the name
+Τριτογένεια refers to the three divisions of philosophy. [959]
+Heraclitus discovers the same divisions in the three heads of Cerberus.
+[960] Chrysippus, in a diffuse manner, proves that the coming forth of
+the Goddess from the head of Zeus is not at variance with his view of
+the seat of reason. [961] It has been already observed that Dionysus
+means wine, and Demeter fruit; [962] but, just as the latter was taken
+to represent the earth and its nutritious powers, [963] so Dionysus was
+further supposed to stand for the principle of natural life, the
+productive and sustaining breath of life; [964] and since this breath
+comes from the sun, according to Cleanthes, it was not difficult to
+find the sun represented by the God of wine. [965] Moreover, the
+stories of the birth of Dionysus, his being torn to pieces by Titans,
+his followers, [966] no less than the rape of Proserpine, [967] and the
+institution of agriculture, [968] and the names of the respective Gods,
+afforded ample material for the interpreting tastes of the Stoics.
+
+The Fates (μοῖραι), as their name already indicates, stand for the
+righteous and invariable rule of destiny; [969] the Graces (χάριτες),
+as to whose names, number, and qualities Chrysippus has given the
+fullest discussion, [970] represent the virtues of benevolence and
+gratitude; [971] the Muses, the divine origin of culture. [972] Ares is
+war; [973] Aphrodite, unrestrained passion, or, more generally, absence
+of control. [974] Other interpreters, and among them Empedocles,
+consider Ares to represent the separating, Aphrodite the uniting, power
+of nature. [975] The stories of the two deities being wounded by
+Diomedes, [976] of their adulterous intrigues, and their being bound by
+Hephæstus, [977] are explained in various ways—morally, physically,
+technically, and historically.
+
+In the case of another God, Pan, the idea of the Allnear was suggested
+simply by the name. His shaggy goat’s feet were taken to represent the
+solid earth, and the human form of his upper limbs implied that the
+sovereign power in the world resides above. [978] To the Stoic without
+a misgiving as to these and similar explanations, [979] it was a matter
+of small difficulty to make the Titan Ἰάπετος stand for language or
+Ἰάφετος, and Κοῖος for quality or ποιότης. [980] Add to this the many
+more or less ingenious explanations of the well-known stories of Uranos
+and Cronos, [981] and we are still far from having exhausted the
+resources of the Stoic explanations of mythology. The most important
+attempts of this kind have, however, been sufficiently noticed.
+
+
+
+[(3) Allegory applied to heroic myths.]
+
+Besides the legends of the Gods, the legends of the heroes attracted
+considerable attention in the Stoic Schools. Specially were the persons
+of Hercules and Ulysses singled out for the sake of illustrating the
+ideal of the wise man. [982] But here, too, various modes of
+interpretation meet and cross. According to Cornutus, [983] the God
+Hercules must be distinguished from the hero of the same name—the God
+being nothing less than Reason, ruling in the world without a superior;
+[984] and the grammarian makes every effort to unlock with this key his
+history and attributes. Nevertheless, with all his respect for
+Cleanthes, [985] he could not accept that Stoic’s explanation of the
+twelve labours of Hercules. Heraclitus has probably preserved the chief
+points in this explanation. Hercules is a teacher of mankind, initiated
+into the heavenly wisdom. He overcomes the wild boar, the lion, and the
+bull, i.e. the lusts and passions of men; he drives away the deer, i.e.
+cowardice; he purifies the stall of Augeas from filth, i.e. he purifies
+the life of men from extravagances; he frightens away the birds, i.e.
+empty hopes; and burns to ashes the many-headed hydra of pleasure. He
+brings the keeper of the nether world to light, with his three
+heads—these heads representing the three chief divisions of philosophy.
+In the same way, the wounding of Here and Hades by Hercules is
+explained. Here, the Goddess of the air, represents the fog of
+ignorance, the three-barbed arrow undeniably (so thought the Stoics)
+pointing to philosophy, with its threefold division, in its heavenly
+flight. The laying prostrate of Hades by that arrow implies that
+philosophy has access even to things most secret. [986] The Odyssey is
+explained by Heraclitus in the same strain, nor was he apparently the
+first so to do. [987] In Ulysses you behold a pattern of all virtues,
+and an enemy of all vices. [988] He flees from the country of the
+Lotophagi, i.e. from wicked pleasures; he stays the wild rage of the
+Cyclopes; he calms the winds, having first secured a prosperous passage
+by his knowledge of the stars; the attractions of pleasure in the house
+of Circe he overcomes, penetrates into the secrets of Hades, learns
+from the Sirens the history of all times, saves himself from the
+Charybdis of profligacy and the Scylla of shamelessness, and, in
+abstaining from the oxen of the sun, overcomes sensuous desires. Such
+explanations may suffice to show how the whole burden of the myths was
+resolved into allegory by the Stoics, how little they were conscious of
+foisting in foreign elements, and how they degraded to mere symbols of
+philosophical ideas those very heroes on whose real existence they
+continually insisted.
+
+
+
+
+[C. Prophetic powers.]
+
+The Stoic theology has engaged a good deal of our attention, not only
+because it is instructive to compare their views, in general and in
+detail, with similar views advanced nowadays, but also because it forms
+a very characteristic and important part of their entire system. To us,
+much of it appears to be a mere worthless trifling; but, to the Stoics,
+these explanations were solemnly earnest. To them they seemed to be the
+only means of rescuing the people’s faith, of meeting the severe
+charges brought against tradition and the works of the poets, on which
+a Greek had been fed from infancy. [989] Unable to break entirely with
+these traditions, they still would not sacrifice to them their
+scientific and moral convictions. Can we, then, wonder that they
+attempted the impossible, and sought to unite contradictions? or that
+such an attempt landed them in forced and artificial methods of
+interpretation?
+
+
+
+[(1) Divination.]
+
+Illustrative of the attitude of the Stoics towards positive religion
+are their views on divination. [990] The importance attached by them to
+the prophetic art appears in the diligence which the chiefs of this
+School devoted to discussing it. The ground for the later teaching
+having been prepared by Zeno and Cleanthes, Chrysippus gave the
+finishing touch to the Stoic dogmas on the subject. [991] Particular
+treatises respecting divination were drawn up by Sphærus, Diogenes,
+Antipater, and, last of all, by Posidonius. [992] The subject was also
+fully treated by Boëthus, and by Panætius from a somewhat different
+side. [993] The common notions as to prognostics and oracles could not
+commend themselves to these philosophers, nor could they approve of
+common soothsaying. In a system so purely based on nature as theirs,
+[994] the supposition that God works for definite ends after the manner
+of men, exceptionally announcing to one or the other a definite
+result—in short, the marvellous—was out of place. But to infer
+thence—as their opponents, the Epicureans, did—that the whole art of
+divination is a delusion, was more than the Stoics could do. The belief
+in an extraordinary care of God for individual men was too comforting
+an idea for them to renounce; [995] they not only appealed to
+divination as the strongest proof of the existence of Gods and the
+government of Providence, [996] but they also drew the converse
+conclusion, that, if there be Gods, there must also be divination,
+since the benevolence of the Gods would not allow them to refuse to
+mankind so inestimable a gift. [997] The conception of destiny, too,
+and the nature of man, appeared to Posidonius to lead to the belief in
+divination; [998] if all that happens is the outcome of an unbroken
+chain of cause and effect, there must be signs indicating the existence
+of causes, from which certain effects result; [999] and if the soul of
+man is in its nature divine, it must also possess the capacity, under
+circumstances, of observing what generally escapes its notice. [1000]
+Lest, however, the certainty of their belief should suffer from lacking
+the support of experience, the Stoics had collected a number of
+instances of verified prophecies; [1001] but with so little
+discrimination, that we should only wonder at their credulity, did we
+not know the low state of historical criticism in their time, and the
+readiness with which, in all ages, men believe whatever agrees with
+their prejudices. [1002]
+
+In what way, then, can the two facts be combined—the belief in
+prophecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the denial of unearthly
+omens arising [(2) Prophecy explained by a reference to natural
+causes.] from an immediate divine influence? In answering this
+question, the Stoics adopted the only course which their system
+allowed. The marvellous, which, as such, they could not admit, was
+referred to natural laws, [1003] from which it was speculatively
+deduced. The admirable Panætius is the only Stoic who is reported to
+have maintained the independence of his judgment by denying omens,
+prophecy, and astrology. [1004] Just as in modern times Leibnitz and so
+many others both before and after him thought to purge away from the
+marvellous all that is accidental and superhuman, and to find in
+wonders links in the general chain of natural causes, so, too, the
+Stoics, by assuming a natural connection between the token and its
+fulfilment, made an effort to rescue omens and divination, and to
+explain portents as the natural symptoms of certain occurrences. [1005]
+Nor did they confine themselves to cases in which the connection
+between the prophecy and the event can be proved. [1006] They insisted
+upon divination in cases in which it cannot possibly be verified. The
+flight of birds and the entrails of victims are stated to be natural
+indications of coming events; and there is said to be even a formal
+connection between the positions of the stars and the individuals born
+under those positions. [1007] If it is urged, that in this case omens
+must be far more numerous than they are supposed to be, the Stoics
+answered, that omens are countless, but that only the meaning of a few
+is known to men. [1008] If the question is asked, how is it that, in
+public sacrifices, the priest should always offer those very animals
+whose entrails contain omens, Chrysippus and his followers did not
+hesitate to affirm that the same sympathy which exists between objects
+and omens also guides the sacrificer in the choice of a victim. [1009]
+And yet so bald was this hypothesis, that they had, at the same time, a
+second answer in reserve, viz. that the corresponding change in the
+entrails did not take place until the victim had been chosen. [1010] In
+support of such views, their only appeal was to the almighty power of
+God; but, in making this appeal, the deduction of omens from natural
+causes was at an end. [1011]
+
+The Stoics could not altogether suppress a suspicion that an
+unchangeable predestination of all events has rendered individual
+activity superfluous, [1012] nor meet the objection [1013] that, on the
+hypothesis of necessity, divination itself is unnecessary. [1014] They
+quieted themselves, however, with the thought that divination, and the
+actions resulting from divination, are included among the causes
+foreordained by destiny. [1015]
+
+
+
+[(3) Causes of divination.]
+
+Divination, or soothsaying, consists in the capacity to read and
+interpret omens; [1016] and this capacity is, according to the Stoics,
+partly a natural gift, and partly acquired by art and study. [1017] The
+natural gift of prophecy is based, as other philosophers had already
+laid down, [1018] on the relationship of the human soul to God. [1019]
+Sometimes it manifests itself in sleep, at other times in ecstasy.
+[1020] A taste for higher revelations will be developed, in proportion
+as the soul is withdrawn from the world of sense, and from all thought
+respecting things external. [1021] The actual cause of the prophetic
+gift was referred to influences coming to the soul partly from God or
+the universal spirit diffused throughout the world, [1022] and partly
+from the souls which haunt the air or demons. [1023] External causes,
+however, contribute to put people in a state of enthusiasm. [1024]
+
+Artificial prophesying, or the art of foretelling the future, depends
+upon observation and guess-work. [1025] One who could survey all causes
+in their effects on one another would need no observation. Such a one
+would be able to deduce the whole series of events from the given
+causes. But God alone is able to do this. Hence men must gather the
+knowledge of future events from the indications by which their coming
+is announced. [1026] These indications may be of every variety; and
+hence all possible forms of foretelling the future were allowed by the
+Stoics; the inspection of entrails, divination by lightning and other
+natural phenomena, by the flight of birds, and omens of every kind.
+[1027] Some idea of the mass of superstition which the Stoics admitted
+and encouraged may be gathered from the first book of Cicero’s treatise
+on divination. The explanation of these omens being, however, a matter
+of skill, individuals in this, as in every other art, may often go
+wrong in their interpretation. [1028] To make sure against mistakes
+tradition is partly of use, since it establishes by manifold
+experiences the meaning of each omen; [1029] and the moral state of the
+prophet is quite as important for scientifically foretelling the future
+as for the natural gift of divination. Purity of heart is one of the
+most essential conditions of prophetic success.
+
+In all these questions the moral character of Stoic piety is ever to
+the fore, and great pains were taken by the Stoics to bring their
+belief in prophecy into harmony with their philosophic view of the
+world. Nevertheless, it is clear that success could not be theirs
+either in making this attempt, or indeed in dealing with any other
+parts of the popular belief. Struggling with indefatigable zeal in an
+attempt so hopeless, they proved at least the sincerity of their wish
+to reconcile religion and philosophy; but they also disclosed by these
+endeavours a misgiving that science, which had put on so bold a face,
+was not in itself sufficient, but needed support from the traditions of
+religion, and from a belief in divine revelations. [1030] Probably we
+shall not be far wrong in referring to this practical need the seeming
+vagaries of men like Chrysippus, who, with the clearest intellectual
+powers, could be blind to the folly of the methods they adopted in
+defending untenable and antiquated opinions. These vagaries show in
+Stoicism practical interests preponderating over science. They also
+establish the connection of Stoicism with Schools which doubted
+altogether the truth of the understanding, and thought to supplement it
+by divine revelations. Thus the Stoic theory of divination leads
+directly to the Neopythagorean and Neoplatonic doctrine of revelation.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY AS A WHOLE AND ITS HISTORICAL POSITION.
+
+
+[A. Inner connection of the Stoic system.]
+
+Having now investigated the Stoic system in detail, we are in a
+position to pass a definite judgment on the scope of the Stoic
+philosophy, the import and the relation of its various parts, and its
+historical position. Its peculiar character manifests itself before all
+things in the three points to which attention was drawn at the outset:
+[1031]—its pre-eminently practical tone, the determination of this
+practical tendency by the notions of the good and of virtue, and the
+use of logic and natural science as a scientific basis. Speculative
+knowledge is not, as we have seen, to the Stoics an end in itself, but
+only a means for producing a right moral attitude; all philosophical
+research stands directly or indirectly in the service of virtue. Both
+in the earlier and in the later days of its existence the Stoic School
+advocated this principle in the most determined and exclusive manner,
+nor was it even denied by Chrysippus, the chief representative of its
+science and learning.
+
+
+
+[(1) Ethical side of Stoicism.]
+
+If it be then asked what is the right moral attitude, the Stoics reply:
+action conformable to nature and reason—in other words, virtue. Virtue,
+however, implies two things. On the one hand it implies the resignation
+of the individual to the universe, obedience to the universal law; on
+the other hand it implies the harmony of man with himself, the dominion
+of the higher over the lower nature, of reason over emotion, and the
+rising superior to everything which does not belong to his true nature.
+Both statements may be reconciled, because the law of morality is
+addressed only to reasonable beings, and is the law of their nature,
+and can only be carried into execution by their own exertions. Still,
+in the Stoic ethics, two currents of thought may be clearly
+distinguished, which from time to time come into actual collision; the
+one requiring the individual to live for the common good and for
+society, the other impelling him to live for himself only, to
+emancipate himself from all that is not himself, and to console himself
+with the feeling of virtue. The first of these tendencies impels man to
+seek the society of others; the second enables him to dispense with it.
+From the former spring the virtues of justice, sociability, love of
+man; from the latter, the inner freedom and happiness of the virtuous
+man. The former culminates in citizenship of the world; the latter in
+the self-sufficingness of the wise man. In as far as virtue includes
+everything that can be required of man, happiness depends on it alone;
+nothing is good but virtue, nothing is evil but vice; all that is not
+connected with the moral nature is indifferent. On the other hand, in
+as far as virtue is based on human nature, it stands on the same
+footing with all else that is conformable with nature. If its own
+peculiar value cannot be surrendered, no more can it be required that
+we should be indifferent to its conformity to nature, that it should
+not have for us some positive or negative value, or in some way affect
+our feelings. Therewith the doctrine of things indifferent and the wise
+man’s freedom from emotions begins to totter. Lastly, if we look at the
+way in which virtue exists in man, we arrive at different results,
+according as we look at its essence or its manifestation. Virtue
+consists in acting conformably with reason, and reason is one and
+undivided; hence it appears that virtue forms an undivided unity, and
+must be possessed whole and entire or not at all. From this proposition
+the contrast of the wise and foolish man, with all its bluntness and
+extravagances, is only a legitimate consequence. Or, again, if we look
+at the conditions upon which, owing to human nature, the acquisition
+and possession of virtue depends, the conviction is inevitable that the
+wise man as drawn by the Stoics never occurs in reality. Hence the
+conclusion is undeniable that the contrast between wise men and fools
+is more uncertain than it at first appeared to be. Thus all the main
+features of the Stoic ethics may be simply deduced from their one
+fundamental notion, that rational action or virtue is the only good.
+
+
+
+[(2) Scientific side of the Stoic system.]
+
+Not only does this view of ethics require a peculiar theory of the
+world to serve as its scientific basis, but it has a reflex action
+also, influencing alike the tone and the results of theoretic enquiry.
+If the duty of man is declared to consist in bringing his actions into
+harmony with the laws of the universe, it becomes also necessary that
+he should endeavour himself to know the world and its laws. The more
+his knowledge of the world increases, the greater will be the value
+which he attaches to the forms of scientific procedure. If, moreover,
+man is required to be nothing more than an instrument of the universal
+law, it is only consistent to suppose an absolute regularity of
+procedure in the universe, an unbroken connection of cause and effect,
+and ultimately to refer everything to one highest all-moving cause, and
+to include everything under one primary substance. If in human life the
+individual has no rights as against the laws of the universe, then all
+that is of individual occurrence in the world is powerless against
+universal necessity. On the other hand, if in the case of man
+everything turns upon strength of will, then likewise in the universe
+the acting power must be regarded as the highest and most exalted.
+There arises thus that view of the world as a series of forces which
+constitutes one of the most peculiar and thorough-going characteristics
+of the Stoic view of nature. [1032] Lastly, if such excessive
+importance is attached to practical conduct as is done by the Stoics,
+that sensuous view of the world which finds its crudest expression in
+the Stoic Materialism and reliance on the senses, [1033] will most
+nearly accord with speculation. At the same time the Materialism of the
+Stoics is limited and corrected by the conception of the universe and
+of a divine all-penetrating power and reason, just as their appeal to
+the senses is by the demand for the formation of conceptions, and the
+general application of the process of demonstration; the truth of
+knowledge itself is based on a practical postulate, the greater or less
+certainty of which is measured by the strength of personal conviction.
+If these elements proved too contradictory to be harmonised; if the
+Materialism of the Stoics was at variance with their view of the world
+as a series of forces; if appeals to the senses were obviously in
+conflict with logical method, it was at least thereby clearly
+established that a practical and not a purely intellectual interest lay
+at the root of their system.
+
+
+
+[(3) Connection of the moral and scientific elements.]
+
+This statement must of course not be taken to mean that the Stoics
+first developed their ethical principles independently of their theory
+of the universe, and afterwards brought the two into connection with
+each other. On the contrary, it was by the peculiar connection of
+theory and practice that Stoicism itself first came into existence. The
+leading thought of Zeno consists in the attempt to vindicate the
+supremacy of virtue by a scientific knowledge of the laws of the world;
+and he becomes the founder of a new School only by bringing to Cynicism
+those scientific ideas and aims which he had learned himself in the
+School of Polemo, Stilpo, and Diodorus, or otherwise gathered from a
+study of ancient philosophy. These elements are not therefore
+accidentally brought together in Stoicism, but they are co-extensive,
+and dependent one upon the other. As in the natural science and theory
+of knowledge of the Stoics, the experimental basis on which their
+system was built may be easily seen, so the peculiar development of
+their ethics supposes all those positions respecting the universe and
+the powers therein at work, which form the most important part of their
+natural science. Only by a scientific treatment of this kind was
+Stoicism at all able to improve upon the imperfection of the Cynic
+ethics, so far at least as it really did so, and to accommodate itself
+to the wants of human nature, so far as to be able to exercise an
+influence at large. Upon this union of ethics and metaphysics that
+religious attitude of the Stoic system reposes, to which it owes in a
+great measure its historical importance. Thereby it occupies so
+influential a position in an age in which intellectual power was indeed
+declining, but in which the interest for science was keen. But that
+Stoic physics and metaphysics should have adopted this line, and no
+other; that Zeno and his followers, who draw on former systems for
+their own on the most extensive scale, should have borrowed from these
+systems these and no other positions, and expanded them in this and no
+other direction; these results are, doubtless, ultimately due to their
+moral attitude. All that bore on the subject of ethics, and supported
+it, they appropriated; all that was opposed thereto they rejected. The
+Stoic system as such owes its rise to a union of ethical and
+speculative elements, in which both were more definitely determined by
+one another; still the ethical platform is the one on which its
+formation commences, and which primarily determined its course and
+results.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Relation of Stoicism to previous systems.]
+
+[(1) Its relation to Socrates and the Cynics.]
+
+In order to obtain a more accurate notion of the rise of Stoicism, the
+premises on which it proceeds, and the grounds on which it is based, we
+must take a glance at its relation to preceding systems. The Stoics
+themselves deduced their philosophical pedigree directly from
+Antisthenes, and indirectly from Socrates. [1034] Clear as is their
+connection with both these philosophers, it would nevertheless be a
+mistake to regard their teaching as a revival of Cynicism, still more
+to regard it as a simple following of Socrates. From both it
+undoubtedly borrowed much. The self-sufficiency of virtue, the
+distinction of things good, evil, and indifferent, the ideal picture of
+the wise man, the whole withdrawal from the outer world within the
+precincts of the mind, and the strength of moral will, are ideas taken
+from the Cynics. In the spirit of Cynicism, too, it explained general
+ideas as simply names. Not to mention many peculiarities of ethics, the
+contrasting of one God with the many popular Gods, and the allegorical
+explanation of myths, were likewise points borrowed from Cynicism. The
+identification of virtue with intelligence, the belief that virtue was
+one, and could be imparted by teaching, were at once in the spirit of
+Socrates and also in that of the Cynics. The argument for the existence
+of God based on the subordination of means to ends, the whole view of
+the world as a system of means and ends, and the Stoic theory of
+Providence, are views peculiarly Socratic; [1035] and the Stoics
+followed Socrates in ethics by identifying the good and the useful.
+
+And yet the greatness of the interval which separates the Stoics even
+from the Cynics becomes at once apparent on considering the relation of
+Aristo to the rest of the Stoic School. In refusing to meddle with
+natural or mental science, or even with ethical considerations at all,
+Aristo faithfully reflects the principles of Antisthenes. In asserting
+the unity of virtue to such an extent that all virtues are merged in
+one, he was only repeating similar expressions of Antisthenes. In
+denying any difference in value to things morally indifferent, and in
+placing the highest morality in this indifference, he was, according to
+the older writers, reasserting a Cynic tenet. [1036] Conversely in
+denying these statements, as the great majority of Stoics did, the
+points are indicated in which Stoicism differed from Cynicism. [1037]
+In the feeling of moral independence, and in invincible strength of
+will, the Cynic is opposed to the whole world; he needs for virtue no
+scientific knowledge of the world and its laws; he regards nothing
+external to himself; he allows nothing to influence his conduct, and
+attaches value to nothing; but, in consequence, he remains with his
+virtue confined to himself; virtue makes him independent of men and
+circumstances, but it has neither the will nor the power to interpose
+effectively in the affairs of life, and to infuse therein new moral
+notions. Stoicism insists upon the self-sufficiency of virtue quite as
+strongly as Cynicism, and will allow quite as little that anything
+except virtue can be a good in the strictest sense of the term. But in
+Stoicism the individual is not nearly so sharply opposed to the outer
+world as in Cynicism. The Stoic is too cultivated; he knows too well
+that he is a part of the universe to ignore the value of an
+intellectual view of the world, or to neglect the natural conditions of
+moral action, as things of no moment. What he aims at is not only a
+negation—independence from externals—but a positive position—life
+according to nature; and that life only he considers according to
+nature which is in harmony with the laws of the universe as well as
+with those of human nature. Hence Stoicism is not only far in advance
+of Cynicism by its intellectual attitude, but its moral philosophy also
+breathes a freer and milder spirit. Let only the principles of the
+Stoics on the necessity and value of scientific knowledge be compared
+with the sophistical assertions of Antisthenes, destructive of all
+knowledge; or the cultivated logical form of the intellectual edifice
+of the Stoics, with the chaotic condition of Cynic thought; or the
+careful metaphysical and psychological researches and the copious
+learning of the School of Chrysippus, with the Cynics’ contempt for all
+theory and all learned research, and it becomes apparent at once how
+deep-seated is the difference between the two systems, and how little
+Stoicism as a philosophic system can be deduced from Cynicism.
+
+In ethics, too, the difference of the two Schools is also fully
+apparent. Stoic morality recognises, at least conditionally, a positive
+and negative value in external things and circumstances; the Cynic
+allows to these absolutely no value. The former forbids affection
+contrary to reason, the latter any and every kind of affection. [1038]
+The former throws the individual back upon human society, the latter
+isolates him. The former teaches citizenship of the world in a positive
+sense, requiring all to feel themselves one with their fellow-men; the
+latter in a negative sense, that of feeling indifferent to home and
+family. The former has a pantheistic tone about it, due to the lively
+feeling of the connection between man and the universe, and a definite
+theological stamp owing to its taking a stand by positive religion; the
+latter has a rationalistic character, owing to the enfranchisement of
+the wise man from the prejudices of popular belief, with which it has
+exclusively to do. In all these respects Stoicism preserves the
+original character of the Socratic philosophy far better than Cynicism,
+which only caricatured them. Still it departs from that character in
+two respects. In point of theory the Stoic doctrine received a
+systematic form and development such as Socrates never contemplated;
+and in natural science, it cultivated a field avoided by Socrates on
+principle, however much its doctrine of Providence, and its view of
+nature as a system of means subordinated to ends, may remind of
+Socrates. On the other hand, interest in science, although limited to
+the subject of ethics, is with Socrates far deeper and stronger than
+with the Stoics, the latter pursuing scientific research only as a
+means for solving moral problems. Hence the Socratic theory of a
+knowledge of conceptions, simple though it may sound, contained a
+fruitful germ of unexpanded speculation, in comparison with which all
+that the Stoics did is fragmentary. The Stoic ethics are not only more
+expanded and more carefully worked out in detail than those of
+Socrates, but they are also more logical in clinging to the principle
+that virtue alone is an unconditional good. There are no concessions to
+current modes of thought, such as Socrates allowed, who practically
+based his doctrine of morals upon utility. On the other hand, the moral
+science of the Stoics also falls far short of the frankness and
+cheerfulness of the Socratic view of life. If in many respects it toned
+down the asperities of Cynicism, still it appropriated its leading
+principles far too unreservedly to avoid accepting a great number of
+its conclusions.
+
+Asking in the next place in how far the Stoics were induced by other
+influences to change and extend the platform of the Socratic
+philosophy, we have for determining the practical side of their system,
+besides the general tendency of the post-Aristotelian [(2) Relation to
+Megarians and Heraclitus.] philosophy, the example of Cynicism. Its
+speculative development, on the other hand, is partly connected with
+the Megarians, partly with Heraclitus; to the Megarians the personal
+connection of Zeno with Stilpo points, to Heraclitus the fact that from
+him the Stoics themselves deduced their views on natural science, which
+they expanded in commentaries on his writings. [1039]
+
+
+[(a) The Megarians.]
+
+Probably the Megarian influence must not be rated too high. Zeno may
+have thence received an impulse to that reasoning habit which appears
+with him in a preference for compressed sharp-pointed syllogisms;
+[1040] but in post-Aristotelian times, contact with Megarians was no
+longer wanted for this, and the greatest reasoner among the Stoics,
+Chrysippus, appears not only to have had no personal relations to them,
+but his logic is throughout a simple continuation of that of Aristotle.
+
+
+[(b) Heraclitus.]
+
+Far greater, and more generally recognised, is the importance of the
+influence which the views on nature of the philosopher of Ephesus
+exercised on the Stoics. A system which laid such emphasis on the
+subordination of everything individual to the law of the universe,
+which singled out universal reason from the flux of things as the one
+thing everlastingly and permanently the same—a system in many other
+ways so nearly related to their own, must have strongly commended
+itself to their notice, and offered them many points with which to
+connect their own. If to us the view that life is dependent for its
+existence on matter is repulsive, it was otherwise to the Stoics; for
+them this very theory possessed special attractions. Hence, with the
+exception of the threefold division of the elements, there is hardly a
+single point in the Heraclitean theory of nature which the Stoics did
+not appropriate:—fire or ether as the primary element, the oneness of
+this element with universal reason, the law of the universe, destiny,
+God, the flux of things, the gradual change of the primary element into
+the four elements, and of these back to the primary element, the
+regular alternation of creation and conflagration in the world, the
+oneness and eternity of the universe, the description of the soul as
+fiery breath, the identification of the mind with the demon, the
+unconditional sovereignty of the universal law over individuals—these
+and many other points in the Stoic system, originally derived from
+Heraclitus, [1041] prove how greatly this system is indebted to him.
+
+Nor must it be forgotten that there is nothing in Heraclitus analogous
+to the reasoning forms of the Stoics, nor can their ethical views be
+referred to his few and undeveloped hints. With all the importance the
+Stoics attached to natural science, it is with them only subordinate to
+moral science; and the very fact that it is referred to Heraclitus as
+its author, proves its inferior position, and the want of any
+independent interest in the subject. It is also unmistakeable that even
+in natural science the Stoics only partially follow Heraclitus, and
+that principles taken from Heraclitus often bear an altered meaning
+when wrought into the Stoic system. Omitting minor points, not only is
+the Stoic doctrine of nature in a formal point of view far more
+developed, and with regard to its extension far more comprehensive,
+than the corresponding doctrine of Heraclitus, but the whole Stoic view
+of the world is by no means so completely identical with his as might
+be supposed. The flux of things, which the Stoics teach equally with
+Heraclitus, [1042] has not for them that overwhelming importance that
+it had for him. The matter of which the universe consists may be always
+going over into new forms, but, at the same time, it is for them the
+permanent material and essence of things. [1043] Individual substances,
+too, are treated by the Stoics as corporeally permanent. [1044]
+Moreover, from the material they distinguish the active principle,
+Reason or deity, far more definitely than Heraclitus had done, and the
+same distinction is carried into individual things in the contrast
+between matter and quality. Thereby it becomes possible for them to
+contrast much more sharply than their predecessor had done the reason
+of the world, and the blindly working power of nature. Heraclitus, it
+would appear, confined his attention to observing nature and describing
+its elementary meteorological processes. But the natural science of the
+Stoics includes the idea of means working for ends. It sees the object
+in referring the whole arrangement of the world to man, and it pursues
+this line of thought exclusively, neglecting in consequence science
+proper. Hence the idea of sovereign reason or the universal law had not
+the same meaning in the minds of both. Heraclitus sees this reason,
+primarily and chiefly, in the ordinary sequence of natural phenomena,
+in the regularity of the course by which to each individual phenomenon
+its place in the world, its extent and duration are prescribed—in
+short, in the unchanging coherence of nature. Without excluding this
+aspect in their proofs of the existence of God and the rule of
+Providence, the Stoics attach the chief importance to the
+serviceableness of the order of nature. The reason which rules the
+world appears in Heraclitus primarily as a natural power; in the
+Stoics, as intelligence working with a purpose. For Heraclitus Nature
+is the highest object, the object of independent and absolute interest;
+and hence the infinite Being is no more than the power which forms the
+world. The Stoics regard nature from the platform of humanity, as a
+means for the wellbeing and activity of man. Their deity accordingly
+does not work as a simple power of nature, but essentially as the
+wisdom which cares for the wellbeing of man. The highest conception in
+the system of Heraclitus is that of nature or destiny. Stoicism
+accepted this conception also, but at the same time developed it to the
+higher idea of Providence.
+
+
+
+[(3) Connection with Aristotle.]
+
+Shall we be wrong if we attribute this modification of the Heraclitean
+theory of nature by the Stoics partly to the influence of Socrates’ and
+Plato’s theory of final causes, but in a still greater degree to the
+influence of the Aristotelian philosophy? To Aristotle belongs properly
+the idea of matter without qualities, no less than the distinction
+between a material and a formal cause. Aristotle applied the idea of
+purpose to natural science far more extensively than any other system
+had done before; and although the mode in which the Stoics expressed
+this idea has more resemblance to the popular theological statements of
+Socrates and Plato than to Aristotle, still the Stoic conception of a
+natural power working with a purpose, such as is contained in the idea
+of artificial fire and λόγοι σπερματικοὶ, is essentially Aristotelian.
+Even many positions which appear to be advanced in opposition to
+Aristotle were yet connected with him. Thus the existence of ether as a
+body distinct from the four elements is denied, and yet in point of
+fact it is asserted under a new name—that of artificial fire. The
+Peripatetic doctrine of the origin of the rational soul is contradicted
+by the Stoic theory of development, and yet the latter is based on a
+statement in Aristotle to the effect that the germ of the animal soul
+lies in the warm air [1045] which surrounds the seed, warm air which
+Aristotle distinguishes from fire quite as carefully as Zeno and
+Cleanthes distinguished the two kinds of fire. Even the point of
+greatest divergence from Aristotelian teaching—the transformation of
+the human soul and the divine spirit into something corporeal—might yet
+be connected with Aristotle, and, indeed, the Peripatetic School here
+comes to their assistance. For had not Aristotle described the ether as
+the most divine body, the stars formed out of it as divine and happy
+beings? Had he not brought down the acting and moving forces from a
+heavenly sphere to the region of earth? Had he not, as we have just
+seen, sought the germ of the soul in an ethereal matter? And might not
+others go a little further and arrive at materialistic views? and all
+the more so, seeing how hard it is to conceive the extra-mundane
+intelligence of Aristotle, at once as incorporeal, and yet touching and
+encircling the world of matter, and to make personal unity in the human
+soul accord with an origin in a reason coming from above?
+
+The way for Stoicism was more directly paved by the Aristotelian
+speculations as to the origin of notions and conceptions. Here the
+Stoics did little more than omit (in conformity with their principles)
+what their predecessor had said as to an original possession and
+immediate knowledge of truth. It has been remarked on an earlier
+occasion how closely their formal logic followed that of Aristotle;
+they contented themselves with building on Aristotelian foundations,
+and even their additions have more reference to grammar than to logic.
+The actual influence of Peripatetic views on those of the Stoics
+appears to have been least in the province of ethics. Here the crudity
+of the Stoic conception of virtue, the entire suppression of emotions,
+the absolute exclusion of everything external from the circle of moral
+goods, the distinction between the wise and the foolish man, the
+attacks on a purely speculative life, present a sharp contrast to the
+caution and many-sidedness of Aristotle’s moral theory, to his careful
+weighing of current opinions and their practicability, to his
+recognition of propriety in every shape and form, and to the praise
+which he lavishes on a purely speculative life. What the Stoics chiefly
+owe to Aristotle is the formal treatment of the materials and the
+psychological analysis of individual moral faculties. On the other
+hand, the province of ethics must be looked to for traces of the
+teaching which Zeno received from Polemo, perhaps even from Xenocrates.
+
+
+
+[(4) Connection with Plato.]
+
+The speculative portions of Plato’s teaching could offer no great
+attractions to practical men and materialists like the Stoics, either
+in their original form or in the form which they assumed in the older
+Academy under Pythagorean influence. On the other hand, such points in
+Platonism as the Socratic habit of making knowledge the foundation of
+virtue, the comparative depreciation of external goods, the
+disparagement of all that is sensual, the elevation and the purity of
+moral idealism, and, in the older Academy, the demand for life
+according to nature, the doctrine of the self-sufficingness of virtue,
+and the growing tendency to confine philosophy to practical issues—all
+these were questions for a Stoic full of interest. Unfounded as the
+notion of the later Eclectics is, [1046] that the Stoic and Academician
+systems of morality were altogether the same, the Stoics, nevertheless,
+appear to have received suggestions from the Academy which they carried
+out in a more determined spirit. Thus the theory of living according to
+nature belongs originally to the Academy, although the Stoics adopted
+it with a peculiar and somewhat different meaning. Besides influencing
+the moral doctrines of the Stoics, the attitude assumed by the older
+Academy towards positive religion may also have had some influence on
+their orthodoxy; their most prominent representative, Cleanthes, is in
+his whole philosophic character the counterpart of Xenocrates. Although
+later in its origin than Stoicism, the new Academy was not without
+important influence on that system, through the person of Chrysippus,
+but this influence was at first only of an indirect kind, inasmuch as
+it obliged the Stoics by its logical contradiction to look about for a
+more logical basis for their system, and therewith to attempt a more
+systematic expansion of their teaching. [1047] Somewhat similar is the
+effect of Epicureanism, which by its strong opposition in the field of
+ethics imparted decision and accuracy to the Stoic doctrine, and thus
+indirectly helped to form it.
+
+
+
+
+[C. The Stoic philosophy as a whole.]
+
+[(1) Its historical position.]
+
+By the aid of these remarks it now becomes possible to give a
+satisfactory account of the history of Stoicism. Belonging to an age of
+moral debasement and political oppression, its founder, Zeno, conceived
+the idea of liberating himself and all who were able to follow him from
+its degeneracy and slavery by means of a philosophy which, by purity
+and strength of moral will, would procure independence from all
+external things, and unruffled inward peace. That his endeavours should
+have taken this practical turn, that he should have proposed to himself
+not knowledge as such, but the moral exercise of knowledge as the
+object to be realised, was in part due to his own personal character,
+and may be in part referred to the general circumstances of the times.
+On nobler and more serious minds, these circumstances weighed too
+heavily not to call forth opposition and resistance in place of
+listless contemplation. The sway of the Macedonian, and afterwards of
+the Roman Empire, was far too despotic to allow the least prospect of
+open resistance. Nor must it be overlooked that philosophy itself had
+reached a pass at which satisfactory answers to speculative problems
+were no longer forthcoming; hence attention was naturally directed to
+questions of morals.
+
+Haunted by this longing for virtue, Zeno must have felt attracted by a
+system of philosophy which had at an earlier period followed a similar
+course with marked success, viz. the system of the Cynics, and what he
+doubtless identified therewith, the old Socratic teaching. [1048]
+Anxious to find a positive meaning and scientific basis for virtue, he
+strove to appropriate from every system whatever agreed with the bent
+of his own mind. By using all the labours of his predecessors, and
+keeping his eye steadily fixed upon the practical end of philosophy, he
+succeeded in forming a new and more comprehensive system, which was
+afterwards completed by Chrysippus. In point of form this system was
+most indebted to the Peripatetic philosophy; in point of matter, next
+to its debt to the Cynics, which has been already mentioned, its chief
+obligation was to Heraclitus. But the moral theory of the Stoics was as
+little identical with that of the Cynics, as the natural science of the
+Stoics was with that of Heraclitus. If the divergence was, in the first
+instance, due to the influence of the Stoic principles, still the
+influence of the Peripatetic teaching is unmistakeable in the natural
+and speculative science of the Stoics, and the influence of the Academy
+in their moral science. Stoicism does not, therefore, appear simply as
+a continuation of Cynicism, nor yet as an isolated innovation, but,
+like every other form of thought which marks an epoch, it worked up
+into itself all previous materials, and produced from their combination
+a new result. In this process of assimilation much that was beautiful
+and full of meaning was omitted; everything was absorbed that could be
+of use in the new career on which the Greek mind was about to enter.
+
+
+
+[(2) Its onesidedness.]
+
+It was the fault of the age that it could no longer come up to the
+many-sidedness of an Aristotle or a Plato. Stoicism, it is true,
+approximates thereto more nearly than any other of the
+post-Aristotelian systems. But in its practical view of philosophy, in
+its materialistic appeal to the senses, in its theoretical
+self-sufficiency, setting up the wise man as superior to the weaknesses
+and wants of human nature; in its citizenship of the world, throwing
+political interests into the background; and in so many other traits it
+is the fit exponent of an epoch in which the taste for purely
+scientific research and the delight in ethical speculation were at an
+end, whilst out of the overthrow of states, and the growth of freedom,
+the idea of humanity was coming to the fore. Stoicism represented most
+powerfully the moral and religious convictions of such an age, yet not
+without onesidedness and exaggeration. By exercise of the will and by
+rational understanding, man is to become free and happy. This aim is,
+however, pursued so persistently that the natural conditions of human
+existence and the claims of individuality are ignored. To man, regarded
+as the exponent of universal law, as little freedom of will is allowed
+by the Stoic natural science in face of the inexorable course of nature
+as freedom of action is allowed by the Stoic ethics in face of the
+demands of duty. The universal claims of morality are alone
+acknowledged; the right of the individual to act according to his
+peculiar character, and to develop that character, is almost ignored.
+The individual, as such, dwindles into obscurity, whilst a high place
+in the world is assigned to mankind collectively. The individual is
+subordinated to the law of the whole; but by regarding nature as a
+system of means and ends, and introducing the belief in Providence and
+Prophecy, the universe is again subordinated to the interests of man—a
+view against which a more careful research has many objections to urge.
+In both respects Epicureanism is in decided contrast to Stoicism,
+though agreeing with it in the general tone of its practical philosophy
+and in its aim to make man independent of the outer world and happy in
+himself.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PART III.
+
+THE EPICUREANS.
+
+
+CHAPTER XV.
+
+EPICURUS AND THE EPICUREAN SCHOOL. [1049]
+
+
+[A. Epicurus.]
+
+Epicurus, the son of the Athenian Neocles, [1050] was born in Samos
+[1051] in the year 342 or 341 B.C. [1052] His early education appears
+to have been neglected; [1053] and his knowledge of previous
+philosophic systems was very superficial, even at the time when he
+first came forward as an independent teacher. Still he can hardly have
+been so entirely self-taught as he wished to appear at a later period
+in life. The names, at least, of the individuals are on record who
+instructed him in the systems of Democritus and Plato; [1054] and
+although it is by no means an ascertained fact that he subsequently
+attended the lectures of Xenocrates, [1055] on the occasion of a visit
+to Athens, [1056] no doubt can be felt that he was acquainted with the
+writings of previous philosophers, from whom he borrowed important
+parts of his system [1057] and more particularly with those of
+Democritus.
+
+After having been engaged as a teacher in several Schools [1058] in
+Asia Minor, he repaired to Athens about the year 306 B.C., [1059] and
+there founded a School of his own. [1060] The meeting-place of this
+School was the founder’s garden, [1061] and its centre of attraction
+was the founder himself, around whom a circle of friends gathered, knit
+together by a common set of principles, by a common affection for a
+master whom they almost worshipped, and by a common enjoyment of
+cultivated society. [1062] Opponents charged the Epicureans with gross
+impropriety, because they admitted not only women, [1063] but women of
+loose morality, [1064] to this circle of philosophic culture; but in
+the then state of Greek society, such conduct does not appear
+extraordinary. Here Epicurus laboured for six and thirty years, during
+which he succeeded in impressing a stamp on his School which is now
+seen definite and unchanged after the lapse of centuries. In the year
+270 B.C. [1065] he succumbed to disease, the pains and troubles of
+which he bore with great fortitude. [1066] Out of the multitude of his
+writings [1067] only a few have come down to us, and these are for the
+most part unimportant ones. [1068] On the whole, these fragments [1069]
+bear out the unfavourable opinions which opponents have expressed with
+regard to his style. [1070]
+
+
+
+
+[B. Scholars of Epicurus.]
+
+Among the numerous scholars of Epicurus [1071] the best known are
+Metrodorus [1072] and Polyænus, [1073] both of whom died before their
+master; Hermarchus, [1074] upon whom the presidency of the School
+devolved after the death of Epicurus; [1075] and Colotes, [1076]
+against whom Plutarch, four hundred years later, wrote a treatise. Many
+others are also known, at least by name. [1077] The garden which
+Epicurus in his will left to the School [1078] continued after his
+death to be the external rallying-point for his followers. Hermarchus
+was succeeded by Polystratus, [1079] with whom Hippoclides is also
+mentioned [1080] as joint-president. Hermarchus and Hippoclides were
+succeeded by Dionysius, and Dionysius again by Basilides. [1081]
+Protarchus of Bargylium, [1082] and his pupil, Demetrius the Laconian,
+[1083] appear to belong to the second century before Christ; but the
+time in which these philosophers flourished cannot be established with
+certainty; and the same remark applies to several others whose names
+are on record. [1084]
+
+
+
+
+[C. Epicureans of the Roman period.]
+
+Before the middle of the second century B.C. Epicureanism is said to
+have obtained a footing in Rome. [1085] It is certain that it existed
+there not long afterwards. C. Amafinius is mentioned as the first who
+paved the way for the spread of Epicurean doctrines by discussing them
+in Latin; [1086] and it is stated that these doctrines soon found many
+supporters, attracted partly by their merits, but more often by the
+simplicity and the ease with which they could be understood. [1087]
+
+Towards the close of the second century Apollodorus, one of the most
+voluminous writers on philosophy, taught at Athens. [1088] His pupil,
+Zeno of Sidon, the most important among the Epicureans of that age,
+laboured for a long time successfully, both orally and in writing.
+[1089] About the same time Phædrus is heard of in Rome and Athens,
+[1090] and at a little later period Philodemus, [1091] and Syro or
+Sciro in Rome, [1092] and Patro, [1093] the successor of Phædrus, in
+Athens. The number of Epicureans at Rome, known to us chiefly from
+Cicero’s writings, [1094] is not small. No one of them has obtained a
+higher repute than T. Lucretius Carus. [1095] His poem, carefully
+reproducing the Epicurean notions on natural science, is one of the
+most valuable sources for the knowledge of their system. Contemporary
+with Lucretius was the celebrated physician Asclepiades of Bithynia,
+[1096] who resided at Rome, but to judge by the views on nature
+attributed to him, he was no genuine Epicurean, although connected with
+the Epicurean School. [1097]
+
+In the following century several supporters of the practical philosophy
+of the Epicureans are known to us, [1098] but no one apparently
+approaching Zeno or Phædrus in scientific importance. Rehabilitated
+under the Antonines by the establishment of a public chair in Athens,
+the Epicurean School outlived most other systems, and continued to
+exist as late as the fourth century after Christ. [1099]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVI.
+
+CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THE EPICUREAN TEACHING: THE TEST-SCIENCE OF
+TRUTH.
+
+
+[A. Character of Epicurean system.]
+
+[(1) Its power of self-preservation.]
+
+The scientific value and capacity for development of Epicureanism are
+out of all proportion to its extensive diffusion and the length of time
+during which it continued to flourish. No other system troubled itself
+so little about the foundation on which it rested; none confined itself
+so exclusively to the utterances of its founder. Such was the dogmatism
+with which Epicurus propounded his precepts, such the conviction he
+entertained of their excellence, that his pupils were required to
+commit summaries of them to memory; [1100] and the superstitious
+devotion for the founder was with his approval [1101] carried to such a
+length, that on no single point was the slightest deviation from his
+tenets permitted. Although, even in Cicero’s time, the writings of
+Epicurus and Metrodorus found hardly a reader outside the School,
+[1102] yet it is asserted that as late as the first and second
+centuries after Christ the Epicureans clung tenaciously to their
+master’s teaching. [1103] Probably it was easier for an Epicurean than
+for any other thinker to act thus. Like his master, [1104] he was
+indifferent to the labours of other philosophers, or unable to
+appreciate their merits. [1105] For us this conduct of theirs has one
+advantage: we can be far more certain that the Epicurean teaching
+reflects that of the founder than we can that this is so in the case of
+the Stoics. But this philosophical sterility, this mechanical handing
+down of unchangeable principles, places the intellectual value of
+Epicureanism on the lowest level. The servile dependence of the
+Epicurean School on its founder can neither excuse its mental idleness
+nor recommend a system so powerless to give an independent training to
+its supporters.
+
+
+
+[(2) Aim of philosophy according to the Epicureans.]
+
+The want of intellectual taste here displayed appears also in the view
+taken by Epicurus of the aim and business of philosophy. If among the
+Stoics the subordination of theory to practice was frequently felt,
+among the Epicureans this subordination was carried to such an extent
+as to lead to a depreciation of all science. The aim of philosophy was,
+with them, to promote human happiness. Indeed, philosophy is nothing
+else than an activity helping us to happiness by means of speech and
+thought. [1106] Nor is happiness, according to Epicurus, directly
+promoted by knowledge, but only indirectly in as far as knowledge
+ministers to practical needs, or clears away hindrances to their
+attainment. All science which does not serve this end is superfluous
+and worthless. [1107] Epicurus, therefore, despised learning and
+culture, the researches of grammarians, and the lore of historians, and
+declared it a piece of good fortune for simplicity of feeling to be
+uncontaminated by learned rubbish. [1108] Nor was his opinion different
+respecting mathematical science, of which he was wholly ignorant.
+[1109] The calculations of mathematicians, he maintained, are based on
+false principles; [1110] at any rate, they contribute nothing to human
+happiness, and it is therefore useless and foolish to trouble oneself
+about them. [1111] The theory of music and poetry he likewise found
+exceedingly irksome, although he took pleasure in music itself and the
+theatre; [1112] and rhetoric, as an artificial guide to eloquence,
+seemed to him as worthless as the show-speeches which are the only
+result of the study of it. The power of public speaking is a matter of
+practice and of momentary feeling, and hence the skilful speaker is far
+from being a good statesman. [1113] The greater part of logical
+enquiries fared no better in his judgment. Himself no logician, he set
+little store by logic. Definitions are of no use; the theory of
+division and proof may be dispensed with; the philosopher does best to
+confine himself to words, and to leave all the logical ballast alone.
+[1114] Of all the questions which engrossed the attention of Stoic
+logicians, one only, the theory of knowledge, was studied by Epicurus,
+and that in a very superficial way. [1115]
+
+Far greater, comparatively, was the importance he attached to the study
+of nature, [1116] but even natural science was deemed valuable not so
+much for its own sake as because of its practical use. The knowledge of
+natural causes is the only means of liberating the soul from the
+shackles of superstition; this is the only use of natural science. If
+it were not for the thought of God and the fear of death, there would
+be no need of studying nature. [1117] The investigation of our
+instincts is also of use, because it helps us to control them, and to
+keep them within their natural bounds. [1118] Thus the onesided
+practical view of philosophy which we have already encountered in
+Stoicism was carried by the Epicureans to an extreme length.
+
+
+
+[(3) Divisions of philosophy.]
+
+Nor is it otherwise than in harmony herewith that logic did not receive
+a fuller or more perfect treatment in the further development of their
+system. Even the study of nature, going far more fully into particulars
+than logic, was guided entirely by practical considerations, all
+scientific interest in nature being ignored. Following the usual
+method, however, the Epicureans divided philosophy into three parts
+[1119]—logic, natural science, and moral science. Limiting the first of
+these parts to one branch of logic, the part which deals with the
+characteristics of truth, and which they therefore called neither
+logic, nor dialectic, but Canonic, they really reduced this part to a
+mere introductory appendage to the two other parts, [1120] and studied
+Canonic as a part of natural science. [1121] Natural science moreover
+was so entirely subordinated to moral science, that we might almost
+feel tempted to follow some modern writers [1122] in their view of the
+Epicurean system, by giving to moral science precedence of the two
+other parts, or at least of natural science. [1123] The School,
+however, followed the usual order, and not without reason; [1124] for
+although the whole tendency of the Epicurean Canonic and natural
+science can only, like the Stoic, be explained by a reference to moral
+science, yet moral science with them presupposes the test-science of
+truth and natural science. We shall, therefore, do well to treat of
+Canonic in the first place, and subsequently to prove how this branch
+of study depends on Ethics.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Canonic or the test-science of truth.]
+
+[(1) Sensation and perception.]
+
+Canonic or the test-science of truth, as has been observed, is occupied
+with investigating the standard of truth, and with enquiring into the
+mode of acquiring knowledge. The whole of formal logic, the doctrine of
+the formation of conceptions and conclusions, is omitted by Epicurus.
+[1125] Even the theory of the acquisition of knowledge assumes with him
+a very simple form. If the Stoics were fain, notwithstanding their
+ideal ethics and their pantheistic speculations, ultimately to take
+their stand on materialism, could Epicurus avoid doing the same? In
+seeking a speculative basis for a view of life which refers everything
+to the feeling of pleasure or pain, he appealed far more unreservedly
+than they had done to sensation. Now, since the senses can alone inform
+us what is pleasant or unpleasant, and what is desirable or the
+contrary, our judgment as to truth or falsehood must ultimately depend
+on the senses. Viewed speculatively, sensation is the standard of
+truth; viewed practically, the feeling of pleasure or pain. [1126] If
+the senses may not be trusted, still less may knowledge derived from
+reason be trusted, since reason itself is primarily and entirely
+derived from the senses. There remains, therefore, no distinctive mark
+of truth, and no possibility of certain conviction. We are at the mercy
+of unlimited doubt. If, however, this doubt is contradictory of
+itself—for how can men declare they know, that they can know
+nothing?—it is also contradictory of human nature, since it would do
+away not only with all knowledge but with every possibility of
+action—in short, with all the conditions on which human life depends.
+[1127] To avoid doubt we must allow that sensation as such is always,
+and under all circumstances, to be trusted; nor ought the delusions of
+the senses to shake our belief; the causes of these deceptions do not
+lie in sensation as such, but in our judgment about sensation. What the
+senses supply is only that an object produces this or that effect upon
+us, and that this or that picture has impressed our soul. The facts
+thus supplied are always true, only it does not follow that the object
+exactly corresponds with the impression we receive of it, or that it
+produces on others the same impression that it produces on us. Many
+different pictures may emanate from one and the same object, and these
+pictures may be changed on their way to the ear or eye. Pictures, too,
+may strike our senses with which no real objects correspond. To
+confound the picture with the thing, the impression made with the
+object making the impression, is certainly an error, but this error
+must not be laid to the charge of the senses, but to that of opinion.
+[1128] Indeed, how is it possible, asks Epicurus, [1129] to refute the
+testimony of the senses? Can reason refute it? But reason is itself
+dependent on the senses, and cannot bear testimony against that on
+which its own claims to belief depend. Or can one sense convict another
+of error? But different sensations do not refer to the same object, and
+similar sensations have equal value. Nothing remains, therefore, but to
+attach implicit belief to every impression of the senses. Every such
+impression is directly certain, and is accordingly termed by Epicurus
+clear evidence (ἐνάργεια). [1130] Nay, more, its truth is so paramount
+that the impressions of madmen, and appearances in dreams, are true
+because they are caused by something real, [1131] and error only
+becomes possible when we go beyond sensation.
+
+
+
+[(2) Notions.]
+
+This going beyond sensation becomes, however, a necessity. By a
+repetition of the same perception a notion (πρόληψις) arises. A notion,
+therefore, is nothing else than the general picture retained in the
+mind of what has been perceived. [1132] On these notions retained by
+memory depend all speaking and thinking. They are what commonly go
+under the name of things; and speech is only a means of recalling
+definite perceptions [1133] to the memory. Notions are presupposed in
+all scientific knowledge. [1134] Together with sensations they form the
+measure of the truth of our convictions; [1135] and it holds true of
+them as it did of sensations—that they are true in themselves and need
+no proof. [1136] Taken by themselves, notions, like perceptions, are
+reflections in the soul of things on which the transforming action of
+the mind, changing external impressions into conceptions, has not as
+yet been brought to bear.
+
+
+
+[(3) Opinion.]
+
+For this very reason notion are not sufficient. From appearances we
+must advance to their secret causes; from the known to the unknown.
+[1137] Far too little value was attached by Epicurus to the logical
+forms of thought, or he would have investigated more accurately the
+nature of this process of advancing. [1138] Thoughts, in his view,
+result from sensations spontaneously, and although a certain amount of
+reflection is necessary for the process, yet it requires no scientific
+guidance. [1139] The thoughts arrived at in this way do not stand as a
+higher genus above perceptions, but they are only opinions (ὑπόληψις,
+δόξα) without a note of truth in themselves, and depending for their
+truth upon sensation. That opinion may be considered a true one which
+is based on the testimony of the senses, or is at least not contrary to
+the senses, and that a false opinion in which the opposite is the case.
+[1140] Sometimes we suppose that upon certain present impressions other
+impressions will follow: for instance, that a tower which appears round
+at a distance will appear round close at hand. In that case, if the
+real perception corresponds with the assumption, the opinion is true,
+otherwise it is false. [1141] At other times we suppose that certain
+appearances are due to secret causes: for instance, that empty space is
+the cause of motion. If all appearances tally with their explanations,
+we may consider our assumptions correct; if not, our assumptions are
+incorrect. [1142] In the first case the test of the truth of an opinion
+is that it is supported by experience; in the latter that it is not
+refuted by experience. [1143] Have we not here all the leading features
+of a theory of knowledge based purely on sensation? The Epicurean’s
+interest in these questions was, however, far too slight to construct
+with them a developed theory of materialism.
+
+
+
+[(4) Standard of truth subjective.]
+
+Little pains seem to have been taken by Epicurus to overcome the
+difficulties by which this view was beset. If all sensations as such
+are true, the saying of Protagoras necessarily follows that for each
+individual that is true which seems to him to be true, that contrary
+impressions about one and the same object are true, and that deceptions
+of the senses, so many instances of which are supplied by experience,
+are really impossible. To avoid these conclusions, Epicurus maintained
+that for each different impression there is a different object-picture.
+What immediately affects our senses is not the object itself, but a
+picture of the object, and these pictures may be innumerable, a
+different one being the cause of each separate sensation. Moreover,
+although the pictures emanating from the same object are in general
+nearly alike, it is possible that they may differ from one another
+owing to a variety of causes. If, therefore, the same object appears
+different to different individuals, the cause of these different
+sensations is not one and the same, but a different one, and different
+pictures must have affected their senses. If our own sensations deceive
+us, the blame does not belong to our senses, as though they had
+depicted to us unreal objects, but to our judgment for drawing
+unwarranted inferences from pictures [1144] as to their causes.
+
+This line of argument, however, only removes the difficulty one step
+further. Sensation is said always to reproduce faithfully the picture
+which affects the organs of sense, but the pictures do not always
+reproduce the object with equal faithfulness. How then can a faithful
+picture be known from one which is not faithful? To this question the
+Epicurean system can furnish no real answer. To say that the wise man
+knows how to distinguish a faithful from an unfaithful picture [1145]
+is to despair of an absolute standard at all, and to make the decision
+of truth or error depend upon the individual’s judgment. Such a
+statement reduces all our impressions of the properties of things to a
+relative level. If sensation does not show us things themselves, but
+only those impressions of them which happen to affect us, it does not
+supply us with a knowledge of things as they are, but as they happen to
+be related to us. It was, therefore, a legitimate inference from this
+theory of knowledge for Epicurus to deny that colour belongs to bodies
+in themselves, since some only see colour in the dark, whilst others do
+not. [1146] Like his predecessor, Democritus, he must have been brought
+to this view by his theory of atoms. Few of the properties belong to
+atoms which we perceive in things, and hence all other properties must
+be explained as not belonging to the essence, but only to the
+appearance of things. [1147] The taste for speculation was, however,
+too weak, and the need of a direct truth of the senses too strong in
+Epicurus for him to be able to turn his thoughts in this direction for
+long. Whilst allowing to certain properties of things only a relative
+value, he had no wish to doubt the reality of objects, nor to disparage
+the object-pictures which furnish us with sensations. [1148]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVII.
+
+THE EPICUREAN VIEWS ON NATURE.
+
+
+[A. General views on nature.]
+
+[(1) Object, value, and method of the study of nature.]
+
+If Epicurus and his followers underrated logic, to natural science they
+attached a considerable value. This value was, however, exclusively
+derived from a sense of the practical advantages which a knowledge of
+nature confers in opposing superstition. Without such an object the
+study of nature would have seemed wholly superfluous. [1149] Such being
+their attitude of mind, the Epicureans were, as might have been
+expected, indifferent about giving a complete and accurate explanation
+of phenomena. Their one aim was to put forward such a view of nature as
+would do away with the necessity for supernatural intervention, without
+at the same time pretending to offer a sufficient solution of the
+problems raised by science. [1150] Whilst, therefore, he devoted
+considerable attention to natural science, [1151] Epicurus does not
+seem to have considered certainty to be of importance, or even to be
+possible, in dealing with details of scientific study. Of the general
+causes of things we can and ought to entertain a firm conviction, since
+the possibility of overcoming religious prejudices and the fears
+occasioned by them depends on these convictions. No such result,
+however, follows from the investigation of details, which, on the
+contrary, only tends to confirm prejudices in those who are not already
+emancipated from them. In dealing with details, therefore, it is enough
+for Epicurus to show that various natural causes for phenomena may be
+imagined, and to offer various suggestions which dispense with the
+intervention of the Gods and the myths of a belief in Providence.
+[1152] To say that any one of these suggestions is the only possible
+one, is in most cases to exceed the bounds of experience and human
+knowledge, and to go back to the capricious explanations of mythology.
+[1153] Possibly the world may move, and possibly it may be at rest.
+Possibly it may be round, or else it may be triangular, or have any
+other shape. Possibly the sun and the stars may be extinguished at
+setting, and be lighted afresh at rising. It is, however, equally
+possible that they may only disappear under the earth and reappear
+again, or that their rising and setting may be due to yet other causes.
+Possibly the waxing and waning of the moon may be caused by the moon’s
+revolving; or it may be due to an atmospheric change, or to an actual
+increase and decrease in the moon’s size, or to some other cause.
+Possibly the moon may shine with borrowed light, or it may shine with
+its own, experience supplying us with instances of bodies which give
+their own light, and of those which have their light borrowed. [1154]
+From these and such-like statements it appears that questions of
+natural science in themselves have no value for Epicurus. Whilst
+granting that only one natural explanation of phenomena is generally
+possible, yet in any particular case he is perfectly indifferent which
+explanation is adopted.
+
+
+
+[(2) Mechanical explanation of nature.]
+
+Great stress is, however, laid by him on the general explanation. In
+contrast with the religious view which regards the world as a system of
+means leading to ends, the leading business of the natural science of
+the Epicureans is to refer all phenomena to natural causes. To an
+Epicurean nothing appeals more absurd than to suppose that the
+arrangements of nature have for their object the well-being of mankind,
+or that they have any object at all. The tongue is not given us for the
+purpose of speaking, nor the ears for the purpose of hearing. As a
+matter of fact, it would, indeed, be more correct to say, that we speak
+because we have a tongue, and hear because we have ears. Natural powers
+have acted purely according to the law of necessity, and among their
+various products there could not fail to be some presenting the
+appearance of purpose in their arrangement. In the case of man there
+have resulted many such products and powers. But this result is by no
+means intentional; it is an accidental consequence of natural causes.
+In explaining nature all thought of Gods must be put out of sight. For
+their happiness would be inconceivable, on the supposition that they
+cared for man and his welfare. [1155]
+
+Confining his interest in nature, as Epicurus did, entirely to this
+general view of things, he was all the more inclined, in carrying it
+into details, to rely upon some older system. No system, however,
+appeared to correspond better with his tone of mind than that of
+Democritus, which, moreover, commended itself to him not only by
+absolutely banishing the idea of final cause, but by referring
+everything to matter, and by its theory of atoms. As Epicurus places in
+each individual thing taken by itself the ultimate end of action, so
+Democritus had theoretically made all that is real to consist in what
+is absolutely individual or in atoms. His natural science, therefore,
+seemed to present the most natural basis for the Epicurean Ethics. If
+the Stoics, in their views of nature, closely followed Heraclitus,
+Epicurus in his followed Democritus still more closely, and hence, with
+the exception of one single point, the additions made by Epicurus to
+the theory of this philosopher are of no philosophical importance.
+
+
+
+[(3) Atoms and empty space.]
+
+With Democritus Epicurus agreed in holding that there is no other form
+of reality except that of bodily reality. Every substance, he says in
+the words of the Stoics, must affect others, and be affected by them;
+and whatever affects others or is itself affected, is corporeal.
+Corporeal substance is, therefore, the only kind of substance. [1156]
+The various qualities of things, essential as well as accidental
+qualities, are accordingly not incorporeal existences, but simply
+chance modes of body, the former being called by Epicurus συμβεβηκότα,
+the latter συμπτώματα. [1157] But a second something is necessary
+besides corporeal substance in order to explain phenomena, viz. empty
+space. That empty space exists is proved by the differences of weight
+in bodies. For what else could be the cause of this difference? [1158]
+It is proved still more conclusively by motion, motion being impossible
+without empty space. [1159] Mind as a moving cause, however, seems to
+Epicurus altogether superfluous. Everything that exists consists of
+bodies and empty space, and there is no third thing. [1160]
+
+Democritus had resolved the two conceptions of body and empty space
+into the conceptions of being and not being. True to his position,
+Epicurus dispensed with this speculative basis, and clinging to the
+ordinary notions of empty space, and of a material filling space,
+[1161] he simply proves these notions by the qualities of phenomena.
+For this very reason Democritus’s division of body into innumerable
+primary particles or atoms appeared to him most necessary. All bodies
+known to us by sensation are composed of parts. [1162] If the process
+of division were infinitely continued, all things would ultimately be
+resolved into the non-existent—in this Epicurus and Democritus
+agree;—and conversely all things must have been formed out of the
+non-existent, in defiance of the first principle of natural science
+that nothing can come from nothing, and that nothing can be resolved
+into nothing. [1163] Hence, we must conclude that the primary component
+parts of things can neither have come into existence nor cease to
+exist, nor yet be changed in their nature. [1164] These primary bodies
+contain no empty space in themselves, and hence can neither be divided
+nor destroyed, nor be changed in any way. [1165] They are so small that
+they do not impress the senses, and as a matter of fact we do not see
+them. Nevertheless they must not be regarded as mathematical atoms, the
+name atoms being assigned to them only because their bodily structure
+will not admit of division. [1166] They have neither colour, warmth,
+smell, nor any other property; properties belong only to distinct
+materials; [1167] and for this reason they must not be sought in the
+four elements, all of which, as experience shows, come into being and
+pass away. [1168] They possess only the universal qualities of all
+corporeal things, viz. shape, size, and weight. [1169]
+
+Not only must atoms, like all other bodies, have shape, but there must
+exist among them indefinitely many varieties of shape, or it would be
+impossible to account for the innumerable differences of things. There
+cannot, however, be really an infinite number of shapes, as Democritus
+maintained, in any limited body—this is intelligible of itself—nor yet
+in the whole universe, [1170] since an unlimited number would make the
+arrangement of the world impossible, everything in the world being
+circumscribed by certain containing limits. [1171] Again, atoms must be
+different in point of size; for all materials cannot be divided into
+particles of equal size. Yet even to this difference there must be some
+limitation. An atom must neither be so large as to become an object of
+sense, nor can it, after what has been said, be infinitely small.
+[1172] From difference in point of size the difference of atoms in
+point of weight follows. [1173] In point of number atoms must be
+innumerable, and in the same way empty space must be unbounded also.
+For since everything bounded must be bounded by something, it is
+impossible to imagine any bounds of the universe beyond which nothing
+exists, and hence there can be no bounds at all. The absence of bounds
+must, apply to the mass of atoms quite as much as to empty space. If an
+infinite number of atoms would not find room in a limited space,
+conversely a limited number of atoms would be lost in empty space, and
+never able to form a world. [1174] In all these views Epicurus closely
+follows Democritus, no doubt agreeing with him also in explaining the
+qualities of things by the composition of their atoms. [1175]
+
+
+
+
+[B. The world.]
+
+[(1) The swerving aside of atoms.]
+
+In deducing the origin of things from their primary causes, Epicurus,
+however, deviates widely from his predecessor. Atoms—so it was taught
+by both—have by virtue of their weight been eternally engaged in a
+downward motion. [1176] That all bodies should move downwards in empty
+space seemed to Epicurus a matter of course; for whatever is heavy must
+fall unless it is supported. [1177] He was therefore opposed to the
+Aristotelian view that heaviness shows itself in the form of attraction
+towards a centre, and consequently to his further supposition that
+downward mode of motion belongs only to certain bodies, circular motion
+being for others more natural. [1178] The objection that in endless
+space there is no above or below he could meet only by appealing to
+experience; [1179] some things always appear above our heads, others
+beneath our feet. [1180] But whilst Democritus held that atoms in their
+downward motion meet together, thus giving rise to a rotatory motion,
+no such view commended itself to Epicurus. Nay rather in his view all
+atoms will fall equally fast, since empty space offers no resistance,
+and falling perpendicularly it is impossible to see how they can meet.
+[1181] To render a meeting possible he supposes the smallest possible
+swerving aside from the perpendicular line in falling. This assumption
+seemed to him indispensable, since it would be otherwise impossible to
+assert the freedom of the human will. For how can the will be free if
+everything falls according to the strict law of gravity? For the same
+reason this swerving aside was not supposed to proceed from any natural
+necessity, but simply from the power of self-motion in the atoms.
+[1182] In consequence of their meeting one part of the atoms
+rebounds—so Democritus also taught; the lighter ones are forced
+upwards, and from the upward and downward motions combined a rotatory
+motion arises. [1183] When this motion takes place a clustering of
+atoms is the consequence, which by their own motion separate themselves
+from the remaining mass, and form a world of themselves. [1184] Atoms
+being eternal and unchangeable, the process of forming worlds must go
+on without beginning or end; [1185] and inasmuch as they are also
+infinite in number, and empty space is infinite also, there must be an
+innumerable number of worlds. [1186] In the character of these worlds
+the greatest possible variety may be supposed, since it is most
+unlikely that the innumerable combinations of atoms all brought about
+at random will fall out alike. Equally impossible is it to assert that
+all these worlds are absolutely dissimilar. In general, Epicurus
+assumed that they are extremely different both in point of size and
+arrangement, and that here and there one may be similar to our own.
+[1187] Moreover, since eternity affords time for all imaginable
+combinations of atoms, nothing can ever be brought about now which has
+not already existed. [1188] In one respect all worlds are alike; they
+come into existence, are liable to decay, and, like all other
+individual elements, are exposed to a gradual increase and decrease.
+[1189] So we might have assumed from other positions in his system.
+Between the individual worlds both Democritus and Epicurus insert
+intermediate world-spaces, in which by the clustering of atoms from
+time to time new worlds come into being. [1190]
+
+
+
+[(2) Origin of the world.]
+
+The origin of our world is thus described. At a certain period of
+time—Lucretius [1191] believes at no very distant period—a cluster of
+atoms of varying shape and size was formed in this definite portion of
+space. These atoms meeting, there first arose from the pressure and
+rebound of the quickly falling particles motions of every variety in
+every direction. Soon the greater atoms pressing downwards, by dint of
+weight forced upwards the smaller and lighter atoms, the fiery ones
+topmost and with the greatest impetus to form the ether, and afterwards
+those which form the air. [1192] The upper pressure ceasing, these
+masses, under the pressure of particles still joining it from below,
+spread forth sidewards, and thus the belts of fire and air were formed.
+Next uprose those atoms out of which the sun and stars are formed into
+the heights, and at the same time the earth settled down, its inner
+part being partially exhausted in those places where the sea now is. By
+the influence of the warmth of the ether, and the sun-heat, the
+earth-mass was bound together more closely, the sea was pressed out of
+it, and the surface assumed an uneven character. [1193] The world is
+shut off from other worlds and from empty space by those bodies which
+form its external boundary. [1194]
+
+
+
+[(3) Arrangement of the universe.]
+
+Asking, in the next place, what idea must be formed of the arrangement
+of the world, we are met by the two principles which Epicurus is never
+weary of inculcating; one, that we must explain nothing as an
+intentional arrangement by deity, but refer everything simply and
+solely to mechanical causes; the other, that in explaining phenomena
+the widest possible room must be given for hypotheses of every kind,
+and that nothing is more absurd than to abridge the wide range of
+possible explanations by exclusively deciding in favour of any one.
+[1195] Thereby the investigation of nature loses for him its value as
+such, nor is it of any great interest to us to follow his speculations
+on nature into detail. On one point he dogmatises, protesting that the
+framework of heaven must not be considered the work of God, [1196] nor
+must life and reason be attributed to the stars. [1197] Otherwise, on
+nearly all the questions which engaged the attention of astronomers at
+that time, he observes the greatest indifference, treating the views of
+his predecessors, good and bad alike, with an easy superficiality which
+can only be explained by supposing him altogether indifferent [1198] as
+to their truth. The state of his own astronomical knowledge can,
+moreover, be easily seen by recalling the notorious assertion [1199]
+that the sun, the moon, and the stars are either not at all, or only a
+little larger, and may possibly be even less than they appear to be.
+The Epicureans also thought to support their theory that the earth,
+borne by the air, reposes in the middle of the world—a theory which on
+their hypothesis of the weight of bodies is impossible [1200]—by the
+gradual diminution in weight of the surrounding bodies. [1201] It would
+be impossible here to go through the treatment which they gave to
+atmospheric and terrestrial phenomena, particularly as the principle
+already indicated was most freely used, and many explanations were
+given as being all equally possible. [1202]
+
+
+
+[(4) Plants and animals.]
+
+Out of the newly made earth plants at first grew, [1203] and afterwards
+animals came forth, since the latter, according to Lucretius, can by no
+possibility have fallen from heaven. [1204] In other worlds, likewise,
+living beings came into existence, though not necessarily in all.
+[1205] Among these beings were originally, as Empedocles had previously
+supposed, [1206] all sorts of composite or deformed creatures. Those,
+however, alone continued to exist which were fitted by nature to find
+support, to propagate, and to protect themselves from danger. Romantic
+creatures, such as centaurs of chimæras, can never have existed here,
+because the beings of which they are compounded would require
+conditions of life [1207] altogether different.
+
+
+
+
+[C. Mankind.]
+
+[(1) Origin of the human race.]
+
+Aiming, as the Epicureans did, at explaining the origin of men and
+animals in a purely natural manner, they likewise tried to form an
+idea, equally according to nature, of the original state and historical
+development of the human race. In this attempt they ignored all
+legendary notions, and, notwithstanding their leaning towards
+materialism, they on the whole advocated perfectly sound views. The men
+of early times, so thought Lucretius, were stronger and more powerful
+than the men of to-day. Rude and ignorant as beasts, they lived in the
+woods in a perpetual state of warfare with the wild animals, without
+justice or society. [1208] The first and most important step in a
+social direction was the discovery of fire, the learning to build huts,
+and to clothe themselves in skins; then began marriage and domestic
+life, [1209] and speech, originally not a matter of convention, but,
+like the noises of animals, the natural expression of thoughts and
+feelings, was developed. [1210] The older the human race grew, the more
+they learned of the arts and skill which minister to the preservation
+and enjoyment of life. These arts were first learnt by experience,
+under the pressure of nature, or the compulsion of want. What had thus
+been discovered was completed by reflection, the more gifted preceding
+the rest as teachers. [1211] In exactly the same way civil society was
+developed. Individuals built strongholds, and made themselves rulers.
+In time the power of kings aroused envy, and they were massacred. To
+crush the anarchy which then arose, magistrates were chosen, and order
+established by penal laws. [1212] It will subsequently be seen that
+Epicurus explained religion in the same way by natural growth.
+
+
+
+[(2) The soul.]
+
+The apotheosis of nature, which has been apparent in Epicurus’s whole
+view of history, becomes specially prominent in his treatment of
+psychology. This treatment could, after all that has been said, be only
+purely materialistic. The soul, like every other real being, is a body.
+In support of this view the Epicureans appealed to the mutual relations
+of the body and the soul, agreeing on this point with the Stoics.
+[1213] The body of the soul, however, consists of the finest, lightest,
+and most easily moved atoms, as is manifest from the speed of thought,
+from the instantaneous dissolution of the soul after death, and,
+moreover, from the fact that the soulless body is as heavy as the body
+in which there is a soul. [1214] Hence Epicurus, again agreeing with
+the Stoics, describes the soul as a material resembling fire and air,
+[1215] or, more accurately, as composed of four elements, fire, air,
+vapour, and a fourth nameless element. It consists of the finest atoms,
+and is the cause of feeling, [1216] and according as one or other of
+these elements preponderates, the character of man is of one or the
+other kind. [1217] Like the Stoics, Epicurus believed that the
+soul-element is received by generation from the parents’ souls, [1218]
+and that it is spread over the whole body, [1219] growing as the body
+grows. [1220] At the same time he makes a distinction somewhat similar
+to that made by the Stoics in their doctrine of the sovereign part of
+the soul (ἡγεμονικόν). [1221] Only the irrational part of the soul is
+diffused as a principle of life over the whole body; the rational part
+has its seat in the breast. [1222] To the rational part belong mental
+activity, sensation, and perception, the motion of the will and the
+mind, and in this latter sense life itself; both parts together make up
+one being, yet they may exist in different conditions. The mind may be
+cheerful whilst the body and the irrational soul feel pain, or the
+reverse may be the case. It is even possible that portions of the
+irrational soul may be lost by the mutilation of the body, without
+detriment to the rational soul, or consequently to life. [1223] When,
+however, the connection between soul and body is fully severed, then
+the soul can no longer exist. Deprived of the surrounding shelter of
+the body, its atoms are dispersed in a moment, owing to their
+lightness; and the body in consequence, being unable to exist without
+the soul, goes over into corruption. [1224] If this view appears to
+hold out the most gloomy prospect for the future, Epicurus considers
+that it cannot really be so. With life every feeling of evil ceases,
+[1225] and the time when we shall no longer exist affects us just as
+little as the time before we existed. [1226] Nay, more, he entertains
+the opinion that his teaching alone can reconcile us to death by
+removing all fear of the nether world and its terrors. [1227]
+
+Allowing that many of these statements are natural consequences of the
+principles of Epicurus, the distinction between a rational and an
+irrational soul must, nevertheless, at first sight seem strange in a
+system so thoroughly materialistic as was that of the Epicureans. And
+yet this distinction is not stranger than the corresponding parts of
+the Stoic teaching. If the Stoic views may be referred to the
+distinction which they drew in morals between the senses and the
+reason, not less are the Epicurean ethics marked by the same contrast
+between the general and the sensuous side of the mind. Hence Epicurus
+shares the Stoic belief in an ethereal origin of the human race; [1228]
+and although this belief as at first expressed only implies that man,
+like other living beings, is composed of ethereal elements, yet there
+is connected with it the distinction already discussed in the case of
+the Stoics between the higher and the lower parts of man, which
+ultimately comes to be simply another mode of expressing the difference
+between mind and matter.
+
+
+
+[(3) Sensation.]
+
+Among the phenomena of the soul’s life sensation is made to harmonise
+with the general principles of the Epicurean view of nature by the aid
+of Democritus’s doctrine of atom-pictures (εἴδωλα). From the surface of
+bodies—this is the pith of that doctrine—the finest possible particles
+are constantly being thrown off, which by virtue of their fineness
+traverse the furthest spaces in an infinitely short time, hurrying
+through the void. [1229] Many of these exhalations are arrested by some
+obstacle soon after coming forth, or are otherwise thrown into
+confusion. In the case of others the atoms for a long time retain the
+same position and connection which they had in bodies themselves, thus
+presenting a picture of things, and only lacking corporeal solidity. As
+these pictures are conveyed to the soul by the various organs of sense,
+our impressions of things arise. [1230] Even those impressions, which
+have no corresponding real object, must be referred to such pictures
+present in the soul. [1231] For often pictures last longer than things
+themselves; [1232] and often by a casual combination of atoms pictures
+are formed in the air resembling no one single thing. Sometimes, too,
+pictures of various kinds are combined on their way to the senses;
+thus, for instance, the notion of a Centaur is caused by the union of
+the picture of a man with that of a horse, not only in our imagination,
+but already previously in the atom-picture. [1233] If, therefore,
+sensation distorts or imperfectly represents real objects, it must be
+explained as being due to some change or mutilation in the
+atom-pictures before they reach our senses. [1234]
+
+In thus explaining mental impressions, the Epicureans do not allow
+themselves to be disturbed by the fact that we can recall at pleasure
+the ideas of all possible things. The cause of this power was rather
+supposed to be the circumstance that we are always surrounded by an
+innumerable number of atom-pictures, none of which we perceive unless
+our attention is directed to them. Likewise the seeming motion of forms
+which we behold in dreams is explained by the hasty succession of
+similar atom-pictures, appearing to us as changes of one and the same
+picture. [1235] But besides receiving pictures supplied from without,
+spontaneous motion with regard to these pictures takes place on our
+part, a motion connected in the first instance with the soul’s motion
+when it receives the outward impression, but not to be regarded as a
+simple continuation thereof. This independent motion gives rise to
+opinion, and hence opinion is not so necessary or so universally true
+as feeling. It may agree with feeling, or it may not agree with it. It
+may be true or it may be false. [1236] The conditions of its being true
+or false have been previously investigated. [1237]
+
+
+
+[(4) Will.]
+
+Impressions also give rise to will and action, the soul being set in
+motion by impressions, and this motion extending from the soul to the
+body. [1238] Into the nature of will, however, Epicurus does not appear
+to have instituted a more careful psychological investigation. It was
+enough for him to assert the freedom of the will. This freedom he
+considers absolutely indispensable, if anything we do is to be
+considered our own, unless we are prepared to despair of moral
+responsibility altogether, and to resign ourselves to a comfortless and
+inexorable necessity. [1239] To make freedom possible, Epicurus had
+introduced accident into the motion of atoms, and for the same reason
+he denies the truth of disjunctive propositions which apply to the
+future. [1240] In the latter respect, he, no doubt, only attacked the
+material truth of two clauses, without impugning the formal accuracy of
+the disjunction, [1241] i.e. he did not deny that of two contradictory
+cases either one or the other must happen, nor did he deny the truth of
+saying: To-morrow Epicurus will either be alive or not alive. But he
+disputed the truth of each clause taken by itself. He denied the truth
+of the sentence, Epicurus will be alive; and equally that of its
+contradictory, Epicurus will not be alive; on the ground that the one
+or the other statement only becomes true by the actual realisation of
+an event at present uncertain. [1242] For this he deserves little
+blame. Our real charge against him is that he did not more thoroughly
+investigate the nature of the will and the conception of freedom, and
+that he treats the subject of the soul as scantily and superficially as
+he had treated the subject of nature.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVIII.
+
+VIEWS OF EPICURUS ON RELIGION.
+
+
+[A. Criticism of the gods and the popular faith.]
+
+Satisfied with the results of his own enquiries into nature, Epicurus
+hoped by his view of the causes of things not only to displace the
+superstitions of a polytheistic worship, but also to uproot the
+prejudice in favour of Providence. Indeed, these two objects were
+placed by him on exactly the same footing. So absurd did he consider
+the popular notions respecting the Gods, that instead of blaming those
+who attacked them, [1243] he believed it impious to acquiesce in them.
+Religion being, according to Lucretius, the cause of the greatest
+evils, [1244] he who displaces it to make way for rational views of
+nature deserves praise as having overcome the most dangerous enemy of
+mankind. All the language of Epicurus in disparagement of the art of
+poetry applies in a still higher degree to the religious errors
+fostered by poetry. [1245] Nor is it better with belief in Providence
+than with the popular faith. This belief is also included in the
+category of romance; [1246] and the doctrine of fatalism, which was the
+Stoic form for the same belief, was denounced as even worse than the
+popular faith. [1247] For how, asks the Epicurean, could divine
+Providence have created a world in which evil abounds, in which virtue
+often fares ill, whilst vice is triumphant? How could a world have been
+made for the sake of man, when man can only inhabit a very small
+portion of it? How could nature be intended to promote man’s well-being
+when it so often imperils his life and labour, and sends him into the
+world more helpless than any animal? How can we form a conception of
+beings ruling over an infinite universe, and everywhere present to
+administer everything in every place? [1248] What could have induced
+these beings to create a world, and how and whence could they have
+known how to create it, had not nature supplied them with an example?
+[1249] In fine, how could God be the happy Being He must be if the
+whole burden of caring for all things and all events lay upon Him, or
+He were swayed to and fro together with the body of the world? [1250]
+Or how could we feel any other feeling than that of fear in the
+presence of such a God who troubles himself about everything? [1251]
+
+
+
+
+[B. The gods according to Epicurus.]
+
+[(1) Reasons for his belief.]
+
+With the denial of the popular Gods, the denial of demons, [1252] of
+course, goes hand in hand; and, together with Providence, the need of
+prayer [1253] and of prophecy is at the same time negatived. [1254] All
+these notions, according to Epicurus, are the result of ignorance and
+fear. Pictures seen in dreams have been confounded with real
+existences; regularity of motion in the heavenly bodies has been
+mistaken by the ignorant for the work of God; events which accidentally
+happened in combination with others have been regarded as portents;
+terrific natural phenomena, storms and earthquakes, have engendered in
+men’s minds the fear of higher powers. [1255] Fear is therefore the
+basis of religion; [1256] and, on the other hand, freedom from fear is
+the primary object aimed at by philosophy.
+
+For all that, Epicurus was unwilling to renounce belief in the Gods,
+[1257] nor is it credible that this unwillingness was simply a yielding
+to popular opinion. [1258] The language used by the Epicureans
+certainly gives the impression of sincerity; and the time was past when
+avowed atheism was attended with danger. Atheism would have been as
+readily condoned in the time of Epicurus as the deism which denied most
+unreservedly the popular faith. It is, however, possible to trace the
+causes which led Epicurus to believe that there are Gods. There was
+first the general diffusion of a belief in Gods which appeared to him
+to establish the truth of this belief, and hence he declared the
+existence of Gods to be something directly certain, and grounded on a
+primary notion (πρόληψις). [1259] Moreover, with his materialistic
+theory of knowledge he no doubt supposed that the primary notion which
+convinces us of the existence of Gods arises from the actual
+contemplation of divine beings, and from the perception of those
+atom-pictures from which Democritus had already deduced the belief in
+Gods. [1260] And in addition to these theoretical reasons, Epicurus had
+also another, half æsthetical, half religious—the wish to see his ideal
+of happiness realised in the person of the Gods, [1261] and it is this
+ideal which determines the character of all his notions respecting
+them. His Gods are therefore, throughout, human beings. Religious
+belief only knows beings such as these, or, as Epicurus expresses it,
+only such beings come before us in those pictures of the Gods which
+present themselves to our minds, sometimes in sleep, sometimes when we
+are awake. Reflection, too, convinces us that the human form is the
+most beautiful, that to it alone reason belongs, and that it is the
+most appropriate form for perfectly happy beings. [1262] Epicurus even
+went so far as to attribute to the Gods difference of sex. [1263] At
+the same time everything must be eliminated which is not appropriate to
+a divine being.
+
+
+
+[(2) Nature of the Epicurean gods.]
+
+The two essential characteristics of the Gods, according to Epicurus,
+are immortality and perfect happiness. [1264] Both of these
+characteristics would be impaired were we to attribute to the bodies of
+the Gods the same dense corporeity which belongs to our own. We must,
+therefore, only assign to them a body analogous to our body, ethereal,
+and consisting of the finest atoms. [1265] Such bodies would be of
+little use in a world like ours. In fact, they could not live in any
+world without being exposed to the temporal ruin which will in time
+overwhelm it, and, meantime, to a state of fear, which would mar their
+bliss. Epicurus, therefore, assigns the space between the worlds for
+their habitation, where, as Lucretius remarks, troubled by no storms,
+they live under a sky ever serene. [1266]
+
+Nor can these Gods be supposed to care for the world and the affairs of
+men, else their happiness would be marred by the most distressing
+occupation; but perfectly free from care and trouble, and absolutely
+regardless of the world, in eternal contemplation of their unchanging
+perfection, they enjoy the most unalloyed happiness. [1267] The view
+which the School formed to itself of this happiness we learn from
+Philodemus. [1268] The Gods are exempt from sleep, sleep being a
+partial death, and not needed by beings who live without any exertion.
+And yet he believes that they require nourishment, though this must, of
+course, be of a kind suited to their nature. They also need dwellings,
+[1269] since every being requires some place wherein to dwell. Were
+powers of speech to be refused to them, they would be deprived of the
+highest means of enjoyment—the power of conversing with their equals.
+Philodemus thinks it probable they use the Greek or some other closely
+allied language. [1270] In short, he imagines the Gods to be a society
+of Epicurean philosophers, who have everything that they can
+desire—everlasting life, no care, and perpetual opportunities of sweet
+converse. Only such Gods,—the Epicureans thought, [1271]—need not be
+feared. Only such Gods are free and pure, and worshipped because of
+this very perfection. [1272] Moreover, these Gods are innumerable. If
+the number of mortal beings is infinite, the law of counterpoise
+requires that the number of immortal beings must not be less. [1273] If
+we have only the idea of a limited number of Gods, it is because, owing
+to their being so much alike, [1274] we confound in our minds the
+innumerable pictures of the Gods which are conveyed to our souls.
+
+Priding themselves, in contrast to the Stoics, on their agreement by
+means of this theology with the anthropomorphic views of the popular
+belief, and even outdoing polytheism in the assumption of innumerable
+Gods, [1275] the Epicureans were willing to join in the customary
+services of religion, [1276] without being nearly so anxious as the
+Stoics to prove themselves in harmony with the popular creed. Whilst
+the Stoics in their anxiety to do this had plunged head over heels into
+allegory, no such tendency is observed on the part of the Epicureans.
+Only the poet of the School gives a few allegorical interpretations of
+mythical ideas, and he does it with more taste and skill than is usual
+with the Stoics. [1277] On other points the Epicureans, not excluding
+Lucretius, observe towards the popular faith a negative attitude, that
+of opposing it by explanations; and by this attitude, without doubt,
+they rendered one of the most important services to humanity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIX.
+
+THE MORAL SCIENCE OF THE EPICUREANS. GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
+
+
+[A. Pleasure.]
+
+[(1) Pleasure the highest good.]
+
+Natural science is intended to overcome the prejudices which stand in
+the way of happiness; moral science to give positive instruction as to
+the nature and means of attaining to happiness. The speculative parts
+of the Epicurean system had already worked out the idea that reality
+belongs only to individual things, and that all general order must be
+referred to the accidental harmony of individual forces. The same idea
+is now met with in the sphere of morals, individual feeling being made
+the standard, and individual well-being the object of all human
+activity. Natural science, beginning with external phenomena, went back
+to the secret principles of these phenomena, accessible only to
+thought. It led from an apparently accidental movement of atoms to a
+universe of regular motions. Not otherwise was the course followed by
+Epicurus in moral science. Not content with human feelings alone, nor
+with selfishly referring everything to the individual taken by himself
+alone, that science, in more accurately defining the conception of
+well-being, ascertained that the same can only be found by rising
+superior to feelings and purely individual aims, in short by that very
+process of referring consciousness to itself and its universal being,
+which the Stoics declared to be the only path to happiness. It is for
+us now to portray this development of the Epicurean philosophy in its
+most prominent features.
+
+The only unconditional good, according to Epicurus, is pleasure; the
+only unconditional evil is pain. [1278] No proof of this proposition
+seemed to him to be necessary; it rests on a conviction supplied by
+nature herself, and is the ground and basis of all our doing and not
+doing. [1279] If proof, however, were required, he appealed to the fact
+that all living beings from the first moment of their existence pursue
+pleasure and avoid pain, [1280] and that consequently pleasure is a
+natural good, and the normal condition of every being. [1281] Hence
+follows the proposition to which Epicurus in common with all the
+philosophers of pleasure appealed, that pleasure must be the object of
+life.
+
+
+
+[(2) Freedom from pain.]
+
+At the same time, this proposition was restricted in the Epicurean
+system by several considerations. In the first place, neither pleasure
+nor pain is a simple thing. There are many varieties and degrees of
+pleasure and pain, and the case may occur in which pleasure has to be
+secured by the loss of other pleasures, or even by pain, or in which
+pain can only be avoided by submitting to another pain, or at the cost
+of some pleasure. In this case Epicurus would have the various feelings
+of pleasure and pain carefully weighed, and in consideration of the
+advantages and disadvantages which they confer, would under
+circumstances advise the good to be treated as an evil, and the evil as
+a good. He would have pleasure forsworn if it would entail a greater
+corresponding pain, and pain submitted to if it holds out the prospect
+of greater pleasure. [1282] He also agrees with Plato in holding that
+every positive pleasure presupposes a want, i.e. a pain which it
+proposes to remove; and hence he concludes that the real aim and object
+of all pleasure consists in obtaining freedom from pain, [1283] and
+that the good is nothing else but emancipation from evil. [1284] By a
+Cyrenaic neither repose of soul nor freedom from pain, but a gentle
+motion of the soul or positive pleasure was proposed as the object of
+life; and hence happiness was not made to depend on man’s general state
+of mind, but on the sum-total of his actual enjoyments. But Epicurus,
+advancing beyond this position, recognised both the positive and the
+negative side of pleasures, both pleasure as repose, and pleasure as
+motion. [1285] Both aspects of pleasure, however, do not stand on the
+same footing in his system. On the contrary, the essential and
+immediate cause of happiness is repose of mind—ἀταραξία. Positive
+pleasure is only an indirect cause of ἀταραξία in that it removes the
+pain of unsatisfied craving. [1286] This mental repose, however,
+depends essentially on the character of a man’s mind, just as
+conversely positive pleasure in systems so materialistic must depend on
+sensuous attractions. It was consistent, therefore, on the part of
+Aristippus to consider bodily gratification the highest pleasure; and
+conversely Epicurus was no less consistent in subordinating it to
+gratification of mind.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Intellectual happiness.]
+
+In calling pleasure the highest object in life, says Epicurus, we do
+not mean the pleasures of profligacy, nor indeed sensual enjoyments at
+all, but the freedom of the body from pain, and the freedom of the soul
+from disturbance. Neither feasts nor banquets, neither the lawful nor
+unlawful indulgence of the passions, nor the joys of the table, make
+life happy, but a sober judgment, investigating the motives for action
+and for inaction, and dispelling those greatest enemies of our peace,
+prejudices. The root from which it springs,
+
+
+
+[(1) Intelligence.]
+
+and, therefore, the highest good, is intelligence. [1287] It is
+intelligence that leaves us free to acquire possession thereof, without
+being ever too early or too late. [1288] Our indispensable wants are
+simple, little being necessary to ensure freedom from pain; other
+things only afford change in enjoyment, by which the quantity is not
+increased, or else they rest on a mere sentiment. [1289] The little we
+need may be easily attained. Nature makes ample provision for our
+happiness, would we only receive her gifts thankfully, not forgetting
+what she gives in thinking what we desire. [1290] He who lives
+according to nature is never poor; the wise man living on bread and
+water has no reason to envy Zeus; [1291] chance has little hold on him;
+with him judgment is everything, [1292] and if that be right, he need
+trouble himself but little about external mishaps. [1293] Not even
+bodily pain appeared to Epicurus so irresistible as to be able to cloud
+the wise man’s happiness. Although he regards as unnatural the Stoic’s
+insensibility to pain, [1294] still he is of opinion that the wise man
+may be happy on the rack, and can smile at pains the most violent,
+exclaiming in the midst of torture, How sweet! [1295] A touch of forced
+sentiment may be discerned in the last expression, and a trace of
+self-satisfied exaggeration is manifest even in the beautiful language
+of the dying philosopher on the pains of disease. [1296] Nevertheless,
+the principle involved is based in the spirit of the Epicurean
+philosophy, and borne out by the testimony of the founder. The main
+thing, according to Epicurus, is not the state of the body, but the
+state of the mind; bodily pleasure being of short duration, and having
+much about it to unsettle; mental enjoyments only being pure and
+incorruptible. For the same reason mental sufferings are more severe
+than those of the body, since the body only suffers from present ills,
+whilst the soul feels those past and those to come. [1297] In a life of
+limited duration the pleasures of the flesh never attain their
+consummation. Mind only, by consoling us for the limited nature of our
+bodily existence, can produce a life complete in itself, and not
+standing in need of unlimited duration. [1298]
+
+
+
+[(2) Reasons for rising superior to the senses.]
+
+At the same time, the Epicureans, if consistent with their principles,
+could not deny that bodily pleasure is the earlier form, and likewise
+the ultimate source, of all pleasure, and neither Epicurus nor his
+favourite pupil Metrodorus shrank from making this admission; Epicurus
+declaring that he could form no conception of the good apart from
+enjoyments [1299] of the senses; Metrodorus asserting that everything
+good has reference to the belly. [1300] For all that the Epicureans did
+not feel themselves driven to give up the pre-eminence which they
+claimed for goods of the soul over those of the body. Did even the
+Stoics, notwithstanding the grossness of their theory of knowledge,
+ever abate their demand for a knowledge of conceptions; or cease to
+subordinate the senses to reason, although they built their theory of
+morals on nature? But all definite character has vanished from these
+intellectual joys and pains. The only distinctive feature which they
+possess is the addition either of memory, or of hope, or of fear [1301]
+to the present feeling of pleasure or pain; and their greater
+importance is simply ascribed to the greater force or duration
+belonging to ideal feelings as compared with the attractions which
+momentarily impress the senses. [1302] Incidentally the remembrance of
+philosophic discourses is mentioned [1303] as a counterpoise to bodily
+pain; properly speaking, mental pleasures and pains are not different
+from other pleasures in kind, but only in degree, by reason of their
+being stronger and more enduring. Accordingly Epicurus cannot escape
+the admission that we have no cause for rejecting gross and carnal
+enjoyments if these can liberate us from the fear of higher powers, of
+death, and of sufferings; [1304] and thus the only consolation he can
+offer in pain is the uncertain one that the most violent pains either
+do not last long, or else put an end to life; and the less violent ones
+ought to be endured since they do not exclude a counterbalancing
+pleasure. [1305] Hence victory over the impression of the moment must
+be won, not so much by mental force stemming the tide of feeling, as by
+a proper estimate of the conditions and actions of the senses.
+
+
+
+[(3) Virtue.]
+
+In no other way can the necessity of virtue be established in the
+Epicurean system. Agreeing with the strictest moralists, so far as to
+hold that virtue can be as little separated from happiness as happiness
+from virtue, [1306] having even the testimony of opponents as to the
+purity and integrity of his moral teaching, which in its results
+differed in no wise from that of the Stoics; [1307] Epicurus,
+nevertheless, holds a position of strong contrast to the Stoics in
+respect of the grounds on which his moral theory is based. To demand
+virtue for its own sake seemed to him a mere phantom of the
+imagination. Those only who make pleasure their aim have a real object
+in life. [1308] Virtue has only a conditional value [1309] as a means
+to happiness; or, as it is otherwise expressed, [1310] Virtue taken by
+itself does not render a man happy, but the pleasure arising from the
+exercise of virtue. This pleasure the Epicurean system does not seek in
+the consciousness of duty fulfilled, or of virtuous action, but in the
+freedom from disquiet, fear, and dangers, which follows as a
+consequence from virtue. Wisdom and intelligence contribute to
+happiness by liberating us from the fear of the Gods and of death, by
+making us independent of immoderate passions and vain desires, by
+teaching us to bear pain as something subordinate and passing, and by
+pointing the way to a more cheerful and natural life. [1311]
+Self-control aids, in that it points out the attitude to be assumed
+towards pleasure and pain, so as to receive the maximum of enjoyment
+and the minimum of suffering; [1312] valour, in that it enables us to
+overcome fear and pain; [1313] justice, in that it makes life possible
+without that fear of Gods and men, which ever haunts the transgressor.
+[1314] To the Epicurean virtue is never an end in itself, but only a
+means to an end lying beyond—a happy life—but withal a means so certain
+and necessary, that virtue can neither be conceived without happiness,
+nor happiness without virtue. However unnecessary it may seem, still
+Epicurus would ever insist that an action to be right must be done not
+according to the letter, but according to the spirit of the law, not
+simply from regard to others, or by compulsion, but from delight in
+what is good. [1315]
+
+
+
+
+[C. The wise man.]
+
+The same claims were advanced by Epicurus on behalf of his wise man as
+the Stoics had urged on behalf of theirs. Not only does he attribute to
+him a control over pain, in nothing inferior to the Stoic insensibility
+of feeling, but he endeavours himself to describe the wise man’s life
+as most perfect and satisfactory in itself. Albeit not free from
+emotions, and in particular susceptible to the higher feelings of the
+soul such as compassion, the wise man finds his philosophic activity in
+no wise thereby impaired. [1316] Without despising enjoyment, he is
+altogether master of his desires, and knows how to restrain them by
+intelligence, so that they never exercise a harmful influence on life.
+He alone has an unwavering certainty of conviction; [1317] he alone
+knows how to do the right thing in the right way; he alone, as
+Metrodorus observes, [1318] knows how to be thankful. Nay, more, he is
+so far exalted above ordinary men, that Epicurus promises his pupils
+that, by carefully observing his teaching, they will dwell as Gods
+among men; [1319] so little can destiny influence him, that he calls
+him happy under all circumstances. [1320] Happiness may, indeed, depend
+on certain external conditions; it may even be allowed that the
+disposition to happiness is not found in every nature, nor in every
+person; [1321] but still, when it is found, its stability is sure, nor
+can time affect its duration. For wisdom—so Epicurus and the Stoics
+alike believed—is indestructible, [1322] and the wise man’s happiness
+can never be increased by time. A life, therefore, bounded by time can
+be quite as complete as one not so bounded. [1323]
+
+Different as are the principles and the tone of the systems of the
+Stoics and of Epicurus, one and the same tendency may yet be traced in
+both—the tendency which characterises all the post-Aristotelian
+philosophy—the desire to place man in a position of absolute
+independence by emancipating him from connection with the external
+world, and by awakening in him the consciousness of the infinite
+freedom of thought. [1324]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XX.
+
+THE EPICUREAN ETHICS CONTINUED: SPECIAL POINTS.
+
+
+[A. The individual.]
+
+The general principles already laid down determine likewise the
+character of particular points in the moral science of the Epicureans.
+Epicurus, it is true, never developed his moral views to a systematic
+theory of moral actions and states, however much his pupils,
+particularly in later times, busied themselves with morality and
+special points in a system of morals. [1325] Moreover, his fragmentary
+statements and precepts are very imperfectly recorded. Still, all that
+is known corresponds with the notion which we must form in accordance
+with those general views. All the practical rules given by Epicurus aim
+at conducting man to happiness by controlling passions and desires. The
+wise man is easily satisfied. He sees that little is necessary for
+supplying the wants of nature, and for emancipating from pain; that
+imaginary wealth knows no limit, whereas the riches required by nature
+may be easily acquired; [1326] that the most simple nourishment affords
+as much enjoyment as the most luxurious, and is at the same time far
+more conducive to health; [1327] that therefore the restriction of
+wants rather than the increase of possessions makes really rich; [1328]
+and that he who is not satisfied with little will never be satisfied at
+all. [1329] He therefore can like Epicurus live upon bread and water,
+[1330] and at the same time think himself as happy as Zeus. [1331] He
+eschews passions which disturb peace of mind and the repose of life;
+considering it foolish to throw away the present in order to obtain an
+uncertain future, or to sacrifice life itself for the means of life,
+seeing he can only once enjoy it. [1332] He therefore neither gives way
+to passionate love, nor to forbidden acts of profligacy. [1333] Fame he
+does not covet; and for the opinions of men he cares only so far as to
+wish not to be despised, since being despised would expose him to
+danger. [1334] Injuries he can bear with calmness. [1335] He cares not
+what may happen to him after death; [1336] nor envies any one the
+possessions which he does not himself value. [1337]
+
+It has been already seen how Epicurus thought to rise above pains, and
+to emancipate himself from the fear of the Gods and death. [1338] And
+it has been further noticed that he thinks to secure by means of his
+principles the same independence and happiness which the Stoics aspired
+to by means of theirs. But whilst the Stoics hoped to attain this
+independence by crushing the senses, Epicurus was content to restrain
+and regulate them. Desires he would not have uprooted, but he would
+have them brought into proper proportion to the collective end and
+condition of life, into the equilibrium necessary for perfect repose of
+mind. Hence, notwithstanding his own simplicity, Epicurus is far from
+disapproving, under all circumstances, of a fuller enjoyment of life.
+The wise man will not live as a Cynic or a beggar. [1339] Care for
+business he will not neglect; only he will not trouble himself too much
+about it, and will prefer the business of education to any and every
+other. [1340] Nor will he despise the attractions of art, although he
+is satisfied when obliged to do without them. [1341] In short, his
+self-sufficiency will not consist in using little, but in needing
+little; and it is this freedom from wants which adds flavour to his
+more luxurious enjoyments. [1342] His attitude to death is the same.
+Not fearing death, rather seeking it when he has no other mode of
+escaping unendurable suffering, he will resort to suicide if necessary,
+but the cases will be rare, because he has learnt to be happy under all
+bodily pains. The Stoic’s recommendation of suicide finds no favour
+with him. [1343]
+
+
+
+
+[B. Civil society and the family.]
+
+[(1) Civil society.]
+
+However self-sufficing the wise man may be, still Epicurus will not
+separate him from connection with others. Not, indeed, that he believed
+with the Stoics in the natural relationship of all rational beings.
+[1344] Yet even he could form no idea of human life except in
+connection with human society. He does not, however, assign the same
+value to all forms of social life. Civil society and the state have for
+him the least attraction. Civil society is only an external association
+for the purpose of protection. Justice reposes originally on a contract
+entered into for purposes of mutual security. [1345] Laws are made for
+the sake of the wise, not to prevent their committing, but to prevent
+their suffering injustice. [1346] Law and justice are not, therefore,
+binding for their own sake, but for the general good; nor is injustice
+to be condemned for its own sake, but only because the offender can
+never be free from fear of discovery and punishment. [1347] There is
+not, therefore, any such thing as universal, unchangeable justice. The
+claims of justice only extend to a limited number of beings and
+nations—those, in fact, which are able and willing to enter into the
+social compact. And the particular applications of justice which
+constitute positive right differ in different cases, and change with
+circumstances. What is felt to be conducive to mutual security must
+pass for justice, and whenever a law is seen to be inexpedient it is no
+longer binding. [1348] The wise man will therefore only enter into
+political life in case and in as far as this is necessary for his own
+safety. Sovereign power is a good, inasmuch as it protects from harm.
+He who pursues it, without thereby attaining this object, acts most
+foolishly. [1349] Since private individuals live as a rule much more
+quietly and safely than statesmen, it was natural that the Epicureans
+should be averse to public affairs; public life, after all, is a
+hindrance to what is the real end-in-chief—wisdom and happiness. [1350]
+Their watchword is Λάθε βιώσας. [1351] To them the golden mean seemed
+by far the most desirable lot in life. [1352] They only advise citizens
+to take part in public affairs when special circumstances render it
+necessary, [1353] or when an individual has such a restless nature that
+he cannot be content with the quiet of private life. [1354] Otherwise
+they are too deeply convinced of the impossibility of pleasing the
+masses to wish even to make the attempt. [1355] For the same reason
+they appear to have been partisans of monarchy. The stern and
+unflinching moral teaching of the Stoics had found its political
+expression in the unbending republican spirit, so often encountered at
+Rome. Naturally the soft and timid spirit of the Epicureans took
+shelter under a monarchical constitution. Of their political principles
+one thing at least is known, that they did not consider it degrading
+for a wise man to pay court to princes, and under all circumstances
+they recommended unconditional obedience to the powers that be. [1356]
+
+
+
+[(2) Family life.]
+
+Family life is said to have been deprecated by Epicurus equally with
+civil life. [1357] Stated thus baldly, this is an exaggeration. It
+appears, however, to be established, that Epicurus believed it to be
+generally better for the wise man to forego marriage and the rearing
+of children, since he would thereby save himself many disturbances.
+[1358] It is also quite credible that he declared the love of children
+towards parents to be no inborn feeling. [1359] This view is, after
+all, only a legitimate consequence of his materialism; but it did not
+oblige him to give up parental love altogether. Nay, it is asserted of
+him that he was anything but a stranger to family affections. [1360]
+
+
+
+
+[C. Friendship.]
+
+The highest form of social life was considered by Epicurus to be
+friendship—a view which is peculiar in a system that regarded the
+individual as the atom of society. Such a system naturally attributes
+more value to a connection with others freely entered upon and based on
+individual character and personal inclination, than to one in which a
+man finds himself placed without any choice, as a member of a society
+founded on nature or history. The basis, however, on which the
+Epicurean friendship rests is very superficial; regard is mainly had to
+its advantages, and in some degree to the natural effects of common
+enjoyments; [1361] but it is also treated in such a way, that its
+scientific imperfection has no influence on its moral importance. Only
+one section of the School, and that not the most consistent, maintained
+that friendship is pursued in the first instance for the sake of its
+own use and pleasure, but that it subsequently becomes an unselfish
+love. [1362] The assumption that among the wise there exists a tacit
+agreement requiring them to love one another as much as they love
+themselves, is clearly only a lame shift. [1363] Still, the Epicureans
+were of opinion that a grounding of friendship on motives of utility
+was not inconsistent with holding it in the highest esteem. Friendly
+connection with others affords so pleasant a feeling of security, that
+it entails the most enjoyable consequences; and since this connection
+can only exist when friends love one another as themselves, it follows
+that self-love and the love of a friend must be equally strong. [1364]
+
+Even this inference sounds forced, nor does it fully state the grounds
+on which Epicurus’s view of the value of friendship reposes. That view,
+in fact, was anterior to all the necessary props of the system. What
+Epicurus requires is primarily enjoyment. The first conditions of such
+enjoyment, however, are inward repose of mind, and the removal of fear
+of disturbances. But Epicurus was far too effeminate and dependent on
+externals to trust his own powers to satisfy these conditions. He
+needed the support of others, not only to obtain their help in
+necessity and trouble, and to console himself for the uncertainty of
+the future, but still more, to make sure of himself and his principles
+by having the approval of others, and thus obtaining an inward
+satisfaction which he could not otherwise have had. Thus, the approval
+of friends is to him the pledge of the truth of his convictions. In
+sympathy with friends his mind first attains to a strength by which it
+is able to rise above the changing circumstances of life. General ideas
+are for him too abstract, too unreal. A philosopher who considers
+individual beings as alone real, and perceptions as absolutely true,
+cannot feel quite happy and sure of his ground, unless he finds others
+to go with him. [1365] The enjoyment which he seeks is the enjoyment of
+his own cultivated personality; and wherever this standard prevails,
+particular value is attached to the personal relations of society, and
+to friendship. [1366]
+
+Hence Epicurus uses language on the value and necessity of friendship
+which goes far beyond the grounds on which he bases it. Friendship is
+unconditionally the highest of earthly goods. [1367] It is far more
+important in whose company we eat and drink, than what we eat and
+drink. [1368] In case of emergency, the wise man will not shrink from
+suffering the greatest pains, even death, for his friend. [1369]
+
+It is well known that the conduct of Epicurus and his followers was in
+harmony with these professions. The Epicurean friendship is hardly less
+celebrated than the Pythagorean. [1370] There may be an offensive
+mawkishness and a tendency to mutual admiration apparent in the
+relations of Epicurus to his friends, [1371] but of the sincerity of
+his feelings there can be no doubt. One single expression referring to
+the property of friends, [1372] is enough to prove what a high view
+Epicurus held of friendship; and there is evidence to show that he
+aimed at a higher improvement of his associates. [1373]
+
+In other respects Epicurus bore the reputation of being a kind,
+benevolent, and genial companion. [1374] His teaching bears the same
+impress. It meets the inexorable sternness of the Stoics by insisting
+on compassion and forgiveness, [1375] and supersedes its own egotism by
+the maxim that it is more blessed to give than to receive. [1376] The
+number of such maxims on record is, no doubt, limited; nevertheless,
+the whole tone of the Epicurean School is a pledge of the humane and
+generous character of its moral teaching. [1377] To this trait that
+School owes its chief importance in history. By its theory of utility
+it undoubtedly did much harm, partly exposing, partly helping forward,
+the moral decline of the classic nations. Still, by drawing man away
+from the outer world within himself, by teaching him to seek happiness
+in the beautiful type of a cultivated mind content with itself, it
+contributed quite as much as Stoicism, though after a gentler fashion,
+to the development and the extension of a more independent and more
+universal morality.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXI.
+
+THE EPICUREAN SYSTEM AS A WHOLE; ITS POSITION IN HISTORY.
+
+
+[A. Inner connection of the Epicurean teaching.]
+
+It has often been urged against the Epicurean philosophy, that it is
+deficient both in coherence and consistency. Nor is this objection
+without foundation. If we come to the study of it, looking for a
+complete scientific groundwork, or a strictly logical development, we
+shall certainly be disappointed. It is not difficult to show in what
+contradictions Epicurus was involved; in professing to trust the senses
+wholly and entirely, and yet going beyond the senses to the hidden
+causes of things; in despising logical forms and laws, and at the same
+time building up his whole system on deductions; in holding that all
+sensations are true, but yet maintaining that a portion of the
+realities which they represent as belonging to things is only relative.
+Nor were these the only inconsistencies. At one time only natural
+causes and laws are acknowledged, and any such thing as free will and
+imagination is ignored; at another, by the doctrine of the swerving
+aside of atoms and of the human will, unexplained caprice is elevated
+to the rank of law. Pleasures and pains are all referred to bodily
+sensations, and yet mental states are called higher and more important;
+nay, more, even from a basis of selfishness rules and precepts of
+humanity, justice, love, faithfulness, and devotion are deduced. It
+ought not, however, to be forgotten that the Stoics, to whom the claim
+of clear and consistent thought cannot be denied, were involved in
+similar difficulties. They, like the Epicureans, built up a rational
+system on a basis of the senses. They, too, constructed an ideal theory
+of morals on a material groundwork of metaphysics. They, too, declared
+that universal law is the only active power, whilst they maintained
+that reality belongs only to the world of matter. They, too, deduced a
+strict theory of virtue from the principle of self-preservation; not to
+mention the inconsistent attitude which they assumed towards the
+popular religion. To deny to the Stoics a unity and connectedness of
+system, because of these scientific defects and inconsistencies, would
+be felt to be doing them an injustice. And can Epicureanism be fairly
+condemned, when its faults are essentially of the same kind (though a
+little more obvious) as those of the Stoics, without a single
+extenuating circumstance which can be urged on its behalf?
+
+The strongest argument in favour of Epicureanism is that the
+development of the system does not pretend to rest upon an intellectual
+platform. Epicurus sought in philosophy a path to happiness, a school
+of practical wisdom. For him knowledge has only a secondary value,
+because it contributes to this end; indeed, both the tone and the
+results of his intellectual activity were determined by a reference to
+this end. In the case of the Stoics, however, it has been already seen
+that the comparative subordination of Logic and Natural Science to
+Moral Science, the going back to the older view of nature, the
+vindication of the truth of the senses and of the reality of matter,
+grew out of their peculiarly one-sided view of the scope of philosophy.
+In the case of Epicurus the same results appear, and all the more
+markedly, since Epicurus did not, like the Stoics, look for happiness
+in subordination to a universal law, but in individual gratification or
+pleasure. For him the recognition of a universal law had not the same
+importance as for the Stoics; and consequently Epicurus did not feel
+the same need of a scientific method as they had done. He could
+therefore more exclusively content himself with the impressions of the
+senses, and regard them as the only unfailing source of knowledge. No
+necessity compelled him to advance from pure materialism to a view of
+matter in which it is described as possessing a soul, and made to be
+the bearer of reason. In fact, the more exclusively everything was
+referred by him to mechanical causes, the more easily could he regard
+the individual as independent of all superhuman forces in his pursuit
+of happiness, and left entirely to himself and his natural powers. No
+system in ancient times has so consistently carried out the mechanical
+view of nature as that of the Atomists. None, therefore, afforded such
+a strong metaphysical support to the Epicurean views of the absolute
+worth of the individual. It was as natural for Epicurus to build on the
+teaching of Democritus as for the Stoics to build on that of
+Heraclitus. But Epicurus, influenced probably more by practical than by
+scientific considerations, allowed himself, by his theory of the
+swerving aside of atoms, to destroy the consistency of the theory of
+Democritus. [1378]
+
+It is hardly necessary to notice here how the distinctive features of
+the Epicurean morals were developed out of their theory of happiness,
+in contrast to the Stoic teaching. The happiness of Epicurus, however,
+does not depend upon sensual gratification as such, but upon repose of
+mind and cheerfulness of disposition. His theory of morals, therefore,
+notwithstanding its foundation in pleasure, bears a nobler character,
+which is seen in its language as to the wise man’s relations to the
+pains and passions of the body, to poverty and riches, to life and
+death, quite as much as in the mild humanity and the warm and hearty
+appreciation of friendship by the Epicurean School. The rationalising
+spirit of that School was undoubtedly opposed to any religious belief
+which supposed an intervention of God in the course of the world, or
+the world’s influence on man for weal or woe; but its appeal to the
+senses without criticism placed no objection in the way of admitting
+divine beings, from whom no such intervention need be feared. Nay,
+more, this belief seemed the most natural ground for explaining the
+popular belief in Gods. It satisfied an inborn and apparently keenly
+felt want by supplying an appropriate object of devotion, and a
+standard by which to test the accuracy of moral ideas. Hence,
+notwithstanding scientific defects and contradictions, the whole system
+of Epicurus bears a definite stamp. All the essential parts of that
+system are subservient to one and the same end. The consistent working
+out of a scientific view of nature is looked for in vain; but there is
+no lack of consistency arising from an undeniable reference of the
+individual to a definite and practical standard.
+
+
+
+
+[B. Historical position of Epicureanism.]
+
+[(1) Relation to Stoicism.]
+
+Looking to the wider historical relations of the Epicurean system, the
+first point which calls for remark is the relation of that system to
+Stoicism. The contrast between the two Schools is obvious; attention
+having been already drawn to it on all the more important points. It is
+likewise well known that a constant rivalry existed between the two
+Schools during their whole careers, that the Stoics looked down on the
+Epicureans, and circulated many calumnies with respect to their morals.
+For these statements proofs may be found in the preceding pages.
+Nevertheless, the two Schools are related in so many respects, that
+they can only be regarded as parallel links connected in one chain,
+their differences being varieties where the same main tendency
+
+
+[(a) Points of agreement.]
+
+exists. Both agree in the general character of their philosophy. In
+both practical considerations prevail over speculation. Both treat
+natural science and logic as sciences subsidiary to ethics—natural
+science especially in view of its bearing on religion. Both attach more
+importance to natural science than to logic. If the Epicurean neglect
+of scientific rules forms a contrast to the care which the Stoics
+devoted thereto, both Schools are at least agreed in one thing—in
+displaying greater independence in investigating the question as to a
+test of truth. By both this standard was placed in the senses; and to
+all appearances both were led to take this view by the same cause;
+appeals to the senses being a consequence of their purely practical way
+of looking at things. Both, moreover, employed against scepticism the
+same practical postulate—the argument that knowledge must be possible,
+or no certainty of action would be possible. They even agree in not
+being content with the phenomena supplied by the senses as such,
+although Epicurus as little approved of the Stoic theory of
+irresistible impressions as he did of their logical analysis of the
+forms of thought. With such appeals to the senses how could there be
+any other result than materialism both in the Stoic and Epicurean
+systems? But it is strange that the materialism in both Schools should
+be based on the same definition of reality, corresponding with their
+practical way of looking at things. [1379]
+
+
+[(b) Points of difference.]
+
+In the unfolding and detailed exposition of their materialistic views
+the systems diverge, more widely, perhaps, than the philosophers
+themselves, whose leading they professed to follow. These divergencies
+appear particularly on the subject of nature, the Stoics regarding
+nature as a system of design, the Epicureans explaining it as a
+mechanical product. Whilst the Stoics adhered to fatalism, and saw God
+everywhere, the Epicureans held the theory of atoms, and the theory of
+necessity. Whilst the Stoics were speculatively orthodox, the
+Epicureans were irreligious freethinkers. Both meet again in that
+branch of natural science which is most important in respect of
+morals—the part dealing with man. Both hold that the soul is a fiery
+atmospheric substance. Even the proof for this view, derived from the
+mutual influence of body and soul, is common to both. Both distinguish
+between the higher and the lower parts of the soul, and thus even the
+Epicureans in their psychology allow a belief in the superiority of
+reason to the senses, and in the divine origin of the soul.
+
+The arena of the warmest dispute between the two Schools is, however,
+ethics. Yet, even on this ground, they are more nearly related than
+appears at first sight. No greater contrast appears to be possible than
+that between the Epicurean theory of pleasure and the Stoic theory of
+virtue; and true it is that the two theories are diametrically
+opposite. Nevertheless, not only are both aiming at one and the same
+end—the happiness of mankind—but the conditions of happiness are also
+laid down by both in the same spirit. According to Zeno virtue,
+according to Epicurus pleasure, is the highest and only good; but the
+former in making virtue consist essentially in withdrawal from the
+senses or insensibility; the latter in seeking pleasure in repose of
+mind or imperturbability, are expressing the same belief. Man can only
+find unconditional and enduring satisfaction, when by means of
+knowledge he attains to a condition of mind at rest with itself, and
+also to an independence of external attractions and misfortunes. The
+same unlimited appeal to personal truth is the common groundwork of
+both systems. Both have expanded this idea under the same form—that of
+the ideal wise man—for the most part with the same features. The wise
+man of Epicurus is, as we have seen, superior to pain and want; he
+enjoys an excellence which cannot be lost; and he lives among men a
+very God in intelligence and happiness. Thus, when worked out into
+details, the difference in the estimate of pleasure and virtue by the
+Stoics and Epicureans seems to vanish. Neither the Stoic can separate
+happiness from virtue, nor the Epicurean separate virtue from
+happiness.
+
+But, whilst recommending a living for society, both systems take no
+real interest in social life. The recognition of a natural society
+amongst mankind, of certain positive relations to state and family,
+above all, a clear enunciation of a citizenship of the world,
+characterise the Stoics. The pursuit of friendship, and the gentle
+humanity of their ethics, characterise the Epicureans. Together with
+these peculiarities one common feature cannot be ignored. Both have
+renounced the political character of the old propriety of conduct, and
+diverting their attention from public life, seek to find a basis for
+universal morality in the simple relation of man to man.
+
+
+[(c) The relationship greater than the difference.]
+
+The united weight of all these points of resemblance is sufficient to
+warrant the assertion that, notwithstanding their differences, the
+Stoics and Epicureans stand on the same footing, and that the sharpness
+of the contrast between them is owing to their laying hold of opposite
+sides of one and the same principle. Abstract personality, and
+self-consciousness developed into a generic idea, is for both the
+highest aim. Compared with it not only the state of the senses, but the
+scientific knowledge of things, and the realisation of moral ideas in a
+commonwealth, are of minor importance. In this self-consciousness
+happiness consists. To implant it in man is the object of philosophy,
+and knowledge is only of value when and in as far as it ministers to
+this end. The point of difference between the two Schools is their view
+of the conditions under which that certainty of consciousness is
+attained. The Stoics hope to attain it by the entire subordination of
+the individual to universal law. The Epicureans, on the other hand, are
+of opinion that man can only then be content in himself when he is
+restrained by nothing external to himself. The first condition of
+happiness consists in liberating individual life from all dependence on
+others, and all disturbing causes. The former, therefore, make virtue,
+the latter make personal well-being or pleasure, the highest good. By
+the Epicureans, however, pleasure is usually conceived as of a purely
+negative character, as being freedom from pain, and is referred to the
+whole of human life. Hence it is always made to depend on the
+moderation of desires, on indifference to outward ills, and the state
+of the senses, on intelligence and actions conformable with
+intelligence, in short, on virtue and wisdom. Hence, too, the
+Epicureans arrive by a roundabout course at the same result as the
+Stoics—the conviction that happiness can only be the lot of those who
+are altogether independent of external things, and enjoy perfect inward
+harmony.
+
+
+
+[(2) Relation to Aristippus.]
+
+Towards the older philosophy Epicureanism bears nearly the same
+relation as Stoicism. True it is that Epicurus and his School would not
+recognise their obligation to either one or other of their
+predecessors. [1380] But far from disproving the influence of previous
+systems on his own, this conduct only shows the personal vanity of
+Epicurus. Epicureanism, like Stoicism, starts with the object of
+bringing down science from metaphysical speculation to the simpler form
+of a practical science of life. Both systems of philosophy, therefore,
+turn away from Plato and Aristotle, whose labours they notably neglect,
+to Socrates and those Socratic Schools which, without more extensive
+meddling with science, are content with ethics. Circumstances, however,
+led Epicurus to follow Aristippus as Zeno had followed Antisthenes. Not
+only in morals did Epicurus derive his principle of pleasure from the
+Cyrenaics; he likewise derived from them his theory of knowledge, that
+the sense-impressions are the only source of ideas, and that every
+feeling is true in itself. Nor can he altogether deny that feelings
+only furnish direct information respecting our personal states, and
+respecting the relative properties of things. With the Cyrenaics, too,
+he taught that true pleasure can only be secured by philosophic
+intelligence, and that this intelligence aims, before all things, at
+liberating the mind from passion, fear, and superstition. At the same
+time, he is by no means prepared to follow the Cyrenaics unreservedly.
+His theory of morals differs, as has already been seen, from the
+Cyrenaic theory in this important particular, that not sensual and
+individual pleasure, but mental repose and the whole state of the mind
+is regarded as the ultimate end, and the highest good in life. It was
+thus impossible for him to be content, as the Cyrenaics were, with
+feelings only, with individual and personal impressions. He could not
+help requiring conviction which reposed on a real knowledge of things,
+since only on such conviction can an equable and certain tone of mind
+depend.
+
+
+
+[(3) Relation to Democritus.]
+
+Epicurus, therefore, not only differed from Aristippus with regard to
+feelings, by referring all feelings to impressions from without, of
+which he considered them true representations, but he felt himself
+called upon to oppose the Cyrenaic contempt for theories of nature,
+just as the Stoics had opposed the Cynic contempt for science. To the
+physics of Democritus he looked for a scientific basis for his ethics,
+just as they had looked to the system of Heraclitus. But the closer he
+clung to Democritus, owing to the weakness of his own interest in
+nature, the more it becomes apparent that his whole study of nature was
+subservient to a moral purpose, and hence of a purely relative value.
+Accordingly, he had not the least hesitation in setting consistency at
+defiance, by assuming the swerving aside of atoms and the freedom of
+the will. It is not only altogether improbable that Epicurus was but a
+second edition of Democritus—for history knows of no such
+repetitions—but as a matter of fact it is false. Closer observation
+proves that even when the two philosophers agree in individual
+statements, the meaning which they attach to these assertions and the
+whole spirit of their systems are widely divergent. Democritus aims at
+explaining natural phenomena by natural causes. He wishes, in short,
+for a science of nature purely for its own sake. Epicurus wishes for a
+view of nature which shall be able to avert disturbing influences from
+man’s inner life. Natural science stands with him entirely in the
+service of ethics. If in point of substance his system is borrowed from
+another system, yet its whole position and treatment supposes an
+entirely new view of things. The Socratic introspection, and the
+Sophistic resolution of natural philosophy into personal rationalising,
+are its historical antecedents; and it owes its existence to that
+general dislike for pure theory, which constitutes the common
+peculiarity of all the post-Aristotelian systems.
+
+
+
+[(4) Relation to Aristotle and Plato.]
+
+Excepting the systems named, Epicureanism, so far as is known, is
+connected with no other previous system. Even its attack upon those
+systems appears to have consisted of general dogmatic and superficial
+statements. Still it must not be forgotten that Epicureanism
+presupposes the line of thought originated by Socrates, not only as
+found in the collateral Cyrenaic branch, but as found in the main line
+of regular development by Plato and Aristotle. The view of Plato and
+Aristotle, which distinguishes the immaterial essence from the sensible
+appearance of things, and attributes reality only to the former, is
+undoubtedly attacked by Epicurus as by Zeno, on metaphysical grounds.
+Practically, however, he approaches very much nearer to this view in
+all those points in which his teaching deviates from the Cyrenaic and
+resembles that of the Stoics.
+
+It has been observed on a former occasion that the indifference to the
+immediate conditions of the senses, the withdrawal of the mind within
+itself, the contentment with itself of the thinking subject, which
+Epicurus no less than the Stoics and cotemporary Sceptics required, is
+itself a consequence of the idealism of Plato and Aristotle. Even the
+materialism of the post-Aristotelian systems, it is said, was by no
+means a going back to the old pre-Socratic philosophy of nature, but a
+one-sided practical apprehension of that idealism. These systems deny a
+soul in nature or a soul in man, because they look exclusively to
+consciousness and to personal activity for independence of the senses.
+The correctness of this observation may be easily proved from the
+Epicurean teaching, notwithstanding the severity and harshness of its
+materialism. Why was it that Epicurus relentlessly banished from nature
+all immaterial causes and all idea of purpose? And why did he confine
+himself exclusively to a mechanical explanation of nature? Was it not
+because he felt afraid that the admission of any other than material
+causes would imperil the certainty of consciousness; because he feared
+to lose the firm groundwork of reality by admitting invisible forces,
+and to expose human life to influences beyond calculation if he allowed
+anything immaterial? Yet in his view of life, how little does he adhere
+to present facts, since his wise man is made to enjoy perfect happiness
+by himself alone, independent of everything external. The same ideal is
+reproduced in the Epicurean Gods. In their isolated contemplation of
+themselves, what else do they resemble but the God of Aristotle, who,
+aloof from all intermeddling with the world, meditates on himself
+alone? No doubt the independent existence of the thinking mind is held
+by Aristotle in a clear and dignified manner. By Epicurus it is
+pourtrayed in a sensuous, and, therefore, a contradictory form. But the
+connection of the views of both cannot be ignored. There is a similar
+general relation between the Epicurean philosophy and that of Plato and
+Aristotle. [1381] Little as the former can be compared with the latter
+in breadth and depth, it must not, therefore, be regarded as an
+intellectual monstrosity. Epicureanism is a tenable though one-sided
+expression of a certain stage in the development of the intellect of
+Greece.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PART IV.
+
+THE SCEPTICS—PYRRHO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.
+
+
+CHAPTER XXII.
+
+PYRRHO.
+
+
+[A. Historical position of Scepticism.]
+
+Stoicism and Epicureanism are alike in one respect: they commence the
+pursuit of happiness with definite dogmatic statements. The Sceptic
+Schools, however, attempt to reach the same end by denying every
+dogmatic position. Varied as the paths may be, the result is in all
+cases the same; happiness is made to consist in the exaltation of the
+mind above all external objects, in the withdrawal of man within his
+own thinking self. Moving in the same sphere
+
+
+
+[(1) Its relation to cotemporary dogmatic systems.]
+
+as the cotemporary dogmatic systems, the post-Aristotelian Scepticism
+takes a practical view of the business of philosophy, and estimates the
+value of theoretical enquiries by their influence on the state and
+happiness of man. It moreover agrees with cotemporary systems in its
+ethical view of life; the object at which it aims is the same as that
+at which those systems aim, viz. repose of mind, and imperturbability.
+It differs from them, none the less; for the Epicureans and Stoics made
+mental repose to depend on a knowledge of the world and its laws,
+whereas the Sceptics are of opinion that it can only be obtained by
+despairing of all knowledge. Hence, with the former morality depends on
+a positive conviction as to the highest Good; with the latter, morality
+consists in indifference to all that appears as Good to men. Important
+as this difference may be, it must not therefore be forgotten that
+Scepticism generally revolves in the same sphere as Stoicism and
+Epicureanism, and that in renouncing all claim to knowledge, and all
+interest in the external world, it is only pushing to extremes that
+withdrawal of man into himself which we have seen to be the common
+feature of these Schools. Not only, therefore, do these three lines of
+thought belong to one and the same epoch, but such is their internal
+connection that they may be regarded as three branches of a common
+stock.
+
+
+
+[(2) Causes producing it.]
+
+More than one point of departure was offered to Scepticism by the
+earlier philosophy. The Megarian criticism and the Cynic teaching had
+taken up a position subversive of all connection of ideas, and of all
+knowledge. Pyrrho, too, had received from the School of Democritus an
+impulse to doubt. [1382] In particular, the development of the Platonic
+and Aristotelian speculations by those who were not able to follow
+them, had made men mistrustful of all speculation, until they at last
+doubted the possibility of all knowledge. Not seldom do Sceptical
+theories follow times of great philosophical originality. A stronger
+impulse was given in the sequel by the Stoic and Epicurean systems.
+Related to Scepticism by their practical tone, it was natural that
+these systems should afford fuel to Scepticism. At the same time the
+unsatisfactory groundwork upon which they were built, and the contrast
+between their moral and physical teaching, promoted destructive
+criticism. If, according to the Stoics and Epicureans, the particular
+and the universal elements in the personal soul, the isolation of the
+individual as an independent atom, and his being merged in a
+pantheistic universe, are contrasted without being reconciled; among
+the Sceptics this contrast has given place to neutrality. Neither the
+Stoic nor the Epicurean theory can claim our adherence; neither the
+unconditional value of pleasure, nor yet the unconditional value of
+virtue; neither the truth of the senses nor the truth of rational
+knowledge; neither the Atomist’s view of nature, nor the Pantheistic
+view as it found expression in Heraclitus. The only thing which remains
+certain amid universal uncertainty is abstract personality content with
+itself, personality forming at once the starting-point and the goal of
+the two contending systems.
+
+The important back-influence of Stoicism and Epicureanism upon
+Scepticism may be best gathered from the fact that Scepticism only
+attained a wide extension and a more comprehensive basis in the New
+Academy after the appearance of those systems. Before that time its
+leading features had been indeed laid down by Pyrrho, but they had
+never been developed into a permanent School of Scepticism, nor given
+rise to an expanded theory of doubt.
+
+
+
+[(3) Pyrrho and his followers.]
+
+Pyrrho was a native of Elis, [1383] and may therefore have early made
+the acquaintance of the Elean and Megarian criticism—that criticism, in
+fact, which was the precursor of subsequent Scepticism. It can,
+however, hardly be true that Bryso was his instructor. [1384] To
+Anaxarchus, a follower of Democritus, he attached himself, and
+accompanied that philosopher with Alexander’s army as far as India.
+[1385] Perhaps, however, he is less indebted to Anaxarchus for the
+sceptical than for the ethical parts of his teaching. [1386] At a later
+period he resided in his native city, [1387] honoured by his
+fellow-citizens, [1388] but in poor circumstances, [1389] which he bore
+with his characteristic repose of mind. [1390] He died, it would
+appear, at an advanced age, [1391] between 275 and 270 B.C., leaving no
+writings behind. [1392] Even the ancients, therefore, only knew his
+teaching by that of his pupils, among whom Timon of Phlius was the most
+distinguished. [1393] Besides Timon several other of his pupils are
+known by name. [1394] His School, however, was short-lived. [1395] Soon
+after Timon it seems to have become extinct. [1396] Those who were
+disposed to be sceptical now joined the New Academy, towards whose
+founder even Timon made no secret of his grudge. [1397]
+
+
+
+
+[B. Teaching of Pyrrho.]
+
+[(1) Impossibility of knowledge.]
+
+The little which is known of Pyrrho’s teaching may be summed up in the
+three following statements: We can know nothing as to the nature of
+things: Hence the right attitude towards them is to withhold judgment:
+The necessary result of suspending judgment is imperturbability. He who
+will live happily—for happiness is the starting-point with the
+Sceptics—must, according to Timon, take these things into
+consideration: What is the nature of things? What ought our attitude to
+things to be? What is the gain resulting from these relations? [1398]
+To the first of these three questions Pyrrho can only reply by saying
+that things are altogether inaccessible to knowledge, and that whatever
+property may be attributed to a thing, with equal justice the opposite
+may be predicated. [1399] In support of this statement Pyrrho appears
+to have argued that neither the senses nor reason furnish certain
+knowledge. [1400] The senses do not show things as they are, but only
+as they appear to be. [1401] Rational knowledge, even where it seems to
+be most certain, in the sphere of morals, does not depend upon real
+knowledge, but only upon tradition and habit. [1402] Against every
+statement the opposite may be advanced with equal justice. [1403] If,
+however, neither the senses nor reason alone can furnish trustworthy
+testimony, no more can the two combined, and thus the third way is
+barred, by which we might possibly have advanced to knowledge. [1404]
+How many more of the arguments quoted by the later Sceptics belong to
+Pyrrho it is impossible to say. The short duration and diffusion of
+Pyrrho’s School renders it probable that with him Scepticism was not
+far advanced. The same result appears to follow from its further
+development in the Academy. The ten τρόποι, or aspects under which
+sceptical objections were grouped, cannot with certainty be attributed
+to any one before Ænesidemus. [1405] Portions of the arguments used at
+a later day may be borrowed from Pyrrho and his pupils, [1406] but it
+is impossible to discriminate these portions with certainty.
+
+
+
+[(2) Withholding of judgment.]
+
+Thus, if knowledge of things proves to be a failure, there only remains
+as possible an attitude of pure Scepticism; and therein is contained
+the answer to the second question. We know nothing whatever of the real
+nature of things, and hence can neither believe nor assert anything as
+to their nature. We cannot say of anything that it is or is not; but we
+must abstain from every opinion, allowing that of all which appears to
+us to be true, the opposite may with equal justice be true. [1407]
+Accordingly, all our statements (as the Cyrenaics taught) only express
+individual opinions, and not absolute realities. We cannot deny that
+things appear to be of this or the other kind; but we can never say
+that they are so. [1408] Even the assertion that things are of this or
+the other kind is not an assertion, but a confession by the individual
+of his state of mind. [1409] Hence, too, the universal rule of
+indecision cannot be taken as an established principle, but only as a
+confession, and, therefore, as only problematical. [1410] It must,
+however, remain a matter of doubt how far the captious turns of
+expression by which the Sceptics thought to parry the attacks of their
+opponents come from Pyrrho’s School. The greater part, it is clear,
+came into use in the struggle with the Dogmatists, and are not older
+than the development of the Stoic theory of knowledge by Chrysippus,
+and the criticism of Carneades to which it gave rise. In this
+despairing of anything like certain conviction consists ἀφασία,
+ἀκαταληψία, or ἐποχὴ, the withholding of judgment or state of
+indecision which Pyrrho and Timon regard as the only true attitude in
+speculation, [1411] and from which the whole School derived its
+distinctive name. [1412]
+
+
+
+[(3) Mental imperturbability.]
+
+From this state of indecision, Timon, in reply to the third question,
+argues that mental imperturbability or ἀταραξία proceeds, which can
+alone conduct to true happiness. [1413] Men are disturbed by views and
+prejudices which mislead them into the efforts of passion. Only the
+Sceptic who has suspended all judgment is in a condition to regard
+things with absolute calmness, unruffled by passion or desire. [1414]
+He knows that it is a fond delusion to suppose that one external
+condition is preferable to another. [1415] In reality only the tone of
+mind or virtue possesses value. [1416] Thus, by withdrawing within
+himself, man reaches happiness, which is the goal of all philosophy.
+[1417] Absolute inactivity being, however, impossible, the Sceptic will
+act on probabilities, and hence follow custom; [1418] but at the same
+time he will be conscious that such conduct does not rest on a basis of
+firm conviction. [1419] The province of uncertain opinion includes all
+positive judgments respecting good and evil. Only in this conditional
+form will Timon allow of goodness and divine goodness as standards of
+conduct. [1420] The real object of Scepticism is, therefore, a purely
+negative one—indifference. It cannot even be proved [1421] that
+Pyrrho’s School so far accommodated itself to life, as to make
+moderation rather than indifference the regulating principle for
+unavoidable actions and desires. In this direction the School seems to
+have done but little.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXIII.
+
+THE NEW ACADEMY.
+
+
+[A. Arcesilaus.]
+
+Plato’s School was the first to put Scepticism on a firm footing, and
+to cultivate it as a system. It has been already remarked that after
+the time of Xenocrates this School gradually deserted speculative
+enquiries, and limited itself to Ethics. To this new tendency it
+consistently adhered, when, shortly after the beginning of the third
+century before Christ,
+
+
+
+[(1) Denial of knowledge.]
+
+it took a fresh lease of life. Instead, however, of simply ignoring
+theoretical knowledge, as it had hitherto done, it assumed towards
+knowledge an attitude of opposition, hoping to arrive at security and
+happiness in life by being persuaded of the impossibility of knowledge.
+How far this result was due to the example set by Pyrrho it is
+impossible to establish authoritatively. But it is not in itself
+probable that the learned originator of this line of thought in the
+Academy should have ignored the views of a philosopher whose work had
+been carried on at Elis in his own lifetime, and whose most
+distinguished pupil, a personal acquaintance of his own, was then
+working at Athens as a prolific writer. [1422] The whole tone and
+character, moreover, of the Scepticism of the New Academy betrays
+everywhere the presence of Stoic influences. By the confidence of its
+assertions it provokes contradiction and doubt, without its being
+necessary to seek an explanation by improbable conjectures as to the
+personal relations of Arcesilaus and Zeno. [1423]
+
+This connection of the New Academy with Stoicism can be proved in the
+case of its first founder, [1424] Arcesilaus. [1425] The doubts of this
+philosopher are directed not only to knowledge derived from the senses,
+but to rational knowledge as well. [1426] The principal object of his
+attack was, however, the Stoic theory of irresistible impressions;
+[1427] and in overthrowing that theory Arcesilaus, it would seem,
+believed he had exploded every possibility of rational knowledge; for
+the Stoic appeal to the senses he regarded as the only possible form of
+a theory of knowledge, and the theories of Plato and Aristotle he
+ignored altogether. Indeed, no peculiar arguments against knowledge are
+referred to him. The old sceptical arguments of Plato and Socrates, of
+Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, are
+repeated, [1428] all of which apply only to the knowledge of the
+senses, and not to rational knowledge. Nevertheless, Arcesilaus aimed
+at overthrowing the latter along with the former. [1429] The opinion
+that he only used doubt to prepare for or to conceal genuine Platonism,
+[1430] is opposed to all credible authorities. It appears, however,
+established that he deemed it unnecessary to refute the theory of a
+knowledge existing independently of the senses.
+
+The Stoic arguments in favour of irresistible impressions Arcesilaus
+met by asserting that an intermediate something between knowledge and
+opinion, a kind of conviction common to the wise and the unwise, such
+as the Stoic κατάληψις, is inconceivable; the wise man’s conviction is
+always knowledge, that of the fool is always opinion. [1431] Going then
+farther into the idea of φαντασία καταληπτική, he endeavoured to show
+that it contained an internal contradiction; for to conceive
+(κατάληψις) is to approve (συγκατάθεσις), and approval never applies to
+sensation, but only to thoughts and general ideas. [1432] Lastly, if
+the Stoics regarded force of conviction as the distinctive mark of a
+true or irresistible conception, and as belonging to it in distinction
+from every other, the Sceptic rejoined that such conceptions do not
+exist, and that no true conception is of such a nature, but that a
+false one may be equally irresistible. [1433] If no certainty of
+perception is possible, no knowledge is possible. [1434] And since the
+wise man—for on this point Arcesilaus agrees with the Stoics—must only
+consider knowledge, and not opinion, nothing remains for him but to
+abstain from all and every statement, and to despair of any certain
+conviction. [1435] It is therefore impossible to know anything, nor can
+we even know for certain that we do not know anything. [1436] It was
+quite in accordance with this theory for Arcesilaus to lay down no
+definite view in his lectures, but only to refute the views of others.
+[1437] Even his disparaging remarks on dialectic, [1438] supposing them
+to be genuine, [1439] are not at variance with this conduct. He might
+consider the arguments of the Stoics and the sophisms of the Megarians
+as useless, whilst, at the same time, he was convinced that no real
+knowledge could be attained by any other means. He might even have
+inferred from their sterility, that thought leads to truth quite as
+little as the senses. There is no real difference between the result at
+which he arrived and that of Pyrrho. [1440]
+
+If opponents asserted that by denying knowledge all possibility of
+action is denied, [1441] Arcesilaus declined to accede to this
+statement. No firm conviction is, as he maintained, necessary for a
+decision of the will; for an action to come about a perception
+influences the will immediately, leaving the question as to its truth
+entirely out of sight. [1442] In order to act sensibly
+
+
+
+[(2) Probability.]
+
+we need no knowledge; for this purpose probability is quite enough; any
+one can follow probability, even though he is conscious of the
+uncertainty of all knowledge. Thus probability is the highest standard
+for practical life. [1443] We are but scantily informed how Arcesilaus
+applied this principle to the sphere of morals, but a few of his
+utterances are on record. [1444] All bear witness to the beautiful
+spirit of moderation in the moral theory of the Academy, which was
+otherwise exemplified in his own life. [1445]
+
+
+
+
+[B. Carneades.]
+
+Comparing with the theory of Arcesilaus that which was propounded by
+Carneades a century later, the same leading features are found to be
+underlying; but the points have been more carefully worked out, and the
+theory placed on a wider footing. Of the immediate followers of
+Arcesilaus [1446] it can only be stated that they clung to their
+teacher. It may be presumed that they did little in the way of
+expansion, since the ancients are silent as to their labours; Carneades
+[1447] is only mentioned as the continuer of the Academic Scepticism.
+The importance of Carneades is therefore very great, whence he is in
+consequence called the founder of the third or New Academy; [1448] and
+it is justly great, witness the admiration which his talents called
+forth among cotemporaries and posterity, [1449] and the flourishing
+condition in which he left his School. [1450] Himself a pupil of
+Chrysippus, and resembling him in tone of mind, [1451] Carneades
+expanded not only the negative side of the Sceptical theory in all
+directions with an acuteness entitling him to the first place among the
+ancient Sceptics, but he was also the first to investigate the positive
+side of Scepticism, the doctrine of probability, and to determine the
+degrees and conditions of probability. By his labours in both ways he
+brought the philosophy of Scepticism to its greatest scientific
+perfection.
+
+
+
+[(1) Negative side of his teaching.]
+
+As regards the negative side of these investigations, or the refutation
+of dogmatism, the attacks of Carneades were directed partly against the
+formal possibility of knowledge, and partly against the chief actual
+results of the knowledge of his day. In both respects he had mainly to
+do with the Stoics, [1452] though he did not confine himself to them.
+
+
+[(a) Denial of possibility of formal knowledge.]
+
+To prove the impossibility of knowledge in general, he appeals
+sometimes to experience. There is no kind of conviction which does not
+sometimes deceive us; consequently there is none which guarantees its
+own truth. [1453] Going then further into the nature of our notions, he
+argues, that since notions consist in the change produced on the soul
+by impressions from without, they must, to be true, not only furnish
+information as to themselves, but also as to the objects producing
+them. Now, this is by no means always the case, many notions avowedly
+giving a false impression of things. Hence the note of truth cannot
+reside in an impression as such, but only in a true impression. [1454]
+It is, however, impossible to distinguish with certainty a true
+impression from one that is false. For independently of dreams,
+visions, and the fancies of madmen, in short, of all the unfounded
+chimeras which force themselves on our notice under the guise of truth,
+[1455] it is still undeniable that many false notions closely resemble
+true ones. The transition, too, from truth to falsehood is so gradual,
+the interval between the two is occupied by intermediate links so
+innumerable, and gradations so slight, that they imperceptibly pass one
+into the other, and it becomes impossible to draw a boundary line
+between the two opposite spheres. [1456] Not content with proving this
+assertion in regard to impressions of the senses, Carneades went on to
+prove it with regard to general notions based on experience and
+intellectual conceptions. [1457] He showed that it is impossible for us
+to distinguish objects so much alike as one egg is to another; that at
+a certain distance the painted surface seems raised, and a square tower
+seems round; that an oar in the water seems broken, and the
+neck-plumage of a pigeon assumes different colours in the sun; that
+objects on the shore seem to be moving as we sail by, and so forth;
+[1458] in all these cases the same strength of conviction belongs to
+the false as to the true impressions. [1459] He showed further that
+this applies equally to purely intellectual ideas; that many logical
+difficulties cannot be solved; [1460] that no absolute distinction can
+be drawn between much and little, in short between all differences in
+quantity; and that it is the most natural course in all such cases to
+follow Chrysippus, and to avoid the dangerous inferences which may be
+drawn by withholding judgment. [1461] Arguing from these facts,
+Carneades concluded at first in regard to impressions of the senses,
+that there is no such thing as φαντασία καταληπτικὴ in the Stoic sense
+of the term, in other words, that no perception contains in itself
+characteristics, by virtue of which its truth may be inferred with
+certainty. [1462] This fact being granted, the possibility is in his
+opinion precluded of there residing in the understanding a standard for
+the distinction of truth from falsehood. The understanding—and this
+belief was shared by his opponents—must derive its material from the
+senses. [1463] Logic tests the formal accuracy of combinations of
+thought, but gives no insight into their import. [1464] Direct proofs
+of the uncertainty of intellectual convictions are not therefore
+needed. The same result may also be attained in a more personal way, by
+raising the question, how individuals obtain their knowledge. He can
+only be said to know a thing who has formed an opinion respecting it.
+In the mean time, until he has decided in favour of some definite
+opinion, he has still no knowledge. And what dependence can be placed
+on the judgment of one who has no knowledge? [1465]
+
+
+[(b) Attack on the scientific knowledge of the time.]
+
+[(α) The physical views of the Stoics attacked.]
+
+In these formal enquiries into the possibility of knowledge, Carneades
+had chiefly to deal with the Stoics, with whom he holds a common ground
+in his appeal to the senses. The Stoics were also his chief opponents
+in his polemic against the material results of the dogmatic philosophy.
+Natural science having throughout the period of the post-Aristotelian
+philosophy been subordinated to ethics, ethics likewise engaged more
+attention at the hands of Carneades than science. [1466] In as far as
+he studied Natural science, he appears to have been entirely opposed to
+the Stoic treatment of the subject, and to this circumstance we owe it,
+that better information is forthcoming regarding his scientific, or
+rather his theological, investigations than regarding his moral views.
+The Stoic theories of God and of final causes [1467] afforded ample
+scope for the exercise of his ingenuity, and from the ground he
+occupied it was not difficult for him to expose the weak points of that
+theory. The Stoics had appealed in support of the belief in God to the
+consensus gentium. How close at hand was the answer, [1468] that the
+universality of this belief was neither proved to exist, nor as a
+matter of fact did it exist, but that in no case could the opinion of
+an ignorant multitude decide anything. The Stoics thought to find a
+proof of divine providence in the manner in which portents and
+prophecies come true. To expose this delusion, no very expanded
+criticism of divination was necessary. [1469] Going beyond this,
+Carneades proceeded to call in question the cardinal point of the Stoic
+system—the belief in God, the doctrine of the soul and reason of the
+universe, and of the presence of design in its arrangements. How, he
+asks, is the presence of design manifested? Whence all the things which
+cause destruction and danger to men if it be true that God has made the
+world for the sake of man? [1470] If reason is praised as the highest
+gift of God, is it not manifest that the majority of men only use it to
+make themselves worse than brutes? In bestowing such a gift God must
+have been taking but little care of this majority. [1471] Even if we
+attribute to man direct blame for the misuse of reason, still, why has
+God bestowed on him a reason which can be so much abused? [1472] The
+Stoics themselves say that a wise man can nowhere be found. They admit,
+too, that folly is the greatest misfortune. How, then, can they speak
+of the care bestowed by God on men, when, on their own confession, the
+whole of mankind is sunk in the deepest misery? [1473] But allowing
+that the Gods could not bestow virtue and wisdom upon all, they could,
+at least, have taken care that it should go well with the good. Instead
+of this, the experience of hundreds of cases shows that the upright man
+comes to a miserable end; that crime succeeds; and that the criminal
+can enjoy the fruits of his misdeeds undisturbed. Where, then, is the
+agency of Providence? [1474] The facts being entirely different from
+what the Stoics suppose, what becomes of their inferences? Allowing the
+presence of design in the world, and granting that the world is as
+beautiful and good as possible, why is it inconceivable that nature
+should have formed the world according to natural laws without the
+intervention of God? Admitting, too, the connection of parts in the
+universe, why should not this connection be the result simply of
+natural forces, without a soul of the universe or a deity? [1475] Who
+can pretend to be so intimately acquainted with the powers of nature,
+as to be able to prove the impossibility of this assumption? Zeno
+argued that rational things are better than things irrational, that the
+world is the best possible, and must therefore be rational. Man, says
+Socrates, can only derive his soul from the world; therefore the world
+must have a soul. But what, replies the Academician, [1476] is there to
+show that reason is best for the world, if it be the best for us? or
+that there must be a soul in nature for nature to produce a soul? What
+man is not able to produce, that, argues Chrysippus, must have been
+produced by a higher being—by deity. But to this inference the same
+objection was raised by the Academicians as to the former one, viz.
+that it confounds two different points of view. There may, indeed, be a
+Being higher than man. But why must there needs be a rational man-like
+Being? Why a God? Why not nature herself? [1477] Nor did the argument
+seem to an Academician more conclusive, that as every house is destined
+to be inhabited, so, too, the world must be intended for the habitation
+of God. To this there was the obvious reply: [1478] If the world were a
+house, it might be so; but the very point at issue is whether it is a
+house constructed for a definite purpose, or whether it is simply an
+undesigned result of natural forces.
+
+[(β) Theological views of the Stoics attacked.]
+
+Not content with attacking the conclusiveness of the arguments upon
+which the Stoics built their belief in a God, the scepticism of the
+Academy sought to demonstrate that the idea of God itself is an
+untenable one. The line of argument which Carneades struck out for this
+purpose is essentially the same as that used in modern times to deny
+the personality of God. The ordinary view of God regards Him as an
+infinite, but, at the same time, as a separate Being, possessing the
+qualities and living the life of an individual. To this view Carneades
+objected, on the ground that the first assertion contradicts the
+second; and argues that it is impossible to apply the characteristics
+of personal existence to God without limiting His infinite nature.
+Whatever view we may take of God, we must regard Him as a living Being;
+and every living being is composite, having parts and passions, and is
+therefore destructible. [1479] Moreover, every living being has a
+sense-nature. Far, therefore, from refusing such a nature to God,
+Carneades attributed to Him, in the interest of omniscience, other
+organs of sense than the five we possess. Now, everything capable of
+impressions through the senses is also liable to change, sensation,
+according to the definition of Chrysippus, being nothing more than a
+change of soul. Every such being must therefore be capable of pleasure
+and pain, without which sensation is inconceivable. Whatever is capable
+of change is liable to destruction; whatever is susceptible to pain is
+also liable to deterioration, pain being caused by deterioration, and
+is also liable to destruction. [1480] As the capacity for sensation, so
+too the desire for what is in harmony with nature, and the dislike of
+what is opposed to nature, belong to the conditions of life. Whatever
+has the power of destroying any being is opposed to the nature of that
+being, everything that lives being exposed to annihilation. [1481]
+Advancing from the conception of a living being to that of a rational
+being, all virtues would have to be attributed to God as well as bliss.
+But how, asks Carneades, can any virtue be ascribed to God? Every
+virtue supposes an imperfection, in overcoming which it consists. He
+only is continent who might possibly be incontinent, and persevering
+who might be indulgent. To be brave, a man must be exposed to danger;
+to be magnanimous, he must be exposed to misfortunes. A being not
+feeling attraction for pleasure, nor aversion for pain and
+difficulties, dangers and misfortunes, would not be capable of virtue.
+Just as little could we predicate prudence of a being not susceptible
+of pleasure and pain; prudence consisting in knowing what is good, bad,
+and morally indifferent. But how can there be any such knowledge where
+there is no susceptibility to pleasure or pain? Or how can a being be
+conceived of capable of feeling pleasure, but incapable of feeling
+pain, since pleasure can only be known by contrast with pain, and the
+possibility of increasing life always supposes the possibility of
+lessening it? Nor is it otherwise with intelligence (εὐβουλία). He only
+is intelligent who always discovers what will subserve his purpose. If,
+however, he must discover it, it cannot have been previously known to
+him. Hence intelligence can only belong to a being who is ignorant
+about much. Such a being can never feel sure that sooner or later
+something will not cause his ruin. He will therefore be exposed to
+fear. A being susceptible of pleasure and exposed to pain, a being who
+has to contend with dangers and difficulties, and who feels pain and
+fear, must inevitably, so thought Carneades, be finite and
+destructible. If, therefore, we cannot conceive of God except in this
+form, we cannot conceive of Him at all, our conception being
+self-destructive. [1482]
+
+There is yet another reason, according to Carneades, why God cannot
+have any virtue; because virtue is above its possessor, and there can
+be nothing above God. [1483] Moreover, what is the position of God in
+regard to speech? It was easy to show the absurdity of attributing
+speech to Him, [1484] but to call him speechless (ἄφωνος) seemed also
+to be opposed to the general belief. [1485] Quite independently,
+however, of details, the inconceivableness of God appears, so soon as
+the question is raised, whether the deity is limited or unlimited,
+material or immaterial. God cannot be unlimited; for what is unlimited
+is necessarily immovable because it has no place, and soulless because
+by virtue of its boundlessness it cannot form a whole permeated by a
+soul; but God we ordinarily think of both as moving and as endowed with
+a soul. Nor can God be limited; for all that is limited is incomplete.
+Moreover, God cannot be immaterial, for Carneades, like the Stoics,
+held that what is immaterial possesses neither soul, feeling, nor
+activity. Neither can he be material, all composite bodies being liable
+to change and destruction, and simple bodies, fire, water, and the
+like, possessing neither life nor reason. [1486] If, then, all the
+forms under which we think of God are impossible, His existence cannot
+be asserted.
+
+[(γ) Polytheistic views attacked.]
+
+Easier work lay before the Sceptics in criticising polytheistic views
+of religion and their defence by the Stoics. Among the arguments
+employed by Carneades to overthrow them, certain chain-arguments are
+prominent, by means of which he endeavoured to show that the popular
+belief has no distinctive marks for the spheres of God and man. If Zeus
+is a God, he argues, his brother Poseidon must likewise be one, and if
+he is one, the rivers and streams must also be Gods. If Helios is a
+God, the appearance of Helios above the earth, or day, must be a God;
+and, consequently, month, year, morning, midday, evening, must all be
+Gods. [1487] Polytheism is here refuted by establishing an essential
+similarity between what is accepted as God and what is avowedly not a
+God. It may readily be supposed that this was not the only proof of the
+acuteness of Carneades’ reasoning. [1488]
+
+Divination, to which the Stoics attached especial importance, [1489]
+was vigorously assailed. Carneades proved that no peculiar range of
+subjects belonged thereto, but that in all cases which admit
+professional judgment experts pass a better judgment than diviners.
+[1490] To know accidental events beforehand is impossible; it is
+useless to know those that are necessary and unavoidable, nay, more, it
+would even be harmful. [1491] No causal connection can be conceived of
+between a prophecy and the ensuing realisation. [1492] If the Stoics
+met him by pointing to fulfilled prophecies, he replied that the
+coincidence was accidental, [1493] at the same time declaring many such
+stories to be without doubt false. [1494]
+
+[(δ) Moral views of the Stoics attacked.]
+
+Connected probably with these attacks on divination was the defence by
+Carneades of the freedom of the will. The Stoic fatalism he refuted by
+an appeal to the fact that our decision is free; and since the Stoics
+appealed in support of their view to the law of causality, he likewise
+attacked this law. [1495] In so doing his intention was not to assert
+anything positive respecting the nature of the human will, but only to
+attack the Stoic assertion, and if for his own part he adhered to the
+old Academic doctrine of a free will, he still regarded that doctrine
+as only probable.
+
+Less information exists as to the arguments by which Carneades sought
+to assail the current principles of morality. Nevertheless, enough is
+known to indicate the course taken by his Scepticism in relation
+thereto. In the second of the celebrated speeches which he delivered at
+Rome in the year 156 B.C., [1496] he denied that there is such a thing
+as natural right: all laws are only positive civil institutions devised
+by men for the sake of safety and advantage, and for the protection of
+the weak; and hence he is regarded as foolish who prefers justice to
+interest, which after all is the only unconditional end. In support of
+these statements he appealed to the fact that laws change with
+circumstances, and are different in different countries. He pointed to
+the example of great nations, such as the Romans, all of whom attained
+to greatness by unrighteous means. He impressed into his service the
+many casuistical questions raised by the Stoics, expressing the opinion
+that in all these cases it is better to commit the injury which brings
+advantage—for instance, to murder another to save one’s own life—than
+to postpone advantage to right, and hence inferred that intelligence is
+a state of irreconcileable opposition to justice. [1497]
+
+This free criticism of dogmatic views could not fail to bring Carneades
+to the same result as his predecessors. Knowledge is absolutely
+impossible. A man of sense will look at everything from all sides and
+invariably withhold judgment, thus guarding himself against error.
+[1498] And to this conviction he clings so persistently that he
+altogether refuses to listen to the objection that the wise man must be
+at least convinced of the impossibility of any firm conviction. [1499]
+The earlier Sceptics, far from attributing on this ground an equal
+value to all notions, had not dispensed with reasons for actions and
+
+
+
+[(2) Positive side of the teaching of Carneades.]
+
+[(a) Theory of probabilities.]
+
+thoughts. This point was now taken up by Carneades, who, in attempting
+to establish the conditions and degrees of probability, hoped to obtain
+a clue to the kind of conviction which might be still permitted in his
+system. However much we may despair of knowledge, some stimulus and
+groundwork for action is needed. Certain things must therefore be
+assumed, from which the pursuit of happiness must start. [1500] To
+these so much weight must be attached that they are allowed to decide
+our conduct, but we must be on our guard against considering them to be
+true, or to be something really known and conceived. Nor must we forget
+that even the nature of true ideas is similar to that of false ones,
+and that the truth of ideas can never be known with certainty. Hence we
+should withhold all assent, not allowing any ideas to be true, but only
+to have the appearance of truth (ἀληθῆ φαίνεσθαι) or probability
+(ἔμφασις, πιθανότης). [1501] In every notion two things need to be
+considered, the relation to the object represented which makes it
+either true or false, and the relation to the subject who has the
+notion, which makes it seem either true or false. The former relation
+is, for the reasons already quoted, quite beyond the compass of our
+judgment; the latter, the relation of a notion to ourselves, falls
+within the sphere of consciousness. [1502] So long as a notion
+seemingly true is cloudy and indistinct, like an object contemplated
+from a distance, it makes no great impression on us. When, on the
+contrary, the appearance of truth is strong, it produces in us a belief
+[1503] strong enough to determine us to action, although it does not
+come up to the impregnable certainty of knowledge. [1504]
+
+Belief, however, like probability, is of several degrees. The lowest
+degree of probability arises when a notion produces by itself an
+impression of truth, without being taken in connection with other
+notions. The next higher degree is when that impression is confirmed by
+the agreement of all notions which are related to it. The third and
+highest degree is when an investigation of all these notions results in
+producing the same corroboration for all. In the first case a notion is
+called probable (πιθανή); in the second probable and undisputed (πιθανὴ
+καὶ ἀπερίσπαστος); in the third probable, undisputed, and tested
+(πιθανὴ καὶ ἀπερίσπαστος καὶ περιωδευμένη). [1505] Within each one of
+these three classes different gradations of probability are again
+possible. [1506] The distinguishing marks, which must be considered in
+the investigation of probability, appear to have been investigated by
+Carneades in the spirit of the Aristotelian logic. [1507] In proportion
+to the greater or less practical importance of a question, or to the
+accuracy of investigation which the circumstances allow, we must adhere
+to one or the other degree of probability. [1508] Although no one of
+them is of such a nature as to exclude the possibility of error, this
+circumstance need not deprive us of certainty in respect to actions,
+provided we have once convinced ourselves that the absolute certainty
+of our practical premisses is not possible. [1509] Just as little
+should we hesitate to affirm or deny anything in that conditional way
+which is alone possible after what has been stated. Assent will be
+given to no notion in the sense of its being absolutely true, but to
+many notions in the sense that we consider them highly probable. [1510]
+
+
+[(b) Moral and religious view of life.]
+
+Among questions about which the greatest possible certainty is felt to
+be desirable, Carneades, true to his whole position, gave a prominent
+place to principles of morals; [1511] life and action being the
+principal things with which the theory of probability has to do. [1512]
+We hear, therefore, that he thoroughly discussed the fundamental
+questions of Ethics, the question as to the highest Good. [1513] On
+this subject he distinguished six, or relatively four, different views.
+If the primary object of desire can in general only consist of those
+things which correspond with our nature, and which consequently call
+our emotions into exercise, the object of desire must be either
+pleasure, or absence of pain, or conformity with nature. In each of
+these three cases two opposite results are possible: either the highest
+Good may consist in the attainment of a purpose, or else in the
+activity which aims at its attainment. The latter is the view of the
+Stoics only, and arises from regarding natural activity or virtue as
+the highest Good. Hence the six possible views are practically reduced
+to four, which taken by themselves, or else in combination, include all
+existing views respecting the highest Good. [1514] But so ambiguously
+did Carneades express himself as to his particular preference of any
+one view, that even Clitomachus declared he was ignorant as to his real
+opinion. [1515] It was only tentatively and for the purpose of refuting
+the Stoics, that he propounded the statement that the highest Good
+consists in the enjoyment of such things as afford satisfaction to the
+primary impulses of nature. [1516] Nevertheless, the matter has often
+been placed in such a light as though Carneades had propounded this
+statement on his own account; and the statement itself has been quoted
+to prove that he considered the satisfaction of natural impulses apart
+from virtue as an end in itself. [1517] It is also asserted that he
+approximated to the view of Callipho, which does not appear to have
+been essentially different from that of the older Academy. [1518] The
+same leaning to the older Academy and its doctrine of moderation
+appears in other recorded parts of the Ethics of Carneades. The pain
+caused by misfortune he wished to lessen by thinking beforehand of its
+possibility; [1519] and after the destruction of Carthage he
+deliberately asserted before Clitomachus that the wise man would never
+allow himself to be disturbed, not even by the downfall of his country.
+[1520]
+
+Putting all these statements together, we obtain a view not unworthy of
+Carneades, and certainly quite in harmony with his position. That
+philosopher could not, consistently with his sceptical principles,
+allow scientific certainty to any of the various opinions respecting
+the nature and aim of moral action; and in this point he attacked the
+Stoics with steady home-thrusts. Their inconsistency in calling the
+choice of what is natural the highest business of morality, and yet not
+allowing to that which is according to nature a place among goods,
+[1521] was so trenchantly exposed by him that Antipater is said to have
+been brought to admit that not the objects to which choice is directed,
+but the actual choice itself is a good. [1522] He even asserted that
+the Stoic theory of Goods only differed in words from that of the
+Peripatetics; to this assertion he was probably led by the fact that
+the Stoic morality appeals to nature only, or perhaps by the theory
+therewith connected of things to be desired and things to be eschewed.
+[1523] If there were any difference between the two, Stoicism, he
+thought, ignored the real wants of nature. The Stoics, for instance,
+called a good name a thing indifferent; Carneades, however, drove them
+so much into a corner because of this statement that they ever after
+(so Cicero assures us) qualified their assertion, attributing to a good
+name at least a secondary value among things to be desired (προηγμένα).
+[1524] Chrysippus, again, thought to find some consolation for the ills
+of life in the reflection that no man is free from them. Carneades was,
+however, of opinion that this thought could only afford consolation to
+a lover of ill; it being rather a matter for sorrow that all should be
+exposed to so hard a fate. [1525] Believing, too, that man’s happiness
+does not depend on any theory of ethics, [1526] he could avow without
+hesitation that all other views of morality do not go beyond
+probability; and thus the statement of Clitomachus, as far as it refers
+to a definite decision as to the highest good, is without doubt
+correct. But just as the denial of knowledge does not, according to the
+view of Carneades, exclude conviction in general on grounds of
+probability, no more does it in the province of ethics. Here, then, is
+the intermediate position which was attributed to him—a position not
+only suggested by the traditions of the Academic School, but remaining
+as a last resource to the sceptical destroyer of systems so opposite as
+Stoicism and the theory of pleasure. The inconsistency of at one time
+identifying the satisfaction of natural instincts with virtue, and at
+another time distinguishing it from virtue, which is attributed to
+Carneades, is an inconsistency for which probably Cicero is alone
+responsible. The real meaning of Carneades can only be that virtue
+consists in an activity directed towards the possession of what is
+according to nature, and hence that it cannot as the highest Good be
+separated from accordance with nature. [1527] For the same reason,
+virtue supplies all that is requisite for happiness. [1528] Hence, when
+it is stated that, notwithstanding his scepticism on moral subjects,
+Carneades was a thoroughly upright man, [1529] we have not only no
+reason to doubt this statement as to his personal character, but we can
+even discern that it was a practical and legitimate consequence of his
+philosophy. It may appear to us inconsistent to build on a foundation
+of absolute doubt the certainty of practical conduct; nevertheless, it
+is an inconsistency deeply rooted in all the scepticism of
+post-Aristotelian times. That scepticism Carneades brought to
+completeness, and in logically developing his theory, even its
+scientific defects came to light.
+
+For the same reason we may also give credit to the statement that
+Carneades, like the later Sceptics, notwithstanding his severe
+criticisms on the popular and philosophic theology of his age, never
+intended to deny the existence of divine agencies. [1530] On this point
+he acted like a true Sceptic. He expressed doubts as to whether
+anything could be known about God, but for practical purposes he
+accepted the belief in God as an opinion more or less probable and
+useful.
+
+Taking all things into account, the philosophic importance of Carneades
+and the School of which he was the head cannot be estimated at so low a
+value as would be the case were the New Academy merely credited with
+entertaining shallow doubts, and Carneades’ theory of probabilities
+deduced from rhetorical rather than from philosophical considerations.
+[1531] For the last assertion there is no ground whatever; Carneades
+distinctly avowed that a conviction resting on probabilities seemed
+indispensable for practical needs and actions. On this point he is
+wholly in accord with all the forms of Scepticism, not only with the
+New Academy, but also with Pyrrho and the later Sceptics. He differs
+from them in the degree of accuracy with which he investigates the
+varieties and conditions of probability; but a question of degree can
+least of all be urged against a philosopher. Nor should doubts be
+called shallow which the ancients even in later times could only very
+inadequately dissipate, and which throw light on several of the deepest
+problems of life by the critical investigations they occasioned. No
+doubt, in the despair of attaining to knowledge at all, and in the
+attempt to reduce everything to opinion more or less certain,
+indications may be seen of the exhaustion of the intellect, and of the
+extinction of philosophic originality. Nevertheless it must never be
+forgotten that the scepticism of the New Academy was not only in
+harmony with the course naturally taken by Greek philosophy as a whole,
+but that it was pursued with an acuteness and a scientific vigour
+leaving no doubt that it was a really important link in the chain of
+philosophic development.
+
+
+
+
+[C. School of Carneades.]
+
+In Carneades this Scepticism attained its highest growth. The successor
+of Carneades, Clitomachus, [1532] is known as the literary exponent of
+the views taught by Carneades. [1533] At the same time we hear of his
+being accurately acquainted with the teaching of the Peripatetics and
+Stoics; and although it was no doubt his first aim to refute the
+dogmatism of these Schools, it would appear that Clitomachus entered
+into the connection of their doctrines more fully than is usually the
+case with opponents. [1534] As to his fellow-pupil, Charmidas (or
+Charmadas), [1535] one wholly unimportant utterance is our only guide
+for determining his views. [1536] For ascertaining the philosophy of
+the other pupils of Carneades, [1537] nothing but the scantiest
+fragments have been preserved. The statement of Polybius that the
+Academic School degenerated into empty subtleties, and thereby became
+an object of contempt, [1538] may deserve no great amount of belief;
+but it does seem probable that the School made no important advance on
+the path marked out by himself and Arcesilaus. It did not even continue
+true to that path for very long. Not a generation after the death of
+its most celebrated teacher, and even among his own pupils, [1539] that
+eclecticism began to appear, the general and simultaneous spread of
+which ushered in a new period in the history of the post-Aristotelian
+philosophy.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+NOTES
+
+
+[1] Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen. Part I. 96.
+
+[2] Conf. Arist. Metaph. I. 2, 282 b, 19.
+
+[3] For the life of Zeno, Diogenes is the chief authority, who appears
+to be indebted for his information chiefly to Antigonus of Carystus,
+who lived about 250 B.C. In proof of this, compare the account of
+Diogenes with the extracts given by Athenæus (viii. 345, d; xiii. 563,
+e; 565, d; 603, e; 607, e; and, in particular, ii. 55, f) from
+Antigonus’ life of Zeno. Of modern authorities, consult Wagenmann, in
+Pauly’s Realencyclop.
+
+[4] Diog. vii. 1. Suid. Ζήνων. Plut. Plac. i. 3, 29. Pausan. ii. 8, 4.
+He is called by others Demeas.
+
+[5] Citium, which the ancients unanimously call the native city of
+Zeno, was, according to Diog. vii. 1, a πόλισμα Ἑλληνικὸν Φοίνικας
+ἐποίκους ἐσχηκὸς, i.e. Phœnician immigrants had settled there by the
+side of the old Greek population, whence its inhabitants are sometimes
+called ‘e Phœnicia profecti’ (Cic. Fin. iv. 20, 56), and Zeno is
+himself called a Phœnician (Diog. vii. 3; 15; 25; 30; ii. 114. Suid.
+Ζήν. Athen. xiii. 563, e. Cic. l.c.). A continuous connection between
+Citium and Phœnicia is implied in Diog. vii. 6; οἱ ἐν Σιδῶνι Κιτιεῖς.
+
+[6] The details are differently given by Diog. 2–5; 31; Plut. Inimic.
+Util. 2, p. 87; and Sen. Tranq. An. 14, 3. Most accounts say that he
+came to Athens for trading purposes, and accidentally became acquainted
+with Crates and philosophy after being shipwrecked. According to other
+accounts, he remained at Athens, after disposing of his merchandise,
+and devoted himself to philosophy. Demetrius of Magnesia (Themist. Or.
+xxiii. 295, D) further relates that he had already occupied himself
+with philosophy at home, and repaired to Athens to study it more
+fully—a view which seems most likely, because the least sensational.
+
+[7] The dates in Zeno’s life are very uncertain. He is said to have
+been thirty when he first came to Athens (Diog. 2). Persæus, however
+(Ibid. 28), his pupil and countryman, says twenty-two. These statements
+are of little use, since the date of his coming to Athens is unknown.
+If it is true that after reading with Crates he was for ten years a
+pupil of Xenocrates, who died 314 B.C. (Timocrates in Diog. 2), he must
+have come to Athens not later than 328 B.C. But this fact may be
+doubted. For his whole line of thought resembles that of Crates and
+Stilpo. How then can he have been for ten years a pupil in the Academy,
+and in addition have enjoyed Polemo’s teaching? Altogether he is said
+to have frequented the schools of different philosophers for twenty
+years before opening his own (Diog. 4). According to Apollon. in Diog.
+28, he presided over his own school for fifty-eight years, which is
+hardly reconcileable with the above data, even if he attained the age
+of ninety-eight (Diog. 28; Lucian, Macrob. 19). According to Persæus
+(Diog. 28), he only attained the age of seventy-two (Clinton, Fast.
+Hell. II. 368 capriciously suggests 92), and was altogether only fifty
+years in Athens. On the other hand, in his own letter to Antigonus
+(Diog. 9), he distinctly calls himself an octogenarian, but the
+genuineness of this letter, borrowed by Diogenes from Apollonius the
+Tyrian about 50 B.C., may perhaps be doubted. The year of Zeno’s death
+is likewise unknown. His relations to Antigonus Gonatas prove at least
+that he was not dead before the beginning of his reign in 278 B.C., and
+probably not till long afterwards. It would appear from the calculation
+of his age, that his death did not take place till 260 B.C. He may,
+then, have lived circa 350 to 260 B.C.; but these dates are quite
+uncertain.
+
+[8] Diog. vii. 2; vi. 105.
+
+[9] Diog. 3: ἐντεῦθεν ἤκουσε τοῦ Κράτητος, ἄλλως μὲν εὔτονος πρὸς
+φιλοσοφίαν, αἰδήμων δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὴν κυνικὴν ἀναισχυντίαν.
+
+[10] Conf., besides what immediately follows, Diog. 25 and 15: ἦν δὲ
+ζητητικὸς καὶ περὶ πάντων ἀκριβολογούμενος.
+
+[11] Diog. vii. 2; 4; 16; 20; 24; ii. 114; 120. Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev.
+xiv. 5, 9; 6, 6. Polemo is called his teacher by Cic. Fin. iv. 16, 45;
+Acad. i. 9, 35. Strabo, xiii. 1. 67, p. 614. On Xenocrates compare p.
+37, 1. How ready he was to learn from others is proved by the saying in
+Diog. 25; Plut. Fragm. in Hesiod. ix. T. V. 511. W.
+
+[12] Diog. 5, according to whom he gave instruction walking to and fro,
+like Aristotle, but never to more than two or three at a time (Diog.
+14). It is not probable that he gave any formal lectures.
+
+[13] Which, however, must be judged by the standard of that time and of
+Greek customs. Conf. Diog. 13; and the quotations in Athen. xiii. 607,
+e; 563, e, from Antigonus of Carystus.
+
+[14] See Musonius in Stob. Serm. 17, 43. His outward circumstances also
+appear to have been very simple. According to one account (Diog. 13),
+he brought to Athens the fabulous sum of 1000 talents, and put it out
+to interest. Themist. Or. xxi., p. 252, says that he forgave a debtor
+his debt. He is said to have paid a logician 200 drachmas, instead of
+the 100 which he asked for (Diog. 25). Nor is there any mention of a
+Cynical life or of poverty. But, according to Diog. 5, Plut. and Sen.,
+he had lost his property almost entirely. According to Sen. Consol. ad
+Helv. 12, 5 (contradicted by Diog. 23), he owned no slave. Had he been
+well to do, he would hardly have accepted the presents of Antigonus.
+That Zeno was unmarried appears from Diog. 13.
+
+[15] Conf. Diog. 13; 16; 24; 26; Athen. in the passage quoted p. 36, 2;
+Suid.; Clem. Strom. 413, A. It is mentioned as a peculiarity of Zeno,
+that he avoided all noise and popular display (Diog. 14); that, though
+generally grave, he relaxed over his wine, and that too much; that he
+could not tolerate many words, and was very fond of epigrams. See Diog.
+16; 20; 24; Athen. l.c. Stob. Serm. 34; 10; 36; 19; 23. He is said to
+have carried his parsimoniousness too far. In this respect he was a
+thorough Phœnician (Diog. 16). The presents of Antigonus he never
+sought, and broke with an acquaintance who asked for his interest with
+the king. Still he did not despise them, without abating from his
+dignity. The loss of his property he bore with the greatest composure
+(Diog. 3; Plut. and Sen.).
+
+[16] Antigonus (conf. Athen. xiii. 603, e; Arrian, Diss. Epict. ii. 13,
+14; Simpl. in Epict. Enchir. 283, c; Æl. V. H. ix. 26) was fond of his
+society, attended his lectures, and wished to have him at court—but
+Zeno declined the offer, sending two of his pupils instead. The
+Athenians, to whom, according to Ælian’s untrustworthy account V. H.
+vii. 14, he had rendered political services, honoured him with a public
+panegyric, a golden crown, a statue, and burial in the Ceramicus. That
+the keys of the city were left in his keeping is not probable. The
+offer of Athenian citizenship he declined (Plut. Sto. Rep. 4, 1, p.
+1034). Nor did his countrymen in Citium fail to show their appreciation
+(Diog. 6; Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 19, 32) of him, and Zeno always insisted
+on being a Citian (Diog. 12; Plut. l.c.).
+
+[17] He himself (Diog. vii. 18) compares the λόγοι ἀπηρτισμένοι of the
+ἀσόλοικοι to the elegant Alexandrian coins, which, instead of being
+better, were often lighter than those of Athens. He is charged in
+particular with using words in a wrong sense, and with inventing new
+words, whence Cic. Tusc. v. 11, 34, calls him ‘ignobilis verborum
+opifex,’ and Chrysippus, in a treatise περὶ τοῦ κυρίως κεχρῆσθαι Ζήνωνα
+τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, disparages this καινοτομεῖν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι (Galen.
+Diff. Puls. III. 1., vol. viii. 642, K.). He is also charged with
+maintaining that nothing ought to be concealed, but that even the most
+indelicate things should be called by their proper names. He is further
+charged with having propounded no new system, but with having
+appropriated the thoughts of his predecessors, and having concealed his
+plagiarism by the use of new terms. In Diog. vii. 25, Polemo says:
+κλέπτων τὰ δόγματα Φοινικῶς μεταμφιεννύς; and Cicero frequently repeats
+the charge (Fin. v. 25, 74; iii. 2, 5; iv. 2, 3; 3, 7; 26; 72; v. 8,
+22; 29, 88. Acad. ii. 5, 15. Legg. 1, 13, 38; 20; 53. Tusc. ii. 12,
+29).
+
+[18] Diog. 28, 1. The statement that he was ἄνοσος must be taken with
+some limitation, according to Diog. vii. 162; Stob. Floril. 17, 43.
+
+[19] Diog. 28; 31. Lucian, Macrob. 19. Lactant. Inst. iii. 18. Stob.
+Floril. 7, 45. Suid.
+
+[20] The list of them in Diog. 4, to which additions are made Diog. 34;
+39; 134. The Διατριβαὶ (Diog. 34; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 205; 245; Math. xi.
+90) may perhaps be identical with the Ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος (Diog.
+4), the Τέχνη ἐρωτικὴ (Diog. 34) with Τέχνη (Diog. 4). An exposition of
+Hesiod, which had been inferred to exist, from Cic. N. D. i. 14, 36,
+Krische, Forsch. 367, rightly identifies with the treatise περὶ τοῦ
+ὅλου, and this with the treatise περὶ τῆς φύσεως (Stob. Ecl. i. 178).
+Other authorities are given by Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 580.
+
+[21] This appears at least probable from Diog. 4: ἕως μὲν οὖν τινὸς
+ἤκουσε τοῦ Κράτητος· ὅτε καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτοῦ γράψαντος, τινὲς
+ἔλεγον παίζοντες ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ κυνὸς οὐρᾶς αὐτὴν γεγραφέναι.
+
+[22] Mohnike, Cleanthes d. Sto.: Greifsw. 1814. Cleanthis Hymn. in
+Jovem, ed. Sturz, ed. nov. cur. Merzdorf.: Lips. 1835.
+
+[23] Strabo, xiii. 1, 57, p. 610. Diog. vii. 168. Ælian, Hist. Anim.
+vi. 50. How Clemens, Protrept. 47, A, comes to call him Πισαδεὺς, it is
+hard to say, nor is it of any moment. Mohnike, p. 67, offers
+conjectures. Mohnike also rightly maintains, p. 77, that Cleanthes ὁ
+Ποντικὸς in Diog. ix. 15 must be the same as this Cleanthes, and Cobet
+strikes out the words ὁ Ποντικὸς after Κλεάνθης.
+
+[24] According to Antisthenes (the Rhodian), in Diog. l.c., Cleanthes
+was a pugilist, who came to Athens with four drachmæ, and entered the
+school of Zeno (according to Hesych. v. Suid., that of Crates, which is
+impossible for chronological reasons. Conversely, Valer. Max. viii. 7,
+ext. 11, makes him a pupil of Chrysippus, confounding the relations of
+pupil and teacher, as we have met with elsewhere), in which he studied
+for nineteen years (Diog. 176), gaining a maintenance by working as a
+labourer (Diog. 168; 174; Plut. Vit. Ær. Al. 7, 5, p. 830; Sen. Ep. 44,
+3; Krische, Forsch.). A public maintenance, which was offered him, Zeno
+induced him to refuse, and, in other ways, tried his power of will by
+the severest tests. It is, therefore, all the more improbable that
+Antigonus gave him 3000 minæ (Diog. 169). On the simplicity of his
+life, his constant application, his adherence to Zeno, &c., see Diog.
+168; 170; 37; Plut. De Audi. 18, p. 47; Cic. Tusc. ii. 25, 60. He also
+refused to become an Athenian citizen (Plut. Sto. Rep. 4, p. 1034). He
+died of self-imposed starvation (Diog. 176; Lucian, Macrob. 19; Stob.
+Floril. 7, 54). His age is stated by Diog. 176, at eighty; by Lucian
+and Valer. Max. viii. 7, ext. 11, at ninety-nine. Diog. 174, gives a
+list of his somewhat numerous writings, mostly on moral subjects, which
+is supplemented by Fabric. Bibl. iii. 551, Harl. and Mohnike, p. 90.
+Cleanthes was held in great esteem in the Stoic School, even in the
+time of Chrysippus (Diog. vii. 179; 182; Cic. Acad. ii. 41, 126). At a
+later time, the Roman Senate erected a statue to him at Assos (Simpl.
+in Epict. Enchir. c. 53, 329, b).
+
+[25] Aristo, son of Miltiades, a Chian, discussed most fully by
+Krische, Forsch. 405, known as the Siren, because of his persuasive
+powers, and also as the Baldhead, was a pupil of Zeno (Diog. 37; 160;
+Cic. N. D. i. 14, 37; Acad. ii. 42, 130; Sen. Ep. 94, 2), but is said,
+during Zeno’s illness, to have joined Polemo (Diocl. in Diog. 162).
+Although it may be objected that his teaching does not diverge in the
+direction of Platonism, but rather in the opposite direction, still
+Polemo’s contempt (Diog. iv. 18) for dialectic may at one time have had
+its attractions for him. It is a better established fact that his
+attitude towards pleasure was less indifferent than it ought to have
+been, according to his principles (Eratos and Apollophanes in Athen.
+vii. 281, c); but the charge of flattery towards his fellow-pupil
+Persæus appears not to be substantiated (Athen. vi. 251, c). His
+letters show that he was on intimate terms with Cleanthes (Themist. Or.
+xxi. p. 255, b). His loquacity is said to have been displeasing to Zeno
+(Diog. vii. 18). He appeared as a teacher in the Cynosarges,
+Antisthenes’ old locality (Diog. 161), thus claiming descent from
+Cynicism. Of his numerous pupils (Diog. 182; Plut. C. Princ. Philos. i.
+4. p. 776), two are mentioned by Diogenes, 161; Miltiades and Diphilus.
+Athenæus names two more: Apollophanes, and the celebrated Alexandrian
+sage, Eratosthenes, both of whom wrote an ‘Aristo.’ The latter is also
+named by Strabo, i. 2, 2, p. 15, Suid. Ἐρατοσθ. Apollophanes, whilst
+adopting Aristo’s views of virtue in Diog. vii. 92, did not otherwise
+adopt his ethics. His natural science is mentioned by Diog. vii. 140,
+his psychology by Tertull. De An. 14. Since Eratosthenes was born 276
+B.C., Aristo must have been alive in 250 B.C., which agrees with his
+being called a cotemporary and opponent of Arcesilaus (Strabo, l.c.;
+Diog. vii. 162; iv. 40, and 33). According to Diog. vii. 164, he died
+of sunstroke. Not only had his School disappeared in the time of Strabo
+and Cicero (Cic. Legg. i. 13, 38; Fin. ii. 11, 35; v. 8, 23; Tusc. v.
+30, 85; Off. i. 2, 6; Strabo, l.c.), but no traces of it are found
+beyond the first generation. The writings enumerated by Diog. vii. 163,
+with the single exception of the letter to Cleanthes, are said to have
+been attributed by Panætius and Sosicrates to the Peripatetic; but
+Krische’s remarks, p. 408, particularly after Sauppe’s demurrer
+(Philodemi de Vit. Lib. X. Weimar, 1853, p. 7), raise a partial doubt
+as to the accuracy of this statement. The fragments, at least, of
+Ὁμοιώματα preserved by Stobæus seem to belong to a Stoic. Perhaps from
+the Ὅμοια come the statements in Sen. Ep. 36, 3; 115, 8; Plut. De Aud.
+8, p. 42; De Sanit. 20, p. 133; De Exil. 5, p. 600; Præc. Ger. Reip. 9,
+4, p. 804; Aqua an Ign. Util. 12, 2, p. 958.
+
+[26] Herillus’s native place was Carthage (Diog. vii. 37; 165). If
+Χαλχηδόνιος is read by Cobet in the last passage, we have again the
+same confusion between Καλχηδὼν and Καρχηδὼν, which made Xenocrates a
+Καρχηδόνιος. He came as a boy under Zeno (Diog. 166; Cic. Acad. ii. 42,
+129). Diog. l.c. enumerates the writings of Herillus, calling them,
+however, ὀλιγόστιχα μὲν δυνάμεως δὲ μεστά. Cic. De Orat. iii. 17. 62,
+speaks of a School bearing his name, but no pupil belonging to it is
+known.
+
+[27] Citium was his birthplace. His father’s name was Demetrius (Diog.
+6; 36), and his own nickname Dorotheus (Suid. Περσ.). According to
+Diog. 36; Sotion and Nicias in Athen. iv. 162, d; Gell. ii. 18, 8;
+Orig. C. Cels. iii. 483, d; he was first a slave of Zeno’s, which
+agrees with his being a pupil and inmate of his house (Diog. 36; 13;
+Cic. N. D. i. 15, 38; Athen. xiii. 607, e; Pausan. ii. 8, 4). It is
+less probable that he was presented by Antigonus to Zeno as a copyist
+(Diog. 36). He subsequently lived at the court of Antigonus (Athen. vi.
+251, c; xiii. 607, a; Themist. Or. xxxii., p. 358), whose son
+Halcyoneus (Ælian, V. H. iii. 17, says falsely himself) he is said to
+have instructed (Diog. 36), and with whom he stood in high favour
+(Plut. Arat. 18; Athen. vi. 251, c). He, however, allowed the
+Macedonian garrison in Corinth to be surprised by Aratus, in 243 B.C.,
+and, according to Pausan. ii. 8, 4; vii. 8, 1, perished on that
+occasion. The contrary is asserted by Plut. Arat. 23, and Athen. iv.
+162, c. In his teaching and manner of life, he appears to have taken a
+very easy view of the Stoic principles (Diog. 13; 36; Athen. iv. 162,
+b; xiii. 607, a). It is therefore probable that he did not agree with
+Aristo’s Cynicism (Diog. vii. 162), and his pupil Hermagoras wrote
+against the Cynics (Suid. Ἑρμαγ.). Political reasons were at the bottom
+of Menedemus’ hatred for him (Diog. ii. 143). Otherwise, he appears as
+a genuine Stoic (Diog. vii. 120; Cic. N. D. i. 15, 38; Minuc. Felix
+Octav. 21, 3; Philodem. De Mus., Vol. Herc. i. col. 14). Compare p. 39,
+2. The treatises mentioned by Diog. 36 are chiefly ethical and
+political. In addition to these, there was a treatise on Ethics (Diog.
+28); the συμποτικὰ ὑπομνήματα, or συμποτικοὶ διάλογοι, from which
+Athen. (iv. 162, b; xiii. 607, a) gives some extracts; and the Ἱστορία
+(in Suid.). Whether Cicero’s statement is taken from a treatise omitted
+by Diogenes, or from that περὶ ἀσεβείας, it is hard to say.
+
+[28] According to the sketch of his life in Buhle (Arat. Opp. i. 3),
+Aratus was a pupil of Persæus at Athens, in company with whom he
+repaired to Antigonus in Macedonia, which can only mean that he was,
+together with Persæus, a pupil of Zeno. Another writer in Buhle (ii.
+445) calls him so, mentioning one of his letters addressed to Zeno.
+Other accounts (Ibid. ii. 431; 442; 446) describe him as a pupil of
+Dionysius of Heraclea, or of Timon and Menedemus. A memorial of his
+Stoicism is the introduction to his ‘Phænomena,’ a poem resembling the
+hymn of Cleanthes. Asclepiades (Vita in Buhle, ii. 429), in calling him
+a native of Tarsus, is only preferring a better-known Cilician town to
+one less known.
+
+[29] Hence his name ὁ Μεταθέμενος. On his writings, consult Diog. vii.
+166; 37; 23; v. 92; Athen. vii. 281, d; x. 437, e; Cic. Acad. ii. 22,
+71; Tusc. ii. 25, 60; Fin. v. 31, 94. Previously to Zeno, he is said to
+have studied under Heraclides ὁ Ποντικὸς, Alexinus, and Menedemus.
+
+[30] Diog. 177; Plut. Cleomen. 2; 11; Athen. viii. 354, e. Sphærus’
+presence in Egypt seems to belong to the time before he became
+connected with Cleomenes. He was a pupil of Cleanthes (Diog. vii. 185;
+Athen. l.c.) when he went to Egypt, and resided there at the court of
+Ptolemy for several years. He had left Egypt by 221 B.C., but was then
+himself no longer a member of the Stoic School at Athens. It is
+possible that Sphærus may first have come to Cleomenes on a commission
+from the Egyptian king. In that case, the Ptolemy referred to must have
+been either Ptolemy Euergetes or Ptolemy Philadelphus—certainly not
+Philopator, as Diog. 177 says. If, however, the view is taken that it
+was Ptolemy Philopator, it may be supposed that Sphærus repaired to
+Egypt with Cleomenes in 221 B.C. Sphærus’ numerous writings (Diog. 178:
+Λακωνικὴ πολιτεία also in Athen. iv. 141, 6) refer to all parts of
+philosophy, and to some of the older philosophers. According to Cic.
+Tusc. iv. 24, 53, his definitions were in great esteem in the Stoic
+School.
+
+[31] Athenodorus, a native of Soli (Diog. vii. 38; 100); Callippus of
+Corinth (Diog. 38); Philonides of Thebes, who went with Persæus to
+Antigonus (Diog. 9; 38); Posidonius of Alexandria (Diog. 38); Zeno of
+Sidon, a pupil of Diodorus Cronus, who joined Zeno (Diog. 38; 16;
+Suid.).
+
+[32] Baguet, De Chrysippo. Annal. Lovan. vol. iv. Lovan. 1822.
+
+[33] Εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος οὐκ ἂν ἦν στοά (Diog. 183). Cic. Acad. ii.
+24, 75: Chrysippum, qui fulcire putatur porticum Stoicorum, Athen.
+viii. 335, b.: Χρύσιππον τὸν τῆς στοᾶς ἡγεμόνα. See Baguet, p. 16.
+
+[34] It is recorded (Diog. 179) that he was brought up in early life as
+a racer, which is an exceedingly suspicious statement, (confer D, 168);
+and that his paternal property was confiscated (Hecato in Diog. 181).
+Subsequently, his domestic establishment was scanty, consisting of one
+old servant (Diog. 185; 181; 183); but whether this was the result of
+Stoicism or of poverty is not known. The Floril. Monac. (in Stob.
+Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 289) 262 calls him λιτὸς, ἔχων χρήματα πολλά.
+
+[35] According to Apollodorus in Diog. 184, he died c. 205 B.C., in his
+73rd year, which would make 281 to 276 the year of his birth. According
+to Lucian, Macrob. 20, he attained the age of 81, and, according to
+Valer. Max. viii. 7 ext. 10, completed the 39th book of his logic in
+his eightieth year.
+
+[36] This is the view of Diog. 179; Plut. De Exil. 14, p. 605; Strabo,
+xiii. 1. 57, p. 610; xiv. 4, 8, p. 671, and most writers. Alexander
+Polyhistor, however, in Diog. and Suid. Ζήν. call him a native of
+Tarsus; and since his father Apollonius migrated from Tarsus to Soli
+(Strabo, p. 671), it is possible that Chrysippus may have been born in
+Tarsus.
+
+[37] On this point all authorities are agreed. When and how he came to
+Athens is not recorded. He subsequently obtained the rights of
+citizenship there (Plut. Sto. Rep. 4, 2, p. 1034).
+
+[38] Diog. 179. This statement cannot be tested by chronology.
+Authorities, however, do not look promising.
+
+[39] Diog. Pro. 15. Strabo, xiii. 1, 57, 610.
+
+[40] Diog. vii. 183. It is possible, as Ritter, iii. 524, supposes,
+that he was for some time doubtful about Stoicism, whilst he was under
+the influence of the Academic Scepticism, and that during this time he
+wrote the treatise against συνήθεια. This is possible, but not
+probable. But that he should have separated from Cleanthes, and have
+set up a school in the Lyceum in opposition to him, is unlikely, and
+does not follow from the words of Diog. 179; 185.
+
+[41] Diog. 184; iv. 62. Cic. Acad. ii. 27, 87. Plut. Sto. Rep. p. 10,
+3, 1036. These passages refer particularly to Chrysippus’ six books
+κατὰ τῆς συνηθείας. On the other hand, his pupil Aristocreon, in Plut.
+l.c. 2, 5, commends him as being τῶν Ἀκαδημιακῶν στραγγαλίδων κοπίδα.
+(Conf. Plut. Comm. Not. i. 4, p. 1059).
+
+[42] When a learner, he is said to have used these words to Cleanthes:
+‘Give me the principles; the proofs I can find myself.’ Subsequently it
+was said of him: ‘If the Gods have any logic, it is that of Chrysippus’
+(Diog. 179). See Cic. N. D. i. 15, 30, where the Epicurean calls him
+Stoicorum somniorum vaferrimus interpres: ii. 6, 16; iii. 10, 25:
+Divin. i. 3, 6: Chrysippus acerrimo vir ingenio. Senec. Benefic. i. 3,
+8; 4, 1, complains of his captiousness. Dionys. Hal. Comp. Verb. 68,
+calls him the most practical logician, but the most careless writer.
+Krische, Forsch. i. 445.
+
+[43] Diog. 180. Athen. xiii. 565, a. Damasc. V. Isid. 36. Cic. Tusc. i.
+45, 108.
+
+[44] Diog. 179; 183.
+
+[45] Diog. 185, mentions it as deserving of especial notice, that he
+refused the invitation of Ptolemy to court, and dedicated none of his
+numerous writings to a prince.
+
+[46] Cic. Acad. ii. 47, 143. Diog. 179. Plut. Sto. Rep. 4, 1, p. 1034.
+According to the latter passage, Antipater had written a special
+treatise περὶ τῆς Κλεάνθους καὶ Χρυσίππου διαφορᾶς.
+
+[47] Quid enim est a Chrysippo prætermissum in Stoicis? Cic. Fin. i. 2,
+6.
+
+[48] According to Diog. 180, there were not fewer than 750. Conf.
+Valer. Max. viii. 7, ext. 10; Lucian, Hermotim. 48.
+
+[49] This appeared to the Epicureans disparaging to the honour of their
+master. Hence the charge that Chrysippus had written against Epicurus
+in rivalry (Diog. x. 26, and the criticism of Apollodorus in Diog. vii.
+181).
+
+[50] Baguet, pp. 114–357, discusses the subject very fully, but omits
+several fragments. As to his logical treatises, of which alone there
+were 311 (Diog. 198), see Nicolai, De logicis Chrysippi libris:
+Quedlinb. 1859. Prantl, Gesch. d. Log. i. 404. Petersen (Philosoph.
+Chrysip. Fundamenta: Hamburg, 1827, 321) attempts a systematic
+arrangement of all the known books.
+
+[51] See Cic. De Orat. i. 11, 50; Dionys. Hal. See above 46, 3; Diog.
+vii. 180; x. 27. Galen, Differ. Puls. ii. 10; vol. viii. 631 K;
+Hippocr. et Plat. Plac. ii. 2; iii. 2; vol. v. 213, 295, 308, 312, 314,
+and Baguet, 26. See also Plut. Sto. Rep. 28, 2; and Bergk, Commentat.
+de Chrys. lib. περὶ ἀποφατικῶν: Cassel, 1841.
+
+[52] The circumstances of his death are related differently in Diog.
+184; but both stories are untrustworthy. The story of the ass is also
+told in Lucian, Macrob. 25 of Philemon; the other version in Diog. iv.
+44; 61 of Arcesilaus and Lacydes. On the statue of Chrysippus in the
+Ceramicus see Diog. vii. 182; Cic. Fin. i. 11, 39; Pausan. i. 17, 2;
+Plut. Sto. Rep. 2, 5.
+
+[53] In Stob. Floril. 40, 8, mention is made of the honourable position
+enjoyed by the Athenian Chremonides, who had been banished from his
+country. The banishment of Chremonides being placed in the year 263
+B.C., Teles’ treatise περὶ φυγῆς must have been written between 260 and
+250 B.C. This is further proved by the fact that there is no reference
+in the fragments preserved to persons or circumstances later than this
+date. The philosophers to whom reference is made are the Cynics
+Diogenes, Crates, Metrocles, Stilpo, Bio the Borysthenite, Zeno, and
+Cleanthes (95, 21), the latter being called ὁ Ἄσσιος.
+
+[54] Floril. 5, 67; 40, 8; 91, 33; 93, 31; 98, 72; 108, 82 and 83.
+
+[55] According to Suid., he was born c. 275 B.C., and died in his 80th
+year.
+
+[56] See p. 41, 2.
+
+[57] Conf. Diog. 54: ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος διαφερόμενος πρὸς αὐτόν ...
+κριτήριά φησιν εἶναι αἴσθησιν καὶ πρόληψιν. That he was junior to
+Aratus appears by his commentary on Aratus’ poem. See Appendix to
+Geminus, Elem. Astron. (Petavii Doctr. Temp. III. 147). The Vita Arati
+(Von Buhle’s Aratus, vol. ii. 443), probably confounding him with the
+Peripatetic Boëthus, calls him a native of Sidon.
+
+[58] We shall have occasion to prove this in speaking of his views of a
+criterion, and of his denial of a conflagration and destruction of the
+world. Nevertheless, he is frequently appealed to as an authority among
+the Stoics. Philo, Incorruptib. M. 947, C, classes him among ἄνδρες ἐν
+τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς δόγμασιν ἰσχυκότες.
+
+[59] This follows from the great importance of Chrysippus, and the
+esteem in which he was held from the very first, and is confirmed by
+the number of persons to whom he wrote treatises. See the list from
+Diog. 189 in Fabric. Bibl. iii. 549. It is, however, ambiguous whether
+πρὸς means to or against.
+
+[60] Aristocreon, the nephew of Chrysippus, is the only pupil who can
+be definitely mentioned by name. See Diog. vii. 185; Plut. Sto. Rep. 2,
+5, p. 1033.
+
+[61] What is known of this philosopher is limited to the statements in
+Diog. 35; Suid. Ζήν. Διοσκ.; Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 13, 7; Arius Didymus,
+Ibid. xv. 17, 2; that he was a native of Tarsus (in Suid. τινὲς say of
+Sidon, evidently confounding him with the Zeno mentioned p. 44, 3);
+that he was the son of Dioscorides, the pupil and follower of
+Chrysippus; that he left many pupils, but few writings; and that he
+doubted a conflagration of the world.
+
+[62] According to Diog. vi. 81; Lucian, Macrob. 20, he was a native of
+Seleucia on the Tigris; but he is sometimes called a native of Babylon
+(Diog. vii. 39; 55; Cic. N. D. i. 15, 41; Divin. i. 3, 6; Plut. De
+Exil. 14, p. 605). Cic. Divin. i. 3, 6, calls him a pupil of
+Chrysippus; and Acad. ii. 30, 98, the instructor of Carneades in
+dialectic. Plut. Alex. Virt. 5, p. 328, calls him a pupil of Zeno (of
+Tarsus). Zeno, he says, Διογένη τὸν Βαβυλώνιον ἔπεισε φιλοσοφεῖν. Diog.
+vii. 71, mentions a διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη of his; and, vii. 55 and 57, a
+τέχνη περὶ φωνῆς. Cic. Divin. i. 3, 6, speaks of a treatise on
+divination. Athen. iv. 168, e, of a treatise περὶ εὐγενείας, xii. 526.
+d, of a work περὶ νόμων—the same work probably which, according to Cic.
+Legg. iii. 5, 14, was written ‘a Dione Stoico.’ Cic. Off. iii. 12, 51,
+calls him ‘magnus et gravis Stoicus;’ Seneca, De Ira, iii. 38, 1,
+mentions a trait showing great presence of mind. Diogenes was, without
+doubt, aged in 156 B.C. (Cic. De Senec. 7, 23). According to Lucian, he
+attained the age of 88, and may therefore have died 150 B.C.
+
+[63] It was often supposed, on the strength of Cic. N. D. i. 15, 41,
+Divin. i. 3, 6, that Diogenes was the immediate successor of
+Chrysippus. The words, however, consequens or subsequens, by no means
+necessarily imply it. On the authority of Arius, Eusebius, and Suidas,
+it would seem that Zeno was the successor of Chrysippus, and that
+Diogenes followed Zeno.
+
+[64] Cic. Off. iii. 12, 51, only calls him his pupil; but it is clear
+that he taught in Athens from Plut. Ti. Gracch. c. 8, as Zumpt, Ueber
+die philos. Schulen in Athen. Abh. d. Berl. Acad. 1842, Hist. phil. kl.
+p. 103, already remarks; and Plut. Tranq. An. 9, p. 469, seems to imply
+that he continued to live at Athens after leaving Cilicia. The same
+fact is conveyed by the mention of Diogenists and Panætiasts at Athens
+(Athen. v. c. 2, p. 186, a); by the charge brought against Antipater
+(Plut. Garrul. c. 23, p. 514; Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 6; Cic.
+Acad ii. 6, 17, and the fragment from Acad. Post. I. in Non. p. 65),
+that he never ventured to dispute with Carneades; and by Diog. iv. 65;
+Stob. Floril. 119, 19. According to these two authorities, he
+voluntarily put an end to his own life. In Acad. ii. 47, 143, Cicero
+calls him and Archedemus ‘duo vel principes dialecticorum,
+opiniosissimi homines.’ It appears from Off. iii. 12, 51, where he is
+also called ‘homo acutissimus,’ that he pronounced a severer judgment
+on several moral questions than Diogenes. Sen. Ep. 92, 5, reckons him
+among the magnos Stoicæ sectæ auctores. Epictet. Diss. iii. 21, 7,
+speaks of the φορὰ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Ἀρχεδήμου. See Van Lynden, De
+Panætio, 33; and Fabric. Biblioth. iii. 538 for his numerous lost
+treatises.
+
+[65] Cic. l.c.; Strabo xiv. 4, 14, p. 674, Epictet. l.c.; Diog. vii.
+55. It does not follow that they were cotemporaries, but only that
+their writings and philosophy were the same. We have otherwise no
+accurate information as to the date of Archedemus. Passages where he is
+mentioned may be found in Fabric. Bibl. III. 540. He also appears to be
+meant in Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 505, a, 45. In Diog. 134, he
+appears to be placed between Chrysippus and Posidonius. In Plut. De
+Exil. 14, 605, he follows Antipater. According to this authority he
+established a school in Babylon, and because he came there from Athens,
+Plutarch appears to have considered him an Athenian.
+
+[66] Apollodorus of Athens, the compiler of the Βιβλιοθήκη, a
+well-known grammarian, is also mentioned as a pupil of Diogenes
+(Scymnus, Chius Perieges. v. 20). His chronicle, dedicated to Attalus
+II., Philadelphus of Pergamum (158–138 B.C.), and probably drawn up 144
+B.C., would seem to corroborate this assertion. Panætius, whose pupil
+he is elsewhere called (Suid. Ἀπολλόδ.), was himself a pupil of
+Diogenes’ successor, Antipater (Cic. Divin. i. 3, 6), and can hardly
+have been older than Apollodorus.
+
+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.
+
+[69] In Seneca, Ep. 89, 4, wisdom is the highest good for the human
+mind, and philosophy is a striving after wisdom: wisdom is defined to
+be the knowledge of things human and divine; philosophy to be studium
+virtutis, or studium corrigendæ mentis. This striving after virtue
+cannot be distinguished from virtue itself: Philosophia studium
+virtutis est, sed per ipsam virtutem. Seneca further observes (Fr. 17,
+in Lactant. Inst. iii. 15): Philosophia nihil aliud est quam recta
+vivendi ratio, vel honeste vivendi scientia, vel ars rectæ vitæ agendæ.
+Non errabimus, si dixerimus philosophiam esse legem bene honesteque
+vivendi, et qui dixerit illam regulam vitæ, suum illi [nomen] reddidit.
+Plut. see previous note.
+
+[70] See Diog. vii. 46: αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ἀναγκαίαν εἶναι καὶ
+ἀρετὴν ἐν εἴδει περιέχουσαν ἀρετὰς, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[71] Chrys. in Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, 6: δεῖ γὰρ τούτοις [sc. τοῖς
+φυσικοῖς] συνάψαι τὸν περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν λόγον, οὐκ οὔσης ἄλλης
+ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν ἀμείνονος οὐδ’ ἀναφορᾶς, οὐδ’ ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκεν τῆς
+φυσικῆς θεωρίας παραληπτῆς οὔσης ἢ πρὸς τὴν περὶ ἀγαθῶν ἢ κακῶν
+διάστασιν.
+
+[72] Chrys. in Plut. Sto. Rep. 3, 2: ὅσοι δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσι φιλοσόφοις
+ἐπιβάλλειν μάλιστα τὸν σχολαστικὸν βίον ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, οὗτοί μοι δοκοῦσι
+διαμαρτάνειν ὑπονοοῦντες διαγωγῆς τινος ἕνεκεν δεῖν τοῦτο ποιεῖν ἢ
+ἄλλου τινὸς τούτῳ παραπλησίου, καὶ τὸν ὅλον βίον οὕτω πως διελκύσαι·
+τοῦτο δ’ ἔστιν, ἂν σαφῶς θεωρηθῇ, ἡδέως. Διαγωγὴ had, it is true, been
+treated by Aristotle, whose school is here referred to, as an end in
+itself; but Aristotle had carefully distinguished διαγωγὴ from ἡδονή.
+
+[73] p. 19.
+
+[74] Cic. Acad. ii. 42, 129: Herillum, qui in cognitione et scientia
+summum bonum ponit: qui cum Zenonis auditor esset, vides quantum ab eo
+dissenserit, et quam non multum a Platone. Fin. ii. 13, 43: Herillus
+autem ad scientiam omnia revocans unum quoddam bonum vidit. iv. 14, 36:
+In determining the highest good, the Stoics act as one-sidedly, as if
+ipsius animi, ut fecit Herillus, cognitionem amplexarentur, actionem
+relinquerent. v. 25, 73: Sæpe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter
+est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia. Hoc uno captus Herillus
+scientiam summum bonum esse defendit, nec rem ullam aliam per se
+expetendam. Diog. vii. 165: Ἥριλλος ... τέλος εἶπε τὴν ἐπιστήμην. Ibid.
+vii. 37. With less accuracy, it is asserted by Iambl. in Stob. Ecl. i.
+918, that we are raised to the society of the gods, κατὰ Ἥριλλον,
+ἐπιστήμῃ.
+
+[75] Sen. Ep. 89, 8: Nam nec philosophia sine virtute est nec sine
+philosophia virtus. Ibid. 53, 8: We all lie in the slumber of error:
+sola autem nos philosophia excitabit ... illi te totum dedica.
+
+[76] Lact. Inst. vii. 7: Ad virtutem capessendam nasci homines, Ariston
+disseruit. See Stob. Ecl. 4, 111.
+
+[77] Plut. De Audiendo, c. 8, p. 42: οὔτε γὰρ βαλανείου, φησὶν ὁ
+Ἀρίστων, οὔτε λόγου μὴ καθαίροντος ὄφελός ἐστιν.
+
+[78] Stob. Floril. 82, 15. Diog. vii. 161.
+
+[79] Stob. Floril. 82, 11.
+
+[80] Ibid. 7.
+
+[81] Diog. vii. 162: μάλιστα δὲ προσεῖχε Στωϊκῷ δόγματι τῷ τὸν σόφον
+ἀδόξαστον εἶναι.
+
+[82] See Diog. vii. 163.
+
+[83] Aristo (in the Ὁμοιώματα) in Stob. Floril. 82, 16: ὁ ἐλλέβορος
+ὁλοσχερέστερος μὲν ληφθεὶς καθαίρει, εἰς δὲ πάνυ σμικρὰ τριφθεὶς
+πνίγει· οὕτω καὶ ἡ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λεπτολογία.
+
+[84] Stob. l.c. 4, 110.
+
+[85] See following note and Cic. Acad. ii. 39, 123: Aristo Chius, qui
+nihil istorum (sc. physicorum) sciri putat posse.
+
+[86] Diog. vii. 160: τόν σε φυσικὸν τόπον καὶ τὸν λογικὸν ἀνῄρει, λέγων
+τὸν μὲν εἶναι ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, τὸν δ’ οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, μόνον δὲ τὸν ἠθικὸν
+εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Stob. Floril. 80, 7: Ἀρίστων ἔφη τῶν ζητουμένων παρὰ
+τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὰ μὲν εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς, τὰ δὲ μηδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, τὰ δ’
+ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς. πρὸς ἡμᾶς μὲν τὰ ἠθικὰ, μὴ πρὸς ἡμᾶς δὲ τὰ διαλεκτικά· μὴ
+γὰρ συμβάλλεσθαι πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν βίου· ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς δὲ τὰ φυσικά· ἀδύνατα
+γὰρ ἐγνῶσθαι καὶ οὐδὲ παρέχειν χρείαν. Minuc. Fel. Octav. 13, and
+Lactant. Ins. iii. 20, attribute this utterance to Socrates. According
+to Cic. De Nat. De. I. 14, 37, Aristo expressed doubts about the
+existence of a God.
+
+[87] Sext. Math. vii. 13: καὶ Ἀρίστων δὲ ὁ Χῖος οὐ μόνον, ὥς φασι,
+παρῃτεῖτο τήν τε φυσικὴν καὶ λογικὴν θεωρίαν διὰ τὸ ἀνωφελὲς καὶ πρὸς
+κακοῦ τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσιν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ τόπου τινὰς
+συμπεριέγραψε καθάπερ τόν τε παραινετικὸν καὶ τὸν ὑποθετικὸν τόπον·
+τούτους γὰρ εἰς τίτθας ἂν καὶ παιδαγωγοὺς πίπτειν·—(almost a literal
+translation is given of these words by Seneca, Ep. 89, 13)—ἀρκεῖσθαι δὲ
+πρὸς τὸ μακαρίως βιῶναι τὸν οἰκειοῦντα μὲν πρὸς ἀρετὴν λόγον,
+ἀπαλλοτριοῦντα δὲ κακίας, κατατρέχοντα δὲ τῶν μεταξὺ τούτων, περὶ ἃ οἱ
+πολλοὶ πτοηθέντες κακοδαιμονοῦσιν. Seneca, Ep. 94, 1: Eam partem
+philosophiæ, quæ dat propria cuique personæ præcepta ... quidam solam
+receperunt ... sed Ariston Stoicus e contrario hanc partem levem
+existimat et quæ non descendat in pectus usque; at illam habentem
+præcepta [? ad vitam beatam] plurimum ait proficere ipsa decreta
+philosophiæ constitutionemque summi boni, quam qui bene intellexit ac
+didicit, quid in quaque re faciendum sit, sibi ipse præcepit. This is
+then further expanded following Aristo.
+
+[88] Seneca, § 12, asks for whom should such exhortations be
+necessary—for him who has right views of good and evil, or for him who
+has them not? Qui non habet, nihil a te adjuvabitur; aures ejus
+contraria monitionibus tuis fama possedit; qui habet exactum judicium
+de fugiendis petendisque, scit, quid sibi faciendum sit, etiam te
+tacente; tota ergo pars ista philosophiæ submoveri potest. In § 17, he
+continues: A madman must be cured, and not exhorted; nor is there any
+difference between general madness and the madness which is treated
+medically.
+
+[89] Diog. vii. 39.
+
+[90] Logical treatises, those περὶ λέξεων, λύσεις καὶ ἔλεγχοι, περὶ
+λόγου—and if there were a rhetoric (see p. 40, 3) the τέχνη—physical
+treatises, those περὶ ὅλου and περὶ οὐσίας. Diog. 4, 39.
+
+[91] Plut. Sto. Rep. 8, 2: ἔλυε δὲ σοφίσματα καὶ τὴν διαλεκτικὴν, ὡς
+τοῦτο ποιεῖν δυναμένην, ἐκέλευε παραλαμβάνειν τοὺς μαθητάς. That he
+occasionally not only solved but propounded sophisms is proved by the
+fallacy quoted Ibid. i. Conf. Diog. vii. 25
+
+[92] See above p. 36.
+
+[93] According to Diog. 32, he declared at the beginning of his Polity
+the ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία to be useless—a testimony worth very little; for
+it is a moot point, in what sense Zeno made this statement. Perhaps he
+was only anxious to exclude those studies from the narrower sphere of
+philosophy (as Sen. Ep. 88). Perhaps his Polity was nearer Cynicism
+than any other of his writings.
+
+[94] Proofs will be given later.
+
+[95] The Catalogue in Diog. 174, περὶ λόγου 3 B. (Mohnike Cleanth. 102,
+believes this work was a treatise on life according to reason. The
+title is against this view, and it is also improbable, inasmuch as
+treatises by Sphærus and Chrysippus bearing the same title, are
+exclusively logical), mentions logical treatises περὶ λόγου, περὶ
+ἐπιστήμης, περὶ ἰδίων, περὶ τῶν ἀπόρων, περὶ διαλεκτικῆς, περὶ
+κατηγορημάτων. To these may be added, from Athen. 467, d; 471, b, the
+rhetorical treatises περὶ τρόπων and περὶ μεταλήψεως. Of greater
+importance were the physical and theological treatises: περὶ τῆς τοῦ
+Ζήνωνος φυσιολογίας (2 B.); τῶν Ἡρακλείτου ἐξηγήσεις (4 B.); πρὸς
+Δημόκριτον, περὶ θεῶν, περὶ μαντικῆς (Cic. Divin. i. 3, 6); περὶ
+γιγάντων (in Plut. De Flum. 5, 3); and the μυθικὰ (Athen. xiii. 572,
+e), which is probably identical with the ἀρχαιολογία of Diogenes.
+
+[96] Diog. 41.
+
+[97] Diog. vii. 178, mentions (1) logical and rhetorical writings: περὶ
+τῶν Ἐρετρικῶν φιλοσόφων, περὶ ὁμοίων, περὶ ὅρων, περὶ ἕξεως, περὶ τῶν
+ἀντιλεγομένων (3 B.), περὶ λόγου, τέχνη διαλεκτική (2 B.), περὶ
+κατηγορημάτων, περὶ ἀμφιβολιῶν; (2) treatises on science: περὶ κόσμου
+(2 B.), περὶ στοιχείων, περὶ σπέρματος, περὶ τύχης, περὶ ἐλαχίστων,
+πρὸς τὰς ἀτόμους καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα, περὶ αἰσθητηρίων, περὶ Ἡρακλείτου (5
+B.), περὶ μαντικῆς. That Sphærus’ definitions were particularly valued,
+has been already seen, 44, 2.
+
+[98] Chrys. in the 3rd B., περὶ θεῶν (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, 4); οὐ γάρ
+ἐστιν εὑρεῖν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄλλην ἀρχὴν οὐδ’ ἄλλην γένεσιν ἢ τὴν ἐκ
+τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως· ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ δεῖ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον
+τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχειν, εἰ μέλλομέν τι ἐρεῖν περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν. The same
+writer, in φυσικαὶ θέσεις (Ibid. 5): οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλως οὐδ’
+οἰκειότερον ἐπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν λόγον οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τὰς
+ἀρετὰς οὐδ’ ἐπὶ εὐδαιμονίαν, ἀλλ’ ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς
+τοῦ κόσμου διοικήσεως. Further details above p. 47, 2.
+
+[99] Sext. Math. vii. 17; Diog. 40.
+
+[100] The chief divisions of the logic of the Stoics (Diog. 42, 46) are
+considered important for special purposes. The doctrine περὶ κανόνων
+καὶ κριτηρίων is of use, helping us to truth, by making us examine our
+notions; ὁρικὸν, because it leads to the knowledge of things by means
+of conceptions; διαλεκτικὴ (which includes the whole of formal logic),
+because it produces ἀπροπτωσία (= ἐπιστήμη τοῦ πότε δεῖ συγκατατίθεσθαι
+καὶ μὴ), ἀνεικαιότης (= ἰσχυρὸς λόγος πρὸς τὸ εἰκὸς, ὥστε μὴ ἐνδιδόναι
+αὐτῷ), ἀνελεγξία (= ἰσχὺς ἐν λόγῳ, ὥστε μὴ ἀπάγεσθαι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ
+ἀντικείμενον), ἀματαιότης (= ἕξις ἀναφέρουσα τὰς φαντασίας ἐπὶ τὸν
+ὀρθὸν λόγον). Its value is therefore chiefly negative, as a
+preservative from error. See Seneca, Ep. 89, 9: Proprietates verborum
+exigit et structuram et argumentationes, ne pro vero falsa subrepant.
+Sext. Math. vii. 23: ὀχυρωτικὸν δὲ εἶναι τῆς διανοίας τὸν διαλεκτικὸν
+τόπον; Pyrrh. ii. 247: ἐπὶ τὴν τέχνην τὴν διαλεκτικήν φασιν ὡρμηκέναι
+οἱ διαλεκτικοὶ (the Stoics), οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ γνῶναί τι ἐκ τίνος
+συνάγεται, ἀλλὰ προηγουμένως ὑπὲρ τοῦ δι’ ἀποδεικτικῶν λόγων τὰ ἀληθῆ
+καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ κρίνειν ἐπίστασθαι.
+
+[101] This may be seen in Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 134–203, 229; Math. viii.
+300; as well as from the catalogue of the writings of Chrysippus in
+Diogenes.
+
+[102] The only part which is censured by Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep.
+10, 1) is the sceptical logic, which leaves contradictions unsolved:
+τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐποχὴν ἄγουσι περὶ πάντων ἐπιβάλλει, φησὶ, τοῦτο ποιεῖν,
+καὶ συνεργόν ἐστι πρὸς ὃ βούλονται· τοῖς δ’ ἐπιστήμην ἐνεργαζομένοις,
+καθ’ ἣν ὁμολογουμένως βιωσόμεθα τὰ ἐναντία στοιχειοῦν.
+
+[103] Cic. Parad. Proœm.: Cato autem perfectus mea sententia Stoicus
+... in ea est hæresi, quæ nullum sequitur florem orationis neque
+dilatat argumentum: minutis interrogatiunculis, quasi punctis, quod
+proposuit efficit. Cic. Fin. iv. 3, 7: Pungunt quasi aculeis
+interrogatiunculis angustis, quibus etiam qui assentiuntur nihil
+commutantur animo. See also Diog. vii. 18, 20.
+
+[104] In Sextus Empiricus, Διαλεκτικοὶ is their ordinary name. It is
+also found in Plut. Qu. Plat. x. 1, 2, p. 1008. Cic. Top. 2, 6; Fin.
+iv. 3, 6.
+
+[105] After the example of the Megarians, the Stoics were in the habit
+of putting their arguments in the form of questions. Hence the terms
+λόγον ἐρωτᾶν (Diog. vii. 186), interrogatio (Sen. Ep. 82, 9; 85, 1; 87,
+11), interrogatiuncula (Cic.), which are employed even when the
+arguments were not in this form.
+
+[106] See p. 48, 1.
+
+[107] Called μέρη, according to Diog. 39 also τόποι, εἴδη, γένη.
+
+[108] Diog. 39: τριμερῆ φασιν εἶναι τὸν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγον· εἶναι
+γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸ μέν τι φυσικὸν, τὸ δὲ ἠθικὸν, τὸ δὲ λογικόν. οὕτω δὲ
+πρῶτος διεῖλε Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ λόγου καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ αʹ
+περὶ λόγου καὶ ἐν τῇ αʹ τῶν φυσικῶν, καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Ἔφιλλος ἐν τῷ
+πρώτῳ τῶν εἰς τὰ δόγματα εἰσαγωγῶν, καὶ Εὔδρομος ἐν τῇ ἠθικῇ
+στοιχειώσει, καὶ Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος, καὶ Ποσειδώνιος. Sext. Math.
+vii. 16. Sen. Ep. 89, 9; 14. The six divisions enumerated by Cleanthes
+(Diog. 41)—Dialectic, Rhetoric, Ethics, Politics, Physics, Theology
+(Diog. 41) may be easily reduced to three.
+
+[109] According to Diog. 40, the first place was assigned to Logic, the
+second to Science, the third to Ethics, by Zeno, Chrysippus,
+Archedemus, Eudemus, and others. The same order, but inverted, is found
+in Diogenes of Ptolemais, and in Seneca, Ep. 89, 9. The latter,
+however, observes (Nat. Qu. Prol. 1) that the difference between that
+part of philosophy which treats about God, and that which treats about
+man, is as great as the difference between philosophy and other
+departments, or even as between God and man. On the other hand,
+Apollodorus places Ethics in the middle, as also Cleanthes does, and
+likewise Panætius and Posidonius, if it is certain that they began with
+science. This appears, however, only to have reference to their order
+in discussion (see Sext. Math. vii. 22, probably on the authority of
+Posidonius). A few (Diog. 40) asserted that the parts could be so
+little separated, that they must be always treated together. The
+statement of Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 9, 1), that Logic must come
+first, and be followed by Ethics and Science, so that the theological
+part may form the conclusion, only refers to the order in which they
+ought to be taught.
+
+[110] In Diog. 39; Sext. Math. vii. 17; Philo, Mut. Nom. p. 1055, E.
+Hösch. (589 M); De Agricul. 189, D (302), philosophy is compared to an
+orchard, Logic represents the fence, Science the trees. Ethics the
+fruit; so that Ethics are the end and object of the whole. Philosophy
+is also compared to a fortified town, in which the walls are
+represented by Logic, but in which the position of the other two is not
+clear; to an egg, Logic being the shell, and, according to Sextus,
+Science being the white and Ethics the yolk, but the reverse according
+to Diogenes. Dissatisfied with this comparison, Posidonius preferred to
+compare philosophy to a living creature, in which Logic constitutes the
+bones and muscles, Science the flesh and blood, and Ethics the soul.
+But Diogenes has another version of this simile, according to which
+Science represents the soul; and Ritter iii. 432, considers the version
+of Diogenes to be the older of the two.
+
+[111] See Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 13.
+
+[112] Diog. 41: τὸ δὲ λογικὸν μέρος φασὶν ἔνιοι εἰς δύο διαιρεῖσθαι
+ἐπιστήμας, εἰς ῥητορικὴν καὶ διαλεκτικήν ... τήν τε ῥητορικὴν ἐπιστήμην
+οὖσαν τοῦ εὖ λέγειν περὶ τῶν ἐν διεξόδῳ λόγων καὶ τὴν διαλεκτικὴν τοῦ
+ὀρθῶς διαλέγεσθαι περὶ τῶν ἐν ἐρωτήσει καὶ ἀποκρίσει λόγων. Sen. Ep.
+89, 17: Superest ut rationalem partem philosophiæ dividam: omnis oratio
+aut continua est aut inter respondentem et interrogantem discissa; hanc
+διαλεκτικὴν, illam ῥητορικὴν placuit vocari. Cic. Fin. ii. 6, 17; Orat.
+32, 113. Quintil. Inst. ii. 20, 7. According to these passages,
+Rhetoric was by Zeno compared to the palm of the hand, and Dialectic to
+the fist: quod latius loquerentur rhetores, dialectici autem
+compressius. The Stoics agree with Aristotle in calling rhetoric
+ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ (Sop. in Hermog. v. 15, Walz.). See Prantl,
+Gesch. der Log. i. 413.
+
+[113] Diog. 41: Some divide logic into rhetoric and dialectic: τινὲς δὲ
+καὶ εἰς τὸ ὁρικὸν εἶδος, τὸ περὶ κανόνων καὶ κριτηρίων· ἔνιοι δὲ τὸ
+ὁρικὸν περιαιροῦσι. (We have no reason to read as Ménage does
+περιδιαιροῦσι, or to conjecture, as Meibom and Nicolai, De Log. Chrys.,
+Lib. 23, do, παραδιαιροῦσι.) According to this passage, ὁρικὸν must be
+identical with the doctrine of a criterium. In a subsequent passage,
+however, the two are distinguished; the doctrine of a criterium is said
+to be useful for the discovery of truth: καὶ τὸ ὁρικὸν δὲ ὁμοίως πρὸς
+ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας· διὰ γὰρ τῶν εὐνοιῶν τὰ πράγματα λαμβάνεται. We
+may therefore suppose that in the passage first quoted the words should
+be τὸ ὁρικὸν εἶδος καὶ τὸ περὶ κανόνων, κ.τ.λ. In this case, we may
+understand by ὁρικὸν not only the theory of definition—a theory to
+which Aristotle devoted a separate section at the end of his Analytics
+(Anal. Post. ii.)—but besides a theoretical disquisition on the
+formation of definitions, a collection of definitions of various
+objects. Such collections are found in the treatises of Chrysippus
+(Diog. 199, 189): περὶ τῶν ὅρων ζʹ. ὅρων διαλεκτικῶν στʹ. ὅρων τῶν κατὰ
+γένος ζʹ. ὅρων τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας αβʹ. ὅρων τῶν τοῦ ἀστείου βʹ.
+ὅρων τῶν τοῦ φαύλου βʹ. ὅρων τῶν ἀναμέσων βʹ; besides the further
+treatises περὶ τῶν οὐκ ὀρθῶς τοῖς ὅροις ἀντιλεγομένων ζʹ. Πιθανὰ εἰς
+τοὺς ὅρους βʹ. The treatise περὶ εἰδῶν καὶ γενῶν βʹ may also be
+included here; perhaps also that περὶ τῶν κατηγορημάτων πρὸς Μητρόδωρον
+ιʹ. πρὸς Πάσυλον περὶ κατηγορημάτων δʹ, Diog. 191.
+
+[114] No description of their system can dispense with this fundamental
+enquiry, which had been already instituted by Zeno. It appears,
+however, to have been treated by several writers as a branch of
+dialectic. Diog. 43 says that the branch of dialectic which treats of
+σημαινόμενα may be divided εἴς τε τὸν περὶ τῶν φαντασιῶν τόπον καὶ τῶν
+ἐκ τούτων ὑφισταμένων λεκτῶν. (See Nicolai p. 23.) Compare with this
+the words of Diocles, in Diog. 49: ἀρέσκει τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς περὶ φαντασίας
+καὶ αἰσθήσεως προτάττειν λόγον, καθότι τὸ κριτήριον ᾧ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῶν
+πραγμάτων γινώσκεται, κατὰ γένος φαντασία ἐστὶ καὶ καθότι ὁ περὶ
+συγκαταθέσεως καὶ ὁ περὶ καταλήψεως καὶ νοήσεως λόγος προάγων τῶν ἄλλων
+οὐκ ἄνευ φαντασίας συνίσταται. According to this passage, the branch of
+dialectic which treated of φαντασία included the theory of knowledge.
+Diog. 53, Petersen’s conjecture is singular (Phil. Chrys. Fund. p. 25)
+that the theory of knowledge may have been understood by Chrysippus
+under the name rhetoric.
+
+[115] Our information on this head is very small. In the words:
+ῥητορικὴ verba curat et sensus et ordinem, a division of rhetoric is
+implied by Seneca, which differs in little, except in the position of
+the chief parts, from that of Aristotle. A fourth part is added to the
+three others by Diog. 43—on Delivery—εἶναι δ’ αὐτῆς τὴν διαίρεσιν εἴς
+τε τὴν εὕρεσιν καὶ εἰς τὴν φράσιν, καὶ εἰς τάξιν καὶ εἰς τὴν ὑπόκρισιν.
+Diogenes also claims for the Stoics the Aristotelian distinction
+between three ways of speaking—συμβουλευτικὸς, δικανικὸς,
+ἐγκωμιαστικός—and four parts in a speech: προοίμιον, διήγησις, τὰ πρὸς
+τοὺς ἀντιδίκους, ἐπίλογος. Definitions of διήγησις and παράδειγμα are
+given from Zeno by the anonymous author in Spengel, Rhet. Gr. i. 434,
+23; 447, 11. The same author (Ibid. 454, 4) says that, according to
+Chrysippus, the ἐπίλογος must be μονομερής. The Stoic definition of
+rhetoric has been already given, p. 70, 1. Another—τέχνη περὶ κόσμου
+καὶ εἰρημένου λόγου τάξιν—is attributed to Chrysippus by Plut. Sto.
+Rep. 28, 1. Cic. Fin. iv. 3, 7, observes, in reference to the Stoic
+rhetoric, and in particular to that of Chrysippus, that such was its
+nature that si quis obmutescere concupierit, nihil aliud legere
+debeat—that it dealt in nothing but words, being withal scanty in
+expressions, and confined to subtleties. This neglect of the truly
+rhetorical element appears already in the quotations from Plut. Sto.
+Rep. 28, 2. We have not the slightest reason to complain, as Prantl
+does, p. 413, of the purely rhetorical value of dialectic with the
+Stoics.
+
+[116] See p. 70, 1, Alex. Aphr. Top. 3: οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς ὁριζόμενοι
+τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ἐπιστήμην τοῦ εὖ λέγειν ὁρίζονται, τὸ δὲ εὖ λέγειν ἐν
+τῷ ἀληθῆ καὶ προσήκοντα λέγειν εἶναι τιθέμενοι, τοῦτο δὲ ἴδιον
+ἡγούμενοι τοῦ φιλοσόφου, κατὰ τῆς τελεωτάτης φιλοσοφίας φέρουσιν αὐτὸ
+καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μόνος ὁ φιλόσοφος κατ’ αὐτοὺς διαλεκτικός. Aristotle had
+used the term dialectic in another sense, but with Plato it expressed
+the mode of procedure peculiar to a philosopher.
+
+[117] See Anon. Prolegg. ad Hermog. Rhet. Gr. vii. 8, W.: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ δὲ
+τὸ εὖ λέγειν ἔλεγον τὸ ἀληθῆ λέγειν.
+
+[118] Diog. 42: ὅθεν καὶ οὕτως αὐτὴν [τὴν διαλεκτικὴν] ὁρίζονται,
+ἐπιστήμην ἀληθῶν καὶ ψευδῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων. (The same, p. 62, quoted
+from Posidonius, and in Sext. Math. xi. 187, and Suid. Διαλεκτική.)
+οὐδετέρων being probably used, because dialectic deals not only with
+judgments, but with conceptions and interrogations. Conf. Diog. 68.
+
+[119] This is the meaning of the Stoic distinction between λόγος
+ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικὸς, a distinction subsequently employed by Philo
+and the Fathers, and really identical with that of Aristotle (Anal.
+Post i. 10, 76 b, 24): οὐ πρὸς τὸν ἔξω λόγον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ.
+On this distinction see Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 72, p. 142: διπλοῦς ὁ
+λόγος· τούτων δ’ οἱ φιλόσοφοι (the Stoics are meant) τὸν μὲν ἐνδιάθετον
+καλοῦσι, τὸν δὲ προφορικόν. ὁ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἔνδον λογισμῶν ἐστιν
+ἐξάγγελος, ὁ δ’ ὑπὸ τοῖς στέρνοις καθεῖρκται. φασὶ δὲ τούτῳ χρῆσθαι καὶ
+τὸ θεῖον. Sext. Math. viii. 275 (conf. Pyrrh. i. 76): οἱ δὲ Δογματικοὶ
+... φασὶν ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐχὶ τῷ προφορικῷ λόγῳ διαφέρει τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων
+... ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐνδιαθέτῳ. The Stoics alone can be meant by the νεώτεροι in
+Theo. Smyrn. Mus. c. 18, who are contrasted with the Peripatetics for
+using the terms λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός. They are also referred
+to by Plut. C. Prin. Phil. 2, 1, p. 777: τὸ δὲ λέγειν, ὅτι δύο λόγοι
+εἰσὶν, ὁ μὲν ἐνδιάθετος, ἡγεμόνος Ἑρμοῦ δῶρον, ὁ δ’ ἐν προφορᾷ,
+διάκτορος καὶ ὀργανικὸς ἕωλόν ἐστι. The double form of Hermes is
+explained by Heraclitus as referring to the twofold λόγος—Ἑρμῆς Χθόνιος
+represents λόγον ἐνδιάθετον, and the heavenly Hermes (διάκτορος)
+represents the προφορικόν. The distinction passed from the Stoics to
+others, like Plut. Solert. An. 19, 1, p. 973; Galen, Protrept. i. 1.
+
+[120] Diog. 43: τὴν διαλεκτικὴν διαιρεῖσθαι εἴς τε τὸν περὶ τῶν
+σημαινομένων καὶ τῆς φωνῆς τόπον. Ibid. 62: τυγχάνει δ’ αὕτη, ὡς ὁ
+Χρύσιππός φησι, περὶ σημαίνοντα καὶ σημαινόμενα. Seneca l.c.:
+διαλεκτικὴ in duas partes dividitur, in verba et significationes, i.e.
+in res, quæ dicuntur, et vocabula, quibus dicuntur. The distinction
+between τὸ σημαῖνον and τὸ σημαινόμενον, to which τὸ τυγχάνον (the real
+object) must be added as a third, will be hereafter discussed in
+another place. A much narrower conception of dialectic, and more nearly
+approaching to that of the Peripatetics, is to be found in the
+definition given by Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 213. The division there given is
+also found in the Platonist Alcinous, Isag. c. 3, as Fabricius has
+pointed out. It appears, therefore, not to belong to the Stoic School,
+but, at most, to a few of its later members.
+
+[121] Seneca continues: Ingens deinde sequitur utriusque divisio,
+without, however, giving it.
+
+[122] There is much which is open to doubt in Petersen’s attempt (Phil.
+Chrys. Fund. 221) to settle these divisions. At the very beginning, his
+reference of the words in Sext. Math. viii. 11 to the parts of logic is
+unhappy. Nicolai (De Logic. Chrys. Lib. 21) has acted with greater
+caution, but even much of what he says is doubtful.
+
+[123] Diog. 55.
+
+[124] Diog. 44: εἶναι δὲ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς ἴδιον τόπον καὶ τὸν
+προειρημένον περὶ αὐτῆς τῆς φωνῆς, ἐν ᾧ δείκνυται ἡ ἐγγράμματος φωνὴ
+καὶ τίνα τὰ τοῦ λόγου μέρη, καὶ περὶ σολοικισμοῦ καὶ βαρβαρισμοῦ καὶ
+ποιημάτων καὶ ἀμφιβολιῶν καὶ περὶ ἐμμελοῦς φωνῆς καὶ περὶ μουσικῆς καὶ
+περὶ ὅρων κατά τινας καὶ διαιρέσεων καὶ λέξεων. The theory of the
+determination and division of conceptions occupies such an important
+place in the section περὶ φωνῆς, that we might feel disposed to suppose
+some mistake in the authority. Still, from the later authorities, pp.
+60–62, it is seen that by many it is usually so represented.
+
+[125] Further particulars may be obtained in Schmidt’s Stoicorum
+Grammatica (Halle, 1839); Lersch, Sprachphilosophie der Alten;
+Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachwissenschaft, i. 265–363; Nicolai, De Log.
+Chrys. Lib. 31. This part of dialectic began with enquiries into the
+voice and speech. Voice is defined to be sound and speech, to be air in
+motion, or something hearable—ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος ἢ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν
+ἀκοῆς; the human voice as ἔναρθρος καὶ ἀπὸ διάνοιας ἐκπεμπομένη, is
+distinguished from the sounds of other animals, which are ἀὴρ ὑπὸ ὁρμῆς
+πεπληγμένος (Diog. 55; Simpl. Phys. 97; Sext. Math. vi. 39; Gell. N. A.
+vi. 15, 6). That the voice is something material is proved in various
+ways (Diog. 55; Plut. Plac. iv. 20, 2; Galen, Hist. Phil. 27). The
+voice, in as far as it is ἔναρθρος, or composed of letters, is called
+λέξις; in as far as it expresses certain notions, it is λόγος (Diog.
+56; Sext. Math. i. 155). A peculiar national mode of expression (λέξις
+κεχαραγμένη ἐθνικῶς τε καὶ Ἑλληνικῶς ἢ λέξις ποταπὴ) was called
+διάλεκτος (Diog. 56). The elements of λέξις are the 24 letters, divided
+into 7 φωνήεντα, 6 ἄφωνα, and 11 semivowels (Diog. 57); the λόγος has 5
+parts, called στοιχεῖα by Chrysippus—ὄνομα, προσηγορία, ῥῆμα,
+σύνδεσμος, ἄρθρον—to which Antipater added the μεσότης, or adverb
+(Diog. 57; Galen, De Hippocrat. et Plat. viii. 3; Lersch, ii. 28;
+Steinthal, 291). Words were not formed by caprice, but certain
+peculiarities of things have been imitated in the chief sounds of which
+they are composed. These peculiarities can therefore be discovered by
+etymological analysis (Orig. c. Cels. i. 24; Augustin. Dialect. c. 6;
+Opp. T. I. Ap. 17, c.). (Chrysippus, however, observes (in Varro, L.
+Lat. ix. 1) that the same things bear different names, and vice versâ,
+and (in Gell. N. A. xi. 12, 1) that every word has several meanings.)
+See Simpl. Cat. 8, ζ. Five advantages and two disadvantages of speech
+are enumerated Diog. 59; Sext. Math. i. 210; and poetry (Diog. 60),
+various kinds of amphibolia (Diog. 62; Galen, De Soph. P. Dict. c. 4),
+the formation of conceptions, and division, are treated of.
+
+[126] Diog. vii. 54.
+
+[127] The statements of Zeno and Cleanthes, for instance, in reference
+to φαντασία, prove that these Stoics deduced their theory of knowledge
+from general principles respecting notions. They therefore started from
+the data supplied by the senses. A passage in Zeno, explaining the
+relations of various forms of knowledge, shows that even Zeno required
+progress to be from perception to conception and knowledge, and that he
+distinguished these states only by the varying strength of conviction
+which they produced.
+
+[128] Plut. Plac. iv. 12. Diog. vii. 50. Nemes. Nat. Hom. 76. Φαντασία
+is πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενον, ἐνδεικνύμενον ἑαυτό τε καὶ τὸ πεποιηκός,
+in the same way, it is added, that light shows other things as well as
+itself; φανταστὸν is τὸ ποιοῦν τὴν φαντασίαν, and therefore πᾶν ὅ τι ἂν
+δύνηται κινεῖν τὴν ψυχήν. Φαντασία is distinguished from φανταστικόν,
+because no φανταστὸν corresponds to φανταστικόν· it is διάκενος
+ἑλκυσμὸς, πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀπ’ οὐδενὸς φανταστοῦ γινόμενον· and the
+object of such an empty perception is a φάντασμα. Compare also Sext.
+Math. vii. 241: διάκενος ἑλκυσμὸς is called φαντασία τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν παθῶν.
+Impressions wholly unfounded, which give the impression of being actual
+perceptions, are called by Diog. 51, ἐμφάσεις αἱ ὡσανεὶ ἀπὸ ὑπαρχόντων
+γινόμεναι. In a wider sense, φαντασία means any kind of notion.
+
+[129] Plut. Plac. iv. 11: οἱ Στωϊκοί φασιν· ὅταν γεννηθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος
+ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μέρος τῆς ψυχῆς ὥσπερ χάρτης (χάρτην as Galen, H.
+Phil. 24, vol. xix. reads), ἐνεργῶν εἰς ἀπογραφήν. εἰς τοῦτο μίαν
+ἑκάστην τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἐναπογράφεται· πρῶτος δὲ ὁ τῆς ἀπογραφῆς τρόπος ὁ
+διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων. See p. 79, 2. Orig. c. Cels. vii. 37, 720, b, says
+that they taught αἰσθήσει καταλαμβάνεσθαι τὰ καταλαμβανόμενα καὶ πᾶσαν
+κατάληψιν ἠρτῆσθαι τῶν αἰσθήσεων.
+
+[130] Plut. Comm. Not. 47: φαντασία τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ. The same in Diog.
+vii. 45 and 50. That this was also the view of Diogenes appears from
+what follows.
+
+[131] Sext. Math. vii. 228: Κλεάνθης μὲν γὰρ ἤκουσε τὴν τύπωσιν κατὰ
+εἰσοχήν τε καὶ ἐξοχὴν ὥσπερ καὶ διὰ τῶν δακτυλίων γινομένην τοῦ κηροῦ
+τύπωσιν. Conf. Ibid. vii. 372; viii. 400.
+
+[132] Sext. vii. 229, continues: Χρύσιππος δὲ ἄτοπον ἡγεῖτο τὸ
+τοιοῦτον·—according to this view, it would be necessary for the soul to
+receive at once many different forms, if it had to retain different
+notions at the same time—αὐτὸς οὖν τὴν τύπωσιν εἰρῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος
+ὑπενόει ἀντὶ τῆς ἑτεροιώσεως, ὥστε εἶναι τοιοῦτον τὸν λόγον· φαντασία
+ἐστὶν ἑτεροίωσις ψυχῆς. Objection had, however, been raised to this
+definition, on the ground that not every change of the soul gives rise
+to a perception, and therefore the Stoics had defined a perception more
+accurately: φαντασία ἐστὶ τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ ὡς ἂν ἐν ψυχῇ, which was
+equivalent to saying φαντασία ἐστὶν ἑτεροίωσις ἐν ἡγεμονικῷ· or else in
+Zeno’s definition of φαντασία as τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ they had taken ψυχὴ in
+a restricted sense for τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν, which really comes to the same
+thing. Even this definition had, however, been found too wide, and
+hence ἑτεροίωσις was limited to change in feeling (ἑτεροίωσις κατὰ
+πεῖσιν). But the definition is still too wide, as Sextus already
+remarked; for a perception is not the only feeling of change in the
+soul. A more accurate definition has already been quoted, 77, 1. The
+statements in Sext. Math. vii. 372; viii. 400; Diog. vii. 45 and 50;
+Alex. Aphro. De Anim. 135, b; Boëth. De Interpret, ii. 292 (Schol. in
+Arist. 100), are in agreement with the above remarks.
+
+[133] Chrys. in Plut. Sto. Rep. 19, 2: ὅτι μὲν γὰρ αἰσθητά ἐστι τἀγαθὰ
+καὶ τὰ κακὰ, καὶ τούτοις ἐκποιεῖ λέγειν· οὐ γὰρ μόνον τὰ πάθη ἐστὶν
+αἰσθητὰ σὺν τοῖς εἴδεσιν, οἷον λύπη καὶ φόβος καὶ τὸ παραπλήσια, ἀλλὰ
+καὶ κλοπῆς καὶ μοιχείας καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ἔστιν αἰσθέσθαι· καὶ καθόλου
+ἀφροσύνης καὶ δειλίας καὶ ἄλλων οὐκ ὀλίγων κακιῶν· οὐδὲ μόνον χαρᾶς καὶ
+εὐεργεσιῶν καὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν κατορθώσεων, ἀλλὰ καὶ φρονήσεως καὶ
+ἀνδρείας καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀρετῶν. This passage must not be understood to
+mean that the conceptions of good and evil, as such, are objects of
+sensation (Ritter, iii. 558). The only objects of that kind are
+individual moral states and activities. The general conceptions derived
+from them are, according to the Stoic theory of knowledge, only
+obtained by a process of abstraction.
+
+[134] Plut. Plac. iv. 11, 2: αἰσθανόμενοι γάρ τινος οἷον λευκοῦ
+ἀπελθόντος αὐτοῦ μνήμην ἔχουσιν, ὅταν δὲ ὁμοειδεῖς πολλαὶ μνήμαι
+γένωντα τότε φασὶν ἔχειν ἐμπειρίαν.
+
+[135] Diog. vii. 52: ἡ δὲ κατάληψις γίνεται κατ’ αὐτοὺς αἰσθήσει μὲν,
+ὡς λευκῶν καὶ μελάνων καὶ τραχέων καὶ λείων· λόγῳ δὲ τῶν δι’ ἀποδείξεως
+συναγομένων, ὥσπερ τὸ θεοὺς εἶναι καὶ προνοεῖν τούτους· τῶν γὰρ
+νοουμένων τὰ μὲν κατὰ περίπτωσιν (immediate contact) ἐνοήθη, τὰ δὲ καθ’
+ὁμοιότητα, τὰ δὲ κατ’ ἀναλογίαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ μετάθεσιν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ
+σύνθεσιν, τὰ δὲ κατ’ ἐναντίωσιν ... νοεῖται δὲ καὶ κατὰ μετάβασιν
+(transition from the sensuous to the super-sensuous) τινὰ, ὡς τὰ λεκτὰ
+καὶ ὁ τόπος. Cic. Acad. i. 11, 42: Comprehensio [= κατάληψις] facta
+sensibus et vera illi [Zenoni] et fidelis videbatur: non quod omnia,
+quæ essent in re, comprehenderet, sed quia nihil quod cadere in eam
+posset relinqueret, quodque natura quasi normam scientiæ et principium
+sui dedisset, unde postea notiones rerum in animis imprimerentur. Ibid.
+Fin. iii. 10, 33: Cumque rerum notiones in animis fiant, si aut usu
+(experience) aliquid cognitum sit, aut conjunctione, aut similitudine,
+aut collatione rationis: hoc quarto, quod extremum posui, boni notitia
+facta est. Sext. (Math. iii. 40; ix. 393) also agrees with the Stoic
+doctrine of the origin of conceptions, in saying that all our ideas
+arise either κατ’ ἐμπέλασιν τῶν ἐναργῶν or κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναργῶν
+μετάβασιν (cf. Diog. vii. 53), and in the latter case either by
+comparison, or actual combination, or analogy.
+
+[136] Diog. l.c. Compare the passage quoted from Seneca, 81, 2.
+
+[137] Plut. Plac. iv. 11: τῶν δ’ ἐννοιῶν αἱ μὲν φυσικαὶ γίνονται κατὰ
+τοὺς εἰρημένους τρόπους (according to the context, this must mean by
+memory and experience, but perhaps the author of the Placita has been
+careless in his extracts here) καὶ ἀνεπιτεχνήτως· αἱ δ’ ἤδη δι’
+ἡμετέρας διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐπιμελείας· αὗται μὲν οὖν ἔννοιαι καλοῦνται
+μόναι, ἐκεῖναι δὲ καὶ προλήψεις. Diog. vii. 51: [τῶν φαντασιῶν] αἱ μέν
+εἰσι τεχνικαὶ, αἱ δὲ ἄτεχνοι.
+
+[138] Plut. Plac. iv. 11: ὁ δὲ λόγος καθ’ ὃν προσαγορευόμεθα λογικοὶ ἐκ
+τῶν προλήψεων συμπληροῦσθαι λέγεται κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα (the first
+seven years of life). Comm. Not. 3, 1, says that to the Stoics belonged
+τὸ παρὰ τὰς ἐννοίας καὶ τὰς προλήψεις τὰς κοινὰς φιλοσοφεῖν, ἀφ’ ὧν
+μάλιστα τὴν αἵρεσιν ... καὶ μόνην ὁμολογεῖν τῇ φύσει λέγουσιν. Sen.
+Epist. 117, 6: multum dare solemus præsumtioni (πρόληψις) omnium
+hominum; apud nos argumentum veritatis est, aliquid omnibus videri.
+Frequent instances will occur of appeals to communes notitiæ and
+consensus gentium.
+
+[139] Diog. vii. 53: φυσικῶς δὲ νοεῖται δίκαιόν τι καὶ ἀγαθόν. 54: ἔστι
+δ’ ἡ πρόληψις ἔννοια φυσικὴ τῶν καθόλου. In the same strain Chrysippus
+(in Plut. Sto. Rep. 17) speaks of ἔμφυτοι προλήψεις of good and evil.
+In Plut. Frag. De Anim. vii. 6, T. V. 487 Wytt., the question is asked,
+How is it possible to learn what is not already known? The Stoics
+reply, By means of φυσικαὶ ἔννοιαι.
+
+[140] Compare Cic. Fin. iii. 10: hoc quarto [collatione rationis] boni
+notitia facta est; cum enim ab iis rebus, quæ sunt secundum naturam,
+adscendit animus collatione rationis, tum ad notitiam boni pervenit.
+Similarly Sen. Ep. 120, 4, replying to the question, Quomodo ad nos
+prima boni honestique notitia pervenerit? observes, Hoc nos natura
+docere non potuit: semina nobis scientiæ dedit, scientiam non dedit ...
+nobis videtur observatio collegisse [speciem virtutis], et rerum sæpe
+factarum inter se collatio: per analogiam nostri intellectum et
+honestum et bonum judicant. The notion of mental health and strength
+has grown out of corresponding bodily notions; the contemplation of
+virtuous actions and persons has given rise to the conception of moral
+perfection, the good points being improved upon, and defects being
+passed over, the experience of certain faults which resemble virtues
+serving to make the distinction plainer. Even belief in a God was
+produced, according to Diog. vii. 52, by ἀπόδειξις. See p. 80, 1. Conf.
+Stob. Ecl. i. 792: οἱ μὲν Στωϊκοὶ λέγουσι μὲν εὐθὺς ἐμφύεσθαι τὸν
+λόγον, ὕστερον δὲ συναθροίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ φαντασιῶν περὶ
+δεκατέσσαρα ἔτη.
+
+[141] Stob. Ecl. ii. 128: εἶναι δὲ τὴν ἐπιστήμην κατάληψιν ἀσφαλῆ καὶ
+ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου· ἑτέραν δὲ ἐπιστήμην σύστημα ἐξ ἐπιστημῶν
+τοιούτων, οἷον ἡ τῶν κατὰ μέρος λογικὴ ἐν τῷ σπουδαίῳ ὑπάρχουσα· ἄλλην
+δὲ σύστημα ἐξ ἐπιστημῶν τεχνικῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔχον τὸ βέβαιον ὡς ἔχουσιν αἱ
+ἀρεταί· ἄλλην δὲ (knowledge in a relative sense) ἕξιν φαντασιῶν
+δεκτικὴν ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου, ἥντινά φασιν ἐν τόνῳ καὶ δυνάμει (sc.
+τῆς ψυχῆς) κεῖσθαι. Diog. vii. 47: αὐτήν τε τὴν ἐπιστήμην φασὶν ἢ
+κατάληψιν ἀσφαλῆ ἢ ἕξιν ἐν φαντασιῶν προσδέξει ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου.
+(This explanation, which Herillus used according to Diog. vii. 165,
+certainly belongs to Zeno.) οὐκ ἄνευ δὲ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς θεωρίας τὸν
+σοφὸν ἄπτωτον ἔσεσθαι ἐν λόγῳ.
+
+[142] See p. 80, 4.
+
+[143] This was the object of Plutarch’s treatise περὶ τῶν κοινῶν
+ἐννοιῶν. In the same way, the Peripatetic Diogenianus (in Euseb. Pr.
+Ev. vi. 8, 10) throws it in the teeth of Chrysippus that, whilst
+appealing to generally received opinions, he is always going contrary
+to them, and that he considers all men, with one or two exceptions, to
+be fools and madmen.
+
+[144] Diog. 52: ἡ δὲ κατάληψις γίνεται κατ’ αὐτοὺς αἰσθήσει μὲν λευκῶν,
+κ.τ.λ. λόγῳ δὲ τῶν δι’ ἀποδείξεως συναγομένων, ὥσπερ τὸ θεοὺς εἶναι,
+κ.τ.λ.
+
+[145] Sext. Math. viii. 10: οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς λέγουσι μὲν τῶν τε
+αἰσθητῶν τινα καὶ τῶν νοητῶν ἀληθῆ, οὐκ ἐξ εὐθείας δὲ τὰ αἰσθητὰ, ἀλλὰ
+κατὰ ἀναφορὰν τὴν ὡς ἐπὶ τὰ παρακείμενα τούτοις νοητά.
+
+[146] Sext. l.c. continues: ἀληθὲς γάρ ἐστι κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὸ ὑπάρχον καὶ
+ἀντικείμενόν τινι, καὶ ψεῦδος τὸ μὴ ὑπάρχον καὶ μὴ (this μὴ is
+obviously redundant as appears from Math. viii. 85, 88; xi. 220, where
+the same definition is given without the μὴ) ἀντικείμενόν τινι, ὅπερ
+ἀσώματον ἀξίωμα καθεστὼς νοητὸν εἶναι· every sentence containing an
+assertion or negative, and therefore being opposed to every other.
+Ibid. viii. 70: ἠξίουν οἱ Στωϊκοὶ κοινῶς ἐν λεκτῷ τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς εἶναι
+καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος· λεκτὸν δὲ ὑπάρχειν φασὶ τὸ κατὰ λογικὴν φαντασίαν
+ὑφιστάμενον· λογικὴν δὲ εἶναι φαντασίαν καθ’ ἣν τὸ φαντασθὲν ἔστι λόγῳ
+παραστῆσαι. τῶν δὲ λεκτῶν τὰ μὲν ἐλλιπῆ καλοῦσι τὰ δὲ αὐτοτελῆ
+(conceptions and propositions; conf. Diog. vii. 63) ... προσαγορεύουσι
+δέ τινα τῶν αὐτοτελῶν καὶ ἀξιώματα, ἅπερ λέγοντες ἤτοι ἀληθεύομεν ἢ
+ψευδόμεθα. Ibid. 74; Diog. vii. 65: ἀξίωμα δέ ἐστιν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἢ
+ψεῦδος (see Cic. Tusc. I. 7, 14) ἢ πρᾶγμα (better λεκτὸν as Gell. N. A.
+xvi, 8, 4 reads) αὐτοτελὲς ἀποφαντὸν ὅσον ἐφ’ ἑαυτῴ· ὡς ὁ Χρύσιππός
+φησιν ἐν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς ὅροις. Aristotle had already observed that
+the distinction between false and true first appears in judgment. See
+Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, vol. ii. b, 156, 2; 157, 1.
+
+[147] Sext. Math. vii. 93; ὡς τὸ μὲν φῶς, φησὶν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος τὸν
+Πλάτωνος Τίμαιον ἐξηγούμενος, ὑπὸ τῆς φωτοειδοῦς ὄψεως καταλαμβάνεται,
+ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀεροειδοῦς ἀκοῆς, οὕτω καὶ ἡ τῶν ὅλων φύσις ὑπὸ
+συγγενοῦς ὀφείλει καταλαμβάνεσθαι τοῦ λόγου. Conf. Plato, Rep. vi. 508,
+B.
+
+[148] See Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen, vol. ii. b, 231.
+
+[149] Ibid. ii. a, 211.
+
+[150] Diog. 61: ἐννόημα (object of thought) δέ ἐστι φάντασμα διανοίας.
+οὔτε τί ὂν οὔτε ποιὸν, ὡσανεὶ δὲ τί ὂν καὶ ὡσανεὶ ποιόν. Stob. Ecl. i.
+332: τὰ ἐννοήματά φησι μήτι τινὰ εἶναι μήτι ποιὰ, ὡσανεὶ δὲ τινὰ καὶ
+ὡσανεὶ ποιὰ φαντάσματα ψυχῆς· ταῦτα δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἰδέας
+προσαγορεύεσθαι ... ταῦτα [ταύτας] δὲ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ φιλόσοφοι φασὶν
+ἀνυπάρκτους εἶναι, καὶ τῶν μὲν ἐννοημάτων μετέχειν ἡμᾶς, τῶν δὲ
+πτώσεων, ἃς δὴ προσηγορίας καλοῦσι, τυγχάνειν. Although defended by
+Prantl, Gesch. d. Log. I. 420, 63, the last words as they stand do not
+appear capable of any passable meaning and are most probably corrupt.
+Plut. Plac. i. 10, 4: οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος Στωϊκοὶ ἐννοήματα ἡμέτερα τὰς
+ἰδέας ἔφασαν. Simpl. Categ. 26, e: Χρύσιππος ἀπορεῖ περὶ τῆς ἰδέας, εἰ
+τόδε τι ῥηθήσεται. συμπαραληπτέον δὲ καὶ τὴν συνήθειαν τῶν Στωϊκῶν περὶ
+τῶν γενικῶν ποιῶν πῶς αἱ πτώσεις κατ’ αὐτοὺς προφέρονται καὶ πῶς οὔτινα
+τὰ κοινὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς λέγεται. Syrian. on Met. p. 59. (In Petersen’s
+Philos. Chrys. Fund. 80): ὡς ἄρα τὰ εἴδη ... οὔτε πρὸς τὴν ῥῆσιν τῆς
+τῶν ὀνομάτων συνηθείας παρήγετο, ὡς Χρύσιππος καὶ Ἀρχέδημος καὶ οἱ
+πλείους τῶν Στωϊκῶν ὕστερον ᾠήθησαν ... οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ νοήματά εἰσι παρ’
+αὐτοῖς αἱ ἰδέαι, ὡς Κλεάνθης ὕστερον εἴρηκε. Prantl, l.c. takes
+objection to what Stobæus and Plutarch here say; yet this view is not
+that the Stoics regarded their conception of the ἐννόημα as identical
+with Plato’s conception of ideas, but that they asserted that these
+ideas were only ἐννοήματα—an assertion which had also been made by
+Antisthenes. Compare what is said on p. 92 respecting the unreality of
+the λεκτόν, likewise what Sext. Math. vii. 246, quotes, as belonging to
+the Stoics: οὔτε δὲ ἀληθεῖς οὔτε ψευδεῖς εἰσιν αἱ γενικαὶ [φαντασίαι]·
+ὧν γὰρ τὰ εἴδη τοῖα ἢ τοῖα τούτων τὰ γένη οὔτε τοῖα οὔτε τοῖα· if
+mankind be divided into Greeks and barbarians, the γενικὸς ἄνθρωπος
+will be neither one nor the other. The further therefore a conception
+is removed from individual limitations, the further it is removed from
+truth.
+
+[151] Diog. vii. 54: ἔστι δ’ ἡ πρόληψις ἔννοια φυσικὴ τῶν καθόλου. Exc.
+e Joan. Damasc. (Stob. Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 236), Nr. 34: Χρύσιππος τὸ
+μὲν γενικὸν ἡδὺ νοητὸν, τὸ δὲ εἰδικὸν καὶ προσπίπτον ἤδη (Petersen, 83
+without cause suggests ἡδὺ) αἰσθητόν.
+
+[152] See p. 82, 1.
+
+[153] Cic. Acad. ii. 47, 145.
+
+[154] Stob. Ecl. ii. 128: Knowledge is defined to be ἕξις φαντασιῶν
+δεκτικὴ ἀμετάπτωτος ὑπὸ λόγου, ἥντινά φασιν ἐν τόνῳ καὶ δυνάμει
+κεῖσθαι.
+
+[155] Here may be noted the objection mentioned by Sext. Math. viii.
+463; Pyrrh. ii. 186: The Sceptics cannot deny the possibility of
+arguing without proving their assertion and thereby practically
+admitting the possibility. Also another one urged by Antipater against
+Carneades (Cic. Acad. ii. 9, 28; 34, 109): He who asserts that nothing
+can be known with certainty must, at least, believe that he can with
+certainty know this. The replies of the Sceptics to these objections,
+and the way they turned them in their own favour, will be found in
+Sext. Math. l.c. and vii. 433.
+
+[156] Chrysippus opposed Arcesilaus, with such success, according to
+the view of the Stoic School, that Carneades was refuted by
+anticipation; and it was considered a special favour of Providence that
+the labours of Chrysippus had occupied an intermediate place between
+two of the most important Sceptics. Plut. Sto. Rep. i. 4, p. 1059.
+Diog. 198 mentions a treatise against Arcesilaus.
+
+[157] Plut. Sto. Rep. 10 (see p. 66, 1); Ibid. 47, 12: καὶ μὴν ἔν γε
+τοῖς πρὸς τοὺς Ἀκαδημαϊκοὺς ἀγῶσιν ὁ πλεῖστος αὐτῷ τε Χρυσίππῳ καὶ
+Ἀντιπάτρῳ πόνος γέγονε περὶ τοῦ μήτε πράττειν μήτε ὁρμᾶν ἀσυγκαταθέτως,
+ἀλλὰ πλάσματα λέγειν καὶ κενὰς ὑποθέσεις τοῦς ἀξιοῦντας οἰκείας
+φαντασίας γενομένης εὐθὺς ὁρμᾶν μὴ εἴξαντας μηδὲ συγκατατιθεμένους.
+Ibid. adv. Col. 26, 3, p. 1122: τὴν δὲ περὶ πάντων ἐποχὴν οὐδ’ οἱ πολλὰ
+πραγματευσάμενοι καὶ κατατείναντες εἰς τοῦτο συγγράμματα καὶ λόγους
+ἐκίνησαν· ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς Στοᾶς αὐτῆς τελευτῶντες ὥσπερ Γοργόνα τὴν
+ἀπραξίαν ἐπάγοντες ἀπηγόρευσαν. Epict. (Arrian. Diss. i. 27, 15)
+quietly suppresses a Sceptic by saying: οὐκ ἄγω σχολὴν πρὸς ταῦτα.
+Following also the Stoic line, Cic. Acad. ii. 10–12, makes Antiochus
+argue that Scepticism makes all action impossible.
+
+[158] In Sext. Math. vii. 244, ἀληθεῖς φαντασίαι are, first of all,
+literally explained to be φαντασίαι, ὧν ἔστιν ἀληθῆ κατηγορίαν
+ποιήσασθαι· then, under the head of true φαντασίαι, the καταληπτικαὶ
+and οὐ καταληπτικαὶ are distinguished, i.e., notions which are
+accompanied by a clear impression of being true, and such as are not;
+and, in conclusion, φαντασία καταληπτικὴ is defined: ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ
+ὑπάρχοντος καὶ κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ ὑπάρχον ἐναπομεμαγμένη καὶ
+ἐναπεσφραγισμένη, ὁποία οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο ἀπὸ μὴ ὑπάρχοντος. This
+definition is afterwards more fully explained. The same explanation is
+given Ibid. 402 and 426; viii. 85; Pyrrh. ii. 4; iii. 242; Augustin. c.
+Acad. ii. 5, 11; Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18. Diog. vii. 46: τῆς δὲ φαντασίας
+τὴν μὲν καταληπτικὴν τὴν δὲ ἀκατάληπτον· καταληπτικὴν μὲν, ἣν κριτήριον
+εἶναι τῶν πραγμάτων φασὶ, τὴν γινομένην ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ
+ὕπαρχον ἐναπεσφραγισμένην καὶ ἐναπομεμαγμένην· ἀκατάληπτον δὲ τὴν μὴ
+ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος, ἢ ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος μὲν, μὴ κατ’ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ὑπάρχον, τὴν
+μὴ τρανῆ μηδὲ ἔκτυπον. Ibid. 50.
+
+[159] Sext. Math. viii. 397: ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἡ ἀπόδειξις, ὡς ἔστι παρ’
+αὐτῶν ἀκούειν, καταληπτικῆς φαντασίας συγκατάθεσις, ἥτις διπλοῦν ἔοικεν
+εἶναι πρᾶγμα καὶ τὸ μέν τι ἔχειν ἀκούσιον, τὸ δὲ ἑκούσιον καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ
+ἡμετέρᾳ κρίσει κείμενον. τὸ μὲν γὰρ φαντασιωθῆναι ἀβούλητον ἦν καὶ οὐκ
+ἐπὶ τῷ πάσχοντι ἔκειτο ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ φαντασιοῦντι τὸ οὑτωσὶ διατεθῆναι
+... τὸ δὲ συγκαταθέσθαι τούτῳ τῷ κινήματι ἔκειτο ἐπὶ τῷ παραδεχομένῳ
+τὴν φαντασίαν. Diog. vii. 51; Cic. Acad. i. 14, 40: [Zeno] ad hæc quæ
+visa sunt, et quasi accepta sensibus assensionem adjungit animorum:
+quam esse vult in nobis positam et voluntariam. Ibid. ii. 12, 37; De
+Fato, 19, 43, Chrysippus affirms: visum objectum imprimet illud quidem
+et quasi signabit in animo suam speciem sed assensio nostra erit in
+potestate. Plut. Sto. Rep. 47, 1: τὴν γὰρ φαντασίαν βουλόμενος [ὁ
+Χρύσιππος] οὐκ οὖσαν αὐτοτελῆ τῆς συγκαταθέσεως αἰτίαν ἀποδεικνύειν
+εἴρηκεν ὅτι· βλάψουσιν οἱ σοφοὶ ψευδεῖς φαντασίας ἐμποιοῦντες, ἂν αἱ
+φαντασίαι ποιῶσιν αὐτοτελῶς τὰς συγκαταθέσεις, κ.τ.λ. Id. 13: αὖθις δέ
+φησι Χρύσιππος, καὶ τὸν θεὸν ψευδεῖς ἐμποιεῖν φαντασίας καὶ τὸν σοφὸν
+... ἡμᾶς δὲ φαύλους ὄντας συγκατατίθεσθαι ταῖς τοιαύταις φαντασίαις.
+Id. Fragm. De An. 2: οὐχ ἡ ψυχὴ τρέπει ἑαυτὴν εἰς τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων
+κατάληψιν καὶ ἀπάτην, κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς. Epictet. in Gell. N. A.
+xix. 1, 15: visa animi, quas φαντασίας philosophi appellant ... non
+voluntatis sunt neque arbitrariæ, sed vi quadam sua inferunt sese
+hominibus noscitandæ; probationes autem, quas συγκαταθέσεις vocant,
+quibus eadem visa noscuntur ac dijudicantur voluntariæ sunt fiuntque
+hominum arbitratu: the difference between a wise man and a fool
+consists in συγκατατίθεσθαι and προσεπιδοξάζειν. The freedom of
+approbation must, of course, be so understood in harmony with Stoic
+doctrine of the freedom of the will.
+
+[160] On the difference between the conception of εὔλογον and that of
+καταληπτικὴ φαντασία, the latter alone being unerring, see Athen. viii.
+354, e; Diog. vii. 177.
+
+[161] Compare besides p. 87, 2, Cic. Acad. i. 11, 41: [Zeno] visis (=
+φαντασίαις) non omnibus adjungebat fidem, sed iis solum, quæ propriam
+quandam haberent declarationem earum rerum, quæ viderentur: id autem
+visum, cum ipsum per se cerneretur, comprehensibile (καταληπτικὴ
+φαντασία). Ibid. ii. 12, 38: ut enim necesse est lancem in libra
+ponderibus impositis deprimi, sic animum perspicuis cedere ... non
+potest objectam rem perspicuam non approbare. Conf. Fin. v. 26, 76:
+percipiendi vis ita definitur a Stoicis, ut negent quidquam posse
+percipi nisi tale rerum, quale falsum esse non possit. Diog. vii. 54;
+Sext. Math. vii. 227: κριτήριον τοίνον φασὶν ἀληθείας εἶναι οἱ ἄνδρες
+οὗτοι τὴν καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν. It was a departure from the older
+Stoic teaching, to refuse, as the later Stoics did, to allow a
+conceptional notion to be considered a test of truth, except with the
+proviso that no contrary proof could be adduced against its truth.
+Sext. 253: ἀλλὰ γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἀρχαιότεροι τῶν Στωϊκῶν κριτήριόν φασιν
+εἶναι τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν καταληπτικὴν ταύτην φαντασίαν· οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι
+προσετίθεσαν καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἔχουσαν ἔνστημα, since cases could be
+imagined in which a faulty view presented itself with the full force of
+truth. This was equivalent to overthrowing the whole doctrine of a
+criterion; for how could it be known in any particular case that there
+was not a negative instance? But it is quite in harmony with the Stoic
+teaching for a later Stoic (Ibid. 257) to say of conceptional
+perception: αὕτη γὰρ ἐναργὴς οὖσα καὶ πληκτικὴ μονονουχὶ τῶν τριχῶν,
+φασι, λαμβάνεται κατασπῶσα ἡμᾶς εἰς συγκατάθεσιν καὶ ἄλλου μηδενὸς
+δεομένη εἰς τὸ τοιαύτῃ προσπίπτειν, κ.τ.λ. Hence Simpl. Phys. 20, b:
+ἀνῄρουν τὰ ἄλλα ... πλὴν τὰ ἐναργῆ.
+
+[162] Diog. vii. 54: κριτήριον δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας φασὶ τυγχάνειν τὴν
+καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν, τουτέστι τὴν ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος, καθά φησι
+Χρύσιππος ἐν τῇ δωδεκάτῃ τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ Ἀντίπατρος καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος. ὁ
+μὲν γὰρ Βοηθὸς κριτήρια πλείονα ἀπολείπει, νοῦν καὶ αἴσθησιν καὶ ὄρεξιν
+καὶ ἐπιστήμην (this looks like an approximation to the teaching of the
+Peripatetics); ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος διαφερόμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ
+λόγου κριτήριά φησιν εἶναι αἴσθησιν καὶ πρόληψιν ... ἄλλοι δέ τινες τῶν
+ἀρχαιοτέρων Στωϊκῶν τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον κριτήριον ἀπολείπουσιν, ὡς ὁ
+Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ περὶ κριτηρίου φησίν. See above p. 76.
+
+[163] See above p. 82, 1.
+
+[164] See above p. 89, 2, and Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 101: neque eos (the
+Academicians) contra sensus aliter dicimus, ac Stoici, qui multa falsa
+esse dicunt, longeque aliter se habere ac sensibus videantur.
+Chrysippus had enquired into the truth of the perceptions of the
+senses, and of the notions derived from them, in his treatise περὶ
+συνηθείας, without, however, satisfactorily answering the objections
+which he quoted against the theory. See p. 46, 2.
+
+[165] See p. 60.
+
+[166] See p. 73, 3.
+
+[167] See Sext. Math. viii. 11: οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς, τρία φάμενοι συζυγεῖν
+ἀλλήλοις, τό τε σημαινόμενον καὶ τὸ σημαῖνον καὶ τὸ τυγχάνον. ὧν
+σημαῖνον μὲν εἶναι τὴν φωνὴν ... σημαινόμενον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα τὸ ὑπ’
+αὐτῆς δηλούμενον ... τυγχάνον δὲ τὸ ἐκτὸς ὑποκείμενον ... τούτων δὲ δύο
+μὲν εἶναι σώματα, καθάπερ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὸ τυγχάνον, ἓν δὲ ἀσώματον,
+ὥσπερ τὸ σημαινόμενον πρᾶγμα καὶ λεκτόν. Sen. Ep. 117, 13, giving it
+expressly as the teaching of the Stoics, not as his own: Sunt, inquit,
+naturæ corporum ... has deinde sequuntur motus animorum enuntiativi
+corporum—for instance, I see Cato walk—corpus est, quod video.... Dico
+deinde: Cato ambulat. Non corpus est, inquit, quod nunc loquor, sed
+enuntiativum quiddam de corpore, quod alii effatum vocant, alii
+enuntiatum, alii edoctum. Compare also on the λεκτόν Sext. Math. viii.
+70 (above p. 83, 2); Pyrrh. iii. 52. Various arguments are used by the
+Stoics to prove that the voice as opposed to utterance (λεκτὸν) is
+material, as has been said. p. 74, 5. Illustrative of the distinction
+between utterance and the process of thought is the assertion (in Sext.
+Pyrrh. ii. 81) that certainty as being a definite condition of the soul
+is material, but that truth itself is not material: λέγεται διαφέρειν
+τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ ἀληθὲς τριχῶς, οὐσίᾳ, συστάσει, δυνάμει· οὐσίᾳ μὲν,
+ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς ἀσώματόν ἐστιν, ἀξίωμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ λεκτὸν, ἡ δὲ
+ἀλήθεια σῶμα, ἔστι γὰρ ἐπιστήμη πάντων ἀληθῶν ἀποφαντικὴ, ἡ δὲ ἐπιστήμη
+πὼς ἔχον ἡγεμονικόν (Id. Math. vii. 38, a similar statement is
+expressly attributed to a Stoic); likewise a similar statement which
+Sen. Ep. 117, discusses, and at length declares to be a mere quibble,
+but not till after a lengthy refutation: sapientiam bonum esse, sapere
+bonum non esse. The statement rests on the assertion that nothing can
+be a good which does not make itself felt, and nothing can make itself
+felt which is not material; wisdom is material, because it is mens
+perfecta, but sapere is incorporale et accidens alteri, i.e. sapientiæ.
+Accordingly, λεκτὸν (as Ammon. De Inter. 15, b, remarks) is a μέσον τοῦ
+τε νοήματος καὶ τοῦ πράγματος· if, however, νόημα be taken to express
+the thought itself, and not the process of thinking, it becomes
+identical with λεκτόν. Conf. Simpl. Cat. 3, α, Basil.: τὰ δὲ λεγόμενα
+καὶ λεκτὰ τὰ νοήματά ἐστιν, ὡς καὶ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἐδόκει. In Plut. Plac.
+iv. 11, 4, a definition of νόημα or ἐννόημα is given similar to that of
+λεκτὸν in Sext. Math. viii. 70: φάντασμα διανοίας λογικοῦ ζῴου. See
+above p. 84, 4. The statement, however, of Philop. Anal. Pr. lx. a,
+Schol. in Ar. 170, a, 2, cannot be true, that the Stoics called things
+τυγχάνοντα, thoughts ἐκφορικὰ, and sounds λεκτά, whereas ἐκφορικὸν may
+be used of thoughts in the same sense as λεκτόν.
+
+[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.
+
+[172] In nouns the cases were distinguished, the nominative, according
+to Ammon. l.c. being called ὄνομα, and the other five cases πτώσεις· a
+statement, however, which does not agree with the common use of those
+terms. In Diog. 65, the cases (γενικὴ, δοτικὴ, αἰτιατικὴ) are called
+πλάγιαι πτώσεις. Chrysippus wrote a distinct treatise on the five
+cases, Diog. 192. Similar were the divisions of the κατηγόρημα.
+According to Diog. 65, the Stoics distinguished between transitive
+verbs (ὀρθὰ), such as ὁρᾷ, διαλέγεται· passive verbs (ὕπτια), such as
+ὁρῶμαι· neuter verbs (οὐδέτερα), such as φρονεῖν, περιπατεῖν· and verbs
+which, with a passive form, do not express a passive relation
+(ἀντιπεπονθότα), κείρεσθαι, πείθεσθαι, &c. Consult on this point Philo,
+De Cherub. 121, c; Orig. C. Cels. vi. 57. On the ὀρθὰ and ὕπτια, also
+Dionys. Thrax, § 15, p. 886, Bekk.; Simpl. Categ. 79, α, ζ; Diog. 191;
+and respecting all three divisions, Lersch, ii. 196; Steinthal, Gesch.
+der Sprachw. i. 294. They also distinguished between σύμβαμα and
+παρασύμβαμα—a verb, when used with a nominative, being called σύμβαμα
+or κατηγόρημα, and παρασύμβαμα when used with an oblique case;
+περιπατεῖ is a σύμβαμα, μεταμέλει a παρασύμβαμα, περιπατεῖ requiring a
+nominative (Σωκράτης), μεταμέλει requiring a dative (Σωκράτει). If an
+oblique case is necessary to complete a sentence, besides the subject,
+the verb is called ἔλαττον ἢ σύμβαμα or ἔλαττον ἢ κατηγόρημα, as in the
+sentence Πλάτων φιλεῖ, φιλεῖ is so called; for these words only make a
+complete sentence by the addition of an object thus: Πλάτων φιλεῖ
+Δίωνα. If this is necessary with a παρασύμβαμα, it is called ἔλαττον ἢ
+παρασύμβαμα· such, for instance, is the word μέλει, for to complete the
+sentence it is not enough to say Σωκράτει μέλει, but the object must be
+added, as in the sentence: Σωκράτει μεταμέλει Ἀλκιβιάδους. This
+difference is explained by Porphyr. in Ammon. l.c., 36, b, whom Lersch,
+ii. 31, misunderstands and then blames. See Diog. 64 where the text is
+evidently corrupt. Without great temerity we might substitute for the
+meaningless οἷον τὸ διὰ πέτρας πλεῖν—τὰ δὲ παρασυμβάματα, which at
+least gives a better meaning than the proposals of R. Schmidt, Sto.
+Gramm. 66, 91, and Lersch, l.c. 33. Apollon. De Const. iii. 32, p. 299,
+Bekk.; Suid. σύμβαμα (very inaccurate); Priscian, xviii. p. 1118, who,
+in his equally inaccurate account, has ἀσυμβάματα. The example which
+Lucian, Vit. Auct. 21 employs to ridicule the Stoic hair-splitting
+anent σύμβαμα and παρασύμβαμα proves, of course, nothing.
+
+[173] There is nothing whatever on record which serves to show the
+position held by the categories. By several, definition and division
+were treated of most improperly under the head of language.
+
+[174] According to Diog. 60, Bekker, Anecd. ii. 647, ὅρος was defined
+by Chrysippus as ἰδίου (which must be read in Diog. in place of καὶ)
+ἀπόδοσις· by Antipater as λόγος κατ’ ἀνάλυσιν (Anecd. ἀνάγκην)
+ἀπαρτιζόντως ἐκφερόμενος, i.e. a proposition in which the subject and
+the collective predicates may be interchanged. Ὁρισμὸς gives in detail
+what ὄνομα gives collectively (Simpl. Categ. 16, β). An imperfect ὅρος
+is called ὑπογραφή. Instead of the Aristotelian τί ἦν εἶναι, the Stoics
+were content with the τί ἦν of Antisthenes (Alex. Top. 24, m). Like
+Prodicus, they laid great stress on distinguishing accurately the
+conceptions of words of similar meaning, χαρὰ, τέρψις, ἡδονὴ, εὐφροσύνη
+(Alex. Top. 96). The relation of γένος to εἶδος is also explained:
+γένος is defined to be the summing up of many thoughts (ἀναφαιρέτων
+ἐννοημάτων· which might mean thoughts which, as integral parts of a
+conception, cannot be separated from it; only this explanation would
+not agree with what follows, according to which one would more likely
+think of the different species included in the genus. Prantl p. 422
+suggests ἀναφορητῶν, which, however, requires explanation); εἶδος as τὸ
+ὑπὸ τοῦ γένους περιεχόμενον (Diog. 60). γενικώτατον is ὃ γένος ὂν γένος
+οὐκ ἔχει· εἰδικώτατον ὃ εἶδος ὂν εἶδος οὐκ ἔχει (Diog. 61; conf. Sext.
+Pyrrh. i. 138). As to διαίρεσις, ὑποδιαίρεσις, and ἀντιδιαίρεσις
+(division into contradictories) nothing new is stated; but μερισμὸς has
+a special notice (Diog. 61). Lastly, if Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 213 (the
+previous definition of dialectic is found, as was stated on p. 73, 3,
+in Alcinous Isag. 3, and he also mentions c. 5 three of the four kinds
+of division, giving two others instead of the fourth) refers to the
+Stoics, four kinds of division are enumerated. The reference of the 8
+διαιρέσεις mentioned by Prantl, p. 423, on the authority of Bekker’s
+Anecd. ii. 679 to a Stoic source is much more doubtful. There is little
+that is new in the Stoic discussion of Opposition, and the same may be
+said of what Simpl. (Categ. 100, β and δ; 101, ε; 102, β) quotes from
+Chrysippus (περὶ τῶν κατὰ στέρησιν λεγομένων) on the subject of
+στέρησις and ἕξις. Conf. Diog. vii. 190.
+
+[175] Petersen, Philos. Chrysipp. Fund. pp. 36–144, is invaluable for
+its careful collection of authorities, but in its attempt to construct
+the Stoic system on the categories it indulges in many capricious
+combinations. Trendelenburg, Hist. Beitr. i. 217; Prantl, Gesch. der
+Logik, i. 426. Our authorities for the knowledge of the Stoic doctrine
+of the categories are besides a few notices in other writers
+principally Simplicius, on the Categories, and Plotinus, Ennead. vi. 1,
+25–30.
+
+[176] The Stoics attack the Aristotelian categories for being too
+numerous, and endeavour to show that they do not include every kind of
+expression (as if, rejoined Simplicius, Categ. 5, α, this were the
+point at all). Compare Simpl. Categ. 5, α; 15, δ; 16, δ, who quotes
+these as objections raised by Athenodorus and Cornutus, the former of
+whom lived in the time of Augustus, the latter in the reign of Nero.
+Observations of these writers on some of the Aristotelian categories
+are given, Ibid. 47, ζ, 91, α.
+
+[177] That this was intended by Aristotle to be the position of the
+categories appears by the way in which he introduced them; and also by
+his observations (Phys. v. 2) on the various kinds of motion—which are
+based entirely on the view that the categories are coordinate.
+
+[178] It will thus be understood how the ancients could at one time
+speak of ὂν, at another of τί, as being the highest conception of the
+Stoics. The former is found in Diog. 61: γενικώτατον δέ ἐστιν ὃ γένος
+ὂν γένος οὐκ ἔχει, οἷον τὸ ὄν. Sen. Ep. 58, 8: Nunc autem genus illud
+primum quærimus, ex quo ceteræ species suspensæ sunt, a quo nascitur
+omnis divisio, quo universa comprehensa sunt; after noticing the
+distinction between what is material and what is immaterial, he
+proceeds: quid ergo erit, ex quo hæc deducantur? illud ... quod est [τὸ
+ὂν] ... quod est aut corporale est aut incorporale. Hoc ergo genus est
+primum et antiquissimum et, ut ita dicam, generale [τὸ γενικώτατον]. It
+is, however, more usual to find τί. Thus Plotin. Enn. vi. 1, 25: κοινὸν
+τὶ καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων ἓν γένος λαμβάνουσι. Alex. Aphrod. Top. 155; Schol.
+278, b, 20: οὕτω δεικνύοις ἂν ὅτι μὴ καλῶς τὸ τὶ οἱ ἀπὸ στοᾶς γένος τοῦ
+ὄντος (τὶ as the genus, of which ὂν is a species) τίθενται· εἰ γὰρ τὶ,
+δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ὂν ... ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνοι νομοθετήσαντες αὐτοῖς τὸ ὂν κατὰ
+σωμάτων μόνων λέγεσθαι διαφεύγοιεν ἂν τὸ ἠπορημένον· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ
+τὶ γενικώτερον αὐτοῦ φασιν εἶναι κατηγορούμενον οὐ κατὰ σωμάτων μόνον
+ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀσωμάτων. Schol. in Arist. 34, b, 11. Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 86: τὸ
+τὶ, ὅπερ φασὶν εἶναι πάντων γενικώτατον. Math. x. 234: The Stoics
+affirm τῶν τινῶν τὰ μὲν εἶναι σώματα τὰ δὲ ἀσώματα. Sen. l.c. 13:
+Stoici volunt superponere huic etiamnunc aliud genus magis principale
+... primum genus Stoicis quibusdam videtur quid, for in rerum,
+inquiunt, natura quædam sunt, quædam non sunt: examples of the latter
+are centaurs, giants, and similar notions of unreal things. Ritter,
+iii. 566, remarks, with justice, that the older teaching must have
+placed the conception of Being at the head; otherwise the objection
+could not have been raised, that what has not being is thus made an
+object of thought. Probably the change was made by Chrysippus, although
+it is not definitely proved by Stob. Ecl. i. 390. Petersen confuses the
+two views, in thinking (p. 146) that the Stoics divided Something into
+Being and Not Being, and subdivided Being again into what is material
+and what is not material. In other respects, too, he confounds the
+Stoic teaching with the consequences, whereby Plotinus l.c. and Plut.
+Comm. Not. 30, sought to refute it.
+
+[179] See previous note and p. 92, 2.
+
+[180] The Stoics appear to have regarded them as γενικώτατα or πρῶτα
+γένη, rather than as categories. Conf. Simpl. Categ. 16, δ (in other
+places as 51, β; 79, β, he is speaking for himself and not of the Stoic
+categories); Marc. Aurel. vi. 14; κατηγορία did not suit them so well
+because of their use of κατηγόρημα. See p. 95, 1.
+
+[181] Simpl. 16, δ: οἱ δέ γε Στωϊκοὶ εἰς ἐλάττονα συστέλλειν ἐξιοῦσι
+τὸν τῶν πρώτων γενῶν ἀριθμόν ... ποιοῦνται γὰρ τὴν τομὴν εἰς τέσσαρα·
+εἰς ὑποκείμενα καὶ ποιὰ καὶ πὼς ἔχοντα καὶ πρός τί πως ἔχοντα. Plot.
+En. vi. 1, 25; Plut. Comm. Not. 44, 6. p. 1083.
+
+[182] Instead of ὑποκείμενον, the Aristotelian category of being,
+οὐσία, was substituted by some, not only without the School, but also
+by Posidonius, who in Stob. Ecl. i. 434 distinguishes οὐσία and ποιὸς
+the change of the one and the other. Similarly his fellow-disciple
+Mnesarchus.
+
+[183] Porphyr. in Simpl. 12, δ: ἥ τε γὰρ ἄποιος ὕλη ... πρῶτόν ἐστι τοῦ
+ὑποκειμένου σημαινόμενον. Plot. 588, B: ὑποκείμενα μὲν γὰρ πρῶτα
+τάξαντες καὶ τὴν ὕλην ἐνταῦθα τῶν ἄλλων προτάξαντες. Galen, Qu. Qual.
+S. Incorp. 6, xix. 478: λέγουσι μόνην τὴν πρώτην ὕλην ἀΐδιον τὴν
+ἄποιον. Compare following note. It would seem to follow, as a matter of
+course, from the Stoic belief in immaterial properties, see p. 106, 4,
+that the Stoics also believed in immaterial substances (Petersen, 60);
+but as such a view would be at variance with their belief that reality
+only belongs to material things, and is nowhere mentioned by any
+authority, although obviously inviting the criticism of opponents, it
+is safer to suppose that they never went so far as to state the belief
+in words.
+
+[184] Simpl. 44, δ: ἔοικε Στωϊκῇ τινι συνηθείᾳ συνεπέσθαι, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ
+τὸ ὑποκείμενον εἶναι νομίζων, τὰς δὲ περὶ αὐτὸ διαφορὰς ἀνυποστάτους
+ἡγούμενος. Diog. 150. Stob. Ecl. i. 322 (see below 101, 2) and 324:
+ἔφησε δὲ ὁ Ποσειδώνιος τὴν τῶν ὅλων οὐσίαν καὶ ὕλην ἄποιον καὶ ἄμορφον
+εἶναι, καθ’ ὅσον οὐδὲν ἀποτεταγμένον ἴδιον ἔχει σχῆμα οὐδὲ ποιότητα
+κατ’ αὐτήν [καθ’ αὑτὴν]· ἀεὶ δ’ ἔν τινι σχήματι καὶ ποιότητι εἶναι,
+διαφέρειν δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ὕλης, τὴν οὖσαν κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἐπινοίᾳ
+μόνον. Simpl. Phys. 50: τὸ ἄποιον σῶμα τὴν πρωτίστην ὕλην εἶναί φασιν.
+Further particulars on matter hereafter.
+
+[185] Porphyr. in Simpl. Cat. 12, δ: διττόν ἐστι τὸ ὑποκείμενον οὐ
+μόνον κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. Dexipp. See
+following note.
+
+[186] Diog. 150: οὐσίαν δέ φασι τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων τὴν πρώτην ὕλην. So
+thought Zeno and Chrysippus: ὕλη δέ ἐστιν ἐξ ἧς ὁτιδηποτοῦν γίνεται.
+καλεῖται δὲ διχῶς οὐσία τε καὶ ὕλη, ἥ τε τῶν πάντων καὶ ἡ τῶν ἐπὶ
+μέρος. ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὅλων οὔτε πλείων οὔτε ἐλάττων γίνεται, ἡ δὲ τῶν
+ἐπὶ μέρους καὶ πλείων καὶ ἐλάττων. Stob. Ecl. i. 322: (Ζήνωνος·) οὐσίαν
+δὲ εἶναι τὴν τῶν ὄντων πάντων πρώτην ὕλην, ταύτην δὲ πᾶσαν ἀΐδιον καὶ
+οὔτε πλείω γιγνομένην οὔτε ἐλάττω, τὰ δὲ μέρη ταύτης οὐκ ἀεὶ ταὐτὰ
+διαμένειν, ἀλλὰ διαιρεῖσθαι καὶ συγχεῖσθαι. The same was held by
+Chrysippus, according to Stob. Ecl. i. 432, who says: Posidonius held
+that there were four varieties of change, those κατὰ διαίρεσιν, κατ’
+ἀλλοίωσιν (water to air), κατὰ σύγχυσιν (chemical combination), and
+κατ’ ἀνάλυσιν, the latter also called τὴν ἐξ ὅλων μεταβολήν. τούτων δὲ
+τὴν κατ’ ἀλλοίωσιν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν γίγνεσθαι (the elements, according
+to the Stoics, changing into each other) τὰς δὲ ἄλλας τρεῖς περὶ τοὺς
+ποιοὺς λεγομένους τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας γιγνομένους. ἀκολούθως δὲ τούτοις
+καὶ τὰς γενέσεις συνβαίνειν. τὴν γὰρ οὐσίαν οὔτ’ αὔξεσθαι οὔτε
+μειοῦσθαι ... ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἰδίως ποιῶν (which may be understood, not of
+individual properties, but of individually determined things) οἷον
+Δίωνος καὶ Θέωνος, καὶ αὐξήσεις καὶ μειώσεις γίγνεσθαι. (These words
+are explained by Prantl, 432, thus: qualitative determination admits
+increase or decrease of intensity; but the use of the terms αὔξησις and
+μείωσις, and indeed the whole context no less than the passage quoted
+from Diogenes, prove that they refer rather to the increase or
+diminution of substance in the individual thing.) διὸ καὶ παραμένειν
+τὴν ἑκάστου ποιότητα ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως μέχρι τῆς ἀναιρέσεως.... ἐπὶ δὲ
+τῶν ἰδίως ποιῶν δύο μὲν εἶναί φασι τὰ δεκτικὰ μόρια (individual things
+have two component parts, which are capable of change), τὸ μέν τι κατὰ
+τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ὑπόστασιν τὸ δέ τι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ποίου. τὸ γὰρ [ἰδίως
+ποιὸν] ὡς πολλάκις λέγομεν τὴν αὔξησιν καὶ τὴν μείωσιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι.
+Porphyr. See previous note. Dexipp. in Cat. 31, 15, Speng.: ὡς ἔστι τὸ
+ὑποκείμενον διττὸν, οὐ μόνον κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
+πρεσβυτέρους, ἓν μὲν τὸ λεγόμενον πρῶτον ὑποκείμενον, ὡς ἡ ἄποιος ὕλη
+... δεύτερον δὲ ὑποκείμενον τὸ ποιὸν ὃ κοινῶς ἢ ἰδίως ὑφίσταται,
+ὑποκείμενον γὰρ καὶ ὁ χαλκὸς καὶ ὁ Σωκράτης. Plut. Comm. Not. 44, 4, p.
+1083 (the Stoics assert) ὡς δύο ἡμῶν ἕκαστός ἐστιν ὑποκείμενα, τὸ μὲν
+οὐσία, τὸ δὲ [ποιόν]. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ ῥεῖ καὶ φέρεται, μήτ’ αὐξόμενον
+μήτε μειούμενον, μήτε ὅλως οἷόν ἐστι διαμένον, τὸ δὲ διαμένει καὶ
+αὐξάνεται καὶ μειοῦται καὶ πάντα πάσχει τἀναντία θἀτέρῳ συμπεφυκὸς καὶ
+συνηρμοσμένον καὶ συγκεχυμένον, καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῇ αἰσθήσει μηδαμοῦ
+παρέχον ἅψασθαι. The latter is the individual thing itself, the former
+the material thereof, in reference to which Plutarch had just said: τὰ
+λήμματα συγχωροῦσιν οὗτοι, τὰς [μὲν] ἐν μέρει πάσας οὐσίας ῥεῖν καὶ
+φέρεσθαι, τὰ μὲν ἐξ αὑτῶν μεθείσας, τὰ δὲ ποθὲν ἐπιόντα προσδεχομένας·
+οἷς δὲ πρόσεισι καὶ ἄπεισιν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ πλήθεσιν, ταῦτα μὴ διαμένειν,
+ἀλλ’ ἕτερα γίγνεσθαι ταῖς εἰρημέναις προσόδοις, ἐξαλλαγὴν τῆς οὐσίας
+λαμβανούσης. That it should be said of this perpetually changing
+material μήτ’ αὐξόμενον μήτε μειούμενον may appear strange; but the
+meaning is this: it can only be said of an individual thing that it
+increases and diminishes in so far as it remains one and the same
+subject, an ἰδίως ποιὸν during the change; but the material itself,
+which is ever changing, cannot be regarded as the one identical subject
+of increase and diminution. This idea is expanded by Alex. Aphro.
+Quæst. Nat. I. 5.
+
+[187] ποιὸν or ποιότης, and also ποιὸς (sc. λόγος). According to Simpl.
+55. α, many Stoics assign a threefold meaning to ποιόν. The first,
+which is also the most extensive meaning, includes every kind of
+quality, whether essential or accidental—the πὼς ἔχον as well as the
+ποιόν. In the second meaning ποιὸν is used to express permanent
+qualities, including those which are derivative and non-essential—the
+σχέσεις. In the third and narrowest sense it expresses τοὺς
+ἀπαρτίζοντας (κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν) καὶ ἐμμόνως ὄντας κατὰ διαφορὰν ποιοὺς,
+i.e. those qualities which faithfully represent essential attributes in
+their distinctive features. The substantive ποιότης is only used in the
+last sense.
+
+[188] Simpl. 57, ε (the passage is fully discussed by Petersen, 85, and
+Trendelenburg, 223): οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ποιότητος τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν
+σωμάτων λέγουσι διαφορὰν εἶναι οὐσίας οὐκ ἀποδιαληπτὴν (separable,
+i.e., from matter) καθ’ ἑαυτὴν, ἀλλ’ εἰς ἓν νόημα καὶ ἰδιότητα [sc.
+μίαν] ἀπολήγουσαν οὔτε χρόνῳ οὔτε ἰσχύϊ εἰδοποιουμένην, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐξ
+αὐτῆς τοιουτότητι, καθ’ ἢν ποιοῦ ὑφίσταται γένεσις. In place of ἓν
+νόημα Petersen, 85, with the approval of Trendelenburg and Prantl (438,
+96), reads ἐννόημα. To me, Brandis Schol. 69, a, 32, appears to retain
+it with reason, the meaning being that ποιότης constitutes no
+independent unity, but only a unity of conception. Non-essential
+qualities are by the Stoics excluded from the category of ποιὸν, and
+reckoned under that of πὼς ἔχον.
+
+The same distinction between what is essential and what is not
+essential is indicated in the terms ἕξις and σχέσις· ποιότητες, or
+essential properties, being called essential forms (ἕξεις or ἑκτά);
+non-essential qualities being called features or varieties (σχέσεις).
+See Simpl. 54, γ; 55, ε. In determining essential attributes, these,
+according to Simpl. 61, β (Schol. in Arist. 70, b, 43), are essential,
+not when they happen to be permanent, but when they spring from the
+nature of the object to which they belong: τὰς μὲν γὰρ σχέσεις ταῖς
+ἐπικτήτοις καταστάσεσι χαρακτηρίζεσθαι τὰς δὲ ἕξεις ταῖς ἐξ ἑαυτῶν
+ἐνεργείαις. A more limited meaning, that of local position, is given to
+σχέσις in Stob. Ecl. i. 410.
+
+The distinction between ἕνωσις and συναφὴ also belongs here. That, the
+oneness of which depends on an essential quality, is ἡνωμένον·
+everything else is either συνημμένον or ἐκ διεστώτων. Sext. Math. ix.
+78 (also in vii. 102): τῶν τε σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστιν ἡνωμένα τὰ δὲ ἐκ
+συναπτομένων τὰ δὲ ἐκ διεστώτων· ἡνωμένα μὲν οὖν ἐστι τὰ ὑπὸ μιᾶς ἕξεως
+κρατούμενα, καθάπερ φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα· συνάφεια applies to chains, houses,
+ships, &c.; combination ἐκ διεστώτων to flocks and armies. Seneca, Ep.
+102, 6, Nat. Qu. ii. 2, says the same. Conf. Alex. De Mixt. 143: ἀνάγκη
+δὲ τὸ ἓν σῶμα ὑπὸ μιᾶς ὥς φασιν ἕξεως συνελέσθαι [l. συνέχεσθαι].
+Simpl. 55, ε: τὰς γὰρ ποιότητας ἑκτὰ λέγοντες οὗτοι [οἱ Στωϊκοὶ] ἐπὶ
+τῶν ἡνωμένων μόνων ἑκτὰ ἀπολείπουσιν· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν κατὰ συναφὴν, οἷον
+νεὼς, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ διάστασιν, οἷον στρατοῦ, μηδὲν εἶναι ἑκτὸν μηδὲ
+εὑρίσκεσθαι πνευματικόν τι ἓν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν μηδὲ ἕνα λόγον ἔχον ὥστε ἐπί
+τινα ὑπόστασιν ἐλθεῖν μιᾶς ἕξεως.
+
+Those ἕξεις which admit of no increase or diminution (ἐπίτασις, and
+ἄνεσις) are called διαθέσεις or permanent forms. Virtues, for instance,
+which, according to the Stoics, always exist in a perfect form where
+they exist at all, are διαθέσεις, but arts are only ἕξεις. Simpl.
+Categ. 61, β; 72, δ; 73, β; Schol. in Arist. 70, b, 28; 76, a, 12, 24;
+Stob. Ecl. ii. 98 and 128. Conf. Petersen 91. A different view was
+taken by Aristotle of the relations of these expressions.
+
+[189] Syrian. on Arist. Metaph. 21, p. 90 in Petersen: καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ
+δὲ τοὺς κοινοὺς ποιοὺς πρὸ τῶν ἰδίων ποιῶν ἀποτίθενται. Stob. Ecl. i.
+434; see above p. 101, 2. Simpl. De An. 61, a, explains ἰδίως ποιὸς by
+ἀτομωθὲν εἶδος. Diog. vii. 138; Plut. C. Not. 36. 3.
+
+[190] Besides the passages already quoted in note 2 on p. 101, from
+Plutarch and Stobæus, see Sext. Pyrrh. i. 57: τὰ κιρνάμενα (the
+intermingling materials,—the question here is the possibility of
+mingling) ἐξ οὐσίας καὶ ποιοτήτων συγκεῖσθαί φασιν. Porphyry in Simpl.
+Categ. 12, δ disputes this view himself. The Stoics, therefore, clearly
+distinguish ἕξις, or essential form, from the subject to which it
+belongs; and Philo must have been following the Stoics when he said
+(Nom. Mutat. 1063, D): ἕξεις γὰρ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰς ποιῶν ἀμείνους, ὡς
+μουσικὴ μουσικοῦ, κ.τ.λ. They also distinguish between a thing and its
+οὐσία. Stob. Ecl. i. 436: μὴ εἶναί τε τοὐτὸν τό τι ποιὸν ἰδίως καὶ τὴν
+οὐσίαν ἐξ ἧς ἔστι τοῦτο, μὴ μέντοι γε μήδ’ ἕτερον, ἀλλὰ μόνον οὐ
+ταὐτὸν, διὰ τὸ καὶ μέρος εἶναι τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπέχειν τόπον,
+τὰ δ’ ἕτερα τινῶν λεγόμενα δεῖν καὶ τόπῳ κεχωρίσθαι καὶ μήδ’ ἐν μέρει
+θεωρεῖσθαι. Conf. Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 170; Math. ix. 336: οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ
+οὔτε ἕτερον τοῦ ὅλου τὸ μέρος οὔτε τὸ αὐτό φασιν ὑπάρχειν· and Seneca,
+Ep. 313, 4. Mnesarchus, a fellow disciple of Posidonius, accordingly
+compares the relation of an individual thing to its οὐσία with that of
+a statue to the material of which it is composed. Since the ἰδίως ποιὸς
+distinguishes a thing from every other, there follows as a matter of
+course, what is asserted circumstantially and in detail by Chrysippus
+(in Philo, Incorrupt. M. 951, B), ὅτι δύο εἰδοποιοὺς [= ἰδίως ποιοὺς]
+ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ἀμήχανον συστῆναι.
+
+[191] L.c. 222.
+
+[192] This may be seen from the passages quoted in note 2 on the
+previous page.
+
+[193] Plut. St. Rep. 43, 4, p. 1054: τὴν ὕλην ἀργὸν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς καὶ
+ἀκίνητον ὑποκεῖσθαι ταῖς ποιότησιν ἀποφαίνουσι, τὰς δὲ ποιότητας
+πνεύματα οὔσας καὶ τόνους ἀερώδεις οἷς ἂν ἐγγένωνται μέρεσι τῆς ὕλης
+εἰδοποιεῖν ἕκαστα καὶ σχηματίζειν. It is a carrying out of the Stoic
+teaching (as Simpl. 57, ε, remarks) for Plotinus to reduce ποιότης to
+the class-conception of δύναμις (Enn. vi. 1, 10, 574, β). But the Stoic
+definition of δύναμις (quoted by Simpl. 58, α—ἡ πλειόνων ἐποιστικὴ
+συμπτωμάτων, with the additional words καὶ κατακρατοῦσα τῶν
+ἐνεργειῶν—does not directly refer to ποιότης. Ποιότης may also be
+connected with the λόγος σπερματικός. See Plotin. i. 29, 593, A: εἰ δὲ
+τὰ ποιὰ ὕλην ποιὰν λέγοιεν, πρῶτον μὲν οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῖς ἔνυλοι ἀλλ’ οὐκ
+ἐν ὕλῃ γενόμενοι σύνθετόν τι ποιήσουσιν ... οὐκ ἄρα αὐτοὶ εἴδη οὐδὲ
+λόγοι. Diog. vii. 148: ἔστι δὲ φύσις ἕξις [= ποιότης] ἐξ αὐτῆς
+κινουμένη, κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους ἀποτελοῦσά τε καὶ συνέχουσα τὰ ἐξ
+αὐτῆς, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[194] Plut. Ibid. § 2: (Χρύσιππος) ἐν τοῖς ἕξεων οὐδὲν ἄλλο τὰς ἕξεις
+πλὴν ἀέρας εἶναί φησιν· ὑπὸ τούτων γὰρ συνέχεται τὰ σώματα, καὶ τοῦ
+ποιὸν ἕκαστον εἶναι αἴτιος ὁ συνέχων ἀήρ ἐστιν, ὃν σκληρότητα μὲν ἐν
+σιδήρῳ, πυκνότητα δ’ ἐν λίθῳ, λευκότητα δ’ ἐν ἀργύρῳ καλοῦσιν. Simpl.
+69. γ: ἡ τῶν Στωϊκῶν δόξα λεγόντων, σώματα εἶναι τὰ σχήματα ὥσπερ τὰ
+ἄλλα ποιά. Ibid. 67, ε; 56, δ: πῶς δὲ καὶ πνευματικὴ ἡ οὐσία ἔσται τῶν
+σωματικῶν ποιοτήτων αὐτοῦ τοῦ πνεύματος συνθέτου ὄντος, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[195] Alex. Aphr. De An. 143, b: πῶς δὲ σωζόντων ἐστὶ τὴν περὶ κράσεως
+κοινὴν πρόληψιν τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὴν ἕξιν τοῖς ἔχουσιν αὐτὴν μεμίχθαι καὶ
+τὴν φύσιν τοῖς φυτοῖς καὶ τὸ φῶς τῷ ἀέρι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ σώματι. Ibid.
+144, α, the saying is quoted against the Stoics: μεμίχθαι τῇ ὕλῃ τὸν
+θεόν.
+
+[196] Plut. C. Not. 36, 3: λέγουσιν οὗτοι καὶ πλάττουσιν ἐπὶ μιᾶς
+οὐσίας δύο ἰδίως γενέσθαι ποίους (this follows from their hypothesis,
+but it is distinctly denied by Chrysippus in thesis. See p. 104, 2) καὶ
+τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ἕνα ποιὸν ἰδίως ἔχουσαν ἐπιόντος ἑτέρου δέχεσθαι καὶ
+διαφυλάττειν ὁμοίως ἀμφοτέρους.
+
+[197] Simpl. 70, ε: καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ δὲ ποιότητας ποιοτήτων ποιοῦσιν
+ἑαυτῶν (? ἑκτῶν) ποιοῦντες ἑκτὰς ἕξεις [l. ἑκτὰ καὶ ἕξεις or ἕξεις
+only]. The context shows that the meaning of these words is that given
+above. The conception of a property is compounded of several
+attributes, and, therefore, a property of several subordinate
+properties. If λευκὸν is a χρῶμα, the διακριτικὸν ὄψεως is the ἕξις, or
+form of λευκὸν.
+
+[198] This follows of necessity, quite independently of the
+above-quoted language of Alexander, from the Stoic doctrine of the
+material nature of properties and of the mingling of materials. For if
+that intermingling of materials in which each one retains its
+properties (μῖξις and κρᾶσις in contrast to chemical combination
+παράθεσις and σύγχυσις) is defined to be the complete interpenetration
+of one material by another, without passing into a third (Stob. Ecl. i.
+376; Alex. De Mixt. 142, a; Plut. C. Not. 37, 2); if, moreover,
+properties are said to be material; and in all cases when they are
+combined, each property retains its own peculiarity, and yet is
+inherent in the subject-matter and in every other property belonging to
+the same subject-matter; it follows that this relation can only be
+explained by supposing a mutual interpenetration of properties with
+each other and with their subject-matter.
+
+[199] The proof of this will be given subsequently. Meantime compare
+the remarks, p. 92, 2; 94, 1 on the λεκτόν.
+
+[200] Simpl. 56, δ, and 54, β: οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ τῶν μὲν σωμάτων σωματικὰς,
+τῶν δὲ ἀσωμάτων ἀσωμάτους εἶναι λέγουσι τὰς ποιότητας. Only the
+σωματικαὶ ποιότητες are πνεύματα, see p. 105, 2; incorporeal properties
+are called ἑκτὰ, to distinguish them from ἕξεις (essential forms).
+Dexipp. in Cat. 61. 17, Speng.: θαυμάζω δὲ τῶν Στωϊκῶν χωριζόντων τὰς
+ἕξεις ἀπὸ τῶν ἑκτῶν· ἀσώματα γὰρ μὴ παραδεχόμενοι καθ’ ἑαυτὰ, ὅταν
+ἐρεσχελεῖν δέον ᾖ ἐπὶ τὰς τοιαύτας διαλήψεις ἔρχονται. But this use of
+terms appears not to have been universal among the Stoics (Simpl.
+Categ. 54, γ), with whom different views prevailed touching the extent
+of the conception of ἑκτόν. According to this passage it was Antipater
+who wished to include under ἑκτὰ, the κοινὰ συμπτώματα σωμάτων καὶ
+ἀσωμάτων.
+
+[201] Conf. Simpl. 57, ε, who after giving the definition of quality,
+quoted p. 103, 1, continues: ἐν δὲ τούτοις, εἰ μὴ οἷόν τε κατὰ τὸν
+ἐκείνων λόγον κοινὸν εἶναι σύμπτωμα σωμάτων τε καὶ ἀσωμάτων, οὐκέτι
+ἔσται γένος ἢ ποιότης, ἀλλ’ ἑτέρως μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων ἑτέρως δὲ ἐπὶ
+τῶν ἀσωμάτων αὕτη ὑφέστηκε.
+
+[202] Simpl. 44, δ: ὁ δὲ τὴν στάσιν καὶ τὴν κάθισιν μὴ προσποιούμενος
+(including sc. τοῖς οὖσιν) ἔοικε Στωϊκῇ τινι συνηθείᾳ συνέπεσθαι οὐδὲν
+ἄλλο ἢ τὸ ὑποκείμενον εἶναι νομίζων, τὰς δὲ περὶ αὐτὸ διαφορὰς
+ἀνυποστάτους ἡγούμενος καὶ πὼς ἔχοντα αὐτὰ ἀποκαλῶν ὡς ἐν τοῖς
+ὑποκειμένοις ἔχοντα αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ πὼς ἔχειν.
+
+[203] Dexipp. in Cat. 41, 20, Speng.: εἰ δέ τις εἰς τὸ πὼς ἔχον
+συντάττοι τὰς πλείστας κατηγορίας, ὥσπερ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ ποιοῦσιν. Plotin.
+vi. 1, 30, 594, A: πῶς δὲ ἓν τὸ πὼς ἔχον, πολλῆς διαφορᾶς ἐν αὐτοῖς
+οὔσης; πῶς γὰρ τὸ τρίπηχυ καὶ τὸ λευκὸν εἰς ἓν [γένος θετέον], τοῦ μὲν
+ποσοῦ τοῦ δὲ ποιοῦ ὄντος; πῶς δὲ τὸ ποτὲ καὶ τὸ ποῦ; πῶς δὲ ὅλως πὼς
+ἔχοντα τὸ χθὲς καὶ τὸ πέρυσι καὶ τὸ ἐν Λυκείῳ καὶ ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ; καὶ ὅλως
+πῶς δὲ ὁ χρόνος πὼς ἔχον; ... τὸ δὲ ποιεῖν πῶς πὼς ἔχον ... καὶ ὁ
+πάσχον οὐ πὼς ἔχον ... ἴσως δ’ ἂν μόνον ἁρμόσει ἐπὶ τοῦ κεῖσθαι τὸ πὼς
+ἔχον καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἔχειν· ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔχειν οὐ πὼς ἔχον ἀλλὰ ἔχον. Simpl.
+Categ. 94, ε: The Stoics included ἔχειν under πὼς ἔχον. In saying as
+Simpl. 16, δ, does that the Stoics omitted ποσὸν, time, and place, it
+must be meant that they did not treat these conceptions as separate
+categories. What they did with them Simpl. explains l.c. εἰ γὰρ τὸ πὼς
+ἔχον νομίζουσιν αὐτοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα περιλαμβάνειν. Trendelenburg, 229,
+with justice, observes that, wherever the species-forming difference
+lies in ποσὸν as in mathematical conceptions, there ποσὸν comes under
+ποιόν.
+
+[204] Simpl. 42, ε: οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ ἀνθ’ ἑνὸς γένους δύο κατὰ τὸν τόπον
+τοῦτον ἀριθμοῦνται, τὰ μὲν ἐν τοῖς πρός τι τιθέντες, τὰ δ’ ἐν τοῖς πρός
+τί πως ἔχουσι, καὶ τὰ μὲν πρός τι ἀντιδιαιροῦντες τοῖς καθ’ αὑτὰ, τὰ δὲ
+πρός τί πως ἔχοντα τοῖς κατὰ διαφοράν. (Ibid. 44, β: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ
+νομίζουσι πάσης τῆς κατὰ διαφορὰν ἰδιότητος ἀπηλλάχθαι τὰ πρός τί πως
+ἔχοντα.) Sweet and bitter belong to τὰ πρός τι· to the other class
+belong δεξιὸς, πατὴρ, &c., κατὰ διαφορὰν δέ φασι τὰ κατά τι εἶδος
+χαρακτηριζόμενα. Every καθ’ αὑτὸ is also κατὰ διαφορὰν (determined as
+to quality), and every πρός τί πως ἔχον is also a πρός τι, but not
+conversely. Conf. 43, β. εἰ δὲ δεῖ σαφέστερον μεταλαβεῖν τὰ λεγόμενα,
+πρός τι μὲν λέγουσιν ὅσα κατ’ οἰκεῖον χαρακτῆρα διακείμενά πως ἀπονεύει
+πρὸς ἕτερον (or, according to the definition in Sext. Math. viii. 454:
+πρός τι ἐστὶ τὸ πρὸς ἑτέρῳ νοούμενον), πρός τι δέ πως ἔχοντα ὅσα πέφυκε
+συμβαίνειν τινὶ καὶ μὴ συμβαίνειν ἄνευ τῆς περὶ αὐτὰ μεταβολῆς καὶ
+ἀλλοιώσεως μετὰ τοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἐκτὸς ἀποβλέπειν, ὥστε ὅταν μὲν κατὰ
+διαφοράν τι διακείμενον πρὸς ἕτερον νεύσῃ, πρός τι μόνον τοῦτο ἔσται,
+ὡς ἡ ἕξις καὶ ἡ ἐπιστήμη καὶ ἡ αἴσθησις· ὅταν δὲ μὴ κατὰ τὴν ἐνοῦσαν
+διαφορὰν κατὰ ψιλὴν δὲ τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον σχέσιν θεωρῆται, πρὸς τί πως
+ἔχοντα ἔσται· ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ δεξιὸς ἔξωθεν τινῶν προσδέονται, πρὸς
+τὴν ὑπόστασιν· διὸ καὶ μηδεμιᾶς γινομένης περὶ αὐτὰ μεταβολῆς γένοιτ’
+ἂν οὐκέτι πατὴρ, τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀποθανόντος, ὁ δὲ δεξιὸς τοῦ παρακειμένου
+μεταστάντος· τὸ δὲ γλυκὺ καὶ πικρὸν οὐκ ἂν ἀλλοῖα γένοιτο εἰ μὴ
+συμμεταβάλλοι καὶ ἡ περὶ αὐτὰ δύναμις. In this sense, therefore, πρός
+τι belongs to ποιὸν, being composed (as Simpl. 43, α, says) of ποιὸν
+and πρός τι. On the other hand, πρός τί πως ἔχον only expresses, to
+quote Herbart, an accidental relation. Prantl’s quotation (I. 437, 108)
+from Simpl. 44, β, we have no special reason to refer to the Stoics.
+
+[205] Trendelenburg, 220, considers that these genera are in so far
+subordinate to one another, that the previous one continues in the
+next, but with the addition of a fresh determination; a better name for
+the second category would be ὑποκείμενα ποιά· for the third, ὑποκείμενα
+ποιά πως ἔχοντα· for the fourth, ὑποκείμενα ποιὰ πρός τί πως ἔχοντα. In
+support of this, he refers to Simpl. 43, α: ἕπεται δὲ αὐτοῖς κἀκεῖνο
+ἄτοπον τὸ σύνθετα ποιεῖν τὰ γένη ἐκ προτέρων τινῶν καὶ δευτέρων ὡς τὸ
+πρός τι ἐκ ποιοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρός τι. Plut. C. Not. 44, 6: τέτταρά γε
+ποιοῦσιν ὑποκείμενα περὶ ἕκαστον, μᾶλλον δὲ τέτταρα ἕκαστον ἡμῶν. Plot.
+Enn. vi. 1, 29, 593, A: ἄτοπος ἡ διαίρεσις ... ἐν θατέρῳ τῶν εἰδῶν τὸ
+ἕτερον τιθεῖσα, ὥσπερ ἂν [εἴ] τις διαιρῶν τὴν ἐπιστήμην τὴν μὲν
+γραμματικὴν λέγοι, τὴν δὲ γραμματικὴν καὶ ἄλλο τι· if ποιὰ are to be
+ὕλη ποιὰ, they are composed of ὕλη and εἶδος or λόγος. See p. 48, 2.
+
+[206] See p. 103, 1.
+
+[207] See p. 107, 2; Plotin. vi. 1, 30: Why are πὼς ἔχοντα enumerated
+as a third category, since πάντα περὶ τὴν ὕλην πὼς ἔχοντα; the Stoics
+would probably say that ποιὰ are περὶ τὴν ὕλην πὼς ἔχοντα, whereas the
+πὼς ἔχοντα, in the strict sense of the term, are περὶ τὰ ποιά. Yet
+since the ποιὰ themselves are nothing more than ὕλη πως ἔχουσα, all
+categories must be ultimately reduced to ὕλη.
+
+[208] Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik, i. 440–467.
+
+[209] In Diog. 66; Sext. Math. viii. 70; Ammon. De Interp. 4, a (Schol.
+in Arist. 93, a; 22, b, 20); Simpl. Cat. 103, α; Boëth. De Interp. 315;
+Cramer, Anecd. Oxon. iii. 267, conf. I. 104, a distinction is drawn
+between ἀξίωμα (a judgment), ἐρώτημα (a direct question, requiring Yes
+or No), πύσμα (an enquiry), προστακτικὸν, ὁρκικὸν, ἀρατικὸν (wishes),
+εὐκτικὸν (a prayer), ὑποθετικὸν (a supposition), ἐκθετικὸν (as ἐκκείσθω
+εὐθεῖα γραμμὴ), προσαγορευτικὸν (an address), θαυμαστικὸν, ψεκτικὸν,
+ἐπαπορητικὸν, ἀφηγηματικὸν (explanatory statements), ὅμοιον ἀξιώματι (a
+judgment with something appended, as: ὡς Πριαμίδῃσιν ἐμφερὴς ὁ
+βουκόλος! by Sextus called Πλεῖον ἢ ἀξίωμα). Ammon. in Waitz, Arist.
+Orig. i. 43, speaks of ten forms of sentences held by the Stoics,
+mentioning, however, only two, προστακτικὸς and ἐβκτικός (so reads the
+MS. Waitz suggests ἐφεκτικὸς, more probably it is εὐκτικός). Diog. 191,
+mentions treatises of Chrysippus on interrogatory and hortatory
+sentences. On the relation of an oath to ἀξίωμα light is thrown by
+Simpl. l.c., also by Chrysippus’ distinction between ἀληθορκεῖν and
+εὐορκεῖν ψευδορκεῖν and ἐπιορκεῖν in Stob. Floril. 28, 15.
+
+[210] Diog. 65: ἀξίωμα δέ ἐστιν ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἢ ψεῦδος. Questions and
+other similar sentences are neither true nor false (Ibid. 66 and 68).
+This definition of a judgment is constantly referred to, see p. 83, 2,
+by Simpl. Cat. 103, α; Cic. Tusc. i. 7, 14; De Fato, 10, 20; Gell. N.
+A. xvi. 8, 8; Schol. in Arist. 93, b, 35. The purport of the expression
+λόγος ἀποφαντικὸς, λεκτὸν ἀποφαντὸν (in Diog. 65; Gell. xvi. 8, 4;
+Ammon. De Interp. 4, a; Schol. in Arist. 93, b, 20) is the same.
+
+[211] Sext. Math. viii. 93: τῶν γὰρ ἀξιωμάτων πρώτην σχεδὸν καὶ
+κυριωτάτην ἐκφέρουσι διαφορὰν οἱ διαλεκτικοὶ καθ’ ἣν τὰ μέν ἐστιν αὐτῶν
+ἁπλᾶ τὰ δ’ οὐχ ἁπλᾶ. Ibid. 95 and 108. Diog. 68 gives the definitions
+of both.
+
+[212] Sext. l.c., by whom Diog. must be corrected, see p. 113, 3.
+
+[213] Diog. 69: ἐν δὲ τοῖς οὐχ ἁπλοῖς τὸ συνημμένον καὶ τὸ
+παρασυνημμένον καὶ τὸ συμπεπλεγμένον καὶ τὸ αἰτιῶδες καὶ τὸ
+διεζευγμένον καὶ τὸ διασαφοῦν τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ διασαφοῦν τὸ ἧττον.
+Further details presently respecting the συνημμένον and διεζευγμένον.
+For the παρασυνημμένον—a conditional sentence, the first part of which
+is introduced by ἐπειδὴ—see Diog. 71 and 74; for the συμπεπλεγμένον,
+the characteristic of which is the καὶ and καὶ, see Diog. 72; Sext.
+Math. viii. 124; Gell. N. A. xvi. 8 and 9; Ps. Galen, Εἰσαγ. διαλ. 13;
+Dexipp. in Cat. 27, 3, Speng.; (Schol. in Arist. 44. a, 9—Prantl, 446,
+says this passage is not quite correct; it only implies that the term
+συμπλοκὴ was confined to a copulative judgment); for the αἰτιῶδες,
+which is characterised by a διότι, and therefore is not identical with
+the παρασυνημμένον, Diog. 72 and 74; for the διασαφοῦν τὸ μᾶλλον and
+the διασαφοῦν τὸ ἧττον, Diog. 72; conf. Cramer, Anecd. Oxon. i. 188;
+Apollon. Synt. (Bekker’s Anecd. ii.), 481. These are only some of the
+principal forms of composite judgments, their number being really
+indefinite. Chrysippus estimated that a million combinations might be
+formed with ten sentences. The celebrated mathematician, Hipparchus
+however, proved that only 103,049 affirmative and 310,952 negative
+judgments could be formed with that material (Plut. Sto. Rep. 29, 5, p.
+1047; Qu. Symp. viii. 9, 3, 11, p. 732).
+
+[214] There is no notice of a division of judgments into general and
+particular. Instead of that, Sext. (Math. viii. 96) distinguishes
+ὡρισμένα as οὗτος κάθηται, ἀόριστα as τὶς κάθηται, and μέσα as ἄνθρωπος
+κάθηται, Σωκράτης περιπατεῖ. When the subject stood in the nominative,
+ὡρισμένα were called καταγορευτικὰ (Diog. 70); the others κατηγορικά· a
+καταγορευτικὸν is οὗτος περιπατεῖ· a κατηγορικὸν, Δίων περιπατεῖ.
+
+[215] An affirmative judgment was called καταφατικὸν, a negative
+ἀποφατικὸν, by Chrysippus in the fragment about to be quoted, and
+Simpl. Cat. 102, δ, ζ. Apul. Dogm. Plat. iii. 266, Oud. renders these
+terms by dedicativa and abdicativa. For the manner in which they
+expressed negative sentences, see Boëth. De Interp. 373; Schol. in
+Arist. 120.
+
+[216] Diog. 69 gives an example of ἀρνητικὸν, οὐδεὶς περιπατεῖ· one of
+particular negation, στερητικὸν—ἀφιλάνθρωπός ἐστιν οὗτος· one of double
+negation, ὑπεραποφατικὸν—as, οὐχὶ ἡμέρα οὐκ ἐστί.
+
+[217] Sext. Math. viii. 89; Diog. 73: ἀντικείμενα are ὧν τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ
+ἑτέρου ἐστὶν ἀποφατικὸν or (according to the outward treatment of these
+determinations) ἀποφάσει πλεονάζει—as, It is day, and It is not day.
+Aristotle called such a contradictory ἀντίφασις, a contrary ἐναντιότης,
+putting both under the class conception of ἀντικείμενα. The Stoics
+reserved ἀντικείμενα for contradictories (Simpl. Cat. 102, δ and 102,
+ζ, a Stoic discussion intended to show that the conception of ἐνάντιον
+is not applicable to negative sentences and conceptions), which is
+after all only a difference in terminology. Ἐναντίον they also call
+μαχόμενον (Apollon. Synt. 484, Bekk.). Otherwise, following Aristotle,
+they distinguished between ἐναντίον and ἐναντίως ἔχον· ἐναντία are
+conceptions which are in plain and immediate contrast, such as φρόνησις
+and ἀφρόνησις· ἐναντίως ἔχοντα are those which are only contrasted by
+means of the ἐναντία, such as φρόνιμος and ἄφρων (Simpl. Categ. 98, γ).
+The former, therefore, apply to abstract, the latter to concrete
+notions. That every negative judgment has an affirmative judgment
+opposed to it is elaborately proved by a series of quotations from
+poets, each one of which is four times repeated in the fragment περὶ
+ἀποφατικῶν first edited by Letronne (Fragments inédits, Paris, 1838),
+and subsequently emended, explained, and with a great degree of
+probability referred to Chrysippus by Bergk (De Chrysippi libro περὶ
+ἀποφατικῶν, Cassel, 1841, Gymn. progr.). In explaining the fragment
+Prantl, Gesch. d. Log. I. 451 appears to have hit the truth in one
+point, where Bergk is not satisfied.
+
+[218] Simpl. Categ. 103, β; Cic. De Fato, 16, 37; N. D. i. 25, 70.
+Further particulars above p. 83, 2; 110, 3.
+
+[219] Viz. that the members of a disjunction, as well as their
+contradictory opposites, must also be contraries (adversa or
+pugnantia), and that from the truth of the one the falsehood of the
+other follows. A disjunction which does not satisfy one or the other of
+these conditions is false (παραδιεζευγμένον). Gell. N. A. xvi. 8, 12;
+Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 191; Alex. Anal. Pr. 7, b.
+
+[220] Diog. 71; Sext. Math. 109; Galen, De Simpl. Medicamen. ii. 16,
+vol. xi. 499; Ps. Galen, Εἰσαγ. διαλ. p. 15. The Stoics distinguish
+most unnecessarily, but quite in harmony with their ordinary formal
+punctiliousness, the case in which the leading clause is identical with
+the inferential clause (εἰ ἡμέρα ἐστὶν, ἡμέρα ἔστιν) and the case in
+which it is different (εἰ ἡμέρα ἐστὶν, φῶς ἔστιν). Conditional
+sentences of the first kind are called διφορούμενα συνημμένα. Sext.
+viii. 281; 294; and 466; Pyrrh. ii. 112; conf. viii. 95; Diog. 68. That
+in all these passages διφορούμενον must be read, and not διαφορούμενον,
+appears according to Prantl’s (p. 445, 122) very true observation from
+the remarks of Alex. Top. 7, a; Anal. Pr. 7, b, on διφορούμενοι
+συλλογισμοί.
+
+[221] Sext. Math. viii. 112; κοινῶς μὲν γάρ φασιν ἅπαντες οἱ
+Διαλεκτικοὶ ὑγιὲς εἶναι συνημμένον, ὅταν ἀκολουθῇ τῷ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡγουμένῳ
+τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ λῆγον. περὶ δὲ τοῦ πότε ἀκολουθεῖ καὶ πῶς, στασιάζουσι πρὸς
+ἀλλήλους καὶ μαχόμενα τῆς ἀκολουθίας ἐκτίθενται κριτήρια. Cic. Acad.
+ii. 47, 143: In hoc ipso, quod in elementis dialectici docent, quomodo
+judicare oporteat, rerum falsumne sit, si quid ita connexum est, ut
+hoc: Si dies est, lucet; quanta contentio est! aliter Diodoro aliter
+Philoni, Chrysippo aliter placet. (The further remarks on the points of
+difference between Chrysippus and Cleanthes have no reference to
+hypothetical judgments.) The Philo here alluded to—the same Philo
+against whom Chrysippus wrote his treatises (Diog. vii. 191 and 194)—is
+the well-known dialectician and pupil of Diodorus, who declared all
+conditional sentences to be right in which a false inferential clause
+is not drawn from a true leading clause. According to this view,
+conditional sentences would be right, with both clauses true, or both
+false, or with a false leading clause and true inferential clause
+(Sext. l.c. viii. 245 and 449; Pyrrh. ii. 110). According to Sext.
+Pyrrh. ii. 104, the view of Philo appears to have gained acceptance
+among the Stoics, perhaps through Zeno, for whose connection with Philo
+see Diog. vii. 16. But, in any case, the meaning appears to have been
+(Diog. vii. 81), that, in the cases mentioned, conditional sentences
+may be right, not that they must be right.
+
+Others more appropriately judged of the correctness of conditional
+sentences by the connection of the clauses, and either required, for a
+conditional sentence to be right, that the contradictory opposite
+(ἀντικείμενον) of the inferential clause should be irreconcileable with
+the leading clause, or that the inferential clause should be
+potentially (δυνάμει) contained in the leading clause (Sext. Pyrrh. ii.
+111). The first of these requirements, which is mentioned by Diog. 73
+as the only criterion of the Stoic School, was due to Chrysippus, who
+accordingly refused to allow sentences in which this was not the case
+to be expressed hypothetically (Cic. De Fato, 6, 12; 8, 15): it was not
+right to say, Si quis natus est oriente canicula, is in mari non
+morietur; but, Non et natus est quis oriente canicula et is in mari
+morietur.
+
+It may be observed, in connection with the enquiry into the accuracy of
+conditional sentences, that a true conditional sentence may become
+false in time. The sentence, If Dion is alive now, he will continue to
+live, is true at the present moment; but in the last moment of Dion’s
+life it will cease to be true. Such sentences were called ἀπεριγράφως
+μεταπίπτοντα, because the time could not be previously fixed when they
+would become false (Simpl. Phys. 305, a). Chrysippus also wrote on the
+μεταπίπτοντα, according to Dionys. Comp. Verb. p. 72 Schäfer. Diog.
+vii. 105, mentions two treatises of his on the subject, but
+characterises them as spurious.
+
+[222] According to Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 100, Math. viii. 143 and 156, the
+Stoics distinguished between σημεῖα ὑπομνηστικὰ and σημεῖα ἐνδεικτικά.
+The definition of the latter was ἐνδεικτικὸν ἀξίωμα ἐν ὑγιεῖ συνημμένῳ
+καθηγούμενον (or προκαθηγούμενον) ἐκκαλυπτικὸν τοῦ λήγοντος· the ὑγιὲς
+συνημμένον was a sentence with both the leading and inferential clauses
+true. Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 101; 106; 115; Math. viii. 249.
+
+[223] Diodorus had said that Only what is, or what will be, is
+possible. The Stoics, and in particular Chrysippus, define δυνατὸν as
+what is capable of being true (τὸ ἐπιδεκτικὸν τοῦ ἀληθὲς εἶναι), if
+circumstances do not prevent; ἀδύνατον as ὃ μή ἐστιν ἐπιδεκτικὸν τοῦ
+ἀληθὲς εἶναι. From the δυνατὸν they distinguish the οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον,
+which is defined as ὃ καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι καὶ ψεῦδος οἷόν τε εἶναι τῶν
+ἐκτὸς μηδὲν ἐναντιουμένων (Plut. Sto. Rep. 46, p. 1055; Diog. 76;
+Boëth. De Interp. 374, Bas. The same thing is also stated in Alex.
+Aphr. De Fato, c. 10, p. 30. δυνατὸν εἶναι γενέσθαι τοῦτο δ’ ὑπ’
+οὐδενὸς κωλύετα γενέσθαι κἂν μὴ γένηται.) On the other hand, ἀναγκαῖον
+is, what is both true and incapable of being false, either in itself or
+owing to other circumstances. Diog. and Boëth. There was probably
+another definition of οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον, as ὃ ψεῦδος οἷόν τε εἶναι τῶν
+ἐκτὸς μὴ ἐναντιουμένων· so that it might be said (Boëth. 429) that the
+οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον was partly possible and partly impossible, without
+contradicting (as Boëth. and Prantl, p. 463, believe) their other
+statement, that the δυνατὸν was partly necessary and partly not
+necessary. The conceptions of the Possible and the Not-necessary are
+thus made to overlap, the former including the Necessary and
+Not-necessary, the latter the Possible and the Not-possible.
+
+To defend his definition of the Possible against the κυριεύων of
+Diodorus, Chrysippus denied the statement, δυνατῷ ἀδύνατον μὴ
+ἀκολουθεῖν, without exposing the confusion contained in it between
+sequence in time and causal relation (Alex. Anal. Pr. 57, b; Philop.
+Anal. Pr. xlii. b; Schol. in Arist. 163, a; Cic. De Fato, 7, 13; Ep. ad
+Div. ix. 4). Cleanthes, Antipater, and Panthoides preferred to attack
+another leading clause of Diodorus, the clause that Every past
+occurrence must necessarily be true (Epictet. Diss. ii. 19, 2 and 5).
+The Aristotelian position in reference to a disjunction, that When the
+disjunction refers to something future, the disjunction itself is true,
+without either clause being necessarily true, was not accepted by the
+Stoics (Simpl. Cat. 103, β).
+
+[224] Plut. Sto. Rep. 46, p. 1055, justly insists on this point.
+
+[225] Prantl, pp. 467–496.
+
+[226] Diog. 45; Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 194, see above p. 65.
+
+[227] Both were included by the Peripatetics under the term
+hypothetical. In the same way the Stoics include both among the five
+ἀναπόδεικτοι. See below p. 119, 2.
+
+[228] Chain-argument seems to have been also treated of in the
+categorical form. See p. 120, 3.
+
+[229] As shown by Prantl, 468, 171; on Diog. 76; Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 135;
+Apul. Dogm. Plat. iii. 279, Oud. The latter rightly refers to the fact,
+that Chrysippus discussed the main forms of hypothetical inference at
+the very beginning of his doctrine of inference, Sext. Math. viii. 223.
+
+[230] Anal. Pr. 87, b: δι’ ὑποθέσεως δὲ ἄλλης, ὡς εἶπεν (Arist. Anal.
+Pr. i. 23, 41, a, 37) εἶεν ἂν καὶ οὓς οἱ νεώτεροι συλλογισμοὺς μόνους
+βούλονται λέγειν· οὗτοι δ’ εἰσὶν οἱ διὰ τροπικοῦ, ὡς φασὶ, καὶ τῆς
+προλήψεως γινόμενοι, τοῦ τροπικοῦ ἢ συνημμένου (conditional) ὄντος ἢ
+διεζευγμένου (disjunctive) ἢ συμπεπλεγμένου (a copulative judgment
+suggesting partly hypothetical judgments like the συμπεπλεγμένον in
+Sext. Math. viii. 235, partly negative categorical judgments which have
+the force of hypothetical judgments, such as: it is not at the same
+time A and B. Conf. Diog. 80. Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 158; Matt. viii. 226.
+Cic. De Fato, vi. 12). By the νεώτεροι, the Stoics must be meant, for
+the terminology is theirs; and the Peripatetics, to whom it might
+otherwise apply, always considered the categorical to be the original
+form of judgment. See Prantl, 468, 172.
+
+[231] Such an inference was called λόγος· when it was expressed in
+definite terms, for instance, If it is day, it is light. The
+arrangement of the clauses (which were designated by numbers, and not
+by letters, as the Peripatetics had done), was called τρόπος· for
+instance, εἰ τὸ πρῶτον, τὸ δεύτερον. A conclusion composed of both
+forms of expression was a λογότροπος· for instance, εἰ ζῇ Πλάτων,
+ἀναπνεῖ Πλάτων· ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸ πρῶτον· τὸ ἄρα δεύτερον. The premisses were
+called λήμματα (in contrast to ἀξίωμα which expresses a judgment
+independently of its position in a syllogism); or, more correctly, the
+major premiss was λῆμμα, the minor πρόσληψις (hence the particles δὲ γε
+were προσληπτικὸς σύνδεσμος, Apollon. Synt. p. 518, Bekk.). The
+conclusion was ἐπιφορά, also ἐπιφορικοὶ συνδεσμοί. Ibid. 519. The major
+premiss in a hypothetical syllogism was called τροπικόν, its two
+clauses being called, respectively, ἡγούμενον (as by the Peripatetics)
+and λῆγον (by the Peripatetics ἑπόμενον). Diog. 76; Sext. Pyrrh. ii.
+135; Math. viii. 301, 227; Alex. l.c. and p. 88, a; 109, a; 7, b;
+Philop. Anal. Pr. lx. a; Schol. in Arist. 170, a, 2; Ammon. on Anal.
+Pr. 24, b, 19; Arist. Orig. ed. Waitz, i. 45; Apul. Dog. Plat. iii.
+279, Oud.; Ps. Galen, Εἰσαγ. διαλ. p. 19.
+
+[232] Alex. Anal. Pr. 116, b, after mentioning ἀμεθόδως περαίνοντες
+συλλογισμοὶ, or inferences incomplete in point of form, such as: A = B,
+B = C, ∴ A = C, which is said to want as its major premiss: Two things
+which are equal to a third are equal to one another. On these ἀμεθόδως
+περαίνοντες of the Stoics see l.c. 8, a; 22, b; Alex. Top. 10, Ps.
+Galen, Εἰς. διαλ. 59. He then continues: οὓς ὅτι μὲν μὴ λέγουσι
+συλλογιστικῶς συνάγειν, ὑγιῶς λέγουσι [οἱ νεώτεροι] ... ὅτι δὲ ἡγοῦνται
+ὁμοίους αὐτοὺς εἶναι τοῖς κατηγορικοῖς συλλογισμοῖς ... τοῦ παντὸς
+διαμαρτάνουσιν.
+
+[233] συνακτικοὶ or περαντικοὶ, and ἀσυνακτικοὶ or ἀπέραντοι, or
+ἀσυλλόγιστοι. Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 137; Math. viii. 303 and 428; Diog. 77.
+
+[234] Syllogisms which are conclusive in point of fact, but wanting in
+precision of form, were called περαντικοί in the narrower sense; those
+complete also in form, συλλογιστικοί. Diog. 78; Ps. Galen, Εἰσαγ. διαλ.
+58.
+
+[235] An inference is true (ἀληθὴς) when not only the illation is
+correct (ὑγιὴς), but when the individual propositions, the premisses as
+well as the conclusion, are materially true. The λόγοι συνακτικοὶ may
+therefore be divided into true and false. Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 138; Math.
+viii. 310 and 412; Diog. 79.
+
+[236] Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 140 and 135; Math. viii. 305; 313; and 411: True
+forms of inference are divided into ἀποδεικτικοὶ and οὐκ ἀποδεικτικοὶ.
+ἀποδεικτικοὶ = οἱ διὰ προδήλων ἄδηλόν τι συνάγοντες· οὐκ ἀποδεικτικοὶ
+when this is not the case, as in the inference: If it is day, it is
+light—It is day, ∴ It is light; for the conclusion, It is light, is
+known as well as it is known that It is day. The ἀποδεικτικοὶ may
+proceed either ἐφοδευτικῶς from the premisses to the conclusions, or
+ἐφοδευτικῶς ἅμα καὶ ἐκκαλυπτικῶς· ἐφοδευτικῶς when the premisses rest
+upon belief (πίστις and μνήμη); ἐκκαλυπτικῶς when they are based on a
+scientific necessity.
+
+[237] According to Diog. 79, Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 157, others added other
+forms of ἀναπόδεικτοι. Cic., in adding a sixth and seventh (Top. 14,
+57), must have been following these authorities.
+
+[238] Consult, on these five ἀναπόδεικτοι of Chrysippus (which need not
+be given here more at length, and are absolutely identical with those
+of Theophrastus) Diog. 79–81 (on p. 79 we must read συλλογιστικῶν for
+συλλογισμὼν. See p. 118, 2); Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 156–159; 201; Math. viii.
+223–227; Cic. Top. 13; Simpl. Phys. 123, b; Ps. Galen, Εἰσαγ. διαλ. 17;
+Prantl, 473, 182; on the πέμπτος ἀναπόδεικτος διὰ πλειόνων Sext. Pyrrh.
+i. 69; Cleomed. Meteora, pp. 41 and 47; Prantl, p. 475.
+
+[239] Two such cases are distinguished, one in which all three clauses,
+the other in which the conclusion and minor premiss are identical. The
+first class are called διφορούμενοι· If it is day, it is day; It is
+day, ∴ It is day. The second class, ἀδιαφόρως περαίνοντες· It is either
+day or night; It is day, ∴ It is day. The latter term is, however,
+applied to both kinds. See Alex. Anal. Pr. 7, a; 53, b; Top. 7; Schol.
+in Arist. 294, b, 25; Cic. Acad. ii. 30, 96; Prantl, 476, 185.
+
+[240] Cic. Top. 15, 57: ex his modis conclusiones innumerabiles
+nascuntur. Sext. Math. viii. 228, in which passage it is striking that
+ἀναπόδεικτοι should be divided into ἁπλοῖ and οὐχ ἁπλοῖ. It has been
+suggested that ἀποδεικτικῶν should be substituted for ἀναποδείκτων, but
+it is also possible that the latter word may be used in a narrow as
+well as in a wider sense.
+
+[241] Diog. 78: συλλογιστικοὶ [λόγοι] μὲν οὖν εἰσιν οἱ ἤτοι
+ἀναπόδεικτοι ὄντες ἢ ἀναγόμενοι ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀναποδείκτους κατά τι τῶν
+θεμάτων ἢ τινά. According to Galen, Hipp. et Plat. ii. 3, p. 224,
+Chrysippus had taken great pains in resolving the composite forms of
+inference (Diog. 190 and 194). Antipater suggested still simpler modes.
+
+[242] Sext. 229–243, borrowing the example used by Ænesidemus, but no
+doubt following the Stoic treatment. Prantl, 479. Such a composite
+inference is that mentioned by Sextus l.c. 281.
+
+[243] Sext.; Prantl, p. 478.
+
+[244] Alex. on Anal. Pr. i. 25, 42, b, 5, after speaking of the
+Sorites, continues (p. 94, b): ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ τῶν προτάσεων συνεχείᾳ τό
+τε συνθετικόν ἐστι θεώρημα ... καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν νεωτέρων
+ἐπιβάλλοντές τε καὶ ἐπιβαλλόμενοι. The συνθετικὸν θεώρημα (or
+chain-argument), the meaning of which is next investigated, must be a
+Peripatetic expression. The same meaning must attach to ἐπιβάλλοντές τε
+καὶ ἐπιβαλλόμενοι, which are to be found ἐν ταῖς συνεχῶς λαμβανομέναις
+προτάσεσι χωρὶς τῶν συμπερασμάτων· for instance, A is a property of B,
+B of C, C of D; ∴ A is a property of D. ἐπιβαλλόμενος means the
+inference, the conclusion of which is omitted; ἐπιβάλλων, the one with
+the omitted premiss. These inferences may be in either of the three
+Aristotelian figures κατὰ τὸ παραδεδομένον συνθετικὸν θεώρημα. ὃ οἱ μὲν
+περὶ Ἀριστοτέλην τῇ χρείᾳ παραμετρήσαντες παρέδοσαν, ἐφ’ ὅσον αὐτὴ
+ἀπῇτει, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ [στοᾶς] παρ’ ἐκείνων λαβόντες καὶ διελόντες
+ἐποίησαν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ καλούμενον παρ’ αὐτοῖς δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον θέμα
+καὶ τέταρτον, ἀμελήσαντες μὲν τοῦ χρησίμου, πᾶν δὲ τὸ ὁπωσοῦν δυνάμενον
+λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ θεωρίᾳ κἂν ἄχρηστος ᾖ, ἐπεξελθόντες τε καὶ
+ζηλώσαντες. Reference is made to the same thing in Simpl. De Cœlo;
+Schol. in Arist. 483, b, 26: ἡ δὲ τοιαύτη ἀνάλυσις τοῦ λόγου, ἡ τὸ
+συμπέρασμα λαμβάνουσα καὶ προσλαμβάνουσα ἄλλην πρότασιν, κατὰ τὸ τρίτον
+λεγόμενον παρὰ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς θέμα περαίνεται, the rule of which is,
+that when a third proposition can be drawn from the conclusion of an
+inference and a second proposition, that third proposition can be drawn
+also from the premisses of the inference and the second proposition.
+Both these passages appear to have escaped the notice of Prantl in his
+summing up, otherwise so accurate. Or else the πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρίτον
+and τέταρτον θέμα mentioned by Galen, Hipp. et Plat. ii. 3, vol. v.
+224; Alex. Anal. Pr. 53, b, would hardly suggest to him the various
+forms of the ἀναπόδεικτοι instead of the formulæ for the resolution of
+composite conclusions. The expressions διὰ δύο τροπικῶν, διὰ τριῶν
+τροπικῶν, and the title of a treatise of Chrysippus περὶ τοῦ διὰ τριῶν
+(sc. τροπικῶν or λημμάτων conf. p. 117, 3) in Diog. vii. 191; (Galen,
+l.c.; Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 2), appear to refer to such composite
+inferences.
+
+[245] Called μονολήμματοι συλλογισμοί. Such were ἡμέρα ἔστι, φῶς ἄρα
+ἔστιν· and ἀναπνεῖς, ζῇς ἄρα. See Alex. Top. 6, 274; Anal. Pr. 7, a, 8,
+a: Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 167; Math. viii. 443; Apul. Dogm. Plat. iii. 272,
+Oud.; Prantl, 477, 186.
+
+[246] Compare the remarks of Prantl, 481, on Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 2; Alex.
+Anal. Pr. 53, b; Galen, l.c.; Ps. Galen, Εἰσαγ. διαλ. 57. If
+Posidonius, according to the latter passage, calls analogical
+conclusions συνακτικοὺς κατὰ δύναμιν ἀξιώματος, and the Stoics also,
+according to Schol. in Hermog. Rhet. Gr. ed. Walz, vii. 6, 764, spoke
+of a κατὰ δύναμιν τροπικὸν, we have already met with the same thing, p.
+119, 1, where an analogical conclusion was included in the ἀμεθόδως
+περαίνοντες, which, by the addition of an ἀξίωμα, can be changed into
+regular conclusions. In the doctrine of proof the τόπος παράδοξος was
+also treated of, according to Procl. in Euclid, 103, being probably
+suggested by the ethical paradoxes of the Stoics.
+
+[247] Conf. Alex. Anal. Pr. 95, a; Galen. See above p. 120, 3.
+According to Ps. Galen, l.c. p. 58, Chrysippus wrote these treatises on
+Συλλογιστικαὶ ἄχρηστοι.
+
+[248] Diog. 186, mentions fallacies due to Chrysippus, which can only
+have been raised for the purpose of being refuted.
+
+[249] The list of his writings contains a number of treatises on
+fallacies, among them no less than five on the ψευδόμενος.
+
+[250] Cic. Acad. ii. 29, 93: Placet enim Chrysippo, cum gradatim
+interrogetur, verbi causa, tria pauca sint, anne multa, aliquanto
+prius, quam ad multa perveniat, quiescere, id est, quod ab iis dicitur
+ἡσυχάζειν. The same remark is made by Sext. Math. vii. 416; Pyrrh. ii.
+253. The same argument was employed against other fallacies (Simpl.
+Cat. 6, γ). With this λόγος ἡσυχάζων (Diog. 198), Prantl, p. 489,
+connects ἀργὸς λόγος (Cic. De Fato, 12, 28), regarding the one as the
+practical application of the other, but apparently without reason. The
+ἀργὸς λόγος, by means of which the Stoic fatalism was reduced ad
+absurdum, could not of course commend itself to Chrysippus, nor is it
+attributed to him.
+
+[251] Prantl, pp. 485–496.
+
+[252] Sext. Math. viii. 367: ἀλλ’ οὐ δεῖ, φασὶ, πάντων ἀπόδειξιν
+αἰτεῖν, τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως λαμβάνειν, ἐπεὶ οὐ δυνήσεται
+προβαίνειν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, ἐὰν μὴ δοθῇ τι πιστὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ τυγχάνειν.
+Ibid. 375: ἀλλ’ εἰώθασιν ὑποτυγχάνοντες λέγειν ὅτι πίστις ἐστὶ τοῦ
+ἐρρῶσθαι τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τὸ ἀληθὲς εὑρίσκεσθαι ἐκεῖνο τὸ τοῖς ἐξ ὑποθέσεως
+ληφθεῖσιν ἐπιφερόμενον· εἰ γὰρ τὸ τούτοις ἀκολουθοῦν ἐστιν ὑγιὲς,
+κἀκεῖνα οἷς ἀκολουθεῖ ἀληθῆ καὶ ἀναμφίλεκτα καθέστηκεν.
+
+[253] Natural Science was divided by the Stoics themselves (Diog. 132):
+(1) εἰδικῶς into τόποι περὶ σωμάτων καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων καὶ
+θεῶν καὶ περάτων καὶ τόπου καὶ κενοῦ· (2) γενικῶς into three divisions,
+περὶ κόσμον, περὶ στοιχείων, and the αἰτιολογικός. The first of these
+divisions covers ground which is partly peculiar to natural science and
+is partly shared by the mathematician (astronomy. Posidonius in Simpl.
+Phys. 64, b, discusses at length the difference between astronomy and
+natural science); and the third, ground which is shared by both the
+physician and the mathematician. The precise allotment of the subject
+into these divisions is not known. At best, it would be a very
+uncomfortable division.
+
+[254] Soph. 247, D.
+
+[255] Plut. Com. Not. 30, 2, p. 1073: ὄντα γὰρ μόνα τὰ σώματα καλοῦσιν,
+ἐπειδὴ ὄντος τὸ ποιεῖν τι καὶ πάσχειν. Plac. i. 11, 4: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ πάντα
+τὰ αἴτια σωματικά· πνεύματα γάρ. iv. 20: οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ σῶμα τὴν φωνήν·
+πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δρώμενον ἢ καὶ ποιοῦν σῶμα· ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ποιεῖ καὶ δρᾷ ... ἔτι
+πᾶν τὸ κινοῦν καὶ ἐνοχλοῦν σῶμά ἐστιν ... ἔτι πᾶν τὸ κινούμενον σῶμά
+ἐστιν. Cic. Acad. i. 11, 39: [Zeno] nullo modo arbitrabatur quidquam
+effici posse ab ea [natura] quæ expers esset corporis ... nec vero aut
+quod efficeret aliquid aut quod efficeretur (more accurately: in quo
+efficeretur aliquid. Conf. Ritter, iii. 577) posse esse non corpus.
+Seneca, see below p. 128, 1; 129, 1; Stob. Ecl. i. 336 (see p. 95, 2)
+and 338: Χρύσιππος αἴτιον εἶναι λέγει δι’ ὅ. καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον ὂν καὶ
+σῶμα, κ.τ.λ. Ποσειδώνιος δὲ οὕτως. αἴτιον δ’ ἐστί τινος δι’ ὃ ἐκεῖνο, ἢ
+τὸ ἀρχηγὸν ποιήσεως, καὶ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον ὂν καὶ σῶμα, οὗ δὲ αἴτιον οὔτε
+ὂν οὔτε σῶμα, ἀλλὰ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ κατηγόρημα. See p. 95, 1 and 2. Diog.
+vii. 56: According to Chrysippus, Diogenes (see Simpl. Phys. 97, a),
+and others, the voice is material, πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ποιοῦν σῶμά ἐστι. Ibid.
+150: οὐσίαν δέ φασι τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων τὴν πρώτην ὕλην, ὡς καὶ
+Χρύσιππος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ Ζήνων· ὕλη δέ ἐστιν, ἐξ ἧς
+ὁτιδηποτοῦν γίνεται ... σῶμα δέ ἐστι κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ οὐσία. Hippolyt.
+Refut. Hær. i. 21: σώματα δὲ πάντα ὑπέθεντο, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[256] As do Ritter, iii. 577, and Schleiermacher, Gesch. der Philos.
+129.
+
+[257] Diog. vii. 135: σῶμα δ’ ἐστὶ (φησὶν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ) τὸ
+τριχῇ διαστατὸν, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[258] See p. 98. The corporeal nature of deity and the soul will be
+subsequently discussed.
+
+[259] See p. 105. Sen. Ep. 102, 7, remarks, in reference to the
+difference of ἡνωμένα· (see p. 103, 1): nullum bonum putamus esse, quod
+ex distantibus constat: uno enim spiritu unum bonum contineri ac regi
+debet, unum esse unius boni principale. Hence the objection raised in
+Plut. Com. Not. 50, 1, p. 1085: τὰς ποιότητας οὐσίας καὶ σώματα
+ποιοῦσιν, and Ibid. 44, 4, the statement discussed on p. 101, 2.
+
+[260] Philo, Qu. De. S. Immut. p. 298, D (the same in the spurious
+treatise De Mundo, p. 1154, E): ἡ δὲ [ἕξις = ποιότης] ἐστὶ πνεῦμα
+ἀντιστρέφον ἐφ’ ἑαυτό. ἄρχεται μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν μέσων ἐπὶ τὰ πέρατα
+τείνεσθαι, ψαῦσαν δὲ ἄκρας ἐπιφανείας ἀνακάμπτει πάλιν, ἄχρις ἂν ἐπὶ
+τὸν αὐτὸν ἀφίκηται τόπον, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ πρῶτον ὡρμίσθη. ἕξεως ὁ συνεχὴς
+οὗτος δίαυλος ἄφθαρτος, κ.τ.λ. Qu. Mund. S. Incorr. 960, D [De Mundo,
+1169, A]: ἡ δ’ [ἕξις] ἐστὶ πνευματικὸς τόνος. There can be no doubt
+that Philo is describing the Stoic teaching in these passages.
+
+The same idea is also used to explain the connection between the soul
+and the body. The unity of the universe is proved by the fact that the
+Divine Spirit pervades it. Further particulars hereafter. Conf. Alex.
+Aphr. De Mixt. 142, a: ἡνῶσθαι μὲν ὑποτίθεται [Χρύσιππος] τὴν σύμπασαν
+οὐσίαν πνεύματός τινος διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς διήκοντος, ὑφ’ οὗ συνάγεταί τε
+καὶ συμμένει καὶ σύμπαθές ἐστιν αὑτῷ τὸ πᾶν. (That must be the reading,
+the next sentence containing τῶν δὲ, κ.τ.λ. Conf. 143, b). Alex. 143,
+b, carefully denies the statement, that the all-penetrating Breath
+keeps things together.
+
+[261] Plut. Com. Not. 45. See p. 129, 3. Sen. Ep. 117, 2: Placet
+nostris, quod bonum est, esse corpus, quia quod bonum est, facit:
+quidquid facit corpus est ... sapientiam bonum esse dicunt: sequitur,
+ut necesse sit illam corporalem quoque dicere. Conf. p. 129, 1.
+
+[262] This is the conception of τόνος, upon which the strength of the
+soul depends, as well as the strength of the body. Cleanthes, in Plut.
+Sto. Rep. 7, 4, p. 1034: πληγὴ πυρὸς ὁ τόνος ἐστὶ κἂν ἱκανὸς ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ
+γένηται πρὸς τὸ ἐπιτελεῖν τὰ ἐπιβάλλοντα ἰσχὺς καλεῖται καὶ κράτος.
+Stob. Ecl. ii. 110: ὥσπερ ἰσχὺς τοῦ σώματος τόνος ἐστὶν ἱκανὸς ἐν
+νεύροις, οὕτω καὶ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἰσχὺς τόνος ἐστὶν ἱκανὸς ἐν τῷ κρίνειν
+καὶ πράττειν καὶ μή. All properties may be classed under the same
+conception of tension. See p. 127, 5 and Plut. Com. Not. 49, 2, p.
+1085: γῆν μὲν γὰρ ἴσασι καὶ ὕδωρ οὔτε αὑτὰ συνέχειν οὔτε ἕτερα,
+πνευματικῆς δὲ μετοχῇ, καὶ πυρώδους δυνάμεως τὴν ἑνότητα διαφυλάττειν·
+ἀέρα δὲ καὶ πῦρ αὑτῶν τ’ εἶναι δι’ εὐτονίαν ἐκτατικὰ καὶ τοῖς δυσὶν
+ἐκείνοις ἐγκεκραμένα τόνον παρέχειν καὶ τὸ μόνιμον καὶ οὐσιῶδες. Ps.
+Censorin. Fragm. c. 1, p. 75, Jahn: Initia rerum eadem elementa et
+principia dicuntur. Ea Stoici credunt tenorem atque materiam; tenorem,
+qui rarescente materia a medio tendat ad summum, eadem concrescente
+rursus a summo referatur ad medium. Here tenor or τόνος is made
+equivalent to πνεῦμα. Seneca, however, Nat. Qu. ii. 8, conf. vi. 21,
+endeavours to show that intentio belongs to spiritus more than to any
+other body.
+
+[263] Sen. Ep. 106, 4: Bonum facit, prodest enim: quod facit corpus
+est: bonum agitat animum et quodammodo format et continet, quæ propria
+sunt corporis. Quæ corporis bona sunt, corpora sunt: ergo et quæ animi
+sunt. Nam et hoc corpus. Bonum hominis necesse est corpus sit, cum ipse
+sit corporalis.... Si adfectus corpora sunt et morbi animorum et
+avaritia, crudelitas, indurata vitia ... ergo et malitia et species
+ejus omnes ... ergo et bona. It is then specially remarked that the
+Good, i.e. virtue, works upon the body, governing it and representing
+itself therein. Conf. p. 128, 1.
+
+[264] Sext. Math. vii. 38: τὴν δὲ ἀλήθειαν οἴονταί τινες, καὶ μάλιστα
+οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς, διαφέρειν τἀληθοῦς κατὰ τρεῖς τρόπους ... οὐσία μὲν
+παρ’ ὅσον ἡ μὲν ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστι τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἀσώματον ὑπῆρχε. καὶ
+εἰκότως, φασί. τουτὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀξίωμά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἀξίωμα λεκτὸν, τὸ δὲ
+λεκτὸν ἀσώματον· ἀνάπαλιν δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστιν παρ’ ὅσον ἐπιστήμη
+πάντων ἀληθῶν ἀποφαντικὴ δοκεῖ τυγχάνειν· πᾶσα δὲ ἐπιστήμη πὼς ἔχον
+ἐστὶν ἡγεμονικὸν ... τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν σῶμα κατὰ τούτους ὑπῆρχε.
+Similarly Pyrrh. ii. 81. See p. 92, 2.
+
+[265] Plut. Com. Not. 45, 2, p. 1084: ἄτοπον γὰρ εὖ μάλα, τὰς ἀρετὰς
+καὶ τὰς κακίας, πρὸς δὲ ταύταις τὰς τέχνας καὶ τὰς μνήμας πάσας, ἔτι δὲ
+φαντασίας καὶ πάθη καὶ ὁρμὰς καὶ συγκαταθέσεις σώματα ποιουμένους ἐν
+μηδενὶ φάναι κεῖσθαι, κ.τ.λ. ... οἱ δ’ οὐ μόνον τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς
+κακίας ζῷα εἶναι λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ τὰ πάθη μόνον, ὀργὰς καὶ φθόνους καὶ
+λύπας καὶ ἐπιχαιρεκακίας, οὐδὲ καταλήψεις καὶ φαντασίας καὶ ἀγνοίας
+οὐδὲ τὰς τέχνας ζῷα, τὴν σκυτοτομικὴν, τὴν χαλκοτυπικήν· ἀλλὰ πρὸς
+τούτοις καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας σώματα καὶ ζῷα ποιοῦσι, τὸν περίπατον ζῷον,
+τὴν ὄρχησιν, τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, τὴν προσαγόρευσιν, τὴν λοιδορίαν. Plutarch
+is here speaking as an opponent. Seneca, however (Ep. 106, 5).
+observes: Non puto te dubitaturum, an adfectus corpora sint ... tanquam
+ira, amor, tristitia: si dubitas, vide an vultum nobis mutent:... Quid
+ergo? tam manifestas corpori notas credis imprimi, nisi a corpore? See
+p. 129, 1; Stob. Ecl. ii. 114: The Stoics consider virtues to be
+substantially identical (τὰς αὐτὰς καθ’ ὑπόστασιν) with the leading
+part of the soul (ἡγεμονικὸν), and consequently to be, like it, σώματα
+and ζῷα. Seneca, Ep. 113, 1, speaks still more plainly: Desideras tibi
+scribi a me, quid sentiam de hac quæstione jactata apud nostros: an
+justitia, an fortitudo, prudentia ceteræque virtutes animalia sint....
+Me in alia sententia profiteor esse.... Quæ sint ergo quæ antiquos
+moverint, dicam. Animum constat animal esse.... Virtus autem nihil
+aliud est, quam animus quodammodo se habens: ergo animal est. Deinde:
+virtus agit aliquid: agi autem nihil sine impetu (ὁρμὴ) potest. If it
+is urged: Each individual will thus consist of an innumerable number of
+living beings, the reply is that these animalia are only parts of one
+animal, the soul; they are accordingly not many (multa), but one and
+the same viewed from different sides: idem est animus et justus et
+prudens et fortis ad singulas virtutes quodammodo se habens. From the
+same letter, 23, we gather that Cleanthes explained ambulatio as
+spiritus a principali usque in pedes permissus, Chrysippus as
+principale itself.
+
+[266] See p. 92, 2, the extract from Sen. Ep. 117.
+
+[267] Plut. Com. Not. 45, 5, p. 1084: Χρυσίππου μνημονεύοντες ἐν τῷ
+πρώτῳ τῶν φυσικῶν ζητημάτων οὕτω προσάγοντος· οὐχ ἡ μὲν νὺξ σῶμά ἐστιν,
+ἡ δ’ ἑσπέρα καὶ ὁ ὀρθὸς καὶ τὸ μέσον τῆς νυκτὸς σώματα οὐκ ἔστιν· οὐδὲ
+ἡ μὲν ἡμέρα σῶμά ἐστιν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἡ νουμηνία σῶμα, καὶ ἡ δεκάτη, καὶ
+πεντεκαιδεκάτη καὶ ἡ τριακὰς καὶ ὁ μὴν σῶμά ἐστι καὶ τὸ θέρος καὶ τὸ
+φθινόπωρον καὶ ὁ ἐνιαυτός.
+
+[268] Diog. 151: χειμῶνα μὲν εἶναί φασι τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἄερα κατεψυγμένον
+διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πρόσω ἄφοδον, ἔαρ δὲ τὴν εὐκρασίαν τοῦ ἀέρος κατὰ τὴν
+πρὸς ἡμᾶς πορείαν, θέρος δὲ τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἀέρα καταθαλπόμενον, κ.τ.λ.
+Stob. Ecl. i. 260: Chrysippus defines ἔαρ ἔτους ὥραν κεκραμένην ἐκ
+χειμῶνας ἀπολήγοντος καὶ θέρους ἀρχομένου ... θέρος δὲ ὥραν τὴν μάλιστ’
+ἀφ’ ἡλίου διακεκαυμένην· μετόπωρον δὲ ὥραν ἔτους τὴν μετὰ θέρος μὲν πρὸ
+χειμῶνος δὲ κεκραμένην· χειμῶνα δὲ ὥραν ἔτους τὴν μάλιστα κατεψυγμένην,
+ἢ τὴν τῷ περὶ γῆν ἀέρι κατεψυγμένην. Ibid.: According to Empedocles and
+the Stoics, the cause of winter is the preponderance of air, the cause
+of summer the preponderance of fire. Ibid. 556: μεὶς δ’ ἐστὶ, φησὶ
+[Χρύσιππος] τὸ φαινόμενον τῆς σελήνης πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἢ σελήνη μέρος ἔχουσα
+φαινόμενον πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Cleomedes, Meteora, 112, distinguishes four
+meanings of μήν. In the two first it means something material; in the
+others, as a definition of time, something immaterial.
+
+[269] Diog. vii. 140; Stob. Ecl. i. 392; Sext. Math. x. 218 and 237;
+viii. 11; vii. 38; Pyrrh. ii. 81; iii. 52. See p. 92, 2.
+
+[270] See p. 94, 1.
+
+[271] See p. 66, 1.
+
+[272] See p. 93; 132, 1.
+
+[273] See p. 84, 4.
+
+[274] See p. 105, 3.
+
+[275] Let a piece of red-hot iron be taken, every part of which is
+heavy, hard, hot, &c. Not one of these attributes can be confounded
+with another, or with the iron itself, but each one runs through the
+whole iron. Now, if each attribute is due to the presence of some
+material producing it, there is no avoiding the conclusion that there
+must exist in the iron, and in each part of it, as many various
+materials as there are attributes, without any one of them losing its
+own identity.
+
+[276] Diog. vii. 151: καὶ τὰς κράσεις δὲ διόλου γίνεσθαι, καθά φησιν ὁ
+Χρύσιππος ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν φυσικῶν, καὶ μὴ κατὰ περιγραφὴν καὶ
+παράθεσιν· καὶ γὰρ εἰς πέλαγος ὀλίγος οἶνος βληθεὶς ἐπὶ πόσον
+ἀντιπαρεκταθήσεται εἶτα συμφθαρήσεται. According to Stob. Ecl. i. 374,
+the Stoics more accurately distinguish μῖξις, κρᾶσις, παράθεσις,
+σύγχυσις. Παράθεσις is σωμάτων συναφὴ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιφανείας; for
+instance, the combination of various kinds of grain. Μῖξις is δύο ἢ καὶ
+πλειόνων σωμάτων ἀντιπαρέκτασις δι’ ὅλων, ὑπομενουσῶν τῶν συμφυῶν περὶ
+αὐτὰ ποιοτήτων; for instance, the union of fire and iron, of soul and
+body. Such a union is called μῖξις in the case of solid bodies, κρᾶσις
+in the case of fluids. Σύγχυσις is δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων ποιοτήτων περὶ τὰ
+σώματα μεταβολὴ εἰς ἑτέρας διαφερούσης τούτων ποιότητος γένεσιν, as in
+the making up salves and medicines. Very much in the same way according
+to Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. 142, a, Chrysippus distinguished three kinds of
+μῖξις: παράθεσις, or union of substances, in which each retains its
+οἰκεία οὐσία or ποιότης κατὰ τὴν περιγραφήν; σύγχυσις, in which both
+substances, as well as attributes, are destroyed (φθείρεσθαι), giving
+rise to a third body; κρᾶσις = δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων τινων σωμάτων ὅλων
+δι’ ὅλων ἀντιπαρέκτασιν ἀλλήλοις οὕτως, ὥστε σώζειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ
+μίξει τῇ τοιαύτῃ τήν τε οἰκείαν οὐσίαν καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ ποιότητας.
+Materials thus united can be again separated, but yet are they so
+united: ὡς μηδὲν μόριον ἐν αὐτοῖς εἶναι μὴ μετέχον πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ
+μίγματι.
+
+For such a union to be possible, (1) it must be possible for one body
+to penetrate every part of another, without being fused into a
+homogeneous mass. Hence the expression σῶμα διὰ σώματος ἀντιπαρήκειν,
+σῶμα σώματος εἶναι τόπον καὶ σῶμα χωρεῖν διὰ σώματος κένον μηδετέρου
+περιέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ πλήρους εἰς τὸ πλῆρες ἐνδυομένου (Plut. C. Not.
+37, 2, p. 1077; Alex. 142, b; Themist. Phys. 37; Simpl. Phys. 123, b;
+Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. i. 21); (2) it must be possible for the smaller
+body to extend over the whole size of the greater. This is affirmed by
+Chrysippus: οὐδὲν ἀπέχειν φάμενος, οἴνου σταλαγμὸν ἕνα κεράσαι τὴν
+θάλατταν, or even εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον διατενεῖν τῇ κράσει τὸν σταλαγμόν
+(Plut. 10; Alex. 142, b; Diog.). The greater body is said to help the
+smaller, by giving to it an extension of which it would not otherwise
+be capable. Nevertheless, the bodies so united need not necessarily
+occupy more space than was previously occupied by one of them (Alex.
+142, b; Plotin. Enn. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, C. Fic. 860, 14, Cr.). The
+absurdities which this theory involves were already exposed by
+Arcesilaus (Plut. 7), and in detail by Alexander, Plutarch, Sextus, and
+Plotinus, by the latter in a whole treatise (Enn. ii. 7) περὶ τῆς δι’
+ὅλων κράτεως.
+
+[277] Πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ λέγεται περὶ κράσεως καὶ σχεδὸν ἀνήνυτοι περὶ τοῦ
+προκειμένου σκέμματός εἰσι παρὰ τοῖς Δογματικοῖς στάσεις. Sext. Pyrrh.
+iii. 56. See previous note.
+
+[278] According to Alex. 142, a, the following arguments were used by
+Chrysippus:—(1) The argument from κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι—our notion of κρᾶσις
+is different from that of σύγχυσις or παράθεσις. (2) Many bodies are
+capable of extension, whilst retaining their own properties;
+frankincense, for instance, when burnt, and gold. (3) The soul
+penetrates every part of the body, without losing its properties. So
+φύσις does in plants, and ἕξις does in all which it connects. (4) The
+same holds good of fire in red-hot metal, of fire and air in water and
+earth, of poisons and perfumes in things with which they are mixed, and
+of light, which penetrates air.
+
+The first of these arguments clearly does not embody the real reason in
+the mind of Chrysippus; it might, with equal justice, have been used to
+prove anything else. Just as little does the second; for the phenomena
+to which it refers would be equally well explained on the theory of
+simple intermingling (παράθεσις) or complete (σύγχυσις) mixing. Nor
+does the fourth argument, taken independently of the theory of the
+corporeal nature of properties, necessarily lead to the idea of κρᾶσις
+as distinct from παράθεσις and σύγχυσις. For heat, according to the
+Peripatetic view, might be regarded as a property of what is hot, light
+as a definite property of a transparent body (conf. Alex. 143, a),
+παράθεσις and σύγχυσις sufficing for other things. Even the fact,
+greatly insisted upon by the Stoics, that things so mixed can be again
+separated into their component materials (Alex. 143, a; Stob. i. 378),
+was not conclusive. As long as the knowledge of the actual composition
+depended on isolated cases and crude experiments, like the one named by
+Stobæus (into a mixture of wine and water, put an oiled sponge, it will
+absorb the water and not the wine), and as long as the substantial
+change of elements, advocated by the Stoics as well as by the
+Peripatetics, was clung to, it was no difficult matter for an opponent
+to reply. On the other hand, the relation of the soul to the body, of
+property to subject-matter, of φύσις to φυτὸν, of God to the world, can
+hardly be otherwise explained than it was by Chrysippus, if once
+material existence be assigned to the soul, to φύσις, to ἕξις, and to
+God. We have, therefore, here the real ground on which this theory of
+κρᾶσις was based; and Simplicius rightly deduces it herefrom (Phys.
+123, b): τὸ δὲ σῶμα διὰ σώματος χωρεῖν οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι ὡς ἐναργὲς ἄτοπον
+ἐλάμβανον, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ὕστερον προσήκαντο ὡς ἀκολουθοῦν ταῖς
+σφῶν αὐτῶν ὑποθέσεσιν ... σώματα γὰρ λέγειν πάντα δοκοῦντες, καὶ τὰς
+ποιότητας καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ διὰ παντὸς ὁρῶντες τοῦ σώματος καὶ τὴν
+ψυχὴν χωροῦσαν καὶ τὰς ποιότητας ἐν ταῖς κράσεσι, συνεχώρουν σῶμα διὰ
+σώματος χωρεῖν.
+
+[279] See p. 95, 2; 126, 1.
+
+[280] On ἄποιος ὕλη, as the universal ὑποκείμενον or οὐσία κοινὴ, see
+p. 100. Sext. Math. x. 312: ἐξ ἀποίου μὲν οὖν καὶ ἑνὸς σώματος τὴν τῶν
+ὅλων ὑπεστήσαντο γένεσιν οἱ Στωϊκοί. ἀρχὴ γὰρ τῶν ὄντων κατ’ αὐτούς
+ἐστιν ἡ ἄποιος ὕλη καὶ δι’ ὅλων τρεπτὴ, μεταβαλλούσης τε ταύτης γίνεται
+τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, πῦρ, κ.τ.λ. Plut. C. Not. 48, 2, p. 1085: ἡ ὕλη
+καθ’ αὑτὴν ἄλογος οὖσα καὶ ἄποιος. M. Aurel. xii. 30: μία οὐσία κοινὴ,
+κἂν διείργηται ἰδίως ποιοῖς σώματι μυρίοις. Diog. 137: τὰ δὴ τέτταρα
+στοιχεῖα εἶναι ὁμοῦ τὴν ἄποιον οὐσίαν τὴν ὕλην.
+
+[281] See p. 141, 2.
+
+[282] Plut. Sto. Rep. 43. See p. 105, 1.
+
+[283] See p. 105, 1 and 2; 127, 5; 128, 2.
+
+[284] Simpl. Cat. 67, ε (Schol. 74, a, 10): τὸ τοίνυν σχῆμα οἱ Στωϊκοὶ
+τὴν τάσιν παρέχεσθαι λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ τὴν μεταξὺ τῶν σημείων διάστασιν.
+διὸ καὶ εὐθεῖαν ὁρίζονται γραμμὴν τὴν εἰς ἄκρον τεταμένην.
+
+[285] Simpl. Cat. 68, ε: οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ δύναμιν, ἢ μᾶλλον κίνησιν τὴν
+μανωτικὴν καὶ πυκνωτικὴν τίθενται, τὴν μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔσω, τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ
+ἔξω· καὶ τὴν μὲν τοῦ εἶναι, τὴν δὲ τοῦ ποιὸν εἶναι νομίζουσιν αἰτίαν.
+Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 2, p. 29: εἰ δὲ λέγοιεν, καθάπερ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ,
+τονικήν τινα εἶναι κίνησιν περὶ τὰ σώματα, εἰς τὸ ἔσω ἅμα καὶ εἰς τὸ
+ἔξω κινουμένην, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἰς τὸ ἔξω μεγεθῶν καὶ ποιότητων
+ἀποτελεστικὴν εἶναι, τὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ ἔσω ἑνώσεως καὶ οὐσίας. This remark
+is confirmed by what is quoted, p. 128, 2 from Censorinus, and by the
+language of Plutarch (Def. Orac. c. 28. Schl. p. 425), in reference to
+Chrysippus: πολλάκις εἰρηκὼς, ὅτι ταῖς εἰς τὸ αὑτῆς μέσον ἡ οὐσία καὶ
+ταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ αὑτῆς μέσου διοικεῖται καὶ συνέχεται κινήσεσι.
+
+[286] Diog. vii. 134: δοκεῖ δ’ αὐτοῖς ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων δύο, τὸ
+ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον. τὸ μὲν οὖν πάσχον εἶναι τὴν ἄποιον οὐσίαν τὴν
+ὕλην, τὸ δὲ ποιοῦν τὸν ἐν αὐτῇ λόγον τὸν θεόν. τοῦτον γὰρ ὄντα ἀΐδιον
+διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς δημιουργεῖν ἕκαστα. Such is the teaching of Zeno,
+Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Archedemus, and Posidonius. Sext. Math. ix. 11:
+οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς δύο λέγοντες ἀρχὰς, θεὸν καὶ ἄποιον ὕλην, τὸν μὲν θεὸν
+ποιεῖν ὑπειλήφασι, τὴν δὲ ὕλην πάσχειν τε καὶ τρέπεσθαι. Similarly
+Alex. Aph. De Mixt. 144; Achill. Tat. Isag. c. 3, 124, E; Plut. Pl.
+Phil. i. 3, 39; Stob. Ecl. i. 306; 322, according to the passage
+quoted, p. 101, 2, from Zeno respecting ὕλη: διὰ ταύτης δὲ διαθεῖν τὸν
+τοῦ παντὸς λόγον ὃν ἔνιοι εἱμαρμένην καλοῦσιν, οἷόνπερ ἐν τῇ γόνῃ τὸ
+σπέρμα. Sen. Ep. 65, 2: Dicunt, ut scis, Stoici nostri, duo esse in
+rerum natura, ex quibus omnia fiant: causam et materiam. Materia jacet
+iners, res ad omnia parata, cessatura si nemo moveat. Causa autem, i.e.
+ratio, materiam format et quocunque vult versat, ex illa varia opera
+producit. Esse ergo debet, unde fit aliquid, deinde a quo fiat. Hoc
+causa est, illud materia. Ibid. 23: Universa ex materia et ex Deo
+constant ... potentius autem est ac pretiosius quod facit, quod est
+Deus, quam materia patiens Dei.
+
+[287] Sen. Ep. 65, 11: Nam si, quocumque remoto quid effici non potest,
+id causam judicant esse faciendi, &c. Sext. Math. ix. 228: εἰ αἴτιόν
+ἐστιν οὗ παρόντος γίνεται τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα. This appears to be the most
+general Stoic definition. That given by Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 14—τοῦτο, δι’
+ὃ ἐνεργοῦν γίνεται τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα—and by him said to express the views
+of several schools, expresses a narrower conception—the conception of
+efficient cause, which, however, for a Stoic, is the only essential
+one.
+
+[288] Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 15, distinguishes between συνεκτικὰ, συναίτια,
+and σύνεργα αἴτια, all of which are, however, subordinated to the δι’
+ὃ, which he is there alone discussing. Seneca l.c. maintains that,
+according to the definition given above, time, place, and motion ought
+to be reckoned as causes, since nothing can be produced without these.
+He allows, however, that a distinction must be made between causa
+efficiens and causa superveniens. This agrees with what Cicero (De
+Fato, 18, 41) quotes from Chrysippus relative to causæ perfectæ et
+principales, and causæ adjuvantes et proximæ, and with the Platonic and
+Aristotelian distinction of αἴτιον δι’ ὃ and οὗ οὐκ ἄνευ. See Zeller’s
+Philosophie der Griechen. In the same way, Plut. Sto. Rep. 47, 4, p.
+1056 distinguishes between αἴτια αὐτοτελὴς and προκαταρκτική. Alex.
+Aph. De Fato, 72, blames the Stoics: σμῆνος γὰρ αἰτίων καταλέγουσι, τὰ
+μὲν προκαταρκτικὰ, τὰ δὲ συναίτια, τὰ δὲ ἑκτικὰ, τὰ δὲ συνεκτικὰ, τὰ δὲ
+ἄλλο τι. Conf. Orelli ad locum.
+
+[289] Seneca, l.c., after enumerating the four causes of Aristotle, to
+which the Platonic idea is added as a fifth, continues: This turba
+causarum embraces either too much or too little. Sed nos nunc primam et
+generalem quærimus causam. Hæc simplex esse debet, nam et materia
+simplex est. Quærimus quæ sit causa, ratio scilicet faciens, id est
+Deus. Ita enim, quæcumque retulistis, non sunt multæ et singulæ causæ,
+sed ex una pendent, ex ea, quæ faciet. Conf. Stob. Ecl. i. 336: αἴτιον
+δ’ ὁ Ζήνων φησὶν εἶναι δι’ ὃ ... Χρύσιππος αἴτιον εἶναι λέγει δ’ ὃ ...
+Ποσειδώνιος δὲ οὕτως· αἴτιον δ’ ἐστί τινος δι’ ὃ ἐκεῖνο, ἢ τὸ πρῶτον
+ποιοῦν ἢ τὸ ἀρχηγὸν ποιήσεως.
+
+[290] Cic. N. D. ii. 7, 19, after speaking of the consentiens,
+conspirans, continuata cognatio rerum (συμπάθεια τῶν ὅλων), continues:
+Hæc ita fieri omnibus inter se concinentibus mundi partibus profecto
+non possent, nisi ea uno divino et continuato spiritu continerentur.
+See Sext. Math. ix. 78. The same view is further expanded in Sext.
+Math. ix. 78. Conf. the quotation on p. 127, 5, from Alexander.
+
+[291] According to the remarks, p. 105 and 126, this requires no proof.
+
+[292] Cic. N. D. ii. 9, 23 (conf. iii. 14, 35), gives it apparently as
+the view of Cleanthes, who alone is mentioned, 9, 24. All living
+things, plants, and animals, exist by heat: nam omne quod est calidum
+et igneum cietur et agitur motu suo. Digestion and circulation are the
+result of heat: ex quo intelligi debet, eam caloris naturam vim habere
+in se vitalem per omnem mundum pertinentem. Moreover: omnes partes
+mundi ... calore fultæ sustinentur. There must be fire in earth and
+stones, else it could not be extracted therefrom. Water, especially
+fresh spring water, is warm, more particularly in winter, and as motion
+warms us, so the roll of the waves does the sea. From water likewise as
+it evaporates, air derives its heat.... Jam vero reliqua quarta pars
+mundi, ea et ipsa tota natura fervida est, et cæteris naturis omnibus
+salutarem impertit et vitalem calorem. Ex quo concluditur, cum omnes
+mundi partes sustineantur calore, mundum etiam ipsum simili parique
+natura in tanta diuturnitate servari: eoque magis quod intelligi debet,
+calidum illum atque igneum ita in omni fusum esse natura, ut in eo
+insit procreandi vis, &c.
+
+[293] On the argument, ex consensu gentium, consult Plut. Sto. Rep. 38.
+3; Com. Not. 32, 1; Cic. N. D. ii. 2, 5; Seneca, Benef. iv. 4; Sext.
+Math. ix. 123 and 131, where different varieties of it are given, even
+a particular one from Zeno.
+
+[294] Sext. Math. ix. 75.
+
+[295] Cic. N. D. iii. 9, 22: Zeno enim ita concludit: quod ratione
+utitur, melius est, quam id, quod ratione non utitur. Nihil autem mundo
+melius. Ratione igitur mundus utitur. The same, ibid. ii. 8, 21, and
+12, 34. Sext. Math. ix. 104: εἰ τὸ λογικὸν τοῦ μὴ λογικοῦ κρεῖττόν
+ἐστιν, οὐδὲν δέ γε κόσμου κρεῖττόν ἐστι, λογικὸν ἄρα ὁ κόσμος ... τὸ
+γὰρ νοερὸν τοῦ μὴ νοεροῦ καὶ ἔμψυχον τοῦ μὴ ἐμψύχου κρεῖττόν ἐστιν·
+οὐδὲν δέ γε κόσμου κρεῖττον· νοερὸς ἄρα καὶ ἔμψυχός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος.
+Likewise Diog. 142, says that Chrysippus, Apollodorus, and Posidonius
+agree that the world is ζῷον καὶ λογικὸν καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ νοερόν· τὸ γὰρ
+ζῷον τοῦ μὴ ζῷον κρεῖττον· οὐδὲν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου κρεῖττον· ζῷον ἄρα ὁ
+κόσμος.
+
+[296] Cic. N. D. ii. 8, 22: Zeno affirms: Nullius sensu carentis pars
+aliqua potest esse sentiens. Mundi autem partes sentientes sunt. Non
+igitur caret sensu mundus.
+
+[297] Diog. 143: ἔμψυχον δὲ [τὸν κόσμον], ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας
+ψυχῆς ἐκεῖθεν οὔσης ἀποσπάσματος. Sext. Math. ix. 101: Ζήνων δὲ ὁ
+Κιττιεὺς ἀπὸ Ξενοφῶντος τὴν ἀφορμὴν λαβὼν οὑτωσὶ συνερωτᾷ· τὸ
+προϊέμενον σπέρμα λογικοῦ καὶ αὐτὸ λογικόν ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ κόσμος προΐεται
+σπέρμα λογικοῦ, λογικὸν ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ κόσμος. The same proof in Sext.
+Math. ix. 77 and 84; Cic. l.c. Conf. ibid. ii. 31, 79; 6, 18, where
+also the passage in Xenophon, Mem. i. 4, 8, quoted by Sext. ix. 94, is
+referred to.
+
+[298] Cic. l.c. iii. 10, 25: Is [Chrysippus] igitur: si aliquid est,
+inquit, quod homo efficere non possit, qui id efficit melior est
+homine. Homo autem hæc, quæ in mundo sunt, efficere non potest. Qui
+potuit igitur, is præstat homini. Homini autem præstare quis possit,
+nisi Deus? Est igitur Deus. The same, only a little more fully, ibid.
+ii. 6, 16. To this argument, another favourite one of the Stoics, based
+on the fulfilment of prophecy, belongs.
+
+[299] Cleanthes made use of arguments from final causes to prove the
+existence of God. Of this nature are all the four arguments which he
+employs in Cic. N. D. ii. 6, but particularly the fourth, based on the
+regular order and beauty of heaven. A building cannot exist without a
+builder; no more can the building of the world exist without a ruling
+spirit. Therewith Cicero connects the above-named argument of
+Chrysippus. The same writer, N. D. ii. 32–66, gives very fully the
+physical theological argument for the existence of providence, which is
+given in a shorter form by Cleomedes, Meteora, 1; Seneca, De Provid. i.
+1, 2–4; Nat. Qu. i.; Sext. Math. ix. 111; conf. Ps. Censorin. Fragm. i.
+2, p. 75, Jahn; Plut. Plac. i. 6, 8: belief in gods grows out of
+considering the world and its beauty, an argument also quoted by Sext.
+Math. ix. 26.
+
+[300] See the expansion of this thought by Cleanthes (in Sext. Math.
+ix. 88–91) and the Stoics (in Cic. N. D. ii. 12, 33). Cicero
+distinguishes four kinds of beings—Plants, Animals, Men, and that being
+which is altogether reasonable and perfect deity.
+
+[301] See p. 143, 2; 144, 1–4; 145, 1 and 2.
+
+[302] Sext. Math. ix. 102, expanding Zeno’s argument given, p. 145, 2:
+πάσης γὰρ φύσεως καὶ ψυχῆς ἡ καταρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως γίνεσθαι δοκεῖ ἀπὸ
+ἡγεμονικοῦ καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ἐπὶ τὰ μέρη τοῦ ὅλου ἐξαποστελλόμεναι δυνάμεις
+ὡς ἀπό τινος πηγῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐξαποστέλλονται. Cic. N. D. ii. 29:
+according to Cleanthes, omnem enim naturam necesse est, quæ non
+solitaria sit, neque simplex, sed cum alio juncta atque connexa, habere
+aliquem in se principatum [= ἡγεμονικὸν] ut in homine mentem, &c....
+Itaque necesse est illud etiam, in quo sit totius naturæ principatus,
+esse omnium optimum. See following note.
+
+[303] Cic. Acad. ii. 41, 126: Zenoni et reliquis fere Stoicis æther
+videtur summus Deus, mente præditus, qua omnia regantur. N. D. i. 14,
+36: (Zeno) æthera Deum dicit. 15, 39: ignem præterea et eum, quem antea
+dixi, æthera (Chrysippus Deum dicit esse). Diog. vii. 138: οὐρανὸς δέ
+ἐστιν ἡ ἐσχάτη περιφέρεια, ἐν ᾗ πᾶν ἵδρυται τὸ θεῖον. Ibid. 139: τὸν
+ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικὸν ἔχειν ἡγεμονικὸν μὲν τὸν
+αἰθέρα, καθά φησιν Ἀντίπατρος ... Χρύσιππος δ’ ... καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ...
+τὸν οὐρανόν φασι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου. He continues: ὁ μέντοι
+Χρύσιππος διαφορώτερον πάλιν τὸ καθαρώτερον τοῦ αἰθέρος ἐν ταὐτῷ [= τῷ
+οὐρανῷ] ὃ καὶ πρῶτον θεὸν λέγουσιν, αἰσθητικῶς ὥσπερ κεχωρηκέναι διὰ
+τῶν ἐν ἀέρι καὶ διὰ τῶν ζῴων ἁπάντων καὶ φυτῶν, διὰ δὲ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς
+καθ’ ἕξιν. Arius Didymus, in Eus. Præp. Ev. xv. 15, 4: Χρυσίππῳ δὲ
+[ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι ἤρεσε] τὸν αἰθέρα τὸν καθαρώτατον καὶ
+εἰλικρινέστατον, ἅτε πάντων εὐκινητότατον ὄντα καὶ τὴν ὅλην περιάγοντα
+τοῦ κόσμου φύσιν. Ibid. xv. 20, 2: According to the Stoics, the air
+surrounding sea and earth is the soul of the world. Cornut. Nat. De. 8:
+Zeus dwells in heaven, ἐπεὶ ἐκεῖ ἐστι τὸ κυριώτατον μέρος τῆς τοῦ
+κόσμου ψυχῆς. Tertullian (Apol. 47; Ad Nat. ii. 2, 4) inaccurately
+attributes to the Stoics the belief in a God external to nature.
+
+[304] Cic. Acad. l.c.: Cleanthes ... solem dominari et rerum potiri =
+κρατεῖν τῶν ὄντων putat. He speaks with less accuracy (Krische, Forsch.
+428) in N. D. i. 14, 37: either he considers the original deity; for
+this does not exclude the other. No doubt he identified αἰθὴρ with
+calor (see p. 144, 1), believing that it emanated from the sun. Diog.
+139: Κλεάνθης δὲ [τὸ ἡγεμονικόν φασι] τὸν ἥλιον. Ar. Didymus, l.c.
+ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου Κλεάνθει μὲν ἤρεσε τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι διὰ τὸ
+μέγιστον τῶν ἄστρων ὑπάρχειν καὶ πλεῖστα συμβάλλεσθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὅλων
+διοίκησιν, κ.τ.λ. Stob. Ecl. i. 452; Ps. Censorin. Fragm. i. 4.
+According to Epiphan. Exp. Fidei, 1090, C, he called the sun the
+δᾳδοῦχος to the universe.
+
+[305] Stob. l.c.: Ἀρχίδαμος (leg. with Cod. A Ἀρχέδημος) τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν
+τοῦ κόσμου ἐν γῇ ὑπάρχειν ἀπεφήνατο: the same statement without
+mentioning the name in Ar. Didymus, l.c. This reminds one somewhat of
+the Pythagorean doctrine of a central fire, and the view of Speusippus.
+The resemblance to the Pythagoreans is greater, if Simpl. De Cœlo,
+Schol. in Ar. 505, a, 45, is correct in saying Archedemus denied with
+the Pythagoreans that the earth was in the centre of the world.
+
+[306] See p. 141, 2; 143, 1. Aristocles, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 14:
+στοιχεῖον εἶναί φασι [οἱ Στωϊκοὶ] τῶν ὄντων τὸ πῦρ, καθάπερ Ἡράκλειτος,
+τούτου δ’ ἀρχὰς ὕλην καὶ θεὸν, ὡς Πλάτων.
+
+[307] Fuller particulars p. 144, 1; 146. Hippolytus, Refut. Hær. i. 21:
+Chrysippus and Zeno suppose ἀρχὴν μὲν θεὸν τῶν πάντων, σῶμα ὄντα τὸ
+καθαρώτατον (æther). Diog. 148: Antipater calls the οὐσία θεοῦ
+ἀεροειδής. Stob. Ecl. i. 60: Mnesarchus (a pupil of Panætius) defines
+God to be τὸν κόσμον τὴν πρώτην οὐσίαν ἔχοντα ἐπὶ πνεύματος. Sext.
+Pyrrh. iii. 218: Στωϊκοὶ δὲ [λέγουσι θεὸν] πνεῦμα διῆκον καὶ διὰ τῶν
+εἰδεχθῶν (the adverse). Alex. Aphr. on Metaph. 995, b, 31 (Schol. in
+Ar. 607, a, 19): τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἔδοξεν ὁ θεὸς καὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν
+αἴτιον ἐν τῇ ὕγῃ εἶναι. Ibid. De Mixt. 144, gives them credit: πνεύματι
+ὡς διὰ πάντων διήκοντι ἀνάπτειν τό τε εἶναι ἑκάστου καὶ τὸ σώζεσθαι καὶ
+συμμένειν. Compare the quotations p. 127, 5 and De An. 145: [τὸν νοῦν]
+καὶ ἐν τοῖς φαυλοτάτοις εἶναι θεῖον ὄντα, ὡς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἔδοξεν.
+Lucian, Hermot. 81: ἀκούομεν δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος, ὡς καὶ ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἐν
+οὐρανῷ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ διὰ πάντων πεφοίτηκεν, οἷον ξύλων καὶ λίθων καὶ
+ζῴων, ἄχρι καὶ τῶν ἀτιμωτάτων. Tertullian, Ad Nation. ii. 4: Zeno makes
+God penetrate the materia mundialis, as honey does the honeycombs. See
+p. 105, 3.
+
+Clemens, Strom. v. 591, A: φασὶ γὰρ σῶμα εἶναι τὸν θεὸν οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ
+πνεῦμα κατ’ οὐσίαν, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ τὴν ψυχήν. Ibid. i. 295, C: (οἱ
+Στωϊκοὶ) σῶμα ὄντα τὸν θεὸν διὰ τῆς ἀτιμοτάτης ὕλης πεφοιτηκέναι
+λέγουσιν οὐ καλῶς. Protrept. 44, A: τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς, διὰ πάσης ὕλης,
+καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀτιμοτάτης, τὸ θεῖον διήκειν λέγοντας. Orig. c. Cels. vi.
+71: τῶν Στωϊκῶν φασκόντων ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμά ἐστι διὰ πάντων διεληλυθὸς
+καὶ πάντ’ ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιεχόν. Opponents like Origen, l.c. and i. 21,
+Alexander, De Mixt. l.c., and Plutarch, Com. Not. 48, naturally attack
+them for their materialistic views.
+
+[308] Stob. Ecl. i. 58. See following note. Diog. 138 (according to
+Chrysippus and Posidonius): τὸν δὴ κόσμον οἰκεῖσθαι κατὰ νοῦν καὶ
+πρόνοιαν ... εἰς ἅπαν αὐτοῦ μέρος διήκοντος τοῦ νοῦ καθάπερ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν
+τῆς ψυχῆς. ἀλλ’ ἤδη δι’ ὧν μὲν μᾶλλον, δι’ ὧν δὲ ἧττον. More popularly,
+ibid. 147: θεὸν εἶναι ζῷον ἀθάνατον λογικὸν τέλειον ἢ νοερὸν ἐν
+εὐδαιμονίᾳ, κακοῦ παντὸς ἀνεπίδεκτον, προνοητικὸν κόσμου τε καὶ τῶν ἐν
+κόσμῳ, μὴ εἶναι μέντοι ἀνθρωπόμορφον. εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν δημιοῦργον τῶν
+ὅλων καὶ ὥσπερ πατέρα πάντων κοινῶς τε καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ τὸ διῆκον διὰ
+πάντων, ὃ πολλαῖς προσηγορίαις προσονομάζεσθαι κατὰ τὰς δυνάμεις. Phæd.
+Nat. De. (Philodem. περὶ εὐσεβείας) Col. 1 and Cic. Nat. De. i. 15, 39,
+quoting from him: According to Chrysippus, Zeus is κοινὴ χύσις,
+εἱμαρμένη, ἀνάγκη, κ.τ.λ. Ibid. Col. 3: He considered νόμος to be
+deity. Cic. l.c.: legis perpetuæ et æternæ vim ... Jovem dicit esse.
+Themist. De An. 72, b: τοῖς ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος ... διὰ πάσης οὐσίας
+πεφοιτηκέναι τὸν θεὸν τιθεμένοις, καὶ ποῦ μὲν εἶναι νοῦν, ποῦ δὲ ψυχὴν,
+ποῦ δὲ φύσιν, ποῦ δὲ ἕξιν. Cic. Acad. ii. 37, 119: No Stoic can doubt
+hunc mundum esse sapientem, habere mentem, quæ se et ipsum fabricata
+sit, et omnia moderetur, moveat, regat. Id. N. D. ii. 22, 58: ipsius
+vero mundi ... natura non artificiosa solum sed plane artifex ab eodem
+Zenone dicitur, consultrix et provida utilitatum opportunitatumque
+omnium.... As every nature develops from its stock, sic Natura mundi
+omnes motus habet voluntarios conatusque et appetitiones, quas ὁρμὰς
+Græci vocant, et his consentaneas actiones sic adhibet ut nosmet ipsi,
+qui animis movemur et sensibus, on which account the mens mundi is
+called πρόνοια. M. Aurel. iv. 40: ὡς ἓν ζῷον τὸν κόσμον μίαν οὐσίαν καὶ
+ψυχὴν μίαν ἐπέχον συνεχῶς ἐπινοεῖν· πῶς εἰς αἴσθησιν μίαν τὴν τούτου
+πάντα ἀναδίδοται καὶ πῶς ὁρμῇ μιᾷ πάντα πράσσει. Heraclit. Alleg. Hom.
+72. Tertullian, Apol. 21: Hunc enim (λόγον) Zeno determinat
+factitatorem, qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit, eundem et fatum
+vocari et Deum et animum Jovis et necessitatem omnium rerum. Hæc
+Cleanthes in spiritum congerit, quem permeatorem universitatis
+affirmat. Similarly Lactant. Inst. iv. 9, 1, 5. Epiphan. Hær. v. 1, p.
+12: According to the Stoics, God is νοῦς, residing in the world as its
+soul, and permeating the μερικαὶ οὐσίαι. Zeus is also spoken of as
+being the soul of the world by Cornutus, Nat. De. 2; by Plut. Sto. Rep.
+39, 2, p. 1052; and by Chrysippus, ibid. 34, 5, p. 1050: ὅτι δ’ ἡ κοινὴ
+φύσις καὶ ὁ κοινὸς τῆς φύσεως λόγος εἱμαρμένη καὶ πρόνοια καὶ Ζεύς
+ἐστιν οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀντίποδας λέληθε· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ταῦτα θρυλεῖται ὑπ’
+αὐτῶν. Stob. Ecl. i. 178: Ζήνων ... [τὴν εἱμαρμένην] δυνάμιν κινητικὴν
+τῆς ὕλης κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως, ἥντινα μὴ διαφέρειν πρόνοιαν καὶ φύσιν
+καλεῖν. Ar. Didymus, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 2: God cares for man; He
+is kind, beneficent, and loves men. Zeus is called κόσμος as αἴτιος τοῦ
+ζῇν, εἱμαρμένη, because εἱρομένῳ λόγῳ διοικεῖ all things, ἀδράστεια,
+ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔστιν αὐτὸν ἀποδιδράσκειν, πρόνοια, ὅτι πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον
+οἰκονομεῖ ἕκαστα. Aristocles (Ibid. xv. 14): Primary fire contains the
+causes and λόγοι of all things; the unchangeable law and destiny of the
+world supplies their connection. Sen. Benef. iv. 7, 1: Quid enim aliud
+est natura, quam Deus et divina ratio toti mundo et partibus ejus
+inserta?... Hunc eundem et fatum si dixeris non mentieris. (Similarly
+Frag. 122 in Lact. Inst. ii. 8, 23). Id. Nat. Qu. ii. 45, 2: God or
+Jupiter may be equally well spoken of as Destiny, Providence, Nature,
+the World. Stob. Ecl. i. 178: Ἀντίπατρος ὁ Στωϊκὸς θεὸν ἀπεφήνατο τὴν
+εἱμαρμένην. Zeus is called κοινὸς νόμος by Diog. vii. 88; by Cleanthes
+at the end of his hymn (Stob. Ecl. i. 34); likewise Cic. N. D. i. 14,
+36 says of Zeno: Naturalem legem divinam esse censet, eamque vim
+obtinere recta imperantem prohibentemque contraria. Plut. C. Not. 32,
+1; Sto. Rep. 38, 3 and 7 (here following Antipater): God must be
+conceived of as μακάριος, εὐποιητικὸς, φιλάνθρωπος, κηδεμονικὸς,
+ὠφέλιμος. Muson. (in Stob. Floril. 117, 8): God is the type of every
+virtue, μεγαλόφρων, εὐεργετικὸς, φιλάνθρωπος, κ.τ.λ. Sen. Ep. 95, 48:
+Quæ causa est Dis benefaciendi? Natura. Errat, si quis illos putat
+nocere nolle: non possunt. Further details respecting the beneficent
+nature of the Gods in Sen. Benef. i. 9; iv. 3–9 and 26–28; Clement. i.
+5, 7; Nat. Qu. v. 18, 13. On the divine omniscience; Ep. 83, 1; V.
+Beat. 20, 5.
+
+[309] According to Cic. N. D. ii. 30, 75, the Stoics divided the
+argument as to God’s providential care of the world into three parts.
+The first part went to establish that if there existed Gods, there must
+also be a care of the world; for Gods could not exist without having
+something to do, and to care for the world is the noblest thing that
+can be done. If, moreover, deity is the highest being, the world must
+be governed by deity. The same conclusion is arrived at from the wisdom
+and power of deity, which must always busy itself with what is best and
+highest. Lastly, it is stated, that inasmuch as the stars, heaven, the
+universe, and all powers in the world are divine, it is clear that
+everything must be governed by divine reason. The second part proved
+that the force and skill of nature produced and sustains all things.
+All the more reason that a universe so skilfully formed and so
+harmoniously arranged must be directed by a natura sentiens. And since,
+in its parts, it could not be more beautiful or adapted to its purpose,
+it must be true of it more than of any human work of art, that it owes
+its origin to a forming reason. The third part aims at proving, on
+physico-theological grounds, quanta sit admirabilitas cœlestium rerum
+atque terrestrium.
+
+[310] Stob. Ecl. i. 58: Διογένης καὶ Κλεάνθης καὶ Οἰνοπίδης τὴν τοῦ
+κόσμου ψυχὴν [θεὸν λέγουσι] ... Ποσειδώνιος πνεῦμα νοερὸν καὶ πυρῶδες,
+οὐκ ἔχον μὲν μορφὴν μεταβάλλον δὲ εἰς ὃ βούλεται καὶ συνεξομοιούμενον
+πᾶσιν ... Ζήνων ὁ Στωϊκὸς νοῦν κόσμον πύρινον. Ib. 64; Plut. Plac. i.
+8, 17: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ νοερὸν (Plut. κοινότερον) θεὸν ἀποφαίνονται πῦρ
+τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον ἐπὶ γενέσει κόσμου (a similar definition of nature
+is given by Zeno in Cic. Nat. De. ii. 22, 57) ἐμπεριειληφός τε πάντας
+τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους, καθ’ οὓς ἅπαντα (Pl. ἕκαστα) καθ’ εἱμαρμένην
+γίνεται, καὶ πνεῦμα ἐνδιῆκον, δι’ ὅλον τοῦ κόσμου, τὰς δὲ προσηγορίας
+μεταλαμβάνον διὰ τὰς τῆς ὅλης, δι’ ἧς κεχώρηκε μεταλλάξεις. Following
+the same source, Athenag. Leg. pro Christ. c. 5, Schl.: εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν
+θεὸς πῦρ τεχνικὸν, κ.τ.λ. (the same down to γίνεται) τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ
+διήκει δι’ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου· ὁ θεὸς εἷς κατ’ αὐτοὺς, Ζεὺς μὲν κατὰ τὸ
+ζέον τῆς ὕλης ὀνομαζόμενος, Ἥρα δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καθ’
+ἕκαστον τῆς ὕλης μέρος, δι’ ἧς κεχώρηκε, καλούμενος. The latter passage
+is explained by Diog. 147, who thus continues: Δία μὲν γάρ φασι δι’ ὃν
+τὰ πάντα· Ζῆνα δὲ καλοῦσι παρ’ ὅσον τοῦ ζῇν αἴτιός ἐστιν ἢ διὰ τοῦ ζῇν
+κεχώρηκεν. (This, too, in Stob. Ecl. i. 48.) Ἀθηνᾶν δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰς
+αἰθέρα διάτασιν τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ αὐτοῦ. Ἥραν δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰς ἀέρα. καὶ
+Ἥφαιστον κατὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ τεχνικὸν πῦρ. καὶ Ποσειδῶνα κατὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ
+ὑγρόν. καὶ Δήμητραν κατὰ τὴν εἰς γῆν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας
+προσηγορίας ἐχόμενοί τινος ὁμοιότητος ἀπέδοσαν. Plut. C. Not. 48, 2, p.
+1085: τὸν θεὸν ... σῶμα νοερὸν καὶ νοῦν ἐν ὕλῃ ποιοῦντες. M. Aurel. 5,
+32: τὸν διὰ τῆς οὐσίας διήκοντα λόγον, κ.τ.λ. Porphyr. in Eus. Pr. Ev.
+xv. 16, 1: τὸν δὲ θεὸν ... πῦρ νοερὸν εἰπόντες. Orig. c. Cels. vi. 71:
+κατὰ μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ... καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μέχρι
+ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἐλαχίστων καταβαίνων οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ πνεῦμα
+σωματικόν. The same combination of nature and mind in the conceptions
+of God is found in the hymn of Cleanthes (in Stob. Ecl. i. 30), Zeus
+being described as the ἀρχηγὸς φύσεως, who directs the κοινὸς λόγος ὃς
+διὰ πάντων φοιτᾷ, by means of πῦρ ἀείζωον.
+
+[311] Stob. Ecl. i. 374: Chrysippus teaches εἶναι τὸ ὂν πνεῦμα κινοῦν
+ἑαυτὸ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ, ἢ πνεῦμα ἑαυτὸ κινοῦν πρόσω καὶ ὀπίσω·
+πνεῦμα δὲ εἴληπται διὰ τὸ λέγεσθαι αὐτὸ ἀέρα εἶναι κινούμενον· ἀνάλογον
+δὲ γίγνεσθαι ἔπειτα [? perhaps: αὐτὸ, or: πυρὸς ἢ] αἰθερὸς, ὥστε καὶ
+εἰς κοινὸν λόγον πεσεῖν αὐτά. Diog. vii. 137: ἀνωτάτω μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ
+πῦρ ὃν δὴ αἰθέρα καλεῖσθαι.
+
+[312] Stob. Ecl. i. 538, on the authority of Zeno; Cic. N. D. ii. 15,
+40, on that of Cleanthes. Both state that the difference consists in
+this: Ordinary (ἄτεχνον) fire consumes things; but the πῦρ τεχνικὸν,
+which constitutes φύσις and ψυχὴ, preserves things. Heraclitus, too, in
+making primary fire the basis of things, did not mean flame, but
+warmth, which may be equally well described as atmospheric substance or
+as ψυχή.
+
+[313] Seneca, De Benefic. iv. 7, 2: God may also be called fatum: nam
+cum fatum nihil aliud sit quam series implexa causarum, ille est prima
+omnium causa, ex qua ceteræ pendent. Nat. Qu. ii. 45, 1: Vis illum
+fatum vocare? Non errabis. Hic est, ex quo suspensa sunt omnia, causa
+causarum. The same applies to the name of providence and nature. See p.
+162, 2.
+
+[314] Stob. Ecl. i. 178 (Plut. Plac. i. 28, 5): Ποσειδώνιος [τὴν
+εἱμαρμένην] τρίτην ἀπὸ Διός. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Δία, δεύτερον δὲ
+τὴν φύσιν, τρίτην δὲ τὴν εἱμαρμένην. Conf. Cic. Divin. i. 55, 125,
+where prophecy is deduced, according to Posidonius, (1) a Deo, (2) a
+fato, (3) a natura. Plut. C. Not. 36, 5, p. 1077: λέγει γοῦν Χρύσιππος,
+ἐοικέναι τῷ μὲν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν κόσμον (instead of which Heine,
+Stoic. De Fat. Doct. p. 25, apparently without reason, conjectures: καὶ
+τῷ μὲν σώματι τὸν κόσμον), τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ τὴν πρόνοιαν· ὅταν οὖν ἐκπύρωσις
+γένηται μόνον ἄφθαρτον ὄντα τὸν Δία τῶν θεῶν ἀναχωρεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν
+πρόνοιαν, εἶτα ὁμοῦ γενομένους ἐπὶ μιᾶς τῆς τοῦ αἰθέρος οὐσίας
+διατελεῖν ἀμφοτέρους. To this maxim of Chrysippus, reference is made by
+Philo, Incorrup. M. 951, B, where, too, πρόνοια is equivalent to ψυχὴ
+τοῦ κόσμου.
+
+[315] According to Chrysippus. A different view is taken by Posidonius.
+With him Zeus stands for the original force, φύσις for its first, and
+εἱμαρμένη for its second production.
+
+[316] Plut. l.c. Sen. Ep. 9, 16: [Jupiter] resoluto mundo et Diis in
+unum confusis, paullisper cessante natura, acquiescit sibi,
+cogitationibus suis traditus.
+
+[317] Compare, besides what has been already quoted, Cic. Acad. i. 11,
+39: (Zeno) statuebat ignem esse ipsam naturam. Diog. vii. 156: δοκεῖ δὲ
+αὐτοῖς τὴν μὲν φύσιν εἶναι πῦρ τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον εἰς γένεσιν, ὅπερ
+ἐστὶ πνεῦμα πυροειδὲς καὶ τεχνοειδές. Stob. Ecl. i. 180: Χρύσιππος
+δύναμιν πνευματικὴν τὴν τοῦ οὐσίαν τῆς εἱμαρμένης τάξει τοῦ παντὸς
+διοικητικήν; or, according to another definition: εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ
+κόσμου λόγος, ἢ λόγος, τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων, κ.τ.λ.
+Instead of λόγος, he also used ἀλήθεια, φύσις, αἰτία, ἀνάγκη, &c.
+
+[318] See p. 143.
+
+[319] Cic. N. D. ii. 11, 30: Atque etiam mundi ille fervor purior,
+perlucidior mobiliorque multo ob easque causas aptior ad sensus
+commovendos quam hic noster calor, quo hæc quæ nota nobis sunt,
+retinentur et vigent. Absurdum igitur est dicere, cum homines bestiæque
+hoc calore teneantur et propterea moveantur ac sentiant, mundum esse
+sine sensu, qui integro et puro et libero eodemque acerrimo et
+mobilissimo ardore teneatur. Conf. Ar. Didymus, in the passage quoted,
+p. 146, 4, p. 105, 127.
+
+[320] Consol. ad Helviam, 8, 3: Id actum est, mihi crede, ab illo,
+quisquis formator universi fuit, sive ille Deus est potens omnium, sive
+incorporalis ratio, ingentium operum artifex, sive divinus spiritus per
+omnia maxima ac minima æquali intentione [= τόνος] diffusus, sive fatum
+et immutabilis causarum inter se cohærentium series. Conf. p. 153, 1.
+
+[321] Cic. N. D. i. 14: Zeno calls natural law divine, but he also
+calls the Ether and the all-pervading Reason deity. (We shall come back
+presently to what he says as to the divinity of the stars.) Cleanthes
+gives the name of deity to the world, reason, the soul of the world,
+and ether; Chrysippus to reason, to the soul of the world, to ruling
+reason, to communis natura, destiny, fire, ether, the universe, and
+eternal law.
+
+[322] Krische, Forsch. i. 365.
+
+[323] See pp. 153, 2; 153, 4.
+
+[324] Chrysippus. See p. 152, note 1.
+
+[325] Aristocles. See p. 147, note 3.
+
+[326] Mnesarchus, in Stob. i. 60. See p. 148, 1.
+
+[327] Orig. c. Cels. iii. 75, p. 497, A: Στωϊκῶν θεὸν φθαρτὸν
+εἰσαγόντων καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ λεγόντων σῶμα τρεπτὸν διόλου καὶ
+ἀλλοιωτὸν καὶ μεταβλητὸν καί ποτε πάντα φθειρόντων καὶ μόνον τὸν θεὸν
+καταλιπόντων. Ibid. iv. 14: ὁ τῶν Στωϊκῶν θεὸς ὅτε σῶμα τυγχάνων ὅτε
+μὲν ἡγεμονικὸν ἔχει τὴν ὅλην οὐσίαν ὅταν ἡ ἐκπύρωσις ᾖ· ὅτε δὲ ἐπὶ
+μέρους γίνεται αὐτῆς ὅταν ᾖ διακόσμησις.
+
+[328] Besides the quotations already given from Chrysippus on p. 153,
+2, and Cleanthes on p. 155, 1, compare Phædr. Nat. De. (Philodem. περὶ
+εὐσεβείας), Col. 5: Διογένης δ’ ὁ Βαβυλώνιος ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς τὸν
+κόσμον γράφει τῷ Διῒ τὸν αὐτὸν ὑπάρχειν, ἢ περιέχειν τὸν Δία καθάπερ
+ἄνθρωπον ψυχήν. Cic. N. De. ii. 17, 45: Nothing corresponds better to
+the idea of God, quam ut primum hunc mundum, quo nihil fieri
+excellentius potest, animantem esse et Deum judicem. Ibid. 13, 34:
+Perfect reason Deo tribuenda, id est mundo. Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 45, 3;
+Vis illum vocare mundum? Non falleris. Ipse enim est hoc quod vides
+totum, suis partibus inditus et se sustinens et sua. Ibid. Prolog. 13:
+Quid est Deus? Mens universi. Quid est Deus? Quod vides totum et quod
+non vides totum. Sic demum magnitudo sua illi redditur, qua nihil majus
+excogitari potest, si solus est omnia, opus suum et extra et intra
+tenet. Diog. vii. 148: οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μέν φησι τὸν ὅλον κόσμον
+καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν. Ar. Didym. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 1 and 3: ὅλον δὲ
+τὸν κόσμον σὺν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσι προσαγορεύουσι θεόν.... διὸ δὴ καὶ
+Ζεὺς λέγεται ὁ κόσμος. Orig. c. Cels. v. 7: σαφῶς δὴ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον
+λέγουσιν εἶναι θεὸν Στωϊκοὶ μὲν τὸ πρῶτον. The arguments given, p. 144,
+for the existence of God are based on the supposition that God is the
+same as the World. The existence of God is proved by showing the
+reasonableness of the world. Aratus gives a poet’s description of the
+Stoic pantheism at the beginning of the Phænomena: Zeus is the being of
+whom streets and markets, sea and land, are full, whose offspring is
+man, and who, out of regard for man, has appointed signs in the heavens
+to regulate the year. The same idea is contained in the well-known
+lines of Virgil, Georg. iv. 220; Æn. vi. 724. The round figure of the
+Stoic deity, Sen. Ep. 113, 22; De M. Claud. 8, 1, has also reference to
+the world as God. Conf. Cic. N. D. i. 17, 46.
+
+[329] Stob. Ecl. i. 444: κόσμον δ’ εἶναι φησιν ὁ Χρύσιππος σύστημα ἐξ
+οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεων· ἢ τὸ ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων
+σύστημα καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἕνεκα τούτων γεγονότων. λέγεται δ’ ἑτέρως κόσμος ὁ
+θεὸς, καθ’ ὃν ἡ διακόσμησις γίνεται καὶ τελειοῦται. Diog. vii. 137:
+λέγουσι δὲ κόσμον τριχῶς· αὐτόν τε τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἁπάσης οὐσίας
+ἰδίως ποιὸν, ὃς δὴ ἄφθαρτός ἐστι καὶ ἀγέννητος δημιουργὸς ὢν τῆς
+διακοσμήσεως κατὰ χρόνων τινὰς περιόδους ἀναλίσκων εἰς ἑαυτὸν τὴν
+ἅπασαν οὐσίαν καὶ πάλιν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ γεννῶν. καὶ αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν διακόσμησιν
+τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον εἶναι λέγουσι καὶ τρίτον τὸ συνεστηκὸς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν.
+καὶ ἔστι κόσμος ἢ (according to the first meaning of the word) ὁ ἰδίως
+ποιὸς τῆς τῶν ὅλων οὐσίας, (universal substance in its definite
+quality) ἢ (second meaning) ὥς φησι Ποσειδώνιος ... σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ
+καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεων, ἢ (third meaning) σύστημα ἐκ θεῶν
+καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἕνεκα τούτων γεγονότων. Ar. Didym. in Eus. Pr. Ev.
+xv. 15, 1: κόσμος is the name for τὸ ἐκ πάσης τῆς οὐσίας ποιὸν, and for
+τὸ κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν τὴν τοιαύτην καὶ διάταξιν ἔχον. In the former
+sense, the world is eternal, and the same as God; in the latter,
+created, and subject to change. Compare also the quotations from the
+mathematician Diodorus, in Ach. Tat. Isag. c. 6. p. 129, b.
+
+[330] See p. 148. The two ideas blend. Thus Seneca, Nat. Qu. Prol. 13,
+says God must be the Reason of the world and must also be the universe
+itself; and he continues: Quid ergo interest, inter naturam Dei et
+nostram? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla pars extra animum
+est. Totus est ratio, &c.
+
+[331] The connection of the two, like the connection between soul and
+body, and the argument quoted by Tertullian from Zeno on p. 148, 1, is
+κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων. See p. 135.
+
+[332] Stob. Ecl. i. 60: Βόηθος τὸν αἰθέρα θεὸν ἀπεφήνατο.
+
+[333] Diog. 143: Βόηθος δέ φησιν οὐκ εἶναι ζῷον τὸν κόσμον. The words
+of Philo, Incorrupt. M. 953, C—ψυχὴ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ τοὺς
+ἀντιδοξοῦντας ὁ θεὸς—imply the same, but these words evidently are not
+taken from Boëthus.
+
+[334] Diog. 148: Βόηθος δὲ ἐν τῇ περὶ φύσεως οὐσίαν θεοῦ τὴν τῶν
+ἀπλανῶν σφαῖραν· which must be understood in the same sense as the
+corresponding statements of other Stoics: the ἡγεμονικὸν of the world
+resides in the purest part of the ether. Yet, inasmuch as the world is
+no living being, nor is deity the soul of the world, it must, according
+to the view of Boëthus, act upon it from without. This is expressly
+stated in Philo, Incorrupt. M. 953, B, God is described as the
+charioteer guiding the world, and παριστάμενος the stars and elements.
+But this passage, beginning at καὶ μήποτ’ εἰκότως, is evidently Philo’s
+own expansion of what he has just quoted from Boëthus.
+
+[335] Diog. vii. 136: κατ’ ἀρχὰς μὲν οὖν καθ’ αὑτὸν ὄντα [τὸν θεὸν]
+τρέπειν τὴν πᾶσαν οὐσίαν δι’ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ· καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ γονῇ τὸ
+σπέρμα περιέχεται, οὕτω καὶ τοῦτον σπερματικὸν λόγον ὄντα τοῦ κόσμου
+τοιοῦδε ὑπολιπέσθαι ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ ἐνεργὸν αὐτῷ ποιοῦντα τὴν ὕλην πρὸς τὴν
+τῶν ἑξῆς γένεσιν, κ.τ.λ. Seneca, Nat. Quæst. iii. 13, 1: Fire will
+consume the world: hunc evanidum considere, et nihil relinqui aliud in
+rerum natura, igne restincto, quam humorem. In hoc futuri mundi spem
+latere. Stob. Ecl. i. 372 and 414, 5. See pp. 161, 2; 164, 2.
+
+[336] Stob. i. 370: Ζήνωνα δὲ οὕτως ἀποφαίνεσθαι διαρρήδην· τοιαύτην
+δεήσει εἶναι ἐν περιόδῳ τὴν τοῦ ὅλου διακόσμησιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. ὅταν ἐκ
+πυρὸς τροπὴ εἰς ὕδωρ δι’ ἀέρος γένηται τὸ μέν τι ὑφίστασθαι καὶ γῆν
+συνίστασθαι, ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ δὲ τὸ μὲν διαμένειν ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ
+ἀτμιζομένου ἀέρα γίνεσθαι, ἐκ τινος δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος πῦρ ἐξάπτειν. Diog.
+vii. 142: γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι’ ἀέρος
+εἰς ὑγρότητα, εἶτα τὸ παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ τὸ δὲ
+λεπτομερὲς ἐξαερωθῇ καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπιπλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ; εἶτα
+κατὰ μίξιν ἐκ τούτων φυτά τε καὶ ζῷα καὶ ἄλλα γένη. Chrys. in Plut. St.
+Rep. 41, 3, p. 1053: ἡ δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη· δι’ ἀέρος εἰς
+ὕδωρ τρέπεται· κἀκ τούτου γῆς ὑφισταμένης ἀὴρ ἐνθυμιᾶται· λεπτυνομένου
+δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ. The same writer observes, in the
+Scholia on Hesiod’s Theogony, v. 459, ὅτι καθύγρων ὄντων τῶν ὅλων καὶ
+ὄμβρων καταφερομένων πολλῶν τὴν ἔκκρισιν τούτων Κρόνον ὠνομάσθαι. Conf.
+Clemens, Strom. v. 599, C, and Stob. i. 312.
+
+[337] Stob. Ecl. i. 442, also affirms that the creation of the universe
+begins with earth.
+
+[338] Stob. l.c.: Κλεάνθης δὲ οὕτω πώς φησιν· ἐκφλογισθέντος τοῦ παντὸς
+συνίζειν τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ πρῶτον, εἶτα τὰ ἐχόμενα ἀποσβέννυσθαι δι’ ὅλου.
+τοῦ δὲ παντὸς ἐξυγρανθέντος, τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ πυρὸς, ἀντιτυπήσαντος αὐτῷ
+τοῦ μέσου, τρέπεσθαι πάλιν εἰς τοὐναντίον (the probable meaning is,
+that the last remains of the original fire begin a motion in the
+opposite direction) εἶθ’ οὕτω τρεπόμενον ἄνω φησὶν αὔξεσθαι· καὶ
+ἄρχεσθαι διακοσμεῖν τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τοιαύτην περίοδον ἀεὶ καὶ διακόσμησιν
+ποιουμένου τοῦ ἐν τῇ τῶν ὅλων οὐσίᾳ τόνου (for this favourite
+expression of Cleanthes, see p. 127, 5; 128, 2) μὴ παύεσθαι
+[διακοσμούμενον τὸ ὅλον]. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἑνός τινος τὰ μέρη πάντα φύεται ἐκ
+σπερμάτων ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ ὅλου τὰ μέρη, ὧν καὶ
+τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ὄντα τυγχάνει, ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις φύεται. καὶ
+ὥσπερ τινὲς λόγοι τῶν μερῶν εἰς σπέρμα συνιόντες μίγνυνται καὶ αὖθις
+διακρίνονται γενομένων τῶν μερῶν, οὕτως ἐξ ἑνός τε πάντα γίγνεσθαι καὶ
+ἐκ πάντων εἰς ἓν συγκρίνεσθαι, (conf. Heraclit. in vol. i. 467, 1), ὁδῷ
+καὶ συμφώνως διεξιούσης τῆς περιόδου. A few further details are
+supplied by Macrob. Sat. i. 17. The myth respecting the birth of Apollo
+and Artemis is referred to the formation of the sun and moon. Namque
+post chaos, ubi primum cœpit confusa deformitas in rerum formas et
+elementa nitescere, terræque adhuc humida substantia in molli atque
+instabili sede nutaret: convalescente paullatim æthereo calore atque
+inde seminibus in eam igneis defluentibus (the connection of Zeus,
+i.e., of Ether, with Leto, the Earth) hæc sidera edita esse creduntur;
+et solem maxima caloris vi in superna raptum; lunam vero humidiore et
+velut femineo sexu naturali quodam pressam tepore inferiora tenuisse,
+tanquam ille magis substantia patris constet, hæc matris. The statement
+that besides other things plants and animals had their origin in the
+intermingling of elements (Stob. and Diog.) must be understood in the
+sense of generatio æquivoca. Lactant. Inst. vii. 4, says the Stoics
+make men grow like sponges out of the earth, and Sext. Math. ix. 28
+says the Stoics speak of the earth-born men of prehistoric ages.
+
+[339] There must always be some remainder of heat or fire, as Cleanthes
+and Chrysippus avowed, or else there would be no active life-power from
+which a new creation could emanate. Philo, Incorrupt. M. 964, C,
+observes that, if the world were entirely consumed by fire at the
+ἐκπύρωσις, the fire itself would be extinguished, and no new world
+would be possible. διὸ καί τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ... ἔφασαν, ὅτι μετὰ
+τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν, ἐπειδὰν ὁ νέος κόσμος μέλλῃ δημιουργεῖσθαι, σύμπαν μὲν
+τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται, ποσὴ δέ τις αὐτοῦ μοῖρα ὑπολείπεται.
+
+[340] Chrys. in Plut. l.c. 41, 6: διόλου μὲν γὰρ ὢν ὁ κόσμος πυρώδης
+εὐθὺς καὶ ψυχή ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικόν. ὅτε δὲ μεταβαλὼν εἰς τὸ
+ὑγρὸν καὶ τὴν ἐναπολειφθεῖσαν ψυχὴν τρόπον τινὰ εἰς σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν
+μετέβαλεν ὥστε συνεστάναι ἐκ τούτων, ἄλλον τινὰ ἔσχε λόγον.
+
+[341] Nemes. Nat. Hom. C. 2, p. 72: λέγουσι δὲ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, τῶν
+στοιχείων τὰ μὲν εἶναι δραστικὰ τὰ δὲ παθητικά· δραστικὰ μὲν ἀέρα καὶ
+πῦρ, παθητικὰ δὲ γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ. Plut. Com. Not. 49, 2. See above p. 127,
+5. From this passage a further insight is obtained into two points
+connected with the Stoic philosophy, which have been already discussed.
+It can no longer appear strange that the active power, or deity (and
+likewise the human soul), should at one time be called Fire, at another
+Air-Current, for both represent equally the acting force; and the
+statement that properties are atmospheric currents—as, indeed, the
+whole distinction of subject-matter and property—follows from this view
+of things.
+
+[342] The Stoics, according to Diog. 141, where, however, there is
+apparently a lacuna in the text, prove that the world (διακόσμησις, not
+κόσμος, in the absolute sense, see p. 158, 1) will come to an end,
+partly because it has come into being, and partly by two not very
+logical inferences: οὗ τὰ [vulgo οὗ τε τὰ, Cobet: οὗ τά τε] μέρη φθαρτά
+ἐστι, καὶ τὸ ὅλον· τὰ δὲ μέρα τοῦ κόσμου φθαρτὰ, εἰς ἄλληλα γὰρ
+μεταβάλλει· φθαρτὸς ἄρα ὁ κόσμος· and εἴ τι ἐπιδεκτικόν ἐστι τῆς ἐπὶ
+χεῖρον μεταβολῆς, φθαρτόν ἐστι· καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἄρα· ἐξαυχμοῦται γὰρ καὶ
+ἐξυδατοῦται. Conf. Alex. Meteora, 90. In Plut. Sto. Rep. 44, 2, p.
+1054, Chrysippus asserts that the οὐσία is immortal, but to κόσμος
+belongs a ὥσπερ ἀφθαρσία.
+
+[343] Plut. Sto. Rep. 39, 2, p. 1052: [Χρύσιππος] ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ
+προνοίας τὸν Δία, φησὶν, αὔξεσθαι μέχρις ἂν εἰς αὑτὸν ἅπαντα
+καταναλώσῃ. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ θάνατος μέν ἐστι ψυχῆς χωρισμὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος,
+ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴ οὐ χωρίζεται μὲν, αὔξεται δὲ συνεχῶς μέχρις ἂν εἰς
+αὑτὴν ἐξαναλώσῃ τὴν ὕλην, οὐ ῥητέον ἀποθνήσκειν τὸν κόσμον. Stob. Ecl.
+i. 414 (according to Numenius: see Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 18, 1): Ζήνωνι καὶ
+Κλεάνθει καὶ Χρυσίππῳ ἀρέσκει τὴν οὐσίαν μεταβάλλειν οἷον εἰς σπέρμα τὸ
+πῦρ (Philo, Incorrupt. M. 956, B, expresses himself against this
+description) καὶ πάλιν ἐκ τούτου τοιαύτην ἀποτελεῖσθαι τὴν διακόσμησιν
+οἷα πρότερον ἦν. Seneca, Consol. ad Marciam, gives a graphic
+description of the end of the world, which recalls the language of the
+Revelation. Compare, on the subject of ἐκπύρωσις, Diog. vii. 142, 137
+(see above p. 158, 1); Ar. Didym. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 15, 1; Plut. Com.
+Not. 36 (see p. 153, 2); Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 25, p. 53; Cic. Acad.
+ii. 37, 119; N. D. ii. 46, 118; Sen. Consol. ad Polyb. i. 2; Alex.
+Aphr. in Meteor. 90, a. In the last-named passage, it is urged by the
+Stoics, in support of their view, that even now large tracts of water
+are dried up or else take the place of dry land. Simpl. Phys. iii. b;
+De Cœlo; Schol. in Arist. 487, b, 35 and 489, a, 13; Justin. Apol. i.
+20; ii. 7; Orig. c. Cels. iii. 75, 497, a; vi. 71. Since at the
+ἐκπύρωσις everything is resolved into deity, Plut. C. Not. 17, 3, p.
+1067, says: ὅταν ἐκπυρώσωσι τὸν κόσμον οὗτοι, κακὸν μὲν οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν
+ἀπολείπεται, τὸ δ’ ὅλον φρόνιμόν ἐστι τηνικαῦτα καὶ σοφόν.
+
+[344] Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 18, 1: ἀρέσκει δὲ τοῖς πρεσβυτάτοις
+τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως ταύτης, ἐξαεροῦσθαι πάντα κατὰ περιόδους τινὰς τὰς
+μεγίστας, εἰς πῦρ αἰθερῶδες ἀναλυομένων πάντων. According to Philo,
+Incorrupt. M. 954, E, Cleanthes called this fire φλόξ, Chrysippus αὐγή.
+Respecting ἄνθραξ, φλόξ, αὐγή, see ibid. 953, E. The observations on p.
+151 respecting the identity of πῦρ, πνεῦμα, αἰθὴρ apply here.
+
+[345] This is, at least, the import of the general principle (assigned
+to Chrysippus by Stob. Ecl. i. 314) expressed by Heraclitus, that, in
+the resolution of earth and water into fire, the same steps intervene,
+in a retrograde order, as in their generation.
+
+[346] See p. 147, 1.
+
+[347] Plut. Com. Not. 31, 10: ἐπαγωνιζόμενος ὁ Κλεάνθης τῇ ἐκπυρώσει
+λέγει τὴν σελήνην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα τὸν ἥλιον ἐξομοιῶσαι [leg. -ειν]
+πάντα ἑαυτῷ καὶ μεταβαλεῖν εἰς ἑαυτόν.
+
+[348] It is expressly asserted that everything, without exception, is
+liable to this destiny; neither the soul nor the Gods are exempt. Conf.
+Sen. Cons. ad Marc. 26, 7: Nos quoque felices animæ et æterna sortitæ
+(the words are put in the mouth of a dead man) cum Deo visum sit iterum
+ista moliri, labentibus cunctis, et ipsæ parva ruinæ ingentis accessio,
+in antiqua elementa vertemur. Chrysippus says of the Gods, in Plut.
+Sto. Rep. 38, 5: Some of the Gods have come into being and are
+perishable, others are eternal: Helios and Selene, and other similar
+deities, have come into being; Zeus is eternal. In Philo, Incorrupt. M.
+950, A, Orig. c. Cels. iv. 68, Plut. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420, Com. Not.
+31, 5, p. 1075, it is objected that, at the general conflagration, the
+Gods will melt away, as though they were made of wax or tin. According
+to Philodem. περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς, Tab. i. 1, Vol. Hercul. vi. 1, even
+Zeno restricted the happy life of the Gods to certain lengthy periods
+of time.
+
+[349] Arius, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 19: ἐπὶ τοσοῦτο δὲ προελθὼν ὁ κοινὸς
+λόγος καὶ κοινὴ φύσις μείζων καὶ πλείων γενομένη τέλος ἀναξηράνασα
+πάντα καὶ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναλαβοῦσα ἐν τῇ πάσῃ οὐσίᾳ γίνεται (it occupies
+the room of the whole substance) ἐπανελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν πρῶτον ῥηθέντα
+λόγον καὶ εἰς ἀνάστασιν [? κατάστασιν] ἐκείνην τὴν ποιοῦσαν ἐνιαυτὸν
+τὸν μέγιστον, καθ’ ὃν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς μόνης εἰς αὐτὴν πάλιν γίνεται ἡ
+ἀποκατάστασις (the same in Philop. Gen. et Corr. B. ii. Schl. p. 70),
+ἐπανελθοῦσα δὲ διὰ τάξιν ἀφ’ οἵας διακοσμεῖν ὡσαύτως ἤρξατο κατὰ λόγον
+πάλιν τὴν αὐτὴν διεξαγωγὴν ποιεῖται. See p. 161. According to Nemes.
+Nat. Hom. c, 38, p. 147, conf. Censorin. Di. Nat. 18, 11, the ἐκπύρωσις
+takes place when all the planets have got back to the identical places
+which they occupied at the beginning of the world, or, in other words,
+when a periodic year is complete. The length of a periodic year was
+estimated by Diogenes (Plut. Pl. i. 32, 2; Stob. Ecl. i. 264) at 365
+periods, or 365 × 18,000 ordinary years. Plut. De Ei ap. D. 9, g, E, p.
+389 mentions the opinion, ὅπερ τρία πρὸς ἓν, τοῦτο τὴν διακόσμησιν
+χρόνῳ πρὸς τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν εἶναι. Inasmuch as it had been previously said
+that the duration of κόρος (i.e. ἐκπύρωσις) was longer, and that
+therefore Apollo, who represents the state of perfect unity, was
+honoured nine months with the pæan, whilst Dionysus, torn to pieces by
+the Titans, the emblem of the present world of contraries, was only
+honoured for three with the dithyramb, some mistake seems to have crept
+in. Probably we ought either to read ὅπερ πρὸς τρία ἕν, or to transpose
+the passage from διακόσμησιν to ἐκπύρωσιν.
+
+[350] The belief in changing cycles is a common one in the older Greek
+philosophy. In particular, the Stoics found it in Heraclitus. The
+belief, however, that each new world exactly represents the preceding
+one is first met with among the Pythagoreans, and is closely connected
+with the theory of the migration of souls and a periodic year. Eudemus,
+in a passage which has generally been lost sight of in describing
+Pythagorean teaching, had taught (in Simpl. Phys. 173): εἰ δέ τις
+πιστεύσειε τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις, ὡς πάλιν τὰ αὐτὰ ἀριθμῷ κἀγὼ μυθολογήσω
+τὸ ῥαβδίον ἔχων ὑμῖν καθημένοις οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὁμοίως ἕξει, καὶ
+τὸν χρόνον εὔλογόν ἐστι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι (in that case the time must be
+the same as the present time). The Stoics appear to have borrowed this
+view from the Pythagoreans (unless with other Orphic-Pythagorean views
+it was known to Heraclitus), and it commended itself to them as being
+in harmony with their theory of necessity. Hence they taught: μετὰ τὴν
+ἐκπύρωσιν πάλιν πάντα ταὐτὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ γενέσθαι κατ’ ἀριθμὸν, ὡς καὶ
+τὸν ἰδίως ποιὸν πάλιν τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ πρόσθεν εἶναί τε καὶ γίνεσθαι ἐκείνῳ
+τῷ κόσμῳ (Alex. Anal. Pr. 58, b). τούτου δὲ οὕτως ἔχοντος, δῆλον, ὡς
+οὐδὲν ἀδύνατον, καὶ ἡμᾶς μετὰ τὸ τελευτῆσαι πάλιν περιόδων τινῶν
+εἰλημμένων χρόνον εἰς ὃν νῦν ἐσμεν καταστήσεσθαι σχῆμα (Chrysippus,
+περὶ Προνοίας, in Lactant. Inst. vii. 23. Conf. Seneca, Ep. 36, 10:
+Veniet iterum qui nos in lucem reponat dies). This applies to every
+fact and to every occurrence in the new world, at the παλιγγενεσία or
+ἀποκατάστασις (as the return of a former age is called): thus there
+will be another Socrates, who will marry another Xanthippe, and be
+accused by another Anytus and Meletus. Hence M. Aurel. vii. 19, xi. 1,
+deduces his adage, that nothing new happens under the sun. Simpl. Phys.
+207, b; Philop. Gen. et Corr. B. ii. Schl. p. 70; Tatian. c. Græc. c,
+3, 245, d; Clemens, Strom. v. 549, D; Orig. c. Cels. iv. 68; v. 20 and
+23; Nemes. l.c.; Plut. Def. Or. 29, p. 425. Amongst other things, the
+Stoics raised the question, Whether the Socrates who would appear in
+the future world would be numerically identical (εἷς ἀριθμῷ) with the
+present Socrates or not? (Simpl. l.c.)—the answer being, that they
+could not be numerically identical, since this would involve
+uninterrupted existence, but that they would be alike without a
+difference (ἀπαράλλακτοι). Others, however, chiefly among the younger
+Stoics, appear to have held that there might be noticeable differences
+between the two. (Orig. v. 20, 592, c.) This remark appears to have
+given rise to the false notion (Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. i. 21; Epiphan.
+Hær. v. p. 12, b) that the Stoics believed in the transmigration of
+souls. The remark made by Nemes., that the Gods know the whole course
+of the present world, from having survived the end of the former one,
+can only apply to one highest God, who, however, does not require such
+empirical knowledge. The other deities will not have survived the
+general conflagration.
+
+[351] Ar. Didym. l.c. continues: τῶν τοιούτων περιόδων ἐξ ἀϊδίου
+γινομένων ἀκαταπαύστως. οὔτε γὰρ τῆς ἀρχῆς αἰτίαν καὶ [del.] πᾶσιν οἷόν
+τε γινέσθαι, οὔτε τοῦ διοικοῦντος αὐτά. οὐσίαν τε γὰρ τοῖς γινομένοις
+ὑφεστάναι δεῖ πεφυκυῖαν ἀναδέχεσθαι τὰς μεταβολὰς πάσας καὶ τὸ
+δημιουργῆσον ἐξ αὐτῆς, κ.τ.λ. Conf. Philop.: ἀπορήσειε δ’ ἄν τις, ὥς
+φησιν Ἀλέξανδρος, πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλη. εἰ γὰρ ἡ ὕλη ἡ αὐτὴ ἀεὶ διαμένει,
+ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν αἴτιον τὸ αὐτὸ ἀεὶ, διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν οὐχὶ κατὰ
+περίοδόν τινα πλείονος χρόνου ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ὕλης τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν κατ’
+ἀριθμὸν ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔσται; ὅπερ τινές φασι κατὰ τὴν παλιγγενέσιαν καὶ
+τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν συμβαίνειν, ἐν ᾧ πάντων τῶν αὐτῶν ἀποκατάστασις
+γίνεται. See M. Aurel. v. 32.
+
+[352] According to Philo (Incorrupt. M. 947, C), besides Posidonius and
+Panætius, his instructor (Diog. vii. 142; Stob. Ecl. i. 414), Boëthus
+asserted, in opposition to the ordinary Stoic teaching, the eternity of
+the world. Philo adds that this was also the view of Diogenes of
+Seleucia in his later years. Moreover, Zeno of Tarsus, on the authority
+of Numenius (in Euseb. Præp. Ev. xv. 19, 2), considered that the
+destruction of the world by fire could not be proved (φασὶν ἐπισχεῖν
+περὶ τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως τῶν ὅλων). But these statements are elsewhere
+contradicted. Diogenes mentions Posidonius as one who held the
+destruction of the world by fire. The testimony of Diogenes is
+confirmed by Plut. Pl. Phil. ii. 9, 3 (Stob. Ecl. i. 380; Eus. Pr. Ev.
+xv. 40. See Achill. Tatian, Isag. 131, C), who says that Posidonius
+only allowed so much empty space outside the world as was necessary for
+the world to be dissolved in at the ἐκπύρωσις. The difference between
+his view and the older Stoical view which Bake (Posidon. Rel. 58)
+deduces from Stob. i. 432, is purely imaginary. Antipater, according to
+Diogenes, also believed in a future conflagration. Little importance
+can be attached to the statement in Cic. N. D. ii. 46, 118, respecting
+Panætius, addubitare dicebant; whereas the words of Stob. are:
+πιθανωτέραν νομίζει τὴν ἀϊδιότητα τοῦ κόσμου; and those of Diog.:
+ἄφθαρτον ἀπεφήνατο τὸν κόσμον.
+
+Boëthus emphatically denied the destruction of the world, his chief
+reasons (in Philo, l.c. 952, C) being the following:—(1) If the world
+were destroyed, it would be a destruction without a cause, for there is
+no cause, either within or without, which could produce such an effect.
+(2) Of the three modes of destruction, those κατὰ διαίρεσιν, κατὰ
+ἀναίρεσιν τῆς ἐπεχούσης ποιότητος (as in the crushing of a statue),
+κατὰ σύγχυσιν (as in chemical resolution), not one can apply to the
+world. (3) If the world ceased to exist, the action of God on the
+world, in fact, His activity would altogether cease. (4) If everything
+were consumed by fire, the fire must go out for want of fuel. With
+that, the possibility of a new world is at an end.
+
+The resolution of the world into indefinite vacuum, attributed by Plut.
+Plac. ii. 9, 2, to the Stoics in general, is no doubt the same as the
+condensation and expansion of matter. Ritter, iii. 599 and 703,
+supposes it to be a misapprehension of the real Stoic teaching. How
+Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 391, and Schleiermacher, Gesch. d. Philos.
+p. 129, in view of the passages quoted, can absolutely deny that the
+Stoics held a periodic destruction of the world, is hard to comprehend.
+
+[353] The flood and its causes are fully discussed by Sen. Nat. Qu.
+iii. 27–30. Rain, inroads of the sea, earthquakes, are all supposed to
+contribute. The chief thing, however, is, that such a destruction has
+been ordained in the course of the world. It comes cum fatalis dies
+venerit, cum adfuerit illa necessitas temporum (27, 1), cum Deo visum
+ordiri meliora, vetera finiri (28, 7); it has been fore-ordained from
+the beginning (29, 2; 30, 1), and is due, not only to the pressure of
+the existing waters, but also to their increase, and to a changing of
+earth into water (29, 4). The object of this flood is to purge away the
+sins of mankind, ut de integro totæ rudes innoxiæque generentur [res
+humanæ] nec supersit in deteriora præceptor (29, 5); peracto judicio
+generis humani exstructisque pariter feris ... antiquus ordo
+revocabitur. Omne ex integro animal generabitur dabiturque terris, homo
+inscius scelerum: but this state of innocence will not last long.
+Seneca (29, 1) appeals to Berosus, according to whom the destruction of
+the world by fire will take place when all the planets are in the sign
+of the Crab, its destruction by water when they are in the sign of the
+Capricorn. Since these signs correspond with the summer and winter
+turns of the sun, the language of Seneca agrees with that of Censorin.
+Di. Nat. 18, 11, evidently quoted from Varro, conf. Jahn, p. viii:
+Cujus anni hiems summa est cataclysmus ... æstas autem ecpyrosis. Conf.
+Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c, 25, p. 53: When one element gains the
+supremacy over the others, the course of the world will come to an end,
+by ἐκπύρωσις, if the element is fire; εἰ δ’ ἄθρουν ὕδωρ ἐκραγείη,
+κατακλυσμῷ τὸν κόσμον ἀπολεῖσθαι.
+
+[354] For the former view, the language of Heraclitus and Censorinus
+tells, for the latter that of Seneca.
+
+[355] Diog. vii. 149: καθ’ εἱμαρμένην δέ φασι τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι
+Χρύσιππος, κ.τ.λ. ἔστι δ’ εἱμαρμένη αἰτία τῶν ὄντων εἰρομένη ἢ λόγος
+καθ’ ὃν ὁ κόσμος διεξάγεται. A. Gell. vi. 2, 3: (Chrysippus) in libro
+περὶ προνοίας quarto εἱμαρμένην esse dicit φυσικήν τινα σύνταξιν τῶν
+ὅλων ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῶν ἑτέρων τοῖς ἑτέροις ἐπακολουθούντων καὶ μετὰ πολὺ
+μὲν οὖν ἀπαραβάτου οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης συμπλοκῆς. Cic. Divin. i. 55, 125
+(according to Posidonius): Fatum, or εἱμαρμένη, was called ordinem
+seriemque causarum, cum causa causæ nexa rem ex se gignat. Sen. Nat.
+Qu. ii. 36: Quid enim intelligis fatum? existimo necessitatem rerum
+omnium actionumque, quam nulla vis rumpat. De Prov. 5, 8: Irrevocabilis
+humana pariter ac divina cursus vehit. Ille ipse omnium conditor et
+rector scripsit quidem fata, sed sequitur. Semper paret, semper jussit.
+
+[356] Conf. p. 152 and Stob. Ecl. i. 180 (Plut. Plac. i. 28), Χρύσιππος
+δύναμιν πνευματικὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς εἱμαρμένης τάξει τοῦ παντὸς
+διοικητικήν.
+
+[357] Hence Chrysippus’ definition (Plut. and Stob.): εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ
+τοῦ κόσμου λόγος ἢ λόγος (Plut. νόμος) τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ
+διοικουμένων· ἢ λόγος καθ’ ὃν τὰ μὲν γεγονότα γέγονε, τὰ δὲ γιγνόμενα
+γίγνεται, τὰ δὲ γενησόμενα γενήσεται. Instead of λόγος, Chrysippus also
+used ἀλήθεια, αἰτία, φύσις, ἀνάγκη. Theodoret. Cur. Gr. Aff. vi. 14, p.
+87: Chrysippus assigns the same meaning to εἱμαρμένον and
+κατηναγκασμένον, explaining εἱμαρμένη to be κίνησις ἀΐδιος συνεχὴς καὶ
+τεταγμένη; Zeno defines it (as Stob. i. 178, also says) as δύναμις
+κινητικὴ τῆς ὕλης; also as φύσις or πρόνοια; his successors as λόγος
+τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων, or as εἱρμὸς αἰτίων. (The same in
+Plut. Plac. i. 28, 4. Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 36, p. 143.) Even τύχη, he
+continues, is explained as a deity (or as Simpl. Phys. 74, b, has it as
+a θεῖον καὶ δαιμόνιον); but this supposes it to be essentially
+identical with εἱμαρμένη. Chrysippus in Plut. Sto. Rep. 34, 8, p. 1050:
+τῆς γὰρ κοινῆς φύσεως εἰς πάντα διατεινούσης, δεήσει πᾶν τὸ ὁπωσοῦν
+γινόμενον ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ καὶ τῶν μορίων ὁτῳοῦν, κατ’ ἐκείνην γενέσθαι καὶ
+τὸν ἐκείνης λόγον, κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς ἀκωλύτως· διὰ τὸ μήτ’ ἔξωθεν εἶναι τὸ
+ἐνστησόμενον τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μήτε τῶν μερῶν μηδὲν ἔχειν ὅπως κινηθήσεται ἢ
+σχήσει ἄλλως [ἢ] κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν. Cleanthes, Hymn. (in Stob. Ecl.
+i. 30) v. 12, 18; M. Aurel. ii. 3. See p. 151, 1.
+
+[358] It has been already demonstrated that all these ideas pass into
+one another.
+
+[359] Plut. Com. Not. 34, 5, p. 1076: εἰ δὲ, ὥς φησι Χρύσιππος, οὐδὲ
+τοὐλάχιστόν ἐστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ τὴν Διὸς βούλησιν,
+κ.τ.λ. Conf. Sto. Rep. 34, 2: οὕτω δὲ τῆς τῶν ὅλων οἰκονομίας
+προαγούσης, ἀναγκαῖον κατὰ ταύτην, ὡς ἄν ποτ’ ἔχωμεν, ἔχειν ἡμᾶς, εἴτε
+παρὰ φύσιν τὴν ἰδίαν νοσοῦντες, εἴτε πεπηρωμένοι, εἴτε γραμματικοὶ
+γεγονότες ἢ μουσικοὶ ... κατὰ τοῦτον δὲ τὸν λόγον τὰ παραπλήσια ἐροῦμεν
+καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἡμῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς κακίας καὶ τὸ ὅλον τῶν τεχνῶν καὶ
+τῶν ἀτεχνιῶν, ὡς ἔφην ... οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλως τῶν κατὰ μέρος
+γενέσθαι, οὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστον, ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν καὶ κατὰ τὸν
+ἐκείνης λόγον. Ibid. 47, 4 and 8. Cleanth. Hymn. v. 15:
+
+    οὐδέ τι γίγνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα, δαῖμον,
+    οὔτε κατ’ αἰθέριον θεῖον πόλον οὔτ’ ἐνὶ πόντῳ,
+    πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέρῃσιν ἀνοίαις.
+
+[360] See the quotations on p. 161, 1; 161, 2; 164, 2; 144, 1; 148;
+145, 2, from Diog. vii. 136; Stob. Ecl. i. 372 and 414; Cic. N. D. ii.
+10, 28; 22, 58; Sext. Math. ix. 101: M. Aurel. iv. 14: ἐναφανισθήσῃ τῷ
+γεννήσαντι, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀναληφθήσῃ εἰς τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τὸν σπερματικὸν
+κατὰ μεταβολήν. Ibid. 21: αἱ ψυχαὶ ... εἰς τὸν τῶν ὅλων σπερματικὸν
+λόγον ἀναλαμβανόμεναι.
+
+[361] See on p. 151, 1, the definition of deity from Stob.; Plut.
+Athenag.; M. Aurel. ix. 1: ὥρμησεν [ἡ φύσις] ἐπὶ τήνδε τὴν διακόσμησιν
+συλλαβοῦσά τινας λόγους τῶν ἐσομένων καὶ δυνάμεις γονίμους ἀφωρίσασα,
+κ.τ.λ. Ibid. vi. 24: Alexander and his groom ἐλήφθησαν εἰς τοὺς αὐτοὺς
+τοῦ κόσμου σπερματικοὺς λόγους. Diog. vii. 148: ἔστι δὲ φύσις ἕξις ἐξ
+αὑτῆς κινουμένη κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους, κ.τ.λ. Ibid. 157: μέρη δὲ
+ψυχῆς λέγουσιν ὀκτὼ, τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ τοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν σπερματικοὺς
+λόγους καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ τὸ λογιστικόν.
+
+[362] As the primary fire or ether is called the seed of the world (p.
+161, 1), so, according to Chrysippus (in Diog. 159), the σπέρμα in the
+seed of plants and animals is a πνεῦμα κατ’ οὐσίαν.
+
+[363] σπερματικὸς λόγος is also used to express the seed or the egg
+itself. Thus, in Plut. Quæst. Conviv. ii. 3, 3 and 4, it is defined as
+λόγος ἐνδεὴς γενέσεως.
+
+[364] See p. 101, 2.
+
+[365] This is particularly manifest, not only in the history of the
+world, but also in the doctrine of the constant change of the elements.
+
+[366] Heine, Stoicorum de Fato Doctrina (Naumb. 1859), p. 29.
+
+[367] Compare what the Peripatetic Diogenianus (in Eus. Pr. Ev. vi. 8,
+7) and Stob. (Ecl. i. 180) observe on the derivations of εἱμαρμένη,
+πεπρωμένη, Χρεὼν (Heine, p. 32, 1, suggests on the strength of
+Theodoret, Cur. Gr. Affect. vi. 11, p. 87, 4, who transcribes the
+quotation from Eusebius, τὸν χρόνον κατὰ τὸ χρεών. We ought rather to
+read, according to Theod. Gaisf., τὸ χρεὼν κατὰ τὸ χρέος), Μοῖραι,
+Κλωθώ: and the quotations p. 170, 1; 171, 1; also Ps. Arist. De Mundo,
+c. 7. The argument for Providence, drawn from the consensus gentium in
+Sen. Benef. iv. 4, follows another tack.
+
+[368] Homeric passages, which he was in the habit of quoting in Eus.
+l.c. 8, 1.
+
+[369] See Cic. N. D. ii. 30, 76.
+
+[370] The two are generally taken together. Compare the quotations on
+p. 145, 4.
+
+[371] See p. 83, 2; 110, 3; Aristotle and the Peripatetics thought
+differently. See Simpl. Cat. 103, β.
+
+[372] Cic. De Fato, 10, 20.
+
+[373] Alex. De Fato, p. 92, Orel.: τὸ δὲ λέγειν εὔλογον εἶναι τοὺς
+θεοὺς τὰ ἐσόμενα προειδέναι ... καὶ τοῦτο λαμβάνοντας κατασκευάζειν
+πειρᾶσθαι δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸ πάντα ἐξ ἀνάγκης τε γίνεσθαι καὶ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην
+οὔτε ἀληθὲς οὔτε εὔλογον.
+
+[374] Cic. N. D. ii. 65, 162; De Fato, 3, 5 (unfortunately the previous
+exposition is wanting); Diogenian (in Eus. Pr. Ev. iv. 3, 1):
+Chrysippus proves, by the existence of divination, that all things
+happen καθ’ εἱμαρμένην; for divination would be impossible, unless
+things were foreordained. Alex. De Fato, c. 21, p. 96: οἱ δὲ ὑμνοῦντες
+τὴν μαντικὴν καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὑτῶν λόγον μόνον σώζεσθαι λέγοντες αὐτὴν καὶ
+ταύτῃ πίστει τοῦ πάντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεσθαι χρώμενοι, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[375] Plut. De Fato, 11, p. 374: κατὰ δὲ τὸν ἐναντίον [λόγον] μάλιστα
+μὲν καὶ πρῶτον εἶναι δόξειε τὸ μηδὲν ἀναιτίως γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ
+προηγουμένας αἰτίας· δεύτερον δὲ τὸ φύσει διοικεῖσθαι τόνδε τὸν κόσμον,
+σύμπνουν καὶ συμπαθῆ αὐτὸν αὑτῷ ὄντα. Then come the considerations
+confirmatory of that view—divination, the wise man’s acquiescence in
+the course of the world, the maxim that every judgment is either true
+or false. Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 35, p. 139: εἰ γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν αἰτίων
+περιεστηκότων, ὥς φασιν αὐτοὶ, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τὰ αὐτὰ γίνεσθαι.
+
+[376] Alex. De Fato, c. 22, p. 72: ὅμοιόν τε εἶναί φασι καὶ ὁμοίως
+ἀδύνατον τὸ ἀναιτίως τῷ γίνεσθαί τι ἐκ μὴ ὄντος.
+
+[377] Alex. l.c. p. 70: φασὶ δὴ τὸν κόσμον τόνδε ἕνα ὄντα ... καὶ ὑπὸ
+φύσεως διοικούμενον ζωτικῆς τε καὶ λογικῆς καὶ νοερᾶς ἔχειν τὴν τῶν
+ὄντων διοίκησιν ἀΐδιον κατὰ εἱρμόν τινα καὶ τάξιν προϊοῦσαν; so that
+everything is connected as cause and effect, ἀλλὰ παντί τε τῷ γινομένῳ
+ἕτερόν τι ἐπακολουθεῖν, ἠρτημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀπ’ ἀνάγκης ὡς αἰτίου, καὶ
+πᾶν τὸ γινόμενον ἔχειν τι πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ᾧ ὡς αἰτίῳ συνήρτηται· μηδὲν γὰρ
+ἀναιτίως μήτε εἶναι μήτε γίνεσθαι τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ διὰ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν
+αὐτῷ ἀπολελυμένον τε καὶ κεχωρισμένον τῶν προγεγονότων ἁπάντων·
+διασπᾶσθαι γὰρ καὶ διαιρεῖσθαι καὶ μηκέτι τὸν κόσμον ἕνα μένειν ἀεὶ,
+κατὰ μίαν τάξιν τε καὶ οἰκονομίαν διοικούμενον, εἰ ἀναίτιός τις
+εἰσάγοιτο κίνησις. See Cic. Divin. i. 55, 125; De Fato, 4, 7; M. Aurel.
+x. 5.
+
+[378] In Cic. N. D. ii. 65, 164, the Stoic says: Nec vero universo
+generi hominum solum, sed etiam singulis a Diis immortalibus consuli et
+provideri solet.
+
+[379] Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 46: Singulis non adest [Jupiter], et tamen vim
+et causam et manum omnibus dedit. Cic. N. D. 66, 167: Magna Dii curant,
+parva negligunt. Ibid. iii. 35, 86: At tamen minora Dii negligunt ...
+ne in regnis quidem reges omnia minima curant. Sic enim dicitis.
+
+[380] Cicero uses the following argument to show that the providential
+care of God extends to individuals:—If the Gods care for all men, they
+must care for those in our hemisphere, and, consequently, for the
+cities in our hemisphere, and for the men in each city. The argument
+may be superfluous, but it serves to show that the care of individuals
+was the result of God’s care of the whole world. M. Aurel. vi. 44: εἰ
+μὲν οὖν ἐβουλεύσαντο περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐμοὶ συμβῆναι ὀφειλόντων οἱ
+θεοὶ, καλῶς ἐβουλεύσαντο ... εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐβουλεύσαντο κατ’ ἰδίαν περὶ
+ἐμοῦ, περί γε τῶν κοινῶν πάντως ἐβουλεύσαντο, οἷς κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν
+καὶ ταῦτα συμβαίνοντα ἀσπάζεσθαι καὶ στέργειν ὀφείλω. Similarly, iv.
+28. It will be seen that the Stoics consider that the existence of
+divination, which served as a proof of special providence, was caused
+by the connection of nature.
+
+[381] As Alex. c. 28, p. 88, fitly observes.
+
+[382] The great majority of the Stoic answers to πολλὰ ζητήματα φυσικά
+τε καὶ ἠθικὰ καὶ διαλεκτικά, which (according to Plut. De Fato, c. 3)
+were called forth by the theory of destiny, in all probability belong
+to him.
+
+[383] See p. 171, 3, Chrysippus, in Plut. Sto. Rep. 23, 2, p. 1045. He
+assigned as a general reason τὸ γὰρ ἀναίτιον ὅλως ἀνύπαρκτον εἶναι καὶ
+τὸ αὐτόματον. Hence the Stoic definition of τύχη is αἰτία ἀπρονόητος
+καὶ ἄδηλος ἀνθρωπίνῳ λογισμῷ in Plut. De Fato. c. 7, p. 572; Plac. i.
+29, 3 (Stob. Ecl. i. 218); Alex. De Fato, p. 24; Simpl. Phys. 74, 6.
+See p. 171, 1.
+
+[384] Alex. l.c. The Stoics assert that things are possible which do
+not take place, if in themselves they can take place, and διὰ τοῦτο
+φασὶ μηδὲ τὰ γενόμενα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, καίτοι ἀπαραβάτως γινόμενα, ἐξ
+ἀνάγκης γίνεσθαι, ὅτι ἔστιν αὐτοῖς δυνατὸν γενέσθαι καὶ τὸ
+ἀντικείμενον. Cic. Top. 15, 59: Ex hoc genere causarum ex æternitate
+pendentium fatum a Stoicis nectitur.
+
+[385] Alex. De Fato, c. 10, p. 32; Cic. De Fato, 17, 39); 18, 41, and
+above, p. 115, 2. Hence Plut. Plac. (similarly Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 39,
+p. 149): ἃ μὲν γὰρ εἶναι κατ’ ἀνάγκην, ἃ δὲ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, ἃ δὲ κατὰ
+προαίρεσιν, ἃ δὲ κατὰ τύχην, ἃ δὲ κατὰ τὸ αὐτόματον, which is evidently
+more explicit than the language used by Stob. Ecl. i. 176, and the
+statement of Theodoret on p. 171, 1.
+
+[386] See p. 115, 2. Opponents such as Plut. Sto. Rep. c. 46, and
+Alex., pointed out how illusory this attempt was. According to the
+latter, he fell back on the simple result, maintaining that, in the
+case of things happening καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, there is nothing to prevent
+the opposite from coming about, so far as the causes which prevent this
+from happening are unknown to us.
+
+[387] See above, p. 171, 3.
+
+[388] Chrysipp. in Gell. N. A. vii. 2, 6; Alex. De Fato, c. 36, p. 112.
+
+[389] Gell. l.c.; Alex. c. 13; Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 35, p. 138, 140.
+Alex. c. 33 (on which see Heine, p. 43) gives a long argument,
+concluding with the words: πᾶν τὸ καθ’ ὁρμὴν γινόμενον ἐπὶ τοῖς οὕτως
+ἐνεργοῦσιν εἶναι. Nemes. appeals to Chrysippus, and also to Philopator,
+a Stoic of the second century A.D. Of him he remarks, that he has
+consistently attributed τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν to lifeless objects.
+
+[390] Cic. De Fato, 18, 41: In order to avoid necessitas, or to uphold
+fate, Chrysippus distinguishes causæ principales et perfectæ from causæ
+adjuvantes, his meaning being that everything happens according to
+fate, not causis perfectis et principalibus, sed causis adjuvantibus.
+Conf. Cic. Top. 15, 59. Although these causes may not be in our power,
+still it is our will which assents to the impressions received. Œnomaus
+(in Eus. Pr. Ev. vi. 7, 3, and 10) charges Chrysippus with making a
+ἡμίδουλον of the will, because he laid so great a stress on its
+freedom.
+
+[391] Gell. vii. 2, 13: Cic. l.c.
+
+[392] Alex. c. 34, p. 106, puts in the mouth of the Stoics: τὰ μὲν τῶν
+ζῴων ἐνεργήσει μόνον, τὰ δὲ πράξει τὰ λογικὰ, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἁμαρτήσεται,
+τὰ δὲ κατορθώσει. ταῦτα γὰρ τούτοις κατὰ φύσιν μὲν, ὄντων δὲ καὶ
+ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ κατορθωμάτων, καὶ τῶν τοιαύτων φύσεων καὶ ποιοτήτων μὴ
+ἀγνοουμένων, καὶ ἔπαινοι μὲν καὶ ψόγοι καὶ τιμαὶ καὶ κολάσεις.
+
+[393] Alex. c. 26, p. 82.
+
+[394] Alex. c. 32, p. 102.
+
+[395] The arguments usual among the Stoics in after times may, with
+great probability, be referred to Chrysippus.
+
+[396] Alex. c. 35: λέγουσι γάρ· οὐκ ἔστι τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ εἱμαρμένη, οὐκ
+ἔστι δὲ πεπρωμένη· (It never happens that there is a εἱμαρμένη but not
+a πεπρωμένη) οὐδὲ ἔστι πεπρωμένη, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ αἶσα· οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν αἶσα,
+οὐκ [οὐδὲ] ἔστι δὲ νέμεσις· οὐκ ἔστι μὲν νέμεσις, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ νόμος·
+οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν νόμος, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ λόγος ὀρθὸς προστακτικὸς μὲν ὧν
+ποιητέον ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ ὧν οὐ ποιητέον· ἀλλὰ ἀπαγορεύεται μὲν τὰ
+ἁμαρτανόμενα, προστάττεται δὲ τὰ κατορθώματα· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι μὲν τοιαύτη
+ἡ εἱμαρμένη, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ κατορθώματα· ἀλλ’ εἰ ἔστιν
+ἁμαρτήματα καὶ κατορθώματα, ἔστιν ἀρετὴ καὶ κακία· εἰ δὲ ταῦτα, ἔστι
+καλὸν καὶ αἰσχρόν· ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν καλὸν ἐπαινετὸν, τὸ δὲ αἰσχρὸν ψεκτόν·
+οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ εἱμαρμένη, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἐπαινετὸν καὶ ψεκτόν.
+What is praiseworthy deserves τιμὴ or γέρως ἀξίωσις, and what is
+blameworthy merits κόλασις or ἐπανόρθωσις.
+
+[397] Alex. c. 37, p. 118: A second argument ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς παλαίστρας
+is the following:—οὐ πάντα μὲν ἔστι καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ
+ἀκώλυτος καὶ ἀπαρεμπόδιστος ἡ τοῦ κόσμου διοίκησις· οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν
+τοῦτο, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κόσμος· οὐδὲ ἔστι μὲν κόσμος, οὐκ εἰσὶ δὲ θεοί· (for
+κόσμος, according to the definitions of Chrysippus, is the whole,
+including gods and men. See p. 158, 1) εἰ δέ εἰσι θεοὶ, εἰσὶν ἀγαθοὶ οἱ
+θεοί· ἀλλ’ εἰ τοῦτο, ἔστιν ἀρετή· ἀλλ’ εἰ ἔστιν ἀρετὴ, ἔστι φρόνησις·
+ἀλλ’ εἰ τοῦτο ἔστιν ἡ ἐπιστήμη ποιητέων τε καὶ οὐ ποιητέων· ἀλλὰ
+ποιητέα μὲν ἔστι τὰ κατορθώματα, οὐ ποιητέα δὲ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, κ.τ.λ.
+οὐκ ἄρα πάντα μὲν γίνεται καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ γεραίρειν καὶ
+ἐπανορθοῦν.
+
+[398] Cic. De Fato, 12, 28; Diogenian. (in Eus. Pr. Ev. vi. 8, 16);
+Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 37. Things which were determined by the co-operation
+of destiny alone Chrysippus called συγκαθειμαρμένα (confatalia). The
+argument by which he was confuted, which Prantl, Gesch. d. Log. i. 489,
+erroneously attributes to the Stoics themselves, went by the name of
+ἀργὸς λόγος (ignava ratio). Besides the ἀργὸς λόγος, Plut. De Fato, c.
+11, p. 574, mentions the θερίζων and the λόγος παρὰ τὴν εἱμαρμένην as
+fallacies which could only be refuted on the ground of the freedom of
+the will. The last-named one, perhaps, turned on the idea (Œnomaus, in
+Eus. Pr. Ev. vi. 7, 12) that man might frustrate destiny if he
+neglected to do what was necessary to produce the foreordained results.
+According to Ammon. De Inter. 106, a, Lucian, Vit. Auct. 22, the
+θερίζων was as follows:—Either you will reap or you will not reap: it
+is therefore incorrect to say, perhaps you will reap.
+
+[399] Sen. (after Cleanthes, whose verses in Epictet. Man. 52) Ep. 107,
+11: Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt. Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. i.
+21, has put it very plainly: τὸ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην εἶναι πάντη
+διεβεβαιώσαντο παραδείγματι χρησάμενοι τοιούτῳ, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὀχήματος ἐὰν
+ᾖ ἐξηρτημένος κύων, ἐὰν μὲν βούληται ἕπεσθαι, καὶ ἕλκεται καὶ ἕπεται
+ἑκὼν ... ἐὰν δὲ μὴ βούληται ἕπεσθαι, πάντως ἀναγκασθήσεται, τὸ αὐτὸ
+δήπου καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ μὴ βουλόμενοι γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖν
+ἀναγκασθήσονται πάντως εἰς τὸ πεπρωμένον εἰσελθεῖν. The same idea is
+expanded by M. Aurel. vi. 42: All must work for the whole, ἐκ
+περιουσίας δὲ καὶ ὁ μεμφόμενος καὶ ὁ ἀντιβαίνειν πειρώμενος καὶ
+ἀναιρεῖν τὰ γινόμενα, καὶ γὰρ τοῦ τοιούτου ἔχρῃζεν ὁ κόσμος. It is
+man’s business to take care that he acts a dignified part in the common
+labour.
+
+[400] After all that has been said, this needs no further confirmation.
+Conversely, the unity of the forming power is concluded from the unity
+of the world. See p. 143, 1, 2. Conf. Plut. Def. Orac. 29, p. 425. M.
+Aurel. vi. 38: πάντα ἀλλήλοις ἐπιπέπλεκται καὶ πάντα κατὰ τοῦτο φίλα
+ἀλλήλοις ἐστί ... τοῦτο δὲ διὰ τὴν τονικὴν κίνησιν καὶ σύμπνοιαν καὶ
+τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς οὐσίας. Ibid. vii. 9.
+
+[401] Sext. Math. ix. 78: τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστιν ἡνωμένα, τὰ δὲ ἐκ
+συναπτομένων, τὰ δὲ ἐκ διεστώτων ... ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ ὁ κόσμος σῶμά ἐστιν,
+ἤτοι ἡνωμένον ἐστι σῶμα ἢ ἐκ συναπτομένων, ἢ ἐκ διεστώτων· οὔτε δὲ ἐκ
+συναπτομένων οὔτε ἐκ διεστώτων, ὡς δείκνυμεν ἐκ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν
+συμπαθειῶν· κατὰ γὰρ τὰς τῆς σελήνης αὐξήσεις καὶ φθίσεις πολλὰ τῶν τε
+ἐπιγείων ζῴων καὶ θαλασσίων φθίνει τε καὶ αὔξεται, ἀμπώτεις τε καὶ
+πλημμυρίδες (ebb and flood), περί τινα μέρη τῆς θαλάσσης γίνονται. In
+the same way, atmospheric changes coincide with the setting and rising
+of the stars: ἐξ ὧν συμφανὲς, ὅτι ἡνωμένον τι σῶμα καθέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος,
+ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐκ συναπτομένων ἢ διεστώτων οὐ συμπάσχει τὰ μέρη
+ἀλλήλοις. Diog. vii. 140: ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ἀλλ’ ἡνῶσθαι
+αὐτὸν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἀναγκάζειν τὴν τῶν οὐρανίων πρὸς τὰ ἐπίγεια σύμπνοιαν
+καὶ συντονίαν. Ibid. 143: ὅτι θ’ εἷς ἐστι Ζήνων φησὶν ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ
+ὅλου καὶ Χρύσιππος καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ... καὶ Ποσειδώνιος. Alex. De Mixt.
+142, a, see p. 127, 5; Cic. N. D. ii. 7, 19; Epictet. Diss. i. 14, 2:
+οὐ δοκεῖ σοι, ἔφη, ἡνῶσθαι τὰ πάντα; Δοκεῖ, ἔφη· τί δέ; συμπαθεῖν τὰ
+ἐπίγεια τοῖς οὐρανίοις οὐ δοκεῖ σοι; Δοκεῖ, ἔφη. Cicero mentions the
+changes in animals and plants corresponding with the changes of
+seasons, the phases of the moon, and the greater or less nearness of
+the sun. M. Aurel. iv. 40. From all these passages we gather what the
+question really was. It was not only whether other worlds were
+possible, besides the one which we know from observation, but whether
+the heavenly bodies visible were in any essential way connected with
+the earth, so as to form an organic whole (ζῷον, Diog. vii. 143).
+
+The Stoic conception of συμπάθεια was not used to denote the magic
+connection which it expresses in ordinary parlance, but the natural
+coincidence between phenomena belonging to the different parts of the
+world, the consensus, concentus, cognatio, conjunctio, or continuatio
+naturæ (Cic. N. D. iii. 11, 28; Divin. ii. 15, 34; 69, 142). In this
+sense, M. Aurel. ix. 9, observes that like is attracted by like; fire
+is attracted upwards, earth downwards; beasts and men seek out each
+other’s society; even amongst the highest existences, the stars, there
+exists a ἕνωσις ἐκ διεστηκότων, a συμπάθεια ἐν διεστῶσι. Even the last
+remark does not go beyond the conception of a natural connection;
+nevertheless, it paves the way for the later Neoplatonic idea of
+sympathy, as no longer a physical connection, but as an influence felt
+at a distance by virtue of a connection of soul.
+
+[402] M. Aurel. vi. 1: ἡ τῶν ὅλων οὐσία (the matter of the world)
+εὐπειθὴς καὶ εὐτρεπής· ὁ δὲ ταύτην διοικῶν λόγος οὐδεμίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ
+αἰτίαν ἔχει τοῦ κακοποιεῖν· κακίαν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχει, οὐδέ τι κακῶς ποιεῖ,
+οὐδὲ βλάπτεταί τι ὑπ’ ἐκείνου. πάντα δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον γίνεται καὶ
+περαίνεται.
+
+[403] Diog. 149: ταύτην δὲ [τὴν φύσιν] καὶ τοῦ συμφέροντος στοχάζεσθαι
+καὶ ἡδονῆς, ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργίας.
+
+[404] Plut. Sto. Rep. 21, 3, p. 1044: εἰπὼν [Χρύσιππος] ὅτι ...
+φιλοκαλεῖν ... τὴν φύσιν τῇ ποικιλίᾳ χαίρουσαν εἰκός ἐστι, ταῦτα κακὰ
+λέξιν εἴρηκε· γένοιτο δ’ ἂν μάλιστα τούτου ἔμφασις ἐπὶ τῆς κέρκου τοῦ
+ταώ. Conf. the Stoic in Cic. Fin. ii. 5, 18: Jam membrorum ... alia
+videntur propter eorum usum a natura esse donata ... alia autem nullam
+ob utilitatem, quasi ad quendam ornatum, ut cauda pavoni, plumæ
+versicolores columbis, viris mammæ atque barba.
+
+[405] M. Aurel. iii. 2: It is there proved by examples, ὅτι καὶ τὰ
+ἐπιγινόμενα τοῖς φύσει γιγνομένοις ἔχει τι εὔχαρι καὶ ἐπαγωγὸν ...
+σχεδὸν οὐδὲν οὐχὶ καὶ τῶν κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν συμβαινόντων ἡδέως πως
+διασυνίστασθαι.
+
+[406] Cic. Acad. ii. 26, 85; Sen. Ep. 113, 16. The latter includes this
+variety of natural objects among the facts, which must fill us with
+admiration for the divine artificer.
+
+[407] Plut. Plac. i. 6, 2: καλὸς δὲ ὁ κόσμος· δῆλον δ’ ἐκ τοῦ σχήματος
+καὶ τοῦ χρώματος καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸν κόσμον τῶν ἀστέρων
+ποικιλίας; the world has the most perfect form, that of a globe, with a
+sky the most perfect in colour, &c.
+
+[408] See the passages quoted p. 145, 4, particularly Cic. N. D. ii.
+32.
+
+[409] Plut. (in Porphyr. De Abstin. iii. 32): ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο νὴ Δία τοῦ
+Χρυσίππου πιθανὸν ἦν, ὡς ἡμᾶς αὐτῶν καὶ ἀλλήλων οἱ θεοὶ χάριν
+ἐποιήσαντο, ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ ζῷα, συμπολεμεῖν μὲν ἵππους καὶ συνθηρεύειν
+κύνας, ἀνδρείας δὲ γυμνάσια παρδάλεις καὶ ἄρκτους καὶ λέοντας, κ.τ.λ.
+Cic. N. D. ii. 14, 37: Scite enim Chrysippus: ut clypei causa
+involucrum, vaginam autem gladii, sic præter mundum cetera omnia
+aliorum causa esse generata, ut eas fruges et fructus, quas terra
+gignit, animantium causa, animantes autem hominum, ut equum vehendi
+causa, arandi bovem, venandi et custodiendi canem. Id. Off. i. 7, 22:
+Placet Stoicis, quæ in terris gignantur ad usum hominum omnia creari.
+
+[410] Cic. Fin. iii. 20, 67: Præclare enim Chrysippus, cetera nata esse
+hominum causa et Deorum, eos autem communitatis et societatis suæ. N.
+D. ii. 53, 133, in describing the Stoic teaching: Why has the universe
+been made? Not for the sake of plants or animals, but for the sake of
+rational beings, Gods and men. It is then shown (c. 54–61), by an
+appeal to the structure of man’s body, and his mental qualities, how
+God has provided for the wants of man; and the argument concludes with
+the words, Omnia, quæ sint in hoc mundo, quibus utantur homines,
+hominum causa facta esse et parata. Just as a city, and what is
+therein, exists for the use of the inhabitants, so the world is
+intended for the use of Gods and men. Even the stars quanquam etiam ad
+mundi cohærentiam pertinent, tamen et spectaculum hominibus præbent.
+The earth with its plants and animals was created for the service of
+man. In Orig. c. Cels. iv. 74, p. 559, the Stoics assert that
+Providence created all things for the sake of rational beings; M.
+Aurel. v. 16 and 30; Gell. vii. 1, 1. Hence the definition of κόσμος
+quoted on p. 158, 1.
+
+[411] Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 32, 1, p. 1049) shows how useful
+fowls are; the horse is intended for riding, the ox for ploughing, the
+dog for hunting. The pig, Cleanthes thought (Clemens, Strom. vii. 718,
+B), was made to sustain man, and endowed with a soul, in place of salt,
+to prevent its corrupting (Cic. N. D. ii, 64, 160; Fin. v. 13, 38;
+Plut. Qu. Conviv. v. 10, 3 and 6, p. 685; Porphyr. De Abstin. iii. 20);
+oysters and birds for the same purpose also (Porphyr. l.c.). In the
+same way, he spoke of the value of mice and bugs, see p. 189, 1. The
+Stoic in Cic. N. D. ii. 63, 158, following in the same track, declares
+that sheep only exist for the purpose of clothing, dogs for guarding
+and helping man, fishes for eating, and birds of prey for divers uses.
+Epictet. Diss. ii. 8, 7, in the same spirit, speaks of asses being
+intended to carry burdens; for this purpose they must be able to walk,
+and, in order to walk, must possess the power of imagination.
+
+[412] See p. 186, 1.
+
+[413] Cic. N. D. ii. 14, 37: Ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundum
+contemplandum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus, sed est quædam
+particula perfecti. Sed mundus quoniam omnia complexus est, nec est
+quidquam, quod non insit in eo, perfectus undique est.
+
+[414] We gather this from the comparatively full accounts of the Stoic
+theory of the moral government of the world. Plut. Sto. Rep. 37, 1, p.
+1051, says that Chrysippus wrote several treatises περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν
+ἐγκλητὸν εἶναι μηδὲ μεμπτὸν κόσμῳ.
+
+[415] See p. 187, 2, and Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 44, 6): τέλεον
+μὲν ὁ κόσμος σῶμά ἐστιν, οὐ τέλεα δὲ τὰ κόσμου μέρη τῷ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον πως
+ἔχειν καὶ μὴ καθ’ αὑτὰ εἶναι. Compare also the statement in Plut.
+Solert. An. c. 2, 9, p. 960, that animals must be irrational, because
+the irrational must be contrasted with the rational.
+
+[416] Gell. vii. [vi.] 1, 7: Chrysippus in his treatise περὶ προνοίας,
+discussed, amongst other things, the question, εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων νόσοι
+κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται. Existimat autem non fuisse hoc principale naturæ
+consilium, ut faceret homines morbis obnoxios ... sed cum multa inquit
+atque magna gigneret pareretque aptissima et utilissima, alia quoque
+simul agnata sunt incommoda iis ipsis, quæ faciebat cohærentia: eaque
+non per naturam sed per sequelas quasdam necessarias facta dicit, quod
+ipse appellat κατὰ παρακολούθησιν.... Proinde morbi quoque et
+ægritudines partæ sunt dum salus paritur. M. Aurel. vi. 36: All evils
+are ἐπιγεννήματα τῶν σεμνῶν καὶ καλῶν. Plut. An. Procr. c. 6 and 9, p.
+1015: αὐτοὶ δὲ (the Stoics) κακίαν καὶ κακοδαιμονίαν τοσαύτην ... κατ’
+ἐπακολούθησιν γεγονέναι λέγουσιν. Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 3, 1.
+
+[417] Sen. Nat. Qu. v. 18, 4 and 13: Non ideo non sunt ista natura
+bona, si vitio male utentium nocent.... Si beneficia naturæ utentium
+pravitate perpendimus, nihil non nostro malo accepimus.
+
+[418] Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 21, 4) remarks that bugs do us
+good service by preventing us from sleeping too long, and mice warn us
+not to leave things about. He also observes (Ibid. 32, 2) that wars are
+as useful as colonies, by preventing over-population. See the
+quotations, p. 185, 4; 186, 2. M. Aurel. viii. 50, makes a similar
+remark in regard to weeds. In the house of nature all the waste has its
+uses.
+
+[419] A circumstance which Plut. Com. Not. 19, p. 1067, dexterously
+uses against the Stoics.
+
+[420] Cleanthes, Hymn. v. 17 (see p. 171, 3); Plut. Sto. Rep. 33, 2:
+Chrysippus affirms, ὡς τῶν αἰσχρῶν τὸ θεῖον παραίτιον γίνεσθαι οὐκ
+εὔλογόν ἐστιν, law is innocent of crime, God of impiety. Id. (in Gell.
+vii. 2, 7): Quanquam ita sit, ut ratione quadam necessaria et
+principali coacta atque connexa sint fato omnia, ingenia tamen ipsa
+mentium nostrarum perinde sunt fato obnoxia, ut proprietas eorum est
+ipsa et qualitas ... sua sævitate et voluntario impetu in assidua
+delicta, et in errores se ruunt. Hence Cleanthes continues, in a
+passage quoted in Greek by Gellius: ὡς τῶν βλαβῶν ἑκάστοις παρ’ αὐτοῖς
+γινομένων καὶ καθ’ ὁρμὴν αὐτῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τε καὶ βλαπτομένων καὶ κατὰ
+τὴν αὐτῶν διάνοιαν καὶ πρόθεσιν. In Plut. Sto. Rep. 47, 13, p. 1057,
+Chrysippus says that, even if the Gods make false representations to
+man, it is man’s fault if he follows those representations. Conf.
+Epictet. Ench. c. 27: ὥσπερ σκοπὸς πρὸς τὸ ἀποτυχεῖν οὐ τίθεται, οὕτως
+οὐδὲ κακοῦ φύσις (evil in itself) ἐν κόσμῳ γίνεται. Id. Diss. i. 6, 40.
+Such observations bear out in some degree the statement of Plut. Plac.
+ii. 27, 3, that, according to the Stoics, τὰ μὲν εἱμάρθαι, τὰ δὲ
+ἀνειμάρθαι. See above, p. 179, 3, 4.
+
+[421] Chrysippus felt this. Hence he says (in Gell.): It has been also
+decreed by destiny that the bad should do wrong.
+
+[422] Chrysippus in Plut. Sto. Rep. 36, 1: κακίαν δὲ καθόλου ἆραι οὔτε
+δυνατόν ἐστιν οὔτ’ ἔχει καλῶς ἀρθῆναι. Id. (in Gell. vii. 1, 10): As
+diseases spring from human nature, sic hercle inquit dum virtus
+hominibus per consilium naturæ gignitur vitia ibidem per affinitatem
+contrariam nata sunt.
+
+[423] Chrysippus in Plut. Sto. Rep. 35, 3 (C. Not. 13, 2): γίνεται γὰρ
+αὐτή πως [ἡ κακία] κατὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως λόγον καὶ ἵνα οὕτως εἴπω οὐκ
+ἀχρήστως γίνεται πρὸς τὰ ὅλα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν τἀγαθὸν ἦν. C. Not. 14, 1: As
+in a comedy, what is absurd contributes to the effect of the whole,
+οὕτω ψέξειας ἂν αὐτὴν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῆς τὴν κακίαν· τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοις οὐκ
+ἄχρηστός ἐστιν. Similarly M. Aurel. vi. 42. Gell. viii. 1, 2:
+(Chrysippus) nihil est prorsus istis, inquit, insubidius, qui
+opinantur, bona esse potuisse, si non essent ibidem mala: nam cum bona
+malis contraria sint, utraque necessum est opposita inter se et quasi
+mutuo adverso quæque fulta nixu (Heraclitus’ ἀντίξουν συμφέρον)
+consistere: nullum adeo contrarium est sine contrario altero. Without
+injustice, cowardice, &c., we could not know what justice and valour
+are. If there were no evil, φρόνησις as ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν would
+be impossible (Plut. C. Not. 16, 2, p. 1066).
+
+[424] Cleanthes, Hymn. 18:
+
+    ἀλλὰ σὺ καὶ τὰ περισσὰ ἐπίστασαι ἄρτια θεῖκαι
+    καὶ κοσμεῖν τὰ ἄκοσμα, καὶ οὐ φίλα σοὶ φίλα ἐστίν·
+    ὧδε γὰρ εἰς ἓν ἅπαντα συνήρμοκας ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν
+    ὥσθ’ ἕνα γίγνεσθαι πάντων λόγον αἰὲν ἐόντα.
+
+[425] Plut. Sto. Rep. 35, 1: τὸν θεὸν κολάζειν φησὶ τὴν κακίαν καὶ
+πολλὰ ποιεῖν ἐπὶ κολάσει τῶν πονηρῶν ... ποτὲ μὲν τὰ δύσχρηστα
+συμβαίνειν φησὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐχ ὥσπερ τοῖς φαύλοις κολάσεως χάριν ἀλλὰ
+κατ’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ... [τὰ κακὰ] ἀπονέμεται
+κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς λόγον ἤτοι ἐπὶ κολάσει ἢ κατ’ ἄλλην ἔχουσάν πως πρὸς
+τὰ ὅλα οἰκονομίαν. Id. 15, 2: ταῦτά φησι τοὺς θεοὺς ποιεῖν ὅπως τῶν
+πονηρῶν κολαζομένων οἱ λοιποὶ παραδείγμασι τούτοις χρώμενοι ἧττον
+ἐπιχειρῶσι τοιοῦτόν τι ποιεῖν. At the beginning of the same chapter,
+the ordinary views of divine punishment had been treated with ridicule.
+Conf. Quæst. Rom. 51, p. 277.
+
+[426] Thus Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 37, 2) in answer to the
+question, How the misfortune of the virtuous is to be explained, says:
+πότερον ἀμελουμένων τινῶν καθάπερ ἐν οἰκίαις μείζοσι παραπίπτει τινὰ
+πίτυρα καὶ ποσοὶ πυροί τινες τῶν ὅλων εὖ οἰκονομουμένων· ἢ διὰ τὸ
+καθίστασθαι ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων δαιμόνια φαῦλα ἐν οἷς τῷ ὄντι γίνονται
+ἐγκλητέαι ἀμέλειαι; Similarly the Stoic in Cic. N. D. ii. 66: Magna Dii
+curant, parva negligunt,—hardly satisfactory explanations for any
+theory of necessity. It is still more unsatisfactory to hear Seneca
+(Benef. iv. 32) justifying the unmerited good fortune of the wicked as
+due to the nobility of their ancestors. The reason assigned by
+Chrysippus (in Plut.)—πολὺ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης μεμῖχθαι—does not quite
+harmonise with Plut. C. Not. 34, 2: οὐ γὰρ ἥ γε ὕλη τὸ κακὸν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς
+παρέσχηκεν, ἄποιος γάρ ἐστι καὶ πάσας ὅσας δέχεται διαφορὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ
+κινοῦντος αὐτὴν καὶ σχηματίζοντος ἔσχεν. Just as little does
+Seneca’s—Non potest artifex mutare materiam (De Prov. 5, 9)—agree with
+his lavish encomia on the arrangement and perfection of the world. For,
+according to the Stoics, matter is ultimately identical with reason and
+deity. These contradictions do not, however, justify the doubt
+expressed by Heine, Stoic. de Fato Doct. 46, that Seneca is here not
+speaking as a Stoic. For Chrysippus says very much the same thing. See
+p. 190, 1, 2.
+
+[427] M. Aurel. ix. 16: οὐκ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργείᾳ, τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ
+ζῴου κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ ἀρετὴ καὶ κακία αὐτοῦ ἐν πείσει,
+ἀλλὰ ἐνεργείᾳ.
+
+[428] M. Aurel. viii. 35: ὃν τρόπον ἐκείνη [ἡ φύσις] πᾶν τὸ ἐνιστάμενον
+καὶ ἀντιβαῖνον ἐπιπεριτρέπει καὶ κατατάσσει εἰς τὴν εἱμαρμένην καὶ
+μέρος ἑαυτῆς ποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον δύναται πᾶν κώλυμα ὅλην
+ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν καὶ χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ ἐφ’ οἷον ἂν καὶ ὥρμησεν.
+
+[429] Seneca’s treatise, De Providentia, is occupied with expanding
+this thought. In it, the arguments by which the outward misfortunes of
+good men are harmonised with the divine government of the world are:
+(1) The wise man cannot really meet with misfortune: he cannot receive
+at the hands of fortune what he does not, on moral grounds, assign to
+himself (c. 2, 6). (2) Misfortune, therefore, is an unlooked-for
+exercise of his powers, a divine instrument of training; a hero in
+conflict with fortune is a spectaculum Deo dignum (c. 1, 2–4. Conf. Ep.
+85, 39). (3) The misfortunes of the righteous show that external
+conditions are neither a good nor an evil (c. 5). (4) Everything is a
+natural consequence of natural causes (c. 5). Similar explanations in
+Epictet. Diss. iii. 17; i. 6, 37; i. 24, 1; Stob. Ed. i. 132; M. Aurel.
+iv. 49: vii. 68 and 64; x. 33.
+
+[430] Philodem. περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς, col. 8, Vol. Herc. vi. 53:
+ἰδιωτικῶς ἅπαντος αὐτῷ [θεῷ] δύναμιν ἀναθέντες, ὅταν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐλέγχων
+πιέζωνται, τότε καταφεύγουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ διὰ τοῦτο φάσκειν τὰ συναπτόμενα
+(what is suitable) μὴ ποιεῖν, ὅτι οὐ πάντα δύναται.
+
+[431] See above, p. 126; 101, 2; Diog. 135. Conf. Stob. Ecl. i. 410.
+
+[432] In Diog. 150, there is no difference made between Apollodorus and
+Chrysippus. Stob. Ecl. i. 344; Plut. C. Not. 38, 3, p. 1079; Sext.
+Math. x. 142. Similarly Aristotle.
+
+[433] Plut. Plac. i. 9, 2: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ τρεπτὴν καὶ ἀλλοιωτὴν καὶ
+μεταβλητὴν καὶ ῥευστὴν ὅλην δι’ ὅλου τὴν ὕλην. Diog. 150. Sen. Nat. Qu.
+iii. 101, 3: Fiunt omnia ex omnibus, ex aqua aër, ex aëre aqua, ignis
+ex aëre, ex igne aër ... ex aqua terra fit, cur non aqua fiat e terra?
+... omnium elementorum in alternum recursus sunt. Similarly Epictet. in
+Stob. Floril. 108, 60. Conf. p. 101, 2; 198, 3. This is borrowed not
+only from Heraclitus, but also from Aristotle.
+
+[434] They only called the first kind κίνησις. Aristotle understood by
+κίνησις every form of change.
+
+[435] Stob. Ecl. i. 404, 408, gives definitions of κίνησις, of φορά,
+and of μονή, taken from Chrysippus and Apollodorus. Simpl. Categ. 110,
+β (Schol. in Arist. 92, 6, 30. Respecting the kinds of μεταβολή see the
+extracts from Posidonius on p. 101, 2) distinguishes between μένειν,
+ἠρεμεῖν, ἡσυχάζειν, ἀκινητεῖν, but this is rather a matter of language.
+Simpl. Cat. 78, β, relates that the Stoics differed from the
+Peripatetics in explaining Motion as an incomplete energy, and
+discusses their assertion that κινεῖσθαι is a wider, κινεῖν a narrower,
+idea.
+
+[436] Simpl. Phys. 310, b: οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς κατὰ πᾶσαν κίνησιν
+ἔλεγον ὑπεῖναι τὴν τοπικὴν, ἢ κατὰ μέγαλα διαστήματα ἢ κατὰ λόγῳ
+θεωρητὰ ὑφισταμένην.
+
+[437] Simpl. Categ. 78, β (Schol. 78, a, 23): Plotinus and others
+introduce into the Aristotelian doctrine the Stoic view: τὸ κοινὸν τοῦ
+ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν εἶναι τὰς κινήσεις.
+
+[438] Simpl. l.c. 77, β; Schol. 77, b, 33. Simplicius himself
+contradicts this statement. It had, however, been already advanced by
+Aristotle.
+
+[439] Simpl. l.c. 78, β (Schol. 78, a, 28): The Stoics who, according
+to p. 84, ε, Schol. 79, a, 16, very fully discussed the categories,
+made the following διαφοραὶ γενῶν: τὸ ἐξ αὐτῶν κινεῖσθαι, ὡς ἡ μάχαιρα
+τὸ τέμνειν ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας ἔχει κατασκευῆς—τὸ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐνεργεῖν τὴν
+κίνησιν, ὡς αἱ φύσεις καὶ αἱ ἰατρικαὶ δυνάμεις τὴν ποίησιν
+ὑπεργάζονται; for instance, the seed, in developing into a plant—τὸ ἀφ’
+ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν, or ἀπὸ ἰδίας ὁρμῆς ποιεῖν, one species of which is τὸ
+ἀπὸ λογικῆς ὁρμῆς—τὸ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἐνεργεῖν. It is, in short, the
+application to a particular case of the distinction which will be
+subsequently met with of ἕξις, φύσις, ψυχὴ, and ψυχὴ λογική. The
+celebrated grammatical distinction of ὀρθὰ and ὕπτια mentioned p. 95, 3
+is connected with the distinction between ποιεῖν and πάσχειν. Conf.
+Simpl. p. 79, α, ζ; Schol. 78, b, 17 and 30.
+
+[440] See page 135.
+
+[441] Stob. Ecl. i. 382: Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου
+μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ἔξω δ’ αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον (conf. Themist. Phys. 40, b;
+Plut. Plac. i. 18, 4; ibid. c. 20, beginning οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος).
+διαφέρειν δὲ κενὸν τόπον χώραν· καὶ τὸ μὲν κενὸν εἶναι ἐρημίαν σώματος,
+τὸν δὲ τόπον τὸ ἐπεχόμενον ὑπὸ σώματος, τὴν δὲ χώραν τὸ ἐκ μέρους
+ἐπεχόμενον (Plut. adds, like a half-empty vessel). Stob. i. 390:
+Chrysippus defined τόπος = τὸ κατεχόμενον δι’ ὅλου ὑπὸ ὄντος, ἢ τὸ οἷον
+κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ ὄντος καὶ δι’ ὅλου κατεχόμενον εἴτε ὑπὸ τινὸς εἴτε ὑπὸ
+τινῶν. If, however, only one portion of the οἷόν τε κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ
+ὄντος is really filled, the whole is neither κενὸν nor τόπος, but
+ἕτερόν τι οὐκ ὠνομασμένον, which may possibly be called χώρα. Hence
+τόπος corresponds to a full, κενὸν to an empty, χώρα to a half-empty,
+vessel. Sext. Math. x. 3, Pyrrh. iii. 124, speaks to the same effect.
+Cleomed. Meteor. p. 2, 4; Simpl. Categ. 91, δ. According to the Stoics,
+παρυφίσταται τοῖς σώμασιν ὁ τόπος καὶ τὸν ὅρον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν προσλαμβάνει
+τὸν μέχρι τοσοῦδε, καθόσον συμπληροῦνται [-οῦται] ὑπὸ τῶν σωμάτων.
+
+[442] The Stoic idea of space is so understood by Themist. Phys. 38, b;
+Simpl. Phys. 133, a.
+
+[443] See previous note and in Diog. 140 (where, however, instead of
+ἀσώματον δὲ, we should read κενὸν δὲ) definitions of κενόν.
+
+[444] Stob. Ecl. i. 392, quoting Chrysippus.
+
+[445] See p. 131, 2.
+
+[446] Simpl. Categ. 88, ζ. Schol. 80, a, 6: τῶν δὲ Στωϊκῶν Ζήνων μὲν
+πάσης ἁπλῶς κινήσεως διάστημα τὸν χρόνον εἶπε (conf. Plut. Plat. Quæst.
+viii. 4, 3) Χρύσιππος δὲ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεως. Conf. Ibid.
+89, α, β; Simpl. Phys. 165, a. More full is Stob. Ecl. i. 260: ὁ δὲ
+Χρύσιππος χρόνον εἶναι κινήσεως διάστημα καθ’ ὅ ποτε λέγεται μέτρον
+τάχους τε καὶ βραδύτητος, ἢ τὸ παρακολουθοῦν διάστημα τῇ τοῦ κόσμου
+κινήσει. The passages quoted by Stob. Ibid. 250 (Plut. Plac. i. 22, 2),
+254, 256, 258, and Diog. 141, from Zeno, Chrysippus, Apollodorus, and
+Posidonius, are in agreement with this. In the same places occur
+several other observations on Time, which are, however, of no
+importance, such as that Time as a whole, and likewise the past and the
+future, are unlimited, the present is limited; the present cannot be
+accurately determined, it is the boundary between the past and the
+future (Archedemus in Plut. C. Not. 38, 6, p. 1081), lying partly in
+the one, partly in the other (Chrysippus, ibid. 38, 8).
+
+[447] Sext. Math. x. 142; Plut. Com. Not. 41, p. 1081; Stob. i. 260.
+
+[448] For the conception of στοιχεῖον, which is also that of Aristotle
+(Metaph. i. 3, 938, b, 8), and its difference from that of ἀρχὴ, see
+Diog. 134; 136. The difference, however, is not always observed.
+Chrysippus (in Stob. Ecl. i. 312) distinguishes three meanings of
+στοιχεῖον. In one sense, it is fire; in another, the four elements; in
+the third, any material out of which something is made.
+
+[449] Lassalle, Heraclitus, ii. 84.
+
+[450] See p. 161. As is there stated, primary fire first goes over into
+water δι’ ἀέρος (i.e. after first going over into air, not passing
+through air as an already existing medium, as Lassalle, Heracl. ii. 86,
+inaccurately says), and water goes over into the three other elements.
+In this process there is, however, a difficulty. Fire is said to derive
+its origin from water, and yet a portion of primary fire must have
+existed from the beginning, as the soul of the world. Nor is it correct
+to say, that actual fire is never obtained from water in the formation
+of the upper elements (as Lassalle, p. 88, does).
+
+[451] Chrysippus, in Stob. Ecl. i. 312: πρώτης μὲν γιγνομένης τῆς ἐκ
+πυρὸς κατὰ σύστασιν εἰς ἀέρα μεταβολῆς, δευτέρας δ’ ἀπὸ τούτου εἰς
+ὕδωρ, τρίτης δ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον κατὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον συνισταμένου τοῦ ὕδατος εἰς
+γῆν, πάλιν δὲ ἀπὸ ταύτης διαλυομένης καὶ διαχεομένης πρώτη μὲν γίγνεται
+χύσις εἰς ὕδωρ, δεύτερα δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος εἰς ἀέρα, τρίτη δὲ καὶ ἐσχάτη εἰς
+πῦρ. On account of this constant change, primary matter is called
+(Ibid. 316, where, however, the text is obviously corrupt, and
+therefore only partially intelligible) ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ ἀΐδιος
+δύναμις ... εἰς αὐτήν τε πάντα καταναλίσκουσα καὶ τὸ [ἐξ] αὑτῆς πάλιν
+ἀποκαθιστᾶσα τεταγμένως καὶ ὁδῷ. Epictet. in Stob. Floril. 108, 60: Not
+only mankind and animals are undergoing perpetual changes, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ
+θεῖα, καὶ νὴ Δί’ αὐτὰ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα ἄνω καὶ κάτω τρέπεται καὶ
+μεταβάλλει· καὶ γῆ τε ὕδωρ γίνεται καὶ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ, οὗτος δὲ πάλιν εἰς
+αἰθέρα μεταβάλλει· καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος τῆς μεταβολῆς ἄνωθεν κάτω. On the
+flux of things, see also M. Aurel. ii. 3; vii. 19; ix. 19; 28. Cic. N.
+D. ii. 33, 84: Et cum quatuor sint genera corporum, vicissitudine eorum
+mundi continuata (= συνεχής; conf. Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 2, 2, continuatio
+est partium inter se non intermissa conjunctio) natura est. Nam ex
+terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aër, ex aëre æther: deinde retrorsum
+vicissim ex æthere aër, ex aëre aqua, ex aqua terra infima. Sic naturis
+his, ex quibus omnia constant, sursum deorsum, ultro citroque
+commeantibus, mundi partium conjunctio continetur. See p. 194, 3.
+
+[452] Diog. 137: εἶναι δὲ τὸ μὲν πῦρ τὸ θερμὸν, τὸ δ’ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑγρὸν,
+τόν τ’ ἀέρα τὸ ψυχρὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν τὸ ξηρόν. Plut. Sto. Rep. 43, 1, p.
+1053. The air is, according to Chrysippus, φύσει ζοφερὸς and πρώτως
+ψυχρός. Id. De Primo Frig. 9, 1; 17, 1, p. 948, 952; Galen, Simpl.
+Medic. ii. 20, vol. xi. 510. Sen. Nat. Qu. iii. 10; i. 4: Aër ...
+frigidus per se et obscurus ... natura enim aëris gelida est. Conf.
+Cic. N. D. ii. 10, 26. Of the four properties by the pairing of which
+elements arise, even Aristotle had attributed one to each element as
+its distinguishing feature, assigning cold to water, moisture to air.
+
+[453] Thus the upper portion of the air, owing to its proximity to the
+region of fire and the stars (Sen. Nat. Qu. iii. 10), is the warmest,
+the driest, and the rarest; but yet, owing to the evaporation of the
+earth and the radiation of heat, warmer than the middle, which in point
+of dryness and density is between the two, but exceeds both in cold.
+See p. 146, 4.
+
+[454] Chrysippus, in Stob. i. 314: λέγεσθαι δὲ πῦρ τὸ πυρῶδες πᾶν καὶ
+ἀέρα τὸ ἀερῶδες καὶ ὁμοίως τὰ λοιπά. Thus Philo, Incorrupt. M. 953, E,
+who is clearly following the Stoics, distinguishes three kinds of fire:
+ἄνθραξ, φλὸξ, αὐγή. He seems, however, only to refer to terrestrial
+fire, which, after all, forms only one small portion of fire.
+
+[455] Pp. 128, 2; 148, 2; 151, 1; 163, 2.
+
+[456] This statement must be taken with such modification as the unity
+of the world renders necessary. If the upper elements were to move
+altogether away from the centre, the world would go to pieces. Hence
+the meaning can only be this: that the difference of natural motions
+can only take place within the enclosure holding the elements together,
+and so far a natural motion towards the centre can be attributed to all
+bodies as a distinctive feature, anterior to the contrast between
+heaviness and lightness. Conf. Chrysippus, in Plut. Sto. Rep. 44, 6, p.
+1054: The striving of all the parts of the world is to keep together,
+not to go asunder. οὕτω δὲ τοῦ ὅλου τεινομένου εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ κινουμένου
+καὶ τῶν μορίων ταύτην τὴν κίνησιν ἐχόντων ἐκ τῆς τοῦ σώματος φύσεως,
+πιθανὸν, πᾶσι τοῖς σώμασιν εἶναι τὴν πρώτην κατὰ φύσιν κίνησιν πρὸς τὸ
+τοῦ κόσμου μέσον, τῷ μὲν κόσμῳ οὑτωσὶ κινουμένῳ πρὸς αὑτὸν, τοῖς δὲ
+μέρεσιν ὡς ἂν μέρεσιν οὖσιν. Achill. Tat. Isag. 132, A: The Stoics
+maintain that the world continues in empty space, ἐπεὶ πάντα αὐτοῦ τὰ
+μέρη ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον νένευκε. The same reason is assigned by Cleomedes,
+Meteor. p. 5.
+
+[457] Stob. Ecl. i. 346 (Plut. Pl. i. 12, 4). Zeno, Ibid. 406: οὐ
+πάντως δὲ σῶμα βάρος ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ ἀβαρῆ εἶναι ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ ... φύσει γὰρ
+ἀνώφοιτα ταῦτ’ εἶναι διὰ τὸ μηδενὸς μετέχειν βάρους. Plut. Sto. Rep.
+42, p. 1053: In the treatise περὶ κινήσεως, Chrysippus calls fire
+ἀβαρὲς and ἀνωφερὲς καὶ τούτῳ παραπλησίως τὸν ἀέρα, τοῦ μὲν ὕδατος τῇ
+γῇ μᾶλλον προσνεμομένου, τοῦ δ’ ἀέρος, τῷ πυρί. (So too in Ach. Tat.
+Isag. i. 4 in Pet. Doctr. Temp. iii. 75.) On the other hand, in his
+Φυσικαὶ τέχναι, he inclines to the view that air in itself is neither
+heavy nor light, which however can only mean that it is neither
+absolutely, being heavy compared with fire, and light compared with
+water and earth.
+
+[458] Diog. 137: ἀνωτάτω μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ ὃ δὴ αἰθέρα καλεῖσθαι, ἐν
+ᾧ πρώτην τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαῖραν γεννᾶσθαι, εἶτα τὴν τῶν πλανωμένων.
+μεθ’ ἣν τὸν ἀέρα, εἶτα τὸ ὕδωρ, ὑποστάθμην δὲ πάντων τὴν γῆν, μέσην
+ἁπάντων οὖσαν. Ibid. 156; see p. 202, 3. To these main masses, all
+other smaller masses of the same element in different parts of the
+world are attracted, because all seek to reach their natural place.
+Conf. M. Aurel. ix. 9.
+
+[459] Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 16, 2 (totum hoc cœlum, quod igneus æther,
+mundi summa pars, claudit), and p. 198, 3, where the same thing is
+called πῦρ by Stobæus, æther by Cicero. See p. 146, 4. The same thing
+is meant by Zeno, where he says (Stob. Ecl. i. 538, 554, and Cleanthes
+says the same in Cic. N. D. ii. 15, 40. Ach. Tat. Isag. 133, C) that
+the stars are made of fire; not, however, of πῦρ ἄτεχνον, but of πῦρ
+τεχνικὸν, which appears in plants as φύσις, in animals as ψυχή. See p.
+201, 5.
+
+[460] In Ach. Tat. Isag. 130, A, he defines οὐρανὸς as αἰθέρος τὸ
+ἔσχατον, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἐστὶ πάντα ἐμφανῶς. Similarly Diog. 138;
+Cleomed. Met. p. 7. Otherwise the term is used in a wider sense.
+
+[461] See p. 146, 4.
+
+[462] Stob. i. 346: τὸ μὲν περίγειον φῶς κατ’ εὐθεῖαν, τὸ δ’ αἰθέριον
+περιφερῶς κινεῖται. See p. 202, 3. It is only of terrestrial fire that
+Zeno can (Stob. Ecl. i. 356) say, it moves in a straight line.
+Cleanthes even attributed to the stars the spherical shape, which on
+the strength of this passage he attributes to it. See Plut. Plac. ii.
+14, 2; Stob. i. 516; Ach. Tat. Isag. 133, B.
+
+[463] They denied it, according to Orig. c. Cels. iv. 56. Cic. Acad. i.
+11, 39, says: Zeno dispensed with a quinta natura, being satisfied with
+four elements: statuebat enim ignem esse ipsam naturam, quæ quæque
+gigneret, et mentem atque sensus.
+
+[464] The spherical shape of the earth is a matter of course, and is
+mentioned by Ach. Tat. Isag. 126, C; Plut. Plac. iii. 10, 1; 9, 3.
+Cleom. Met. p. 40, gives an elaborate proof of it, for the most part
+taken from Posidonius.
+
+[465] Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 36, and Diog. 145, also affirm that the
+earth is in the centre, unmoved. The reason for this fact is stated by
+Stob. i. 408, to be its weight. Further proofs in Cleomed. Met. p. 47.
+
+[466] Stob. Ecl. i. 446: τοῦ δὲ ... κόσμου τὸ μὲν εἶναι περιφερόμενον
+περὶ τὸ μέσον, τὶ δ’ ὑπομένον, περιφερόμενον μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, ὑπομένον
+δὲ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ὑγρὰ καὶ τὸν ἀέρα. The earth is the natural
+framework, and, as it were, the skeleton of the world. Around it water
+has been poured, out of which the more exalted spots project as
+islands. For what is called continent is also an island: ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ
+ὕδατος τὸν ἀέρα ἐξῆφθαι καθάπερ ἐξατμισθέντα σφαιρικῶς καὶ
+περικεχύσθαι, ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὸν αἰθέρα ἀραιότατόν τε καὶ
+εἰλικρινέστατον. It moves in circular form round the world. Then
+follows what is given in the text as to the stars, next to which comes
+the stratum of air, then that of water, and lastly, in the centre, the
+earth. Conf. Achil. Tat. Isag. 126, B, see p. 200, 3. The language of
+Cleomed. Met. c. 3, p. 6, is somewhat divergent. He places the sun
+amongst the planets, between Mars and Venus. That Archedemus also
+refused to allow the earth a place in the centre has been already
+stated, p. 147, 2. The language of Ach. Tat. Isag. c. 7, 131, B, is
+ambiguous: As the circumference originates from the centre, so
+according to the Stoics the outer circle originates from the earth;
+when compared with the quotations on p. 161, 2; 162, 1.
+
+[467] Stob. i. 356; Plut. Plac. ii. 2, 1; i. 6, 3; Diog. 140; Cleomed.
+Met. pp. 39 and 46; Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 46. Ibid. on the
+perfection of this form and its adaptation for motion. Comparing Achil.
+Tat. Isag. 130, C, Plut. Plac. ii. 2, 1 (Galen. Hist. Phil. c. 11),
+with the passages on p. 201, note 4, it appears probable that Cleanthes
+believed in a spherical form of the earth. According to Ach. Tat. Isag.
+152, A, who probably has the Stoics in view, the axis of the world
+consists of a current of air passing through the centre. On the
+division of the heaven into five parallel circles, and that of the
+earth into five zones, conf. Diog. 155; Strabo, ii. 2, 3, p. 95.
+
+[468] Stob. i. 392; Simpl. Phys. iii. 6; Diog. 143 and 150.
+
+[469] Diog. 140; Stob. i. 382; Plut. Plac. i. 18, 4; Sext. Math. vii.
+214; Theodoret, Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 14, p. 58; Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. i.
+21. Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 7, observes that motion is possible by means of
+ἀντιπερίστασις, without supposing the existence of empty space. A
+number of arguments against the existence of empty space may be found
+in Cleomed. Met. p. 4.
+
+[470] See p. 168, 1; Cleomed. Met. 2 and 5.
+
+[471] Chrysippus, in Stob. i. 392: The Empty and the Non-Material is
+unlimited. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ μηδὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πέρας, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ μηδενὸς,
+οἷόν ἐστι τὸ κενόν. The Empty could only be bounded by being filled. To
+the same effect, Cleomed. p. 6. On the unlimited beyond the world, see
+Diog. 140 and 143; Stob. i. 260 and 382; Plut. Sto. Rep. 44, 1, p.
+1054; C. Not. 30, 2, p. 1073; Plac. i. 18, 4; ii. 9, 2; Theodoret, l.c.
+and p. 196, 2. That Posidonius denied the infinity of the Empty has
+been already stated, p. 168, 1. Chrysippus, in affirming that the world
+occupies the centre of space, was therefore contradicting himself, as
+Plut. Def. Or. 28, p. 425, Sto. Rep. 44, 2, observes.
+
+[472] Achil. Tat. Isag. 126, A; 132, A, see p. 200, 1; Stob. i. 408.
+According to Stob. i. 442, Plut. C. Not. 30, 2 and 10, p. 1073, Plac.
+ii. 1, 6; i. 5, 1, Diog. 143, Sext. Math. ix. 332, Ach. Tat. 129, D,
+the Stoics had various names for the world, according as the Empty was
+included or excluded in the conception. Including the Empty, it is
+called τὸ πᾶν; without it, ὅλον (τὸ ὅλον, τὰ ὅλα, frequently occurs
+with the Stoics). The πᾶν, it was said, is neither material nor
+immaterial, since it consists of both. Plut. C. Not. l.c.
+
+[473] Diog. 145; Plut. Plac. ii. 14, 1; 22, 3; 27, 1; Stob. i. 516;
+540; 554; Ach. Tat. 133, D. Compare the reference to Cleanthes on p.
+201, 4, with which, however, the statement in Stob. i. 554, that he
+considered the moon πιλοειδὴς (ball-like—the MSS. have πηλοειδῆ) does
+not agree.
+
+[474] According to Cic. N. D. ii. 15, 40, Diog. 144, Stob. Ecl. i. 314;
+519; 538; 554; 565, Plut. Fac. Lun. 5, 1; 21, 13, p. 921, 935, Plac.
+ii. 25, 3; 30, 3, Galen, Hist. Phil. 15, Philo, De Somn. 587, B, Achil.
+Tat. Isag. 124, D; 133, C, and above p. 200, 3; 162, 2, the stars
+generally consist of fire, or, more accurately, of πῦρ τεχνικὸν, or
+Ether. The purest fire is in the sun. The moon is a compound of dull
+fire and air, or, as it is said, is more earth-like, since (as Plin.
+Hist. Nat. ii. 9, 46, without doubt after Stoic teaching, observes)
+owing to its proximity to the earth, it takes up earthy particles in
+vapour. Perhaps it was owing to this fact that it was said to receive
+its light from the sun (Diog. 145), which, according to Posidonius in
+Plut. Fac. Lun. 16, 12, p. 929, Cleomed. Met. p. 106, not only
+illuminates its surface, but penetrates some depth. Cleomed. 100,
+believes that, besides the light of the sun, it has also a light of its
+own.
+
+[475] Diog. 145; Stob. i. 532; 538; 554; Floril. 17, 43; Plut. De Is.
+41, p. 367; Sto. Rep. 39, 1; Qu. Conv. viii. 8, 2, 4; Plac. ii. 17, 2;
+20, 3; 23, 5; Galen, Hist. Phil. 14; Porphyr. Antr. Nymph, c. 11; Cic.
+N. D. iii. 14, 37; ii. 15, 40; 46, 118; Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 16. 2;
+Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 36, p. 74 and 56, p. 117; most of whom affirm
+that the sun is sustained by vapours from the sea, the moon by those of
+fresh water, and the other stars by vapours from the earth. The stars
+are also said to owe their origin to such vapours. Chrysippus, in Plut.
+Sto. Rep. 41, 3, adds to the passage quoted p. 161, 2: οἱ δ’ ἀστέρες ἐκ
+θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐνάπτονται. Plut. Ibid. 2: ἔμψυχον ἡγεῖται τὸν
+ἥλιον, πύρινον ὄντα καὶ γεγενημένον ἐκ τῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως εἰς πῦρ
+μεταβαλούσης. Id. C. Not. 46, 2, p. 1084: γεγονέναι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον
+ἔμψυχον λέγουσι τοῦ ὑγροῦ μεταβάλλοντος εἰς πῦρ νοερόν.
+
+[476] Stob. i. 532; Cic. l.c.; Macrob. Sat. i. 23, quoting Cleanthes
+and Macrobius; Plut. Plac. ii. 23, 5. Diogenes of Apollonia had already
+expressed similar views. Further particulars as to the courses of the
+stars without anything very peculiar in Stob. i. 448; 538; Plut. Pl.
+ii. 15, 2; 16, 1; Diog. 144; Cleomed. Meteor. i. 3. Eclipses are also
+discussed by Diog. 145; Stob. i. 538; 560; Plut. Fac. Lun. 19, 12, p.
+932; Plac. ii. 29, 5; Cleomed. pp. 106 and 115, nor is there anything
+remarkable. Quite in the ordinary way are some observations of
+Posidonius and Chrysippus given in Stob. i. 518; Achil Tat. Isag. 132,
+B; 165, C. The information—quoted from Posidonius by Cleomed. Meteor.
+51; Procl. in Tim. 277, E; Strabo, ii. 5, 14, p. 119—respecting
+observations of Canobus have no bearing on our present enquiry.
+
+[477] Stob. i. 554 (Plut. Pl. ii. 26, 1). This statement, however,
+appears only to be true of the sun, to which, indeed, it is confined by
+Diog. 144. That the sun is much larger than the earth, Posidonius
+proved; not only because its light extends over the whole heaven, but
+also because of the spherical form of the earth’s shadow in eclipses of
+the moon. Diog. l.c.; Macrob. Somn. i. 20; Heracl. Alleg. Hom. c. 46;
+Cleomed. Met. ii. 2. According to Cleomed. p. 79, he allowed to it an
+orbit 10,000 times as large as the circumference of the earth, with a
+diameter of four million stadia. The Stoic, in Cic. N. D. ii. 40, 103,
+only calls the moon half that size; and Cleomed. p. 97, probably
+following Posidonius, calls it considerably smaller than the earth. The
+other stars, according to Cleomed. p. 96, are some of them as large as,
+and others larger than, the sun. Posidonius, according to Plin. Hist.
+N. ii. 23, 85, estimated the moon’s distance from the earth at two
+million, and the sun’s distance from the moon at 500 million stadia. He
+estimated the earth’s circumference at 240,000, according to Cleomed.;
+at 180,000 according to Strabo, ii. 2, 2, p. 95.
+
+[478] Conf. Stob. i. 66; 441; 518; 532; 538; 554; Floril. 17, 43; Plut.
+Sto. Rep 39, 1; 41, 2; C. Not. 46, 2; Plac. ii. 20, 3; Diog. 145;
+Phædr. Nat. De. (Philodem. περὶ εὐσεβείας) Col. 3; Cic. N. D. i. 14, 36
+and 50; ii. 15, 39 and 42; 16, 43; 21, 54; Acad. ii. 37, 110; Porphyr.
+l.c.; Achill. Tat. Isag. c. 13, p. 134, A. Hence, in several of these
+passages, the sun is called after Cleanthes and Chrysippus a νοερὸν
+ἄναμμα (or ἔξαμμα) ἐκ θαλάσσης.
+
+[479] Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 16, discusses the point at length. See also the
+quotations on p. 144, 1, from Cic. N. D. ii. 9, and on p. 151, 1, from
+Diog. 147.
+
+[480] Diog. vii. 152 and 138, mentions a treatise of his, called
+μετεωρολογικὴ or μετεωρολογικὴ στοιχείωσις; also, vii. 135, a treatise
+περὶ μετεώρων, in several books. Alexander, in Simpl. Phys. 64, 6,
+speaks of an ἐξήγησις μετεωρολογικῶν, which, judging by the title, may
+be a commentary on Aristotle’s meteorology. Geminus had made an extract
+from this book, a long portion of which on the relation of astronomy
+and natural science is there given. Whether these various titles really
+belong to these different treatises is not clear. Posidonius is
+probably the author of most of the later statements about the Stoic
+meteorology. He appears also to be the chief authority for Seneca’s
+Naturales Quæstiones, in which he is frequently named (i. 5, 10; 13;
+ii. 26, 4; 54, 1; iv. 3, 2; vi. 21, 2; 24, 6; vii. 20, 2; 4),
+particularly in his meteorological treatises.
+
+[481] On the Milky Way, which Posidonius, agreeing with Aristotle,
+looked upon as a collection of fiery vapours, see Stob. i. 576; Plut.
+Plac. iii. 1, 10; Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 15. On the comets, which are
+explained in a similar way, Stob. i. 580 (Plac. iii. 2, 8.—Whether the
+Diogenes mentioned here who looked upon comets as real stars is
+Diogenes the Stoic, or Diogenes of Apollonia, is not clear. The former
+is more probable, Boëthus having been just before mentioned); Arrian,
+in Stob. i. 584; Diog. vii. 152; and, particularly, Sen. Nat. Qu. vii.
+We learn from the latter that Zeno held (vii. 19–21; 30, 2), with
+Anaxagoras and Democritus, that comets are formed by several stars
+uniting; whereas the majority of the Stoics—and, amongst their number,
+Panætius and Posidonius (further particulars in Schol. in Arat. v.
+1091)—considered them passing phenomena. Even Seneca declared for the
+opinion that they are stars. On the phenomena of light and fire, called
+πωγωνίαι, δοκοὶ, etc., see Arrian in Stob. i. 584; Sen. Nat. Qu. i. 1,
+14; 15, 4. On σέλας, consult Diog. 153; Sen. i. 15; on halo (ἅλως),
+Sen. i. 2; Alex. Aphr. Meteorol. 116; on the rainbow, Diog. 152; Sen.
+i. 3–8; on virgæ and parhelia, Sen. i. 9–13; Schol. in Arat. v. 880
+(Posidonius); on storms, lightning, thunder, summer lightning,
+cyclones, and siroccos, Stob. i. 596; 598 (Plac. iii. 3, 4); Arrian,
+Ibid. 602; Sen. ii. 12–31; 51–58 (c. 54, the view of Posidonius); ii.
+1, 3; Diog. 153; on rain, sleet, hail, snow, Diog. 153; Sen. iv. 3–12;
+on earthquakes, Diog. 154; Plac. iii. 15, 2; Sen. vi. 4–31
+(particularly c. 16; 21, 2); also Strabo, ii. 3, 6, p. 102; on winds,
+Plac. iii. 7, 2; Sen. v. 1–17; Strabo, i. 2, 21, p. 29; iii. 2, 5, p.
+144; on waterspouts, Sen. iii. 1–26; the Nile floods, Ibid. iv. 1;
+Strabo, xvii. 1, 5, p. 790; Cleomed. Meteor, p. 32; on tides, Strabo,
+i. 3, 12, p. 55; iii. 3, 3, p. 153; 5, 8, p. 73; on seasons, p. 111, 2.
+
+[482] Thus colours are explained as πρῶτοι σχηματισμοὶ τῆς ὕλης (Stob.
+i. 364; Plac. i. 15, 5); and sounds are spoken of as undulations in the
+air by Plut. Plac. iv. 19, 5; Diog. 158.
+
+[483] Conf. Bake, Posidonii Rhod. Reliquiæ, pp. 87–184; Müller, Fragm.
+Hist. Græc. iii. 245.
+
+[484] Sext. Math. ix. 81: τῶν ἡνωμένων (on ἕνωσις see p. 103, 1)
+σωμάτων τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ ψιλῆς ἕξεως συνέχεται, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ φύσεως, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ
+ψυχῆς· καὶ ἕξεως μὲν ὡς λίθοι καὶ ξύλα, φύσεως δὲ, καθάπερ τὰ φυτὰ,
+ψυχῆς δὲ τὰ ζῷα. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 12, p. 451: καθόλου δὲ τῶν ὄντων
+αὐτοὶ τέ φασι καὶ δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἕξει διοικεῖται τὰ δὲ φύσει,
+τὰ δὲ ἀλόγῳ ψυχῇ, τὰ δὲ καὶ λόγον ἐχούσῃ καὶ διάνοιαν. Themist. De An.
+72, b; M. Aurel. vi. 14; Philo, Qu. De. S. Immut. 298, D; De Mundo,
+1154, E; Leg. Alleg. 1091, D; Incorrupt. M. 947, A; Plotin. Enn. iv. 7,
+8, p. 463, C, Bas. 861, Cr. (Otherwise Cic. N. D. ii. 12, 33. See p.
+146, 1). Respecting the difference of φύσις and ψυχὴ, φύσις is said to
+consist of a moister, colder, and denser πνεῦμα than ψυχή; but, on this
+point, see Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 1; Com. Not. 46, 2; Galen, Hipp. et
+Plat. v. 3. Vol. v. 521. Qu. Animi Mores, c. 4. Vol. iv. 783. In Diog.
+139, ἕξις and νοῦς, as the highest and lowest links in the series, are
+contrasted. Ibid. 156, there is a definition of φύσις = πῦρ τεχνικὸν
+ὁδῷ βαδίζον εἰς γένεσιν; and (148) another = ἕξις ἐξ αὑτῆς κινουμένη
+κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους ἀποτελοῦσά τε καὶ συνέχουσα τὰ ἐξ αὑτῆς ἐν
+ὡρισμένοις χρόνοις καὶ τοιαῦτα δρῶσα ἀφ’ οἵων ἀπεκρίθη. It hardly need
+be repeated that the force is one and the same, which at one time
+appears as ἕξις, at another as φύσις. Conf. Diog. 138; Themist. l.c.;
+Sext. Math. ix. 84.
+
+[485] The belief that blood circulates in the veins, spiritus in the
+arteries (Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 15, 1), which was shared by the
+Peripatetics, deserves to be mentioned here, Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 15, 1;
+also the explanations of sleep, death, and age in Plut. Plac. v. 23, 4;
+30, 5; the assertion that animals are not only deficient in reason (on
+this point see Plut. Solert. An. 2, 9; 6, 1; 11, 2, pp. 960, 963, 967),
+but also (according to Chrysippus in Galen, Hippoc. et Plat. iii. 3; v.
+1, 6. Vol. v., 309, 429, 431, 476) in emotions (or as Galen also says
+in θυμὸς and ἐπιθυμία), even in man the emotions being connected with
+the rational soul. Posidonius, however, denied this statement (Galen,
+p. 476), and Chrysippus believed that animals had a ἡγεμονικόν.
+(Chalcid. in Tim. p. 148, b.) He even discovered in the scent of dogs
+traces of an unconscious inference. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 69. See also p.
+225, 2.
+
+[486] Cleanthes, in Nemes. Nat. Hom. p. 33, and Tert. De An. c. 5:
+οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι·
+συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι νοσοῦντι καὶ τεμνομένῳ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ
+ψυχῇ· αἰσχυνομένης γοῦν ἐρυθρὸν γίνεται καὶ φοβουμένης ὠχρόν. σῶμα ἄρα
+ἡ ψυχή. Chrysippus in Nemes. p. 34: ὁ θάνατός ἐστι χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ
+σώματος· οὐδὲν δὲ ἀσώματον ἀπὸ σώματος χωρίζεται· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐφάπτεται
+σώματος ἀσώματον· ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ καὶ ἐφάπτεται καὶ χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος·
+σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή. The same is said by Tertullian.
+
+[487] Nemes. Nat. Hom. c. 2, p. 30.
+
+[488] Diog. 157; Cic. N. D. ii. 14, 36.
+
+[489] Zeno, in Tertull. l.c., and very nearly the same in Chalcid. in
+Tim. p. 306 Meurs.: Quo digresso animal emoritur: consito autem spiritu
+digresso animal emoritur: ergo consitus spiritus corpus est, consitus
+autem spiritus anima est: ergo corpus est anima. Chrysippus in Chalcid.
+l.c.
+
+[490] Cleanthes, in Nemes. l.c. 32: οὐ μόνον ὅμοιοι τοῖς γονεῦσι
+γινόμεθα, κατὰ τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν, τοῖς πάθεσι, τοῖς
+ἤθεσι, ταῖς διαθέσεσι· σώματος δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ ἀνόμοιον, οὐχὶ δὲ
+ἀσώματον· σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή. The same in Tertullian, l.c.
+
+[491] Chrysippus in Galen, Hipp. et Plat. iii. 1. Vol. v. 287: ἡ ψυχὴ
+πνεῦμά ἐστι σύμφυτον ἡμῖν συνεχὲς παντὶ τῷ σώματι διῆκον. Zeno. Macrob.
+Somn. i. 14: Zenon [dixit animam] concretum corpori spiritum ...
+Boëthos (probably the Stoic, not the Peripatetic of the first century,
+is meant) ex aëre et igne [sc. constare]. Diog. in Galen, ii. 8, p.
+282: τὸ κινοῦν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὰς κατὰ προαίρεσιν κινήσεις ψυχική τίς
+ἐστιν ἀναθυμίασις. Cic. Nat. D. iii. 14, 36; Tusc. i. 9, 19; 18, 42:
+Zeno considers the soul to be fire; Panætius believes that it is
+burning air. Diog. L. vii. 156, on the authority of Zeno, Antipater,
+Posidonius, says that it is πνεῦμα σύμφυτον, πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον. Stob.
+Ecl. i. 796 (Plut. Plac. iv. 3, 3). Cornut. N. D. p. 8: καὶ γὰρ αἱ
+ἡμέτεραι ψυχαὶ πῦρ εἰσι. Ar. Didymus, in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 20, 1: Zeno
+calls the soul αἴσθησιν ἢ ἀναθυμίασιν (should be αἰσθητικὴν
+ἀναθυμίασιν, conf. § 2 and Ps. Plut. Vit. Hom. c. 127: τὴν ψυχὴν οἱ
+Στωϊκοὶ ὁρίζονται πνεῦμα συμφυὲς καὶ ἀναθυμίασιν αἰσθητικὴν ἀναπτομένην
+ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν σώματι ὑγρῶν). Longin. in Eus. Ibid. 21, 1 and 3. Alex. De
+An. 127. b: οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς πνεῦμα αὐτὴν λέγοντες εἶναι συγκείμενόν
+πως ἔκ τε πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος. Since, however, every πνεῦμα is not a soul,
+a soul is stated to be πνεῦμα πὼς ἔχον (Plotin. Enn. iv. 7, 4, p. 458,
+E); and the distinctive quality of the soul-element is its greater
+warmth and rarity. See Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 2, p. 1052: Chrysippus
+considers the ψυχὴ to be ἀραιότερον πνεῦμα τῆς φύσεως καὶ
+λεπτομερέστερον. Similarly, Galen, Qu. An. Mores, c. 4. Vol. iv. 783:
+The Stoics say that both φύσις and ψυχὴ is πνεῦμα, but that the πνεῦμα
+is thick and cold in φύσις, dry and warm in ψυχή.
+
+[492] Chrysippus. See previous note. This diffusion is further
+explained by Iambl. in Stob. Ecl. i. 870 and 874, Themist. De Anim. f.
+68, a. Plotin. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, c, as being κρᾶσις, i.e. an
+intermingling of elements. That the soul forms the bond of union for
+the body, and not vice versâ, was a point vindicated by the Stoics
+against the Epicureans. Posid. in Achil. Tat. Isag. c. 13, p. 133, E;
+Sext. Math. ix. 72.
+
+[493] Galen. Hippocr. et Plat. ii. 8, p. 282, on the authority of Zeno,
+Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Diogenes; Longin. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xv. 21, 3;
+M. Aurel. v. 33; vi. 15; Ps. Plut. Vit. Hom. 127.
+
+[494] Zeno described the seed as πνεῦμα μεθ’ ὑγροῦ ψυχῆς μέρος καὶ
+ἀπόσπασμα ... μῖγμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν (Arius Didymus, in Eus. Pr. Ev.
+xv. 20, 1), or as σύμμιγμα καὶ κέρασμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων (Plut.
+Coh. Ir. 15). Similarly Chrysip., in Diog. 159. Conf. Tertullian, De
+An. c. 27. According to Sphærus, in Diog. 159, the seed is formed by
+separation from all parts of the body and can consequently produce all,
+as Democritus had already said. Panætius (in Cic. Tusc. i. 31, 79)
+proves, from the mental similarity, between parents and children, that
+the soul comes into existence by generation. For the mother’s share in
+producing the soul, see Ar. Did. l.c. See above p. 127, 5.
+
+[495] Plut. Sto. Rep. 41, 1 and 8, p. 1052; C. Not. 46, 2, p. 1084. De
+Primo Frig. 2, 5, p. 946: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα λέγουσιν ἐν τοῖς
+σώμασι τῶν βρεφῶν τῇ περιψύξει στομοῦσθαι καὶ μεταβάλλον ἐκ φύσεως
+γενέσθαι ψυχήν. Similarly, Plotin. Enn. iv. 7, 8, p. 463, c. Conf.
+Hippolyt. Refut. Hær. c. 21, p. 40; Tertull. De An. c. 25. Plutarch
+(Plac. v. 16, 2; 17, 1; 24, 1) draws attention to the inconsistency of
+saying that the animal soul, which is warmer and rarer than the
+vegetable soul, has been developed of it there by cooling and
+condensation.
+
+[496] On this point, the Stoics were not altogether agreed. Some (not
+all, as Plut. Pl. Phil. iv. 21, 5, asserts) made the brain the seat of
+the soul, in proof of which they appealed to the story of the birth of
+Pallas. Sext. Math. ix. 119; Diog. in Phædr. Fragm. De Nat. De. col. 6.
+Conf. Krische, Forschungen, i. 488, and Chrysipp. in Galen, l.c. iii.
+8, p. 349. It appears, however, from Galen, l.c. i. 6, ii. 2 and 5,
+iii. 1, pp. 185, 214, 241, 287, Tertull. De An. c. 15, that the most
+distinguished Stoics—Zeno, Chrysippus, Diogenes, and
+Apollodorus—decided in favour of the heart. The chief proof is, that
+the voice does not come from the hollow of the skull, but from the
+breast. Chrysippus was aware of the weakness of this proof, but still
+did not shrink from using it. Galen, l.c. p. 254, 261. At the same
+time, he also appealed to the fact (ii. 7, 268; iii. 1, 290, c. 5, 321,
+c. 7, 335, 343; iv. 1, 362) that, by universal assent, supported by
+numerous passages from the poets, the motions of the will and the
+feelings proceed from the heart.
+
+[497] Aristotle had assigned no particular organ of the body to reason.
+
+[498] Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 2. Ibid, c. 21: The Stoics consider the
+ἡγεμονικὸν to be the highest part of the soul; it begets the φαντασίαι,
+συγκαταθέσεις, αἰσθήσεις, and ὁρμαὶ, and is by them called λογισμός;
+from it the seven divisions of the soul reach to the body, like the
+arms of a cuttle-fish, and are therefore collectively defined as πνεῦμα
+διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοὺ ἡγεμονικοῦ (μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν, ὤτων, μυκτήρων, γλώττης,
+ἐπιφανείας, παραστάτων, φάρυγγος γλώττης καὶ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων).
+Galen, l.c. iii. 1, 287. See p. 215, 2; Diog. 110 and 157; Porphyr. and
+Iamblich. in Stob. i. 836, 874, and 878; Chalcid. in Tim. 307;
+Nicomachus, in Iambl. Theol. Arith. p. 50. But there was no universal
+agreement among the Stoics on this subject. According to Tertull. De
+An. 14, Zeno only admitted three divisions of the soul, whilst some
+among the later Stoics enumerated as many as ten; Panætius only held
+six, and Posidonius went still further away from the view current among
+the Stoics. The remarks of Stob. i. 828, probably refer to the
+Peripatetic Aristo.
+
+[499] See p. 73, 2.
+
+[500] Conf. Cleanth. Hymn 4:
+
+    ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμὲν ἰῆς μίμημα λαχόντες
+    μοῦνοι, ὅσα ζώει τε καὶ ἕρπει θνήτ’ ἐπὶ γαῖαν.
+
+[501] See p. 214, 2 and Chrys. in Galen, l.c. iii. 1, p. 287. Conf. p.
+211, 5: ταύτης οὖν [τῆς ψυχῆς] τῶν μερῶν ἑκάστῳ διατεταγμένον [ων]
+μορίῳ, τὸ διῆκον αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν φωνὴν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ εἰς
+ὀφθαλμοὺς ὄψιν, κ.τ.λ. καὶ τὸ εἰς ὄρχεις, ἕτερόν τιν’ ἔχον τοιοῦτον
+λόγον, σπερματικὸν, εἰς ὃ δὲ συμβαίνει πάντα ταῦτα, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ εἶναι,
+μέρος ὂν αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 2: τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἀφ’
+οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέτακται [= ταται] διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων προσφερῶς
+ταῖς τοῦ πολύποδος πλεκτάναις. Conf. Sext. Math. ix. 102. Alex. Aphr.
+(De An. 146) therefore denies the Stoical assertion, that the ψυχικὴ
+δύναμις is only one, and that every activity of the soul is only the
+action of the πὼς ἔχον ἡγεμονικόν. Conversely Tertullian, De An. 14,
+speaking quite after the manner of a Stoic, says: Hujusmodi autem non
+tam partes animæ habebuntur, quam vires et efficaciæ et operæ ... non
+enim membra sunt substantiæ animalis, sed ingenia (capacities). Iambl.
+in Stob. i. 874: The powers of the soul bear, according to the Stoics,
+the same relation to the soul that qualities bear to the substance;
+their difference is partly owing to the diffusion of the πνεύματα, of
+which they consist, in different parts of the body, partly to the union
+of several qualities in one subject-matter, the latter being necessary,
+for ἡγεμονικὸν to include φαντασία, συγκατάθεσις, ὁρμὴ, and λόγος.
+
+[502] Plut. Virt. Mort. c. 3, p. 441, speaking of Zeno, Aristo, and
+Chrysippus: νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἶναι τὸ παθητικὸν καὶ ἄλογον διαφορᾷ τινι
+καὶ φύσει ψυχῆς τοῦ λογικοῦ διακεκριμένον, ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ τῆς ψυχῆς
+μέρος, ὃ δὴ καλοῦσι διάνοιαν καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν, διόλου τρεπόμενον καὶ
+μεταβάλλον ἐν τε τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ταῖς κατὰ ἕξιν ἢ διάθεσιν μεταβολαῖς
+κακίαν τε γίνεσθαι καὶ ἀρετὴν καὶ μηδὲν ἔχειν ἄλογον ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Plac.
+Phil. iv. 21, 1. Galen, l.c. iv. 1, p. 364: Chrysippus sometimes speaks
+as if he admitted a distinct δύναμις ἐπιθυμητικὴ or θυμοειδής; at other
+times, as if he denied it. The latter is clearly his meaning. Ibid. v.
+6, 476: ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος οὐθ’ ἕτερον εἶναι νομίζει τὸ παθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς
+τοῦ λογιστικοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ἀφαιρεῖται τὰ πάθη. See p. 209, 1.
+Iambl. in Stob. Ecl. i. 890; Diog. vii. 159. Orig. c. Cels. v. 47: τοὺς
+ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀρνουμένους τὸ τριμερὲς τῆς ψυχῆς. Posidonius (in Galen,
+l.c. 6, 476) endeavours to prove that Cleanthes held a different view,
+by a passage in which he contrasts θυμὸς with λόγος—but this is making
+a rhetorical flourish do duty for a philosophic statement.
+
+[503] Chrys. (in Galen, ii. 2, 215): οὕτως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐγὼ λέγομεν κατὰ
+τοῦτο (the primary power in the breast) δεικνύντες αὑτοὺς ἐν τῷ
+ἀποφαίνεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν εἶναι.
+
+[504] Cleanthes, v. 4, p. 215, 1. Epictet. Diss. i. 14, 6: αἱ ψυχαὶ
+συναφεῖς τῷ θεῷ ἅτε αὐτοῦ μόρια οὖσαι καὶ ἀποσπάσματα. Id. ii. 8, 11.
+M. Aurel. ii. 4, v. 27, calls the soul μέρος ἀπόρροια, ἀπόσπασμα θεοῦ;
+and, xii. 26, even calls the human νοῦς θεός. Sen. Ep. 41, 2: Sacer
+intra nos spiritus sedet ... in unoquoque virorum bonorum, quis Deus
+incertum est, habitat Deus. Id. Ep. 66, 12. Ratio autem nihil aliud est
+quam in corpus humanum pars divini spiritus mersa. Consequently,
+reason, thought, and virtue are of the same nature in the human soul as
+in the soul of the universe, as Iambl. in Stob. Ecl. i. 886, states as
+a Stoic view. From this relationship to God, Posidonius deduces in a
+well-known simile (see p. 84, 1) the soul’s capacity for studying
+nature, and Cicero (De Leg. 1. 8, 24) the universality of a belief in
+God. All souls, as being parts of the divine mind, may be collectively
+regarded as one soul or reason. Marc. Aurel. ix. 8: εἰς μὲν τὰ ἄλογα
+ζῷα μία ψυχὴ διῄρηται· εἰς δὲ τὰ λογικὰ μία λογικὴ ψυχὴ μεμέρισται.
+xii. 30: ἓν φῶς ἡλίου, κἂν διείργηται τοίχοις, ὄρεσιν, ἄλλοις μυρίοις·
+μία οὐσία κοινὴ, κἂν διείργηται ἰδίως ποιοῖς σώμασι μυρίοις· μία ψυχὴ,
+κἂν φύσεσι διείργηται μυρίαις καὶ ἰδίαις περιγραφαῖς. This oneness,
+however, must, as the comparison shows, be understood in the sense of
+the Stoic realism: the universal soul, in the sense of ethereal
+substance, is the element of which individual souls consist. See also
+Marc. Aurel. viii. 54.
+
+[505] In this sense, Sen. Ep. 31, 11, calls the animus rectus, bonus,
+magnus, a Deus in corpore humano hospitans.
+
+[506] Further particulars, p. 174, 180, 189.
+
+[507] See p. 179.
+
+[508] See p. 88, 1.
+
+[509] Diog. 156; Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 31. 2, p. 1107; Plac. iv. 7, 2;
+Ar. Didymus, in Eus. Præp. Ev. xv. 20, 3; Sen. Consol. ad Marc. c. 26,
+7; Ep. 102, 22; 117, 6; Cic. Tusc. i. 31, 77. Seneca (ad Polyb. 9, 2;
+Ep. 65, 24; 71, 16; 36, 9, and in Tertull. De An. c. 42; Resurr. Carn.
+3. 1) and M. Aurelius (iii. 3; vii. 32; viii. 25, 58) are only speaking
+κατ’ ἄνθρωπον, in seeming to doubt a future life after death, in order
+to dispel the fear of death in every case. It is, however, a mistake of
+Tiedemann (Sto. Phil. ii. 155) to suppose that they, in many passages
+(Sen. Ep. 71, 102, M. Aur. ii. 17; v. 4, 13), supposed the immediate
+dissolution of the soul after death. It is, on the contrary, clear,
+from M. Aurel. iv. 14, 21, that the soul lives some time after death,
+and is not resolved into the world-soul till the general conflagration.
+But even this is a variation from the ordinary view of the Stoics.
+According to Seneca (Consol. ad Marciam) the souls of the good, as in
+the doctrine of purgatory, undergo a purification, before they are
+admitted to the ranks of the blessed; and here this purification is no
+doubt required on physical grounds. When the soul is purified, both in
+substance and morals, it rises up to the ether, and there, according to
+M. Aurelius, united to the σπερματικὸς λόγος τῶν ὅλων, it lives,
+according to the common view, until the end of the world. The ether is
+also allotted to the blessed, for their residence, by Cic. Tusc. i. 18,
+42; Lactant. Inst. vii. 20; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi. 31, 2, p. 1107. The
+souls, as Cicero remarks, penetrating the thick lower air, mount to
+heaven, until they reach an atmosphere (the juncti ex anima tenui et
+ardore solis temperato ignes) congenial with their own nature. Here
+they naturally stop, and are fed by the same elements as the stars.
+According to Chrysippus (in Eustath. on Il. xxiii. 65), they there
+assume the spherical shape of the stars. According to Tertull. De An.
+54, conf. Lucan. Phars. ix. 5, their place is under the moon. Zeno, in
+speaking of the islands of the blest (Lact. Inst. vii. 7, 20), probably
+only desired to enlist popular opinion in his own favour. The souls of
+the foolish and bad also last some time after death; only, as being
+weaker, they do not last until the end of the world (Ar. Did.;
+Theodoret. Cur. Gr. Affec. v. 23, p. 73); and meantime, as it is
+distinctly asserted by Sen. Ep. 117, 6, Tertullian, and Lactantius,
+they are punished in the nether world. Tertullian in placing a portion
+of the souls of the foolish in the region of the earth, and there
+allowing them to be instructed by the wise, is probably referring to
+the purification mentioned by Seneca. For the supposed transmigration
+of souls see p. 166, 2.
+
+[510] The peculiar notion mentioned by Seneca (Ep. 57, 7) as belonging
+to the Stoics—animam hominis magno pondere extriti permanere non posse
+et statim spargi, quia non fuerit illi exitus liber—was not required by
+their principles, as Seneca already observed. It belongs, in fact, only
+to individual members of that School.
+
+[511] Conf. Baur, Seneca und Paulus, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift für
+wissensch. Theol. i. 2, 221.
+
+[512] Ep. 102, 22: Cum venerit dies ille, qui mixtum hoc divini
+humanique secernat, corpus hic, ubi inveni, relinquam, ipse me Dis
+reddam ... per has mortalis vitæ moras illi meliori vitæ longiorique
+proluditur. As a child in its mother’s womb, sic per hoc spatium, quod
+ab infantia patet in senectutem, in alium maturescimus partum. All we
+possess, and the body itself, is only the baggage, which we neither
+brought into the world, nor can carry away with us. Dies iste, quem
+tanquam extremum reformidas, æterni natalis est. Ep. 120, 14: The body
+is breve hospitium, which a noble soul does not fear to lose. Scit
+enim, quo exiturus sit, qui, unde venerit, meminit. Conf. Ep. 65, 16.
+
+[513] Consol. ad Marc. 24, 3: Imago dumtaxat filii tui periit ... ipse
+quidem æternus meliorisque nunc status est, despoliatus oneribus
+alienis et sibi relictus. The body is only a vessel, enveloping the
+soul in darkness: nititur illo, unde dimissus est; ibi illum æterna
+requies manet. Ibid. 26, 7: Nos quoque felices animæ et æterna sortitæ.
+Ibid. 19, 6: Excessit filius tuus terminos intra quos servitur: excepit
+illum magna et æterna pax. No fear or care, no desire, envy, or
+compassion disturbs him. Ibid. 26, 5. Consol. ad Polyb. 9, 3, 8: Nunc
+animus fratris mei velut ex diutino carcere emissus, tandem sui juris
+et arbitrii, gestit et rerum naturæ spectaculo fruitur ... fruitur nunc
+aperto et libero cœlo ... et nunc illic libere vagatur omniaque rerum
+naturæ bona cum summa voluptate perspicit. Ep. 79, 12: Tunc animus
+noster habebit, quod gratuletur sibi, cum emissus his tenebris ...
+totum diem admiserit, et cœlo redditus suo fuerit. Ep. 102, 28:
+Aliquando naturæ tibi arcana retegentur, discutietur ista caligo et lax
+undique clara percutiet, which Seneca then further expands.
+
+[514] In Consol. ad Marc. 26, 1, Seneca describes how, the time of
+purification ended, the deceased one inter felices currit animas (the
+addition: excepit illum cœtus sacer Hanse rightly treats as a gloss)
+and how his grandfather shows him the hall of heaven. Ibid. 26, 3.
+
+[515] Ep. 26, 4: Velut adpropinquet experimentum et ille laturus
+sententiam de omnibus annis meis dies ... quo, remotis strophis ac
+fucis, de me judicaturus sum. Compare the hora decretoria, Ep. 102, 24.
+
+[516] Ep. 102, 29: Hæc cogitatio (that of heaven and a future life)
+nihil sordidum animo subsidere sinit, nihil humile, nihil crudele. Deos
+rerum omnium esse testes ait: illis nos adprobari, illis in futurum
+parari jubet et æternitatem menti proponere.
+
+[517] Ep. 36, 10: Mors ... intermittit vitam, non eripit: veniet iterum
+qui nos in lucem reponat dies, quem multi recusarent, nisi oblitos
+reduceret. Sed postea diligentius docebo omnia, quæ videntur perire,
+mutari. Æquo animo debet rediturus exire. The souls cannot return,
+according to the Stoic teaching, until after the general conflagration,
+presuming that the same persons will be found in the future world as in
+the present. See p. 166, 2. As long as the world lasts, the better
+souls will continue to exist, and only the particles of the body are
+employed for fresh bodies. Accordingly, the passage just quoted, and
+also Ep. 71, 13, must refer to the physical side of death, or else to
+the return of personality after the conflagration of the world.
+
+[518] Besides the definitions of αἴσθησις in Diog. 52, and the remark
+that impressions are made on the organs of sense, but that the seat of
+feeling is in the ἡγεμονικόν (Plut. Plac. iv. 23, 1), the following
+statements may be mentioned: In the process of seeing, the ὁρατικὸν
+πνεῦμα, coming into the eyes from the ἡγεμονικόν, gives a spherical
+form to the air before the eye, by virtue of its τονικὴ κίνησις (on
+τόνος, see p. 128, 2), and, by means of the sphere of air, comes in
+contact with things; and since by this process rays of light emanate
+from the eye, darkness must be visible. Diog. 158; Alex. Aph. De Anim.
+149; Plut. Plac. iv. 15. The process of hearing is due to the spherical
+undulations of the air, which communicate their motion to the ear.
+Diog. 158; Plut. Plac. iv. 19, 5. On the voice, called also φωνᾶεν, see
+Plut. Plac. iv. 20, 2; 21, 4; Diog. 55, and above p. 214, 2; 74, 6.
+Disease is caused by changes in the πνεῦμα, Diog. 158; sleep ἐκλυομένου
+τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ τόνου περὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, Diog. 158; Tertull. De An. 43;
+and in a similar way, death ἐκλυομένου τοῦ τόνου καὶ παριεμένου Iambl.
+(in Stob. Ecl. i. 922), who, however, does not mention the Stoics by
+name. In the case of man, the extinguishing of the power of life is
+only a liberation of rational souls.
+
+[519] Page 77.
+
+[520] The chief passage in Diog. vii. 84, is as follows: τὸ δὲ ἠθικὸν
+μέρος τῆς φιλοσοφίας διαιροῦσιν εἴς τε τὸν περὶ ὁρμῆς καὶ εἰς τὸν περὶ
+ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν τόπον καὶ τὸν περὶ παθῶν καὶ περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ περὶ
+τέλους περί τε τῆς πρώτης ἀξίας καὶ τῶν πράξεων καὶ περὶ τῶν καθηκόντων
+προτροπῶν τε καὶ ἀποτροπῶν. καὶ οὕτω δ’ ὑποδιαιροῦσιν οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον
+καὶ Ἀρχέδημον καὶ Ζήνωνα τὸν Ταρσέα καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρον καὶ Διογένην καὶ
+Ἀντίπατρον καὶ Ποσειδώνιον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κιττιεὺς Ζήνων καὶ ὁ Κλεάνθης ὡς
+ἂν ἀρχαιότεροι ἀφελέστερον περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων διέλαβον. There may be
+doubts as to the punctuation, and, consequently, as to the sense, of
+the first sentence; but the form of expression seems to imply that the
+five first portions contain main divisions, and the six following
+subdivisions. The ethics of Chrysippus and his followers would
+therefore fall into the following main divisions: περὶ ὁρμῆς, περὶ
+ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν, περὶ παθῶν; but it would be hard to assign to these
+divisions their respective subdivisions. The statement of Epictetus,
+Diss. iii. 2, agrees in part with this division. He distinguishes in
+his introduction to virtue three τόποι: ὁ περὶ τὰς ὀρέξεις καὶ τὰς
+ἐκκλίσεις, called also ὁ περὶ τὰ πάθη; ὁ περὶ τὰς ὁρμὰς καὶ ἀφορμὰς καὶ
+ἁπλῶς ὁ περὶ τὸ καθῆκον; and, lastly, ὁ περὶ τὴν ἀνεξαπατησίαν καὶ
+ἀνεικαιότητα καὶ ὅλως ὁ περὶ τὰς συγκαταθέσεις. The first of these
+divisions would correspond with the third of Diogenes, the second with
+his first; but the division περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν does not harmonise
+with the third of Epictetus (which, according to what follows, rather
+refers to the critical confirmation of moral principles not specially
+mentioned by Diogenes), but rather with his first division treating of
+ὀρέξεις and ἐκκλίσεις. Stobæus again differs from either. In his survey
+of the Stoic ethics (Ecl. ii. c. 5), he first, p. 90, treats of what is
+good, evil, and indifferent, of what is desirable and detestable, of
+the end-in-chief, and of happiness, in this section discussing at
+length the doctrine of virtue. He then goes on, p. 158, to consider the
+καθῆκον, the impulses, p. 166, and the emotions (πάθη, as being one
+kind of impulse), appending thereto, p. 186, a discussion on
+friendship; and concluding, p. 192 to 242, with a long treatise on
+ἐνεργήματα (κατορθώματα, ἁμαρτήματα, οὐδέτερα), the greater portion of
+which is devoted to describing the wise man and the fool. Turning to
+Sen. Ep. 95, 65, it is stated, on the authority of Posidonius, that not
+only præceptio, but also suasio, consolatio, and exhortatio, and,
+moreover, causarum inquisitio (which, however, can hardly have been
+called etymologia by Posidonius, as Hanse reads but ætiologia) and
+ethologia, description of moral states, are necessary. In Ep. 89, 14,
+the parts of moral science are more accurately given as three; the
+first determining the value of things, the second treating de
+actionibus, the third de impetu, περὶ ὁρμῆς. Two of these parts
+coincide indeed with those of Diogenes, but this is not the case with
+the third, which is only one of the subdivisions in Diogenes (περὶ τῶν
+πράξεων); and even Seneca’s first part more nearly agrees with one of
+these (περὶ τῆς πρώτης ἀξίας). Unfortunately, Seneca does not mention
+his authorities; and, accordingly, we are not sure whether his division
+is a genuine Stoic division. A similar division will be subsequently
+met with in the eclectic Academician Eudorus (living under Augustus).
+None of the divisions quoted agree with the three problems proposed by
+Cic. Off. ii. 5, 18, or the three sections enumerated by Epict. Enchir.
+c. 51 (76), in which Petersen (Phil. Chrys. Fund. p. 260) recognises
+Seneca’s three main divisions of Ethics. In the midst of such
+contending authorities, it seems impossible to establish the main
+division of the Stoic Ethics. One thing alone is clear, that they were
+themselves not agreed on the subject. Petersen’s attempt, l.c. p. 258,
+appears to me a failure.
+
+[521] Stob. Ecl. ii. 138: τέλος δέ φασιν εἶναι τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν, οὗ ἕνεκα
+πάντα πράττεται, αὐτὸ δὲ πράττεται μὲν, οὐδενὸς δὲ ἕνεκα.
+
+[522] Diog. vii. 85; Cic. Fin. iii. 5; Gell. N. A. xii. 5, 7. That the
+two latter writers follow one and the same authority appears partly
+from their literal agreement with each other, and partly from their
+adopting a uniform method in refuting the Epicurean statement, that the
+desire for pleasure is the primary impulse. That authority is probably
+the treatise of Chrysippus περὶ τέλους, since it is distinctly referred
+to by Diogenes. Plut. Sto. Rep. 12, 4, quotes from it: ὡς οἰκειούμεθα
+πρὸς αὑτοὺς εὐθὺς γενόμενοι καὶ τὰ μέρη καὶ τὰ ἔκγονα ἑαυτῶν. The
+difference mentioned by Alex. Aphr. De An. 154—that at one time
+self-love, at another the preservation of one’s own nature, is the
+impulse—is unimportant.
+
+[523] Diog. vii 85: τὴν δὲ πρώτην ὁρμήν φασι τὸ ζῷον ἴσχειν ἐπὶ τὸ
+τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸ, οἰκειούσης αὑτῶ [αὑτῷ] τῆς φύσεως ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, καθά φησιν ὁ
+Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ τελῶν, πρῶτον οἰκεῖον εἶναι λέγων παντὶ ζῴῳ
+τὴν αὑτοῦ σύστασιν καὶ τὴν ταύτης συνείδησιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἀλλοτριῶσαι
+εἰκὸς ἦν αὐτοῦ [Cobet incorrectly αὐτὸ] τὸ ζῷον, οὔτε ποιῆσαι ἂν [l.
+ποιήσασαν sc. τὴν φύσιν] αὐτὸ μήτ’ ἀλλοτριῶσαι μήτ’ οὐκ [must evidently
+be struck out] οἰκειῶσαι. ἀπολείπεται τοίνυν λέγειν συστησαμένην αὐτὸ
+οἰκείως πρὸς ἑαυτό· οὕτω γὰρ τά τε βλάπτοντα διωθεῖται καὶ τὰ οἰκεῖα
+προσίεται. Similarly, Cic. l.c. 5, 16. Antisthenes had already reduced
+the conception of the good to that of οἰκεῖον, without the fuller
+explanation. Here the Academic theory of life according to nature,
+which had been enunciated by Polemo, Zeno’s teacher, is combined
+therewith. Some difficulty was nevertheless caused by the question
+whether all living creatures possess a consciousness (συνείδησις,
+sensus) of their own nature; without such a consciousness, natural
+self-love seemed to the Stoics impossible. They thought, however, that
+this question (according to Sen. Ep. 121, 5, conf. Cic. l.c.) could be
+answered in the affirmative without hesitation, and appealed for
+evidence to the instinctive activities by which children and animals
+govern their bodily motions, guard themselves from dangers, and pursue
+what is to their interest, without denying that the ideas which
+children and animals have of themselves are very indistinct, that they
+only know their own constitution, but not its true conception
+(constitutionis finitio, Sen. p. 11). Constitutio, or σύστασις, was
+defined by the Stoics, Sen., p. 10. as principale animi quodam modo se
+habens erga corpus.
+
+[524] Cic. Fin. iii. 5, 17; 6, 20.
+
+[525] The terms are here treated as synonymous, without regard to the
+hair-splitting with which the Stoics distinguished (Stob. Ecl. ii. 136)
+three meanings of τέλος, between τέλος and σκοπός.
+
+[526] Stob. ii. 134 and 138; Diog. vii. 88; 94; Plut. C. Not. 27, 9;
+Cic. Fin. iii. 7, 26; 10, 33; Sen. V. Beat. 3, 3; conf. Ep. 118, 8;
+Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 171; Math. xi. 30. In Stob. ii. 78 and 96, formal
+definitions are given of ἀγαθὸν, τέλος, and εὐδαιμονία. The latter is
+generally paraphrased by εὔροια βίου, as Zeno had defined it. Various
+formulæ for the conception of a life according to nature are given by
+Cleanthes, Antipater, Archedemus, Diogenes, Panætius, Posidonius, and
+others in Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 416; Stob. 134; and Diog., all
+apparently taken from the same source.
+
+[527] Diog. vii. 88: διόπερ τέλος γίνεται τὸ ἀκολούθως τῇ φύσει ζῇν·
+ὅπερ ἐστὶ κατά τε τὴν αὑτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὅλων, οὐδὲν ἐνεργοῦντας ὧν
+ἀπαγορεύειν εἴωθεν ὁ νόμος ὁ κοινὸς ὅσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος διὰ
+πάντων ἐρχόμενος ὁ αὐτὸς ὢν τῷ Διΐ ... εἶναι δ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ
+εὐδαίμονος ἀρετὴν καὶ εὔροιαν βίου, ὅταν πάντα πράττηται κατὰ τὴν
+συμφωνίαν τοῦ παρ’ ἑκάστῳ δαίμονος πρὸς τὴν τοῦ τῶν ὅλων διοικητοῦ
+βούλησιν.
+
+[528] Stob. ii. 160 (conf. 158): διττῶς θεωρεῖσθαι τήν τε ἐν τοῖς
+λογικοῖς γιγνομένην ὁρμὴν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῷοις. Diog. 86:
+Plants are moved by nature without impulse, animals by means of
+impulse. In the case of animals, therefore, τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν is the
+same as τὸ κατὰ τὴν ὁρμήν. In rational creatures, reason controls
+impulse; and accordance with nature means accordance with reason. In
+Galen. Hippoc. et Plat. v. 2, p. 460, Chrysippus says: ἡμᾶς οἰκειοῦσθαι
+πρὸς μόνον τὸ καλόν. M. Aurel. vii. 11: τῷ λογικῷ ζῴῳ ἡ αὐτὴ πρᾶξις
+κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ λόγον. Hence the definition of a virtuous
+life, or a life according to nature: ζῇν κατ’ ἐμπειρίαν τῶν φύσει
+συμβαινόντων (Chrysippus, in Stob. 134; Diog. 87; Clem. l.c.; also
+Diogenes, Antipater, Archedemus, Posidonius); and that of the good: τὸ
+τέλειον κατὰ φύσιν λογικοῦ ὡς λογικοῦ (Diog. 94).
+
+[529] Sen. Ep. 121, 14: Omne animal primum constitutioni suæ
+conciliari: hominis autem constitutionem rationalem esse: et ideo
+conciliari hominem sibi non tanquam animali sed tanquam rationali. Ea
+enim parte sibi carus est homo, qua homo est. Id. Ep. 92, 1: The body
+is subservient to the soul, and the irrational part of the soul to the
+rational part. Hence it follows: In hoc uno positam esse beatam vitam.
+ut in nobis ratio perfecta sit. Similarly. Ep. 76, 8. M. Aurel. vi. 44:
+συμφέρει δὲ ἑκάστῳ τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ κατασκευὴν καὶ φύσιν· ἡ δὲ ἐμὴ
+φύσις λογικὴ καὶ πολιτική. Conf. viii. 7 and 12.
+
+[530] According to Stob. ii. 132, Diog. vii. 89, the ancient Stoics
+were not altogether agreed as to the terms in which they would express
+their theory. Zeno, for instance, is said by Stobæus to have defined
+τέλος = ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν; Cleanthes first added the words τῇ φύσει,
+and Chrysippus and his followers augmented the formula by several
+additions. Diog. 87 attributes the words τῇ φύσει to Zeno, adding,
+however, 89, that Chrysippus understood by φύσις, τήν τε κοινὴν καὶ
+ἰδίως τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην, whereas Cleanthes understood τὴν κοίνην μόνην
+οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ μέρους. These differences are, however, not
+important. The simple expression ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν means, without
+doubt, ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ, the ζῇν καθ’ ἕνα λόγον καὶ σύμφωνον (Stob. ii.
+132 and 158), the ὁμολογία παντὸς τοῦ βίου (Diog. vii. 89), the vita
+sibi concors, the concordia animi (Sen. Ep. 89, 15; V. Be. 8, 6), the
+unum hominem agere, which, according to Sen. Ep. 120, 22, is only found
+in a wise man—in a word, the even tenour of life and consistency.
+Nevertheless, this consistency is only possible when individual actions
+accord with the requirements of the character of the agent.
+Accordingly, Stob. ii. 158, places ἀκολούθως τῇ ἑαυτῶν φύσει by the
+side of ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ. Cleanthes, therefore, in adding to the
+expression ὁμολογουμένως the words τῇ φύσει, which, however, according
+to Diog. 87, Zeno had done before him, was only going back to the next
+condition of ὁμολογουμένως ζῇν. We can, however, hardly believe with
+Diogenes that Cleanthes understood by φύσις only nature in general, but
+not human nature. He may have alluded in express terms to κοινὴ φύσις
+or κοινὸς νόμος only, with the praise of which his well-known hymn
+ends, but it cannot have been his intention to exclude human nature,
+which is only a particular form of nature in general. Chrysippus
+therefore only expanded, but did not contradict, the teaching of his
+master.
+
+[531] Diog. vii. 30; 94; 101; Stob. ii. 200; 138; Sext. Pyrrh. iii.
+169; Math. xi. 184; Cic. Tusc. ii. 25, 61; Fin. iv. 16, 45; Acad. i.
+10; Parad. 1; Sen. Benef. vii. 2, 1; Ep. 71, 4; 74, 1; 76, 11; 85, 17;
+120, 3; 118, 10, where the relation of the conceptions honestum bonum,
+secundum naturam is specially considered. To prove their position, the
+Stoics make use of the chain-argument, of which they are generally
+fond. Thus Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 13, 11): τὸ ἀγαθὸν αἱρετόν·
+τὸ δ’ αἱρετὸν ἀρεστόν· τὸ δ’ ἀρεστὸν ἐπαινετόν· τὸ δ’ ἐπαινετὸν καλόν.
+(The same in Cic. Fin. iii. 8, 27, and iv. 18, 50, where I would
+suggest the reading validius instead of vitiosius.). Again: τὸ ἀγαθὸν
+χαρτόν· τὸ δὲ χαρτὸν σεμνόν· τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν καλόν (The same somewhat
+expanded in Cic. Tusc. v. 15, 43.) Stob. ii. 126: πᾶν ἀγαθὸν αἱρετὸν
+εἶναι, ἀρεστὸν γὰρ καὶ δοκιμαστὸν καὶ ἐπαινετὸν ὑπάρχειν· πᾶν δὲ κακὸν
+φευκτὸν. Another sorites of the same kind in Sen. Ep. 85, 2.
+
+[532] Stob. ii. 78; 94; Diog. vii. 94 and 98; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 169;
+Math. xi. 22, 25, and 30. According to Cic. Fin. iii. 10, 33, Diogenes
+reconciled this definition with the definition of the good and the
+perfect quoted on p. 227, 4, by observing that the useful is a motus
+aut status natura absoluti.
+
+[533] Sext. l.c. Stob. ii. 188: μηδένα φαῦλον μήτε ὠφελεῖσθαι μήτε
+ὠφελεῖν. εἶναι γὰρ τὸ ὠφελεῖν ἴσχειν κατ’ ἀρετὴν, καὶ τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι
+κινεῖσθαι κατ’ ἀρετήν. Ibid. ii. 202; Plut. Sto. Rep. 12; Com. Not. 20,
+1; Cic. Off. ii. 3, 10; iii. 3, 11; 7, 34.
+
+[534] M. Aurel. ix. 16.
+
+[535] See Diog. 94; Stob. ii. 96; 124; 130; 136; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 169;
+Math. xi. 22; Cic. Fin. iii. 16, 55; Sen. Ep. 66, 5. Good is here
+defined to be either ὠφέλεια or οὐκ ἕτερον ὠφελείας (inseparably
+connected with ὠφέλεια, the good in itself, just as the virtuous man is
+connected with virtue, which is a part of himself. See Sextus l.c. and
+above p. 104, 2), or, what is the same thing, ἀρετὴ ἢ τὸ μετέχον
+ἀρετῆς. (Sext. Math. xi. 184.) A distinction is drawn between three
+kinds of good: τὸ ὑφ’ οὗ ἢ ἀφ’ οὗ ἔστιν ὠφελεῖσθαι, τὸ καθ’ ὃ συμβαίνει
+ὠφελεῖσθαι, τὸ οἷόν τε ὠφελεῖν. Under the first head comes virtue,
+under the second virtuous actions, under the third, besides the two
+others, virtuous subjects—men, Gods, and demons. A second division of
+goods (Diog., Sext. iii. 181, Stob.) is into goods of the soul,
+external goods, the possession of virtuous friends and a virtuous
+country, and such as are neither (τὸ αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι σπουδαῖον καὶ
+εὐδαίμονα, virtue and happiness considered as the relation of the
+individual to himself, as his own possessions). Goods of the soul are
+then divided into διαθέσεις (virtues), ἕξεις (or ἐπιτηδεύματα, as
+instances of which Stob. ii. 100, 128, quotes μαντικὴ and
+φιλογεωμετρία, &c.; these are not so unchangeable as peculiarities of
+character, and are therefore only ἕξεις, p. 103, 1), and those which
+are neither ἕξεις nor διαθέσεις—actions themselves. A third division of
+goods (Diog., Cic. l.c., Stob. 80, 100, 114) distinguishes τελικὰ or
+δι’ αὑτὰ αἱρετὰ (moral actions), ποιητικὰ (friends and the services
+they render), τελικὰ and ποιητικὰ (virtues themselves); fourthly and
+fifthly, μικτὰ (as εὐτεκνία and εὐγηρία), and ἁπλᾶ or ἄμικτα (such as
+science), and the ἀεὶ παρόντα (virtues), and οὐκ ἀεὶ παρόντα (οἷον
+χαρὰ, περιπάτησις). The corresponding divisions of evil are given by
+Diogenes and Stobæus. The latter (ii. 126 and 136) enumerates, in
+addition, the ἀγαθὰ ἐν κινήσει (χαρὰ, &c.) and ἐν σχέσει (εὔτακτος
+ἡσυχία, &c.), the latter being partially ἐν ἕξει; the ἀγαθὰ καθ’ ἑαυτὰ
+(virtues) and πρὸς τί πως ἔχοντα (honour, benevolence, friendship); the
+goods which are necessary for happiness (virtues), and those which are
+not necessary (χαρὰ, ἐπιτηδεύματα). Seneca’s list is far more limited,
+although it professes to be more general. He mentions, prima bona,
+tanquam gaudium, pax, salus patriæ; secunda, in materia infelici
+expressa, tanquam tormentorum patientia; tertia, tanquam modestus
+incessus.
+
+[536] Cic. Fin. iii. 10, 33: Ego assentior Diogeni, qui bonum
+definierit id quod esset natura absolutum [αὐτοτελὲς] ... hoc autem
+ipsum bonum non accessione neque crescendo aut cum ceteris comparando
+sed propria vi et sentimus et appellamus bonum. Ut enim mel, etsi
+dulcissimum est, suo tamen proprio genere saporis, non comparatione cum
+aliis, dulce esse sentitur, sic bonum hoc de quo agimus est illud
+quidem plurimi æstimandum, sed ea æstimatio genere valet non
+magnitudine, &c.
+
+[537] Sen. Benef. vii. 2, 1: Nec malum esse ullum nisi turpe, nec bonum
+nisi honestum. Alex. Aph. De Fat. c. 28, p. 88: ἡ μὲν ἀρετή τε καὶ ἡ
+κακία μόναι κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ μὲν ἀγαθὸν ἡ δὲ κακόν. See p. 229; 233, 1.
+
+[538] Sext. Math. xi. 61, after giving two irrelevant definitions of
+ἀδιάφορον: κατὰ τρίτον δὲ καὶ τελευταῖον τρόπον φασὶν ἀδιάφορον τὸ μήτε
+πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν μήτε πρὸς κακοδαιμονίαν συλλαμβανόμενον. To this
+category belong external goods, health, &c. ᾧ γὰρ ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς
+χρῆσθαι, τοῦτ’ ἂν εἴη ἀδιάφορον· διὰ παντὸς δ’ ἀρετῇ μὲν κακῶς, κακίᾳ
+δὲ κακῶς, ὑγιείᾳ δὲ καὶ τοῖς περὶ σώματι ποτὲ μὲν εὖ ποτὲ δὲ κακῶς ἔστι
+χρῆσθαι. Similarly, Pyrrh. iii. 177, and Diog. 102, who defines
+οὐδέτερα as ὅσα μήτ’ ὠφελεῖ μήτε βλάπτει. Stob. ii. 142: ἀδιάφορον = τὸ
+μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε κακὸν, καὶ τὸ μήτε αἱρετὸν μήτε φευκτόν. Plut. Sto.
+Rep. 31, 1: ᾧ γὰρ ἔστιν εὖ χρήσασθαι καὶ κακῶς τοῦτό φασι μήτ’ ἀγαθὸν
+εἶναι μήτε κακόν.
+
+[539] Zeno (in Sen. Ep. 82, 9) proves this of death by a process of
+reasoning, the accuracy of which he appears to have mistrusted: Nullum
+malum gloriosum est: mors autem gloriosa est (there is a glorious
+death): ergo mors non est malum. In general, two considerations are
+prominent in the Stoic treatment of this subject: that what is
+according to nature cannot be an evil, and that life taken by itself is
+not a good. Other arguments, however, for diminishing the fear of death
+are not despised. See Sen. Ep. 30, 4; 77, 11, 82, 8; Cons. ad. Marc.
+19, 3; M. Aurel. ix. 3; viii. 58. And other passages quoted in
+Baumhauer’s Vet. Philosoph. Doctr. De Morte Voluntaria, p. 211.
+
+[540] Chrysippus (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 15, 4): All virtue is done away
+with, ἂν ἢ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἢ τὴν ὑγίειαν ἤ τι τῶν ἄλλων, ὃ μὴ καλόν ἐστιν,
+ἀγαθὸν ἀπολίπωμεν. Id. (in Plut. C. Not. 5, 2): ἐν τῷ κατ’ ἀρετὴν βιοῦν
+μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ εὐδαιμόνως, τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲν ὄντων πρὸς ἡμᾶς οὐδ’ εἰς
+τοῦτο συνεργούντων. Similarly, Sto. Rep. 17, 2. Sen. Vit. Be. 4, 3: The
+only good is honestas, the only evil turpitudo, cetera vilis turba
+rerum, nec detrahens quicquam beatæ vitæ nec adjiciens. Id. Ep. 66, 14:
+There is no difference between the wise man’s joy and the firmness with
+which he endures pains, quantum ad ipsas virtutes, plurimum inter illa,
+in quibus virtus utraque ostenditur ... virtutem materia non mutat. Ep.
+71, 21: Bona ista aut mala non efficit materia, sed virtus. Ep. 85, 39:
+Tu illum [sapientem] premi putas malis? Utitur. Id. Ep. 44; 120, 3;
+Plut. C. Not. 4, 1; Sto. Rep. 18, 5; 31, 1; Chrysippus, in Ps. Plut. De
+Nobil. 12, 2; Diog. 102; Stob. ii. 90; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 181; Alex.
+Aphr. Top. 43 and 107.
+
+[541] Sext. Math. xi. 61. See above, p. 232, 3. Diog. 103: The good can
+only do good, and never do harm; οὐ μᾶλλον δ’ ὠφελεῖ ἢ βλάπτει ὁ
+πλοῦτος καὶ ἡ ὑγίεια· οὐκ ἄρ’ ἀγαθὸν οὔτε πλοῦτος οὔθ’ ὑγίεια. Again: ᾧ
+ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, τοῦτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθόν· πλούτῳ δὲ καὶ
+ὑγιείᾳ ἔστιν εὖ καὶ κακῶς χρῆσθαι, κ.τ.λ. In Sen. Ep. 87, 11, instead
+of the proposition, that nothing is a good except virtue, the following
+arguments are given as traditional among the Stoics (interrogationes
+nostrorum), apparently taken from Posidonius (see p. 31, 35, 38): (1)
+Quod bonum est, bonos facit: fortuita bonum non faciunt: ergo non sunt
+bona. (Similarly in M. Aurel. ii. 11, iv. 8: Whatever does no moral
+harm, does no harm to human life.) (2) Quod contemptissimo cuique
+contingere ac turpissimo potest, bonum non est; opes autem et lenoni et
+lanistæ contingunt: ergo, &c. (So, too, Marc. Aurelius, v. 10.) (3)
+Bonum ex malo non fit: divitiæ fiunt, fiunt autem ex avaritia: ergo,
+&c. (Conf. Alex. Aphr. Top. 107: τὸ διὰ κακοῦ γιγνόμενον οὐκ ἔστιν
+ἀγαθόν· πλοῦτος δὲ καὶ διὰ πορνοβοσκίας κακοῦ ὄντος γίνεται, κ.τ.λ.)
+(4) Quod dum consequi volumus in multa mala incidimus, id bonum non
+est: dum divitias autem consequi volumus, in multa mala incidimus, &c.
+(5) Quæ neque magnitudinem animo dant nec fiduciam nec securitatem,
+contra autem insolentiam, tumorem, arrogantiam creant, mala sunt: a
+fortuitis autem (previously, not only riches but health had been
+included in this class) in hæc impellimur: ergo non sunt bona. That
+riches are not a good is proved by Diogenes (in Cic. Fin. iii. 15, 49);
+that poverty and pain are no evils is proved by the argument, quoted in
+Sen. Ep. 85, 30: Quod malum est nocet: quod nocet deteriorem facit.
+Dolor et paupertas deteriorem non faciunt: ergo mala non sunt. The
+Stoic proposition is also established from a theological point of view.
+Nature, says M. Aurel. ii. 11, ix. 1, could never have allowed that
+good and evil should equally fall to the lot of the good and the bad;
+consequently, what both enjoy equally—life and death, honour and
+dishonour, pleasure and trouble, riches and poverty—can neither be good
+nor evil. On the value of fame, see id. iv. 19.
+
+[542] This view is compared with the Academician in Cic. Tusc. v. 13,
+39; 18, 51; Sen. Ep. 85, 18; 71, 18; 92, 14. In the last passage, the
+notion that happiness can be increased by external goods, and is
+consequently capable of degrees, is refuted by arguments such as 4, 24:
+Quid potest desiderare is, cui omnia honesta contingunt?... et quid
+stultius turpiusve, quam bonum rationalis animi ex irrationalibus
+nectere?... non intenditur virtus, ergo ne beata quidem vita, quæ ex
+virtute est. Conf. Ep. 72, 7: Cui aliquid accedere potent, id
+imperfectum est.
+
+[543] Cleanthes expands this notion, in rhetorical language, in Cic.
+Fin. ii. 21, 69. Conf. Sen. Benef. iv. 2, 2: [Virtus] non est virtus si
+sequi potest. Primæ partes ejus sunt: ducere debet, imperare, summo
+loco stare: tu illam jubes signum petere. Id. Vit. Be. 11, 2; 13, 5;
+14, 1.
+
+[544] Compare on this subject the words of Chrysippus on p. 233, 1,
+quoted by Plut. Sto. Rep. 15, and, for their explanation, Sen. Benef.
+iv. 2, 4: Non indignor, quod post voluptatem ponitur virtus, sed quod
+omnino cum voluptate conferatur contemptrix ejus et hostis et
+longissime ab illa resiliens. Id. Vit. Be. 15, 1: Pars honesti non
+potest esse nisi honestum, nee summum bonum habebit sinceritatem suam,
+si aliquid in se viderit dissimile meliori. According to Plut. 15, 3;
+13, 3, Com. Not. 25, 2, this statement of Chrysippus is at variance
+with another statement of his, in which he says: If pleasure be
+declared to be a good, but not the highest good, justice (the
+Peripatetic view) might perhaps still be safe, since, in comparison
+with pleasure, it may be regarded as the higher good. Still, this was
+only a preliminary and tentative concession, which Chrysippus
+subsequently proved could not be admitted, inasmuch as it was out of
+harmony with the true conception of the good, and changed the
+difference in kind (on which see p. 232, 1) between virtue and other
+things into a simple difference in degree. Plutarch (Sto. Rep. 15, 6),
+with more reason, blames Chrysippus for asserting against Aristotle
+that, if pleasure be regarded as the highest good, justice becomes
+impossible, but not other virtues; for how could a Stoic, of all
+philosophers, make such a distinction between virtues? Evidently the
+zeal of controversy has here carried away the philosopher beyond the
+point at which his own principles would bear him out.
+
+[545] M. Aurel. vi. 15: ὁ μὲν φιλόδοξος ἀλλοτρίαν ἐνέργειαν ἴδιον
+ἀγαθὸν ὑπολαμβάνει· ὁ δὲ φιλήδονος ἰδίαν πεῖσιν· ὁ δὲ νοῦν ἔχων ἰδίαν
+πρᾶξιν. Conf. ix. 16: οὐκ ἐν πείσει, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργείᾳ, τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ
+πολιτικοῦ ζῴου κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν.
+
+[546] Sen. Ep. 92, 6–10; Vit. Beat. 5, 4; 9, 4; Posidonius, in Sen. Ep.
+92, 10.
+
+[547] Taking the expression in its strict meaning, it is hardly allowed
+by the Stoics, when they speak accurately. Understanding by ἡδονὴ an
+emotion, i.e. something contrary to nature and blameworthy, they assert
+that the wise man feels delight (χαρὰ, gaudium), but not pleasure
+(ἡδονὴ, lætitia, voluptas). See Sen. Ep. 59, 2; Diog. 116; Alex. Aphr.
+Top. 96; the last-named giving definitions of χαρὰ, ἡδονὴ, τέρψις,
+εὐφροσύνη.
+
+[548] Sen. Ep. 23, 2; 27, 3; 59, 2; 14; 72, 8; Vit. Be. 3, 4; 4, 4; De
+Ira, ii. 6, 2.
+
+[549] Diog. 94: Virtue is a good; ἐπιγεννήματα δὲ τήν τε χαρὰν καὶ τὴν
+εὐφροσύνην καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια. Sen. Benef. iv. 2, 3: It is a question
+utrum virtus summi boni causa sit, an ipsa summum bonum. Seneca, of
+course, says the latter. Conf. De Vit. Be. 4, 5: The wise man takes
+pleasure in peace of mind and cheerfulness, non ut bonis, sed ut ex
+bono suo ortis. Ibid. 9, 1: Non, si voluptatem præstatura virtus est,
+ideo propter hanc petitur ... voluptas non est merces nec causa
+virtutis, sed accessio, nec quia delectat placet, sed si placet et
+delectat. The highest good consists only in mental perfection and
+health, in ipso judicio et habitu optimæ mentis, in the sanitas et
+libertas animi, which desires nothing but virtue; ipsa pretium sui.
+Ibid. 15, 2: Ne gaudium quidem, quod ex virtute oritur, quamvis bonum
+sit, absoluti tamen boni pars est, non magis quam lætitia et
+tranquillitas ... sunt enim ista bona, sed consequentia summum bonum,
+non consummantia. Here, too, belongs the statement in Stob. ii. 184,
+188 (conf. M. Aurel. vii. 74): πάντα τὸν ὁντινοῦν ὠφελοῦντα ἴσην
+ὠφέλειαν ἀπολαμβάνειν παρ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, for the reasons stated, p. 230,
+1.
+
+[550] Sen. Vit. Be. c. 7 and 10–12; M. Aurel. viii. 10. Among the Stoic
+arguments against identifying pleasure and pain with good and evil, may
+be placed the inference in Clem. Strom. iv. 483, C, which bears great
+similarity to the third argument, quoted on p. 233, 2: If thirst be
+painful, and it be pleasant to quench thirst, thirst must be the cause
+of this pleasure: ἀγαθοῦ δὲ ποιητικὸν τὸ κακὸν οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[551] Diog. 85: ὃ δὲ λέγουσί τινες, πρὸς ἡδονὴν γίγνεσθαι τὴν πρώτην
+ὁρμὴν τοῖς ζῷοις, ψεῦδος ἀποφαίνουσιν. ἐπιγέννημα γάρ φασιν, εἰ ἄρα
+ἐστὶν, ἡδονὴν εἶναι, ὅταν αὐτὴ καθ’ αὑτὴν ἡ φύσις ἐπιζητήσασα τὰ
+ἐναρμόζοντα τῇ συστάσει ἀπολάβη.
+
+[552] Taking pleasure in its widest sense. In its more restricted
+sense, they reject ἡδονή, understanding thereby a particular emotion.
+See p. 236. 2.
+
+[553] Sext. Math. xi. 73: τὴν ἡδονὴν ὁ μὲν Ἐπίκουρος ἀγαθὸν εἶναί
+φησιν· ὁ δὲ εἰπὼν ‘μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην’ (Antisthenes) κακόν· οἱ δὲ
+ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἀδιάφορον καὶ οὐ προηγμένον. ἀλλὰ Κλεάνθης μὲν μήτε κατὰ
+φύσιν αὐτὴν εἶναι μήτε ἀξίαν ἔχειν αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ βίῳ, καθάπερ δὲ τὸ
+κάλλυντρον κατὰ φύσιν μὴ εἶναι· ὁ δὲ Ἀρχέδημος κατὰ φύσιν μὲν εἶναι ὡς
+τὰς ἐν μασχάλῃ τρίχας, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἀξίαν ἔχειν. Παναίτιος δὲ τινὰ μὲν
+κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχειν τινὰ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν.
+
+[554] Accordingly, it is also defined to be τέχνη εὐδαιμονίας ποιητική.
+Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, b.
+
+[555] Diog. 89: τήν τ’ ἀρετὴν διάθεσιν εἶναι ὁμολογουμένην καὶ αὐτὴν
+δι’ αὑτὴν εἶναι αἱρετὴν, οὐ διά τινα φόβον ἢ ἐλπίδα ἤ τι τῶν ἔξωθεν· ἐν
+αὐτῇ τ’ εἶναι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἅτ’ οὔσῃ [-ης] ψύχῃ [-ης] πεποιημένῃ
+[-ης] πρὸς ὁμολογίαν παντὸς τοῦ βίου. Sen. De Clem. i. 1, 1: Quamvis
+enim recte factorum verus fructus sit fecisse, nec ullum virtutum
+pretium dignum illis extra ipsas sit. Id. Ep. 81, 19. Ep. 94, 19:
+Æquitatem per se expetendam nec metu nos ad illam cogi nec mercede
+conduci. Non esse justum cui quicquam in hac virtute placet præter
+ipsam. Id. Ep. 87, 24: Maximum scelerum supplicium in ipsis est. Benef.
+iv 12: Quid reddat beneficium? dic tu mihi, quid reddat justitia, &c.;
+si quicquam præter ipsas, ipsas non expetis. M. Aurel. ix. 42: τί γὰρ
+πλέον θέλεις εὖ πριήσας ἄνθρωπον; οὐκ ἀρκῇ τούτῳ, ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν τὴν
+σήν τι ἔπραξας, ἀλλὰ τούτου μισθὸν ζητεῖς; When man does good, πεποίηκε
+πρὸς ὃ κατεσκεύασται καὶ ἔχει τὸ ἑαυτοῦ. Id. vii. 73; viii. 2. See pp.
+230, 1; 236, 4.
+
+[556] Diog. vii. 127: αὐτάρκη εἶναι τὴν ἀρετὴν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν. Cic.
+Parad. 2; Sen. Ep. 74, 1: Qui omne bonum honesto circumscripsit, intra
+se felix est. This αὐτάρκεια is even asserted of individual virtues, by
+virtue of the connection between them all. Of φρόνησις, for instance,
+in Sen. Ep. 85, 2. it is said: Qui prudens est, et temperans est. Qui
+temperans, est et constans. Qui constans est, imperturbatus est. Qui
+imperturbatus est, sine tristitia est. Qui sine tristitia est, beatus
+est. Ergo prudens est beatus, et prudentia ad vitam beatam satis est.
+Similarly in respect of bravery (ibid. 24). This αὐτάρκεια of virtue
+was naturally a chief point of attack for an opponent. It is assailed
+by Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, on the ground that neither the things which
+the Stoics declare to be natural and desirable (προηγμένα), nor, on the
+other hand, the natural conditions of virtuous action, can be without
+effect on happiness, and that it will not do to speak of the latter as
+only negative conditions (ὧν οὐκ ἄνευ). See Plut. C. Not. 4, and 11, 1.
+
+[557] Plut. Sto. Rep. 26; C. Not. 8, 4, where Chrysippus is charged
+with at one time denying that happiness is augmented by length of time,
+and at another declaring momentary wisdom and happiness to be
+worthless. Cic. Fin. iii. 14, 45; Sen. Ep. 74, 27; 93, 6; Benef. v. 17,
+6; M. Aurel. xii. 35. The Stoics are, on this point, at variance with
+Aristotle.
+
+[558] This view is frequently expressed by the Stoics of the Roman
+period, Seneca, Epictetus, and M. Aurelius. Proofs will be found
+subsequently.
+
+[559] Tusc. v. 15, 43; 14, 42.
+
+[560] Parad. 2.
+
+[561] De Const. 13, 5; 75, 18: Expectant nos, si ex hac aliquando fæce
+in illud evadimus sublime et excelsum, tranquillitas animi et expulsis
+erroribus absoluta libertas. Quæris, quæ sit ista? Non homines timere,
+non Deos. Nec turpia velle nec nimia. In se ipsum habere maximam
+potestatem: inæstimabile bonum est, suum fieri.
+
+[562] Ep. 29, 12: Quid ergo ... philosophia præstabit? Scilicet ut
+malis tibi placere, quam populo, ... ut sine metu Deorum hominumque
+vivas, ut aut vincas mala aut finias.
+
+[563] See Krische, Forschungen, 368 and 475.
+
+[564] See p. 148, 2.
+
+[565] νόμος, according to the Stoic definition (Stob. Ecl. ii. 190,
+204; Floril. 44, 12, and in the fragment of Chrysippus quoted by
+Marcian in Digest. i. 3, 2, and the Scholiast of Hermogenes in Spengel
+Συναγ. τεχν. 177, Krische, Forsch. 475) = λόγος ὀρθὸς προστακτικὸς μὲν
+τῶν ποιητέων, ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ τῶν οὐ ποιητέων. It is therefore
+σπουδαῖόν τι or ἀστεῖον, something of moral value, imposing duties on
+man. The ultimate source of this λόγος must be looked for in the λόγος
+κοινὸς, the divine or world reason. The general law is, according to
+Diog. vii. 88 (who here, according to the passage quoted from Cic. N.
+D. i. 15, 40 on p. 148, 2, is apparently following Chrysippus) = ὁ
+ὀρθὸς λόγος διὰ πάντων ἐρχόμενος, ὁ αὐτὸς ὦν τῷ Διΐ. It is the ratio
+summa insita in natura, quæ jubet ea quæ facienda sunt, prohibetque
+contraria (Cic. Legg. i. 6, 18, conf. the quotation from Cic. N. D. i.
+14, 30, respecting Zeus, on p. 150). According to Cic. Legg. ii. 4, 8
+and 10, it is no human creation sed æternum quiddam, quod universum
+mundum regeret, imperandi prohibendique sapientia, the mens omnia
+ratione aut cogentis aut vetantis Dei, the ratio recta summi Jovis
+(conf. Fin. iv. 5, II, in the fragment in Lact. Inst. v. 8). It is
+accordingly, as Chrysippus l.c. says in the words of Pindar (Plato,
+Gorg. 484, B), πάντων βασιλεὺς θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων.
+
+[566] Cic. Legg. i. 6, 18; ii. 4, 8; 5, 11.
+
+[567] Or as Stob. ii. 184, expresses it, δίκαιον is φύσει καὶ μὴ θέσει.
+
+[568] This is proved by Cic. Legg. i. 12, 33, in a chain-argument
+clearly borrowed from the Stoics: Quibus ratio a natura data est,
+iisdem etiam recta ratio data est. Ergo et lex, quæ est recta ratio in
+jubendo et vetando. Si lex, jus quoque. At omnibus ratio. Jus igitur
+datum est omnibus. Upon this conception of law is based the Stoic
+definition of κατόρθωμα as εὐνόμημα, that of ἁμάρτημα as ἀνόμημα.
+
+[569] The good alone, or virtue, is αἱρετόν; evil is φευκτόν. See p.
+229, 1; 238, 3, and Stob. Ecl. ii. 202. αἱρετὸν is, however, Ibid. 126,
+132, ὃ αἵρεσιν εὔλογον κινεῖ, or, more accurately, τὸ ὁρμῆς αὐτοτελοῦς
+κινητικόν; and αἱρετὸν is accordingly distinguished from ληπτόν—αἱρετὸν
+being what is morally good, ληπτὸν being everything which has value,
+including external goods. The Stoics make a further distinction
+(according to Stob. ii. 140 and 194) with unnecessary subtlety between
+αἱρετὸν and αἱρετέον, and similarly between ὀρεκτὸν and ὀρεκτέον,
+ὑπομενετὸν and ὑπομενετέον, using the first form to express the good in
+itself (for instance, φρόνησις), the latter to express the possession
+of the good (for instance, φρονεῖν).
+
+[570] ὁρμὴ is defined by Stob. ii. 160, as φορὰ ψυχῆς ἐπί τι· ἀφορμὴ,
+which is contrasted therewith in Epict. Enchirid. 2, 2 Diss. iii. 2, 2,
+22, 36, as (according to the most probable correction of the text) φορὰ
+διανοίας ἀπό τινος. See p. 243, 3. A further distinction (connecting
+herewith what may be otherwise gathered from the statements of Stobæus
+respecting the Stoic doctrine of impulses) is made between the impulses
+of reasonable beings and beings devoid of reason. It is only in the
+case of reasonable beings that it can be said that impulse is called
+forth by the idea of a thing as something which has to be done
+(φαντασία ὁρμητικὴ τοῦ καθηκόντος); that every impulse contains an
+affirmative judgment in itself (συγκατάθεσις), to which has been
+superadded a κινητικόν· συγκατάθεσις applying to particular
+propositions (those in which truth and falsehood consist. See p. 110,
+3; 83, 2), whereas ὁρμὴ applies to κατηγορήματα (i.e. activities
+expressed by verbs. See p. 95, 1 and 2), since every impulse and every
+desire aims at the possession of a good. Ὁρμὴ λογικὴ is defined to be
+φορὰ διανοίας ἐπί τι τῶν ἐν τῷ πράττειν, and is also called ὁρμὴ
+πρακτικὴ (only a rational being being capable of πρᾶξις). If the φορὰ
+διανοίας refers to something future, the ὁρμὴ becomes an ὄρεξις, for
+which the text twice reads ὄρουσις. Among the varieties of ὁρμὴ
+πρακτικὴ, Stob. enumerates πρόθεσις, ἐπιβολὴ, παρασκευὴ, ἐγχείρησις,
+αἵρεσις, πρόθεσις, βούλησις, θέλησις, the definitions of which he
+gives, passing then to the doctrine of emotions, these being also a
+kind of ὁρμή. It appears, therefore, that activities of feeling and
+will are included in the conception of ὁρμή, as will be subsequently
+seen more fully in the doctrine of emotions, the conception of which
+likewise includes both.
+
+[571] Stob. ii. 116, similarly 108: πάντας γὰρ ἀνθρώπους ἀφορμὰς ἔχειν
+ἐκ φύσεως πρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ οἱονεὶ τὸ [l. τὸν] τῶν ἡμιαμβειαίων λόγον
+ἔχειν κατὰ τὸν Κλεάνθην, ὅθεν ἀτελεῖς μὲν ὄντας εἶναι φαύλους,
+τελειωθέντας δὲ σπουδαίους. Diog. 89, see p. 238, 3: The soul rests on
+the harmony of life with itself (virtue); extraneous influences corrupt
+it, ἐπεὶ ἡ φύσις ἀφορμὰς δίδωσιν ἀδιαστρόφους. Sen. Ep. 108, 8: Facile
+est auditorem concitare ad cupiditatem recti: omnibus enim natura
+fundamenta dedit semenque virtutis.
+
+[572] The one point, according to Cic. N. D. ii. 12, 34, which
+distinguishes man from God is, that God is absolutely rational and by
+nature good and wise.
+
+[573] Chrysippus (in Galen. De Hippocr. et Plat. iv. 2, vol. v. 368
+Kühn): τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον ἀκολουθητικὸν φύσει ἐστὶ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ κατὰ τὸν
+λόγον ὡς ἂν ἡγεμόνα πρακτικόν· πολλάκις μέντοι καὶ ἄλλως φέρεται ἐπί
+τινα καὶ ἀπό τινων (for so we must punctuate, the reference being to
+ὁρμὴ and ἀφορμὴ, according to the definition, p. 242, 2) ἀπειθῶς τῷ
+λόγῳ ὠθούμενον ἐπὶ πλεῖον, κ.τ.λ. From this, it appears that
+Chrysippus’ definition of ὁρμὴ (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 11, 6 = τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
+λόγος προστακτικὸς αὐτῷ τοῦ ποιεῖν) must not be understood (as in
+Baumhauer’s Vet. Philos. Doct. De morte voluntaria, p. 74) to imply
+that man has only rational, and no irrational impulses. Chrysippus, in
+the passage quoted, must either be referring to that impulse which is
+peculiar to man, and is according to his nature; or else λόγος must be
+taken in its more extended meaning of notion or idea, for all impulses
+are based on judgments, see p. 242, 2; and it is clear, from Cic. Fin.
+iii. 7, 23 (‘as our limbs are given to us for a definite purpose, so
+ὁρμὴ is given for some definite object, and not for every kind of
+use’), that ὁρμὴ is not in itself rational, but first becomes rational
+by the direction given to it by man.
+
+[574] The term emotion is used to express πάθος, although the terms of
+modern psychology are more or less inadequate to express the ancient
+ideas, as Cic. Fin. iii. 10, 35, already observed.
+
+[575] Diog. vii. 110: ἔστι δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος κατὰ Ζήνωνα ἡ ἄλογος καὶ
+παρὰ φύσιν ψυχῆς κίνησις ἢ ὁρμὴ πλεονάζουσα. The same definitions are
+found in Stob. ii. 36, 166, with this difference, that ἀπειθὴς τῷ
+αἱροῦντι λόγῳ stands in place of ἄλογος, as in Marc. Aurel. ii. 5. Cic.
+Tusc. iii. 11, 24; iv. 6, 11; 21, 47; Chrysippus in Galen. De Hipp. et
+Plat. iv. 2, 4; v. 2, 4, vol. v. 368, 385, 432, 458 Kühn, and Id. in
+Plut. Virt. Mor. 10, Schl. p. 450; Sen. Ep. 75, 12. A similar
+definition is attributed to Aristotle by Stob. ii. 36, but it is no
+longer to be found in his extant writings. If it was in one of the lost
+books (Heeren suggests in the treatise περὶ παθῶν ὀργῆς Diog. v. 23),
+was that book genuine?
+
+[576] Cic. Acad. i. 10, 39: Cumque eas perturbationes [πάθη] antiqui
+naturales esse dicerent et rationis expertes aliaque in parte animi
+cupiditatem, alia rationem collocarent, ne his quidem assentiebatur
+[Zeno]. Nam et perturbationes voluntarias esse putabat, opinionisque
+judicio suscipi, et omnium perturbationum arbitrabatur esse matrem
+immoderatam quandam intemperantiam. Fin. iii. 10, 35: Nec vero
+perturbationes animorum ... vi aliqua naturali moventur. Tusc. iv. 28,
+60: Ipsas perturbationes per se esse vitiosas nec habere quidquam aut
+naturale aut necessarium.
+
+[577] See p. 215, 3; 242, 2.
+
+[578] Chrysippus, in Galen. iii. 7, p. 335; v. 1 and 6, p. 476, and
+above, p. 215, 3.
+
+[579] Plut. Virt. Mor. 3, p. 441 (the first part of this passage has
+been already quoted, p. 215, 3, the continuation being) λέγεσθαι δὲ [τὸ
+ἡγεμονικὸν] ἄλογον, ὅταν τῷ πλεονάζοντι τῆς ὁρμῆς ἰσχυρῷ γενομένῳ καὶ
+κρατήσαντι πρός τι τῶν ἀτόπων παρὰ τὸν αἱροῦντα λόγον ἐκφέρηται· καὶ
+γὰρ τὸ πάθος, κ.τ.λ. See below, note 3.
+
+[580] See p. 242, 2.
+
+[581] Diog. vii. 111: δοκεῖ δ’ αὐτοῖς τὰ πάθη κρίσεις εἶναι, καθά φησι
+Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ περὶ παθῶν. Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 3, p. 441: τὸ πάθος
+εἶναι λόγον πονηρὸν καὶ ἀκόλαστον ἐκ φαύλης καὶ διημαρτημένης κρίσεως
+σφοδρότητα καὶ ῥώμην προσλαβόντα. Stob. ii. 168: ἐπὶ πάντων δὲ τῶν τῆς
+ψυχῆς παθῶν ἐπὶ δόξας αὐτὰ λέγουσιν εἶναι [instead of which read πάντων
+... παθῶν δόξας αἰτίας λέγ. εἶν.], παραλαμβάνεσθαι [add δὲ] τὴν δόξαν
+ἀντὶ τῆς ἀσθενοῦς ὑπολήψεως. Conf. Cic. Tusc. iv. 7, 14: Sed omnes
+perturbationes judicio censent fieri et opinione ... opinationem autem
+volunt esse imbecillam assensionem. Id. iii. 11, 24: Est ergo causa
+omnis in opinione, nec vero ægritudinis solum sed etiam reliquarum
+omnium perturbationum? Fin. iii. 10, 35: Perturbationes autem nulla
+naturæ vi commoventur; omniaque ea sunt opiniones ac judicia levitatis.
+Acad. i. 10. See p. 244, 3.
+
+[582] Diog. l.c.
+
+[583] Cic. Tusc. iii. 11, 26; iv. 7, 14. Posidon. (in Galen. iv. 7, p.
+416): Chrysippus defined apprehension (ἄση) as δόξα πρόσφατος κακοῦ
+παρουσίας.
+
+[584] See p. 242, 1.
+
+[585] Cic. Tusc. iv. 7, 15: Sed quæ judicia quasque opiniones
+perturbationum esse dixi, non in eis perturbationes solum positas esse
+dicunt, verum illa etiam, quæ efficiuntur perturbationibus, ut ægritudo
+quasi morsum quendam doloris efficiat: metus recessum quendam animi et
+fugam: lætitia profusam hilaritatem; libido effrenatam appetentiam.
+Galen. Hipp. et Plat. iv. 3, p. 377: (Ζήνωνι καὶ πολλοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν
+Στωϊκῶν) οἳ οὐ τὰς κρίσεις αὐτὰς τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ [should perhaps be
+struck out], τὰς ἐπὶ ταύταις ἀλόγους συστολὰς καὶ ταπεινώσεις καὶ
+δείξεις [both for δείξεις, and for λήξεις in the passage about to be
+quoted from Plutarch, Thurot, Etudes sur Aristote, p. 249, suggests
+δέσεις· δήξεις is more probable, confirmed too by Cicero’s morsus
+doloris] ἐπάρσεις τε καὶ διαχύσεις ὑπολαμβάνουσιν εἶναι τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς
+πάθη. Plut. Virt. Mor. 10, p. 449: τὰς ἐπιτάσεις τῶν παθῶν καὶ τὰς
+σφοδρότητας οὔ φασι γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν, ἐν ᾗ τὸ ἁμαρτητικὸν, ἀλλὰ
+τὰς λήξεις [δήξεις] καὶ τὰς συστολὰς καὶ τὸ ἧττον τῷ ἀλόγῳ δεχομένας.
+The same results are involved in the definitions of emotion already
+given, p. 244, 2. In reference to this pathological action of
+representations, one kind of emotions was defined (Stob. ii. 170; Cic.
+Tusc. iv. 7, 14) as δόξα πρόσφατος, or opinio recens boni (or mali)
+præsentis, πρόσφατον being κινητικὸν συστολῆς ἀλόγου ἢ ὑπάρσεως.
+
+[586] De Hipp. et Plat. v. 1, p. 429): Χρύσιππος μὲν οὖν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ
+περὶ παθῶν ἀποδεικνύναι πειρᾶται, κρίσεις κινὰς εἶναι τοῦ λογιστικοῦ τὰ
+πάθη, Ζήνων δ’ οὐ τὰς κρίσεις αὐτὰς, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἐπιγιγνομένας αὐταῖς
+συστολὰς καὶ λύσεις, ἐπάρσεις τε καὶ τὰς πτώσεις τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνόμιζεν
+εἶναι τὰ πάθη. Conf. iv. 2, p. 367, and 3, p. 377.
+
+[587] Diog. 111 (see above, p. 245, 3, and the definition quoted on p.
+245, 5) confirms the view that, in the passage referred to by Galenus,
+Chrysippus explained the emotions to be κρίσεις. Elsewhere Galenus
+asserts (iv. 2, p. 367) that he called λύπη a μείωσις ἐπὶ φευκτῷ
+δοκοῦντι; ἡδονὴ, an ἔπαρσις ἐφ’ αἱρετῷ δοκοῦντι ὑπάρχειν; and charges
+him (iv. 6, p. 403), quoting passages in support of the charge, with
+deducing emotions from ἀτονία and ἀσθένεια ψυχῆς. That Chrysippus
+agreed with Zeno in his definition of emotion, has already been stated
+(p. 244, 2). No doubt, too, with an eye to Chrysippus, Stobæus also
+(ii. 166) defines emotion as πτοία (violent mental motion), the words
+used being πᾶσαν πτοίαν πάθος εἶναι καὶ πάλιν πάθος πτοίαν· and, in
+Galenus (iv. 5, p. 392), Chrysippus says: οἰκείως δὲ τῷ τῶν παθῶν γένει
+ἀποδίδοται καὶ ἡ πτοία κατὰ τὸ ἐνσεσοβημένον τοῦτο καὶ φερόμενον εἰκῆ.
+Chrysippus even repeatedly insists on the difference between emotion
+and error—error being due to deficient knowledge, emotion to opposition
+to the claims of reason, to a disturbance of the natural relation of
+the impulses (τὴν φυσικὴν τῶν ὁρμῶν συμμετρίαν ὑπερβαίνειν). He shows
+that both Zeno’s definitions come to this (Galen. iv. 2, p. 368, and
+iv. 4, p. 385; Stob. ii. 170), and elsewhere explains (Plut. Vir. Mor.
+10, p. 450) how emotion takes away consideration, and impels to
+irrational conduct. The quotations on p. 246, 1 from Cicero and Stobæus
+are an explanation of positions of Chrysippus, of which Chrysippus is
+himself the source. And were he not directly the source, Galenus (iv.
+4, p. 390) observes that the view of Chrysippus on the emotions was
+generally held in the Stoic School after his time. In designating the
+emotions κρίσεις, Chrysippus cannot therefore have intended thereby to
+exclude the emotions of impulse and feeling. All that he meant was,
+that emotions, as they arise in the individual soul (we should say as
+conditions of consciousness), are called forth by imagination. This is
+clear from the fact that the modes in which the pathological character
+of emotions displays itself are appealed to as evidence. See his words
+in Galen. iv. 6, p. 409. τῷ [l. τό] τε γὰρ θυμῷ φέρεσθαι καὶ
+ἐξεστηκέναι καὶ οὐ παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς οὐδ’ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς εἶναι καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα
+τοιαῦτα φανερῶς μαρτυρεῖ τῷ κρίσεις εἶναι τὰ πάθη κἂν τῇ λογικῇ δυνάμει
+τῆς ψυχῆς συνίστασθαι καθάπερ καὶ τὰ οὕτως ἔχοντα. On the other hand,
+Zeno never denied the influence of imagination on emotion, as is
+perfectly clear from the expression of Galenus, quoted pp. 246, 2; 246,
+1.
+
+[588] Stob. Ecl. ii. 190 (Floril. 46, 50): The wise man, according to
+the Stoic teaching, exercises no indulgence; for indulgence would
+suppose τὸν ἡμαρτηκότα μὴ παρ’ αὑτὸν ἡμαρτηκέναι πάντων ἁμαρτανόντων
+παρὰ τὴν ἰδίαν κακίαν.
+
+[589] Epictet. Diss. i. 18, 1–7; 28, 1–10; ii. 26; M. Aurel. ii. 1; iv.
+3; viii. 14; xi. 18; xii. 12.
+
+[590] This motive can be best gathered from the passages in Cicero
+already quoted, p. 244, 3, and from Sen. De Ira, ii. 2, 1: Anger can do
+nothing by itself, but only animo adprobante ... nam si invitis nobis
+nascitur, nunquam rationi succumbet. Omnes enim motus qui non voluntate
+nostra fiunt invicti et inevitabiles sunt, &c.
+
+[591] See p. 179, 3, 4.
+
+[592] See p. 88, 1.
+
+[593] Cic. Acad. i. 10, 39: Perturbationes voluntarias esse. Tusc. iv.
+7, 14: Emotions proceed from judgment; itaque eas definiunt pressius,
+ut intelligatur non modo quam vitiosæ, sed etiam quam in nostra sunt
+potestate, upon which follow the definitions quoted, p. 246, 1.
+
+[594] Cic. Tusc. iv. 9, 22: Omnium autem affectionum fontem esse dicunt
+intemperantiam (ἀκράτεια), quæ est a tota mente et a recta ratione
+defectio sic aversa a præscriptione rationis ut nullo modo adpetitiones
+anima nec regi nec contineri queant.
+
+[595] Stob. Ecl. ii. 170, probably from Chrysippus, of whom similar
+remarks were quoted, p. 246, 3: πᾶν γὰρ πάθος βιαστικόν ἐστιν, ὡς καὶ
+πολλάκις ὁρῶντας τοὺς ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντας ὅτι συμφέρει τόδε οὐ ποιεῖν
+ὑπὸ τῆς σφοδρότητος ἐκφερομένους ... ἀνάγεσθαι πρὸς τὸ ποιεῖν αὐτὸ ...
+πάντες δ’ οἱ ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες ἀποστρέφονται τὸν λόγον, οὐ
+παραπλησίως δὲ τοῖς ἐξηπατημένοις ἐν ὁτωοῦν, ἀλλ’ ἰδιαζόντως. οἱ μὲν
+γὰρ ἠπατημένοι ... διδαχθέντες ... ἀφίστανται τῆς κρίσεως· οἱ δ’ ἐν
+τοῖς πάθεσιν ὄντες, κἂν μάθωσι κἂν μεταδιδαχθῶσιν, ὅτι οὐ δεῖ λυπεῖσθαι
+ἢ φοβεῖσθαι ἢ ὅλως ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅμως οὐκ ἀφίστανται
+τούτων ἀλλ’ ἄγονται ὑπὸ τῶν παθῶν εἰς τὸ ὑπὸ τούτων κρατεῖσθαι
+τυραννίδος. A different view is taken by Epictet. Diss. i. 28, 8, who à
+propos of Medea remarks: ἐξηπάτηται· δεῖξον αὐτῇ ἐναργῶς, ὅτι
+ἐξηπάτηται, καὶ οὐ ποιήσει.
+
+[596] See p. 242, 2. The same idea is expressed in applying the terms
+αἱρετὸν and φευκτὸν to good and evil (Stob. ii. 126 and 142; see p.
+229, 1, and 232, 3).
+
+[597] Stob. ii. 166; Cic. Tusc. iii. 11; iv. 7, 14; 15, 43; Fin. iii.
+10, 35.
+
+[598] According to Diog. 110, this distinction was found in the
+treatise περὶ παθῶν.
+
+[599] In Clem. Strom. ii. 407, A, the words being πρὸς ὅλον τὸ
+τετράχορδον, ἡδονὴν, λύπην, φόβον, ἐπιθυμίαν, πολλῆς δεῖ τῆς ἀσκήσεως
+καὶ μάχης.
+
+[600] The definition of λύπη or ἄση (Cicero ægritudo) as δόξα πρόσφατος
+κακοῦ παρουσίας is explicitly referred to Chrysippus (more at length in
+Cic. Tusc. iv. 7, 14: Opinio recens mali præsentis, in quo demitti
+contrahique animo rectum esse videatur), as also the definition of
+φιλαργυρία = ὑπόληψις τοῦ τὸ ἀργύριον καλὸν εἶναι. See p. 254, 4, 5. In
+like manner μέθη, ἀκολασία, and the other passions, were, according to
+Diog. 110, defined. To Chrysippus also belong the definitions—quoted
+Tusc. iv. 7, 14; iii. 11, 25—of ἡδονὴ (lætitia, voluptas gestiens) =
+opinio recens boni præsentis, in quo efferri rectum videatur; of fear =
+opinio impendentis mali quod intolerabile esse videatur, agreeing with
+the προσδοκία κακοῦ of Diog. 112; of desire (cupiditas, libido,
+ἐπιθυμία) = opinio venturi boni, quod sit ex usu jam præsens esse atque
+adesse. It is, however, more common to hear λύπη (Diog. 111; Stob. 172;
+Cic. Tusc. iii. 11) described as συστολὴ ψυχῆς ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ, more
+briefly συστολὴ ἄλογος, fear as ἔκκλισις ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ, ἡδονὴ even
+according to Alex. Aphr. top. 96, as ἄλογος ἔπαρσις ἐφ’ αἱρέτῳ δοκοῦντι
+ὑπάρχειν, two different translations of which are given by Cic. l.c.
+and Fin. ii. 4, 13, ἐπιθυμία as ὄρεξις ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ, or immoderata
+appetitio opinati magni boni. The latter definitions appear to belong
+to Zeno. They were probably appropriated by Chrysippus, and the
+additions made which are found in Stobæus.
+
+[601] Further particulars may be gathered from Diog. vii. 111; Stob. ii
+174. Both include under λύπη subdivisions as ἔλεος, φθόνος, ζῆλος,
+ζηλοτυπία, ἄχθος, ἀνία, ὀδύνη. Diogenes adds ἐνόχλησις and σύγχυσις;
+Stobæus πένθος, ἄχος, ἄση. Both include under φόβος, δεῖμα, ὄκνος,
+αἰσχύνη, ἔκπληξις, θόρυβος, ἀγωνία; Stobæus adds δέος and
+δεισιδαιμονία. Under ἡδονὴ, Diogenes includes κήλησις, ἐπιχαιρεκακία,
+τέρψις, διάχυσις; Stobæus, ἐπιχαιρεκακίαι, ἀσμενισμοὶ, γοητεῖαι καὶ τὰ
+ὅμοια. Under ἐπιθυμία, Diogenes places σπάνις, μῖσος, φιλονεικία, ὀργὴ,
+ἔρως, μῆνις, θυμός; Stobæus, ὀργὴ καὶ τὰ εἴδη αὐτῆς (θυμὸς, χόλος,
+μῆνις, κότος, πικρία, κ.τ.λ.), ἔρωτες σφοδροὶ, πόθοι, ἵμεροι,
+φιληδονίαι, φιλοπλουτίαι, φιλοδοξίαι. Definitions for all these
+terms—which, without doubt, belong to Chrysippus—may be found in the
+writers named. Greek lexicographers may obtain many useful hints from
+Stoic definitions.
+
+[602] Plut. Vir. Mor. 10, p. 449: πᾶν μὲν γὰρ πάθος ἁμαρτία κατ’ αὐτούς
+ἐστιν καὶ πᾶς ὁ λυπούμενος ἢ φοβούμενος ἢ ἐπιθυμῶν ἁμαρτάνει. The
+Stoics are therefore anxious to make a marked distinction in the
+expressions for emotions and the permitted mental affections, between
+pleasure and joy, see p. 236, 2, fear and precaution (εὐλαβεία), desire
+and will (βούλησις, Diog. 116; cupere et velle, Sen. Ep. 116, 1),
+αἰσχύνη and αἰδὼς (Plut. Vit. Pud. c. 2, p. 529).
+
+[603] On this favourite proposition of the Stoics, consult Diog. 115;
+Stob. ii. 182; Cic. Tusc. iv. 10; whose remarkable agreement with
+Stobæus seems to point to a common source of information directly or
+indirectly drawn upon by both; iii. 10, 23; Galen. Hipp. et Plat. v. 2;
+Sen. Ep. 75, 11. According to these passages, the Stoics distinguish
+between simple emotions and diseases of the soul. Emotions, in the
+language of Seneca, are motus animi improbabiles soluti et concitati.
+If they are frequently repeated and neglected, then inveterata vitia et
+dura, or diseases, ensue. Disease of the soul is therefore defined as
+δόξα ἐπιθυμίας ἐῤῥυηκυῖα εἰς ἕξιν καὶ ἐνεσκιῤῥωμένη καθ’ ἣν
+ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὰ μὴ αἱρετὰ σφόδρα αἱρετὰ εἶναι (Stob. translations of
+the definition in Cicero and Seneca). The opposite of such a δόξα, or a
+confusion arising from false fear, is an opinio vehemens inhærens atque
+insita de re non fugienda tanquam fugienda—such as hatred of womankind,
+hatred of mankind, &c. If the fault is caused by some weakness which
+prevent our acting up to our better knowledge, the diseased states of
+the soul are called ἀῤῥωστήματα, ægrotationes (Diog.; Stob.; Cic. Tusc.
+iv. 13, 29); but this distinction is, of course, very uncertain. The
+same fault is at one time classed among νόσοι, at another among
+ἀῤῥωστήματα; and Cicero (11, 24; 13, 29) repeatedly observes that the
+two can only be distinguished in thought. Moreover, just as there are
+certain predispositions (ἐνεμπτωσίαι) for bodily diseases, so within
+the sphere of mind there are εὐκαταφορίαι εἰς πάθος. Diog., Stob., Cic.
+12. The distinction between vitia and morbi (Cic. 13) naturally
+coincides with the distinction between emotions and diseases. The
+former are caused by conduct at variance with principles, by
+inconstantia et repugnantia, likewise vitiositas in a habitus in tota
+vita inconstans; the latter consist in corruptio opinionum. It is not
+consistent with this view to call κακίαι, διαθέσεις; and νόσοι, as well
+as ἀῤῥωστήματα and εὐκαταφορίαι, ἕξεις (Stob. ii. 100, on the
+difference between ἕξις and διάθεσις, see 102, 1); and, accordingly,
+Heine suggests (De Font. Tuscul. Dis.: Weimar, 1863, p. 18) that, on
+this point, Cicero may have given inaccurate information. The unwise
+who are near wisdom are free from disease of the soul, but not from
+emotions (Sen., Cic.). The points of comparison between diseases of the
+body and those of the soul were investigated by Chrysippus with
+excessive care. Posidonius contradicted him, however, in part (Galen,
+l.c., Cic. 10, 23; 12, 27); but their differences are not of interest
+to us.
+
+[604] Cic. Acad. i. 10, 38: Cumque perturbationem animi illi
+[superiores] ex homine non tollerent ... sed eam contraherent in
+angustumque deducerent: hic omnibus his quasi morbis voluit carere
+sapientem. Ibid. ii. 43, 135. We shall find subsequently that the
+mental affections, which cause emotions, are allowed to be unavoidable.
+
+[605] Cic. Tusc. iv. 17, 37.
+
+[606] Cic. Tusc. iii. 10, 22: Omne enim malum, etiam mediocre, magnum
+est. Nos autem id agimus, ut id in sapiente nullum sit omnino. Ibid.
+iv. 17, 39: Modum tu adhibes vitio? An vitium nullum est non parere
+rationi? Ibid. 18, 42: Nihil interest, utrum moderatas perturbationes
+approbent, an moderatam injustitiam, &c. Qui enim vitiis modum apponit,
+is partem suscipit vitiorum. Sen. Ep. 85, 5, says that moderation of
+emotions is equivalent to modice insaniendum, modice ægrotandum. Ep.
+116, 1: Ego non video, quomodo salubris esse aut utilis possit ulla
+mediocritas morbi.
+
+[607] Sen. De Ira, i. 9, 2; particularly with reference to anger, conf.
+Ep. 85, 10.
+
+[608] Full details are given by Cic. Tusc. iv. 19–26; Off. i. 25, 88;
+Sen. De Ira, i. 5, 21; ii. 12; particularly with regard to the use of
+anger.
+
+[609] In the same spirit Sen. De Ira, i. 9, 1; 10, 2, meets the
+assertion that valour cannot dispense with anger by saying: Nunquam
+virtus vitio adjuvanda est, se contenta ... absit hoc a virtute malum,
+ut unquam ratio ad vitia confugiat.
+
+[610] Diog. vii. 117: φασὶ δὲ καὶ ἀπαθῆ εἶναι τὸν σοφὸν, διὰ τὸ
+ἀνέμπτωτον (faultless) εἶναι. From the apathy of the wise man, absence
+of feeling and severity, which are faults, must be distinguished.
+
+[611] Chrysippus (in Stob. Floril. vii. 21): ἀλγεῖν μὲν τὸν σοφὸν μὴ
+βασανίζεσθαι δέ· μὴ γὰρ ἐνδιδόναι τῇ ψυχῇ. Sen. De Prov. 6, 6; Ep. 85,
+29; Cic. Tusc. ii. 12, 29; 25, 61; iii. 11, 25.
+
+[612] Plut. Sto. Rep. 20, 12; Musonius (in Stob. Floril. 19, 16); Sen.
+De Const. 2; 3; 5; 7; 12. The second title of this treatise is: nec
+injuriam nec contumeliam accipere sapientem.
+
+[613] See 253, 2 and 3 and Cic. Tusc. iii. 9, 19.
+
+[614] Cic. Tusc. iii. 9, 20; Sen. De Clem. ii. 5; Diog. vii. 123.
+
+[615] Stob. Ecl. ii. 190; Floril. 46, 60; Sen. l.c. 5, 2; 7; Diog.
+l.c.; Gell. N. A. xiv. 4, 4.
+
+[616] Ps. Plut. Hom. 134: οἱ μὲν οὖν Στωϊκοὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τίθενται ἐν τῇ
+ἀπαθείᾳ.
+
+[617] See p. 193. Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, b. Virtue consists in ἐκλογὴ
+τῶν κατὰ φύσιν. Diog. vii. 89 (conf. Plut. Aud. Po. c. 6, p. 24): τήν
+τ’ ἀρετὴν διάθεσιν εἶναι ὁμολογουμένην.
+
+[618] Cic. Acad. i. 10, 38: Cumque superiores (Aristotle and others)
+non omnem virtutem in ratione esse dicerent, sed quasdam virtutes
+natura aut more perfectas: hic [Zeno] omnes in ratione ponebat.
+
+[619] Cic. Tusc. iv. 15, 34: Ipsa virtus brevissime recta ratio dici
+potest. Conf. Sen. Ep. 113, 2: Virtus autem nihil aliud est quam animus
+quodammodo se habens, and the remarks, p. 128, 1; 129, 3.
+
+[620] The proof of this will be found subsequently in the Stoic
+definitions of various virtues and vices. Compare preliminarily 254, 6
+and Diog. vii. 93: εἶναι δ’ ἀγνοίας τὰς κακίας, ὧν αἱ ἀρεταὶ ἐπιστῆμαι.
+Stob. Ecl ii. 108: ταύτας μὲν οὖν τὰς ῥηθείσας ἀρετὰς τελείας εἶναι
+λέγουσι περὶ τὸν βίον καὶ συνεστηκέναι ἐκ θεωρημάτων. It is not opposed
+to these statements for Stob. ii. 92 and 110, to distinguish other
+virtues besides those which are τέχναι and ἐπιστῆμαι; nor for Hecato
+(in Diog. vii. 90) to divide virtues into ἐπιστημονικαὶ καὶ θεωρητικαὶ
+(σύστασιν ἔχουσαι τῶν θεωρημάτων) and ἀθεώρητοι; for by the latter must
+be understood not the virtuous actions themselves, but only the states
+resulting from them—health of soul, strength of will, and the like. On
+the health of the soul, in its relation to virtue, see Cic. Tusc. iv.
+13, 30.
+
+[621] Diog. vii. 91 (following Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and others); Ps.
+Plut. V. Hom. 144.
+
+[622] See p. 260, 3.
+
+[623] Plut. Sto. Rep. 7; Diog. vii. 161; Galen, vii. 2, p. 595.
+
+[624] See p. 56.
+
+[625] See p. 58, 2. Diog. vii. 165, conf. 37: Ἥριλλος δὲ ὁ Καρχηδόνιος
+τέλος εἶπε τὴν ἐπιστήμην, ὅπερ ἐστὶ ζῇν ἀεὶ πάντα ἀναφέροντα πρὸς τὸ
+μετ’ ἐπιστήμης ζῇν καὶ μὴ τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ διαβεβλημένον. εἶναι δὲ τὴν
+ἐπιστήμην ἕξιν ἐν φαντασιῶν προσδέξει ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου. On the
+definition, see p. 82, 1.
+
+[626] Cleanthes (in Plut. Sto. Rep. 7): When τόνος, on which see p.
+128, 2, is found in the soul in a proper decree, ἰσχὺς καλεῖται καὶ
+κράτος· ἡ δ’ ἰσχὺς αὕτη καὶ τὸ κράτος ὅταν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐπιφανέσιν
+ἐμμενετέοις ἐγγένηται ἐγκράτειά ἐστι, κ.τ.λ. In the same way,
+Chrysippus (according to Galen, Hipp. et Plat. iv. 6, p. 403) deduced
+what is good in our conduct from εὐτονία and ἰσχύς; what is bad, from
+ἀτονία καὶ ἀσθένεια τῆς ψυχῆς; and (ibid. vii. 1, p. 590) he referred
+the differences of individual virtues to changes in quality within the
+soul. By Aristo, p. 220, 1, virtue is defined as health; by Stob. ii.
+104, as διάθεσις ψυχῆς σύμφωνος αὐτῇ; by Diog. 89, as διάθεσις
+ὁμολογουμένη.
+
+[627] Sen. De Otio, i. (28) 4: Stoici nostri dicunt; usque ad ultimum
+vitæ finem in actu erimus, non desinemus communi bono operam dare, &c.
+Nos sumus, apud quos usque eo nihil ante mortem otiosum est, ut, si res
+patitur, non sit ipsa mors otiosa.
+
+[628] This will appear from the definitions of virtue about to follow.
+
+[629] See pp. 59, 1; 56, 2.
+
+[630] See p. 254, 7. Sen. Ep. 65, 6, after describing a great and noble
+soul, adds: Talis animus virtus est.
+
+[631] Plut. Vir. Mor. 2: Ἀρίστων δὲ ὁ Χῖος τῇ μὲν οὐσίᾳ μίαν καὶ αὐτὸς
+ἀρετὴν ἐποίει καὶ ὑγίειαν ὠνόμαζε, κ.τ.λ. Id. on Zeno, see p. 260, 3,
+and Cleanthes, p. 236, 3. According to Galenus, Aristo defined the one
+virtue to be the knowledge of good and evil (Hipp. et Plat. v. 5, p.
+468): κάλλιον οὖν Ἀρίστων ὁ Χῖος, οὔτε πολλὰς εἶναι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῆς
+ψυχῆς ἀποφηνάμενος, ἀλλὰ μίαν, ἣν ἐπιστήμην ἀγαθῶν τε καὶ κακῶν εἶναί
+φησιν. vii. 2, p. 595. νομίσας γοῦν ὁ Ἀρίστων, μίαν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς
+δύναμιν, ᾗ λογιζόμεθα, καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἔθετο μίαν, ἐπιστήμην
+ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν. The statement that Aristo made health of soul consist
+in a right view of good and evil agrees with the language of Plutarch.
+Perhaps Zeno had already defined φρόνησις as ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν.
+
+[632] Conf. p. 255. 1. Cic. De Off. i. 43, 153: Princepsque omnium
+virtutum est illa sapientia, quam σοφίαν Græci vocant: prudentiam enim,
+quam Græci φρόνησιν dicunt, aliam quandam intelligimus: quæ est rerum
+expetendarum fugiendarumque scientia. Illa autem scientia, quam
+principem dixi, rerum est divinarum atque humanarum scientia. A similar
+definition of wisdom, amplified by the words, nosse divina et humana et
+horum causas, is found Ibid. ii. 2, 5. Sen. Ep. 85, 5; Plut. Plac.
+Proœm. 2; Strabo, i. 1, 1. It may probably be referred to Chrysippus;
+and it was no doubt Chrysippus who settled the distinction between
+σοφία and φρόνησις, in the Stoic school, although Aristo had preceded
+him in distinguishing them. Explaining particular virtues as springing
+from the essence of virtue, with the addition of a differential
+quality, he needed separate terms to express generic and specific
+virtue. In Zeno’s definition too, as later writers would have it (Plut.
+Vir. Mat. 2), to φρόνησις was given the meaning of ἐπιστήμη.
+
+[633] ἀρεταὶ πρῶται. Diog. 92; Stob. ii. 104. In stating that
+Posidonius counted four—Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Antipater more than
+four—virtues, Diogenes can only mean that the latter enumerated the
+subdivisions, whereas Posidonius confined himself to the four main
+heads of the four cardinal virtues. Besides this division of virtues,
+another, threefold, division is also met with, see p. 56, 2; 57, 1,
+that into logical, physical, and ethical virtues. In other words, the
+whole of philosophy and likewise its parts are brought under the notion
+of virtue; but it is not stated how this threefold division is to
+harmonise with the previous fourfold one. A twofold division, made by
+Panætius and referred to by Seneca (Ep. 94, 45)—that into theoretical
+and practical virtues—is an approximation to the ethics of the
+Peripatetics.
+
+[634] The scheme was in vogue before Zeno’s time. See Plut. Sto. Rep.
+7, 1, and the quotations, p. 260, 3.
+
+[635] ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων, or ἑκάστων ὧν ποιητέον
+καὶ οὐ ποιητέον καὶ οὐδετέρων. Stob. 102. Stobæus adds, that the
+definition needs to be completed by the words, occurring in the
+definition of every virtue, φύσει πολιτικοῦ ζῴου. But this is
+superfluous, for only in the case of such a being can the terms good
+and evil apply. Diog. 92; Sext. Math. xi. 170 and 246; Cic. l.c.
+
+[636] ἐπιστήμη δεινῶν καὶ οὐ δεινῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων (Stob. 104); ἐπιστήμη
+ὧν αἱρετέον καὶ ὧν εὐλαβητέον καὶ οὐδετέρων (Diog.); ἐπιστήμη ὧν χρὴ
+θαῤῥεῖν ἢ μὴ θαῤῥεῖν (Galen. Hipp. et Plat. vii. 2, 597). Cic. Tusc.
+iv. 24, 53, conf. v. 14, 41: (Chrysippus) fortitudo est, inquit,
+scientia perferendarum rerum, vel affectio animi in patiendo ac
+perferendo, summæ legi parens sine timore. The last-named
+characteristic appears still more strongly in the definition attributed
+to the Stoics by Cic. Off. i. 19, 62: Virtus propugnans pro æquitate.
+
+[637] ἐπιστήμη αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων. Stob. 102. The
+definition of φρόνησις in Cicero is the same, word for word. See p.
+258, 1; that of valour in Diogenes is not very different. Since all
+duties refer to ποιητέα and οὐ ποιητέα, the definitions of the
+remaining virtues must necessarily agree with those of φρόνησις.
+
+[638] ἐπιστήμη ἀπονεμητικὴ τῆς ἀξίας ἑκάστῳ, in Stob. Id. p. 104,
+further enumerates the points of difference between the four virtues:
+intelligence refers to καθήκοντα, self-control to impulses, valour to
+ὑπομοναὶ, justice to ἀπονεμήσεις. See also the distinctive
+peculiarities of the four virtues in Stob. 112. Below, p. 263.
+
+[639] Diog. 93; Stob. 104. The πρῶται κακίαι are: ἀφροσύνη, δειλία,
+ἀκολασία, ἀδικία. The definition of ἀφροσύνη is ἄγνοια ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν
+καὶ οὐδετέρων. See p. 255, 1.
+
+[640] This follows from the fact that the conception of ἐπιστήμη is the
+basis in all. See p. 258, 1.
+
+[641] Of Zeno, Plut. Vir. Mor. 2, p. 441, says: ὁριζόμενος τὴν φρόνησιν
+ἐν μὲν ἀπονεμητέοις δικαιοσύνην· ἐν δ’ αἱρετέοις σωφροσύνην· ἐν δ’
+ὑπομενετέοις ἀνδρίαν. The like in regard to justice in Sto. Rep. 7, 2.
+On the other hand valour is here termed φρόνησις ἐν ἐνεργητέοις. He
+also says, p. 440, that, according to Aristo, ἡ ἀρετὴ ποιητέα μὲν
+ἐπισκοποῦσα καὶ μὴ ποιητέα κέκληται φρόνησις· ἐπιθυμίαν δὲ κοσμοῦσα καὶ
+τὸ μέτρων καὶ τὸ εὔκαιρον ἐν ἡδοναῖς ὁρίζουσα, σωφροσύνη· κοινωνήμασι
+δὲ καὶ συμβολαίοις ὁμιλοῦσα τοῖς πρὸς ἑτέρους, δικαιοσύνη. Further
+particulars as to Aristo may be found in Galen. Hipp. et Plat. vii. 2,
+p. 595: Since the soul has only one power, the power of thought, it can
+only have one virtue, the ἐπιστήμη ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν. ὅταν μὲν οὖν
+αἱρεῖσθαί τε δέῃ τἀγαθὰ καὶ φεύγειν τὰ κακὰ, τὴν ἐπιστήμην τήνδε λαλεῖ
+σωφροσύνην· ὅταν δὲ πράττειν μὲν τἀγαθὰ, μὴ πράττειν δὲ τὰ κακὰ,
+φρόνησιν· ἀνδρείαν δὲ ὅταν τὰ μὲν θαῤῥῇ, τὰ δὲ φεύγῃ· ὅταν δὲ τὸ κατ’
+ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ νέμῃ, δικαιοσύνην· ἑνὶ δὲ λόγῳ, γινώσκουσα μὲν ἡ ψυχὴ
+χωρὶς τοῦ πράττειν τἀγαθά τε καὶ κακὰ σοφία τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπιστήμη, πρὸς
+δὲ τὰς πράξεις ἀφικνουμένη τὰς κατὰ τὸν βίον ὀνόματα πλείω λαμβάνει τὰ
+προειρημένα. We know, from Plut. Sto. Rep. 7, 4, see p. 256, 3, that,
+according to Cleanthes, strength of mind, ὅταν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐπιφανέσιν
+ἐμμενετέοις ἐγγένηται, ἐγκράτειά ἐστιν· ὅταν δ’ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομενετέοις,
+ἀνδρεία· περὶ τὰς ἀξίας δὲ, δικαιοσύνη· περὶ τὰς αἱρέσεις καὶ
+ἐκκλίσεις, σωφροσύνη. With him, too, if Plutarch’s account is accurate,
+ἐγκράτεια, or perseverance, takes the place of φρόνησις. Cic. Tusc. iv.
+24, 53, quotes no less than three definitions of bravery given by
+Sphærus. See p. 259, 3.
+
+[642] Plut. Vir. Mor. 2, p. 441, charges him with creating a σμῆνος
+ἀρετῶν οὐ συνῆθες οὐδὲ γνώριμον, and forming a χαριεντότης, ἐσθλότης,
+μεγαλότης, καλότης, ἐπιδεξιότης, εὐαπαντησία, εὐτραπελία, after the
+analogy of πρᾳότης, ἀνδρεία, &c. In Stob. ii. 118, among the Stoic
+virtues, is found an ἐρωτικὴ as ἐπιστήμη νέων θήρας εὐφυῶν, &c., and a
+συμποτικὴ as ἐπιστήμη τοῦ πῶς δεῖ ἐξάγεσθαι τὰ συμπόσια καὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ
+συμπίνειν. An ἐρωτικὴ and συμποτικὴ ἀρετὴ are also mentioned by
+Philodem. De Mus. col. 15. According to Athen. 162, b (Vol. Herc. i.),
+Persæus, in his συμποτικοὶ διάλογοι, had discussed συμποτικὴ at length;
+and since, according to the Stoics (Sen. Ep. 123, 15: Stob. l.c.),
+none but the wise know how to live aright and how to drink aright,
+these arts belong to a complete treatment of wisdom.
+
+[643] Stob. 106, includes under φρόνησις, εὐβουλία, εὐλογιστία,
+ἀγχίνοια, νουνέχεια, εὐμηχανία; under σωφροσύνη, εὐταξία, κοσμιότης,
+αἰδημοσύνη, ἐγκράτεια; under ἀνδρεία, καρτερία, θαῤῥαλεότης,
+μεγαλοψυχία, εὐψυχία, φιλοπονία; under δικαιοσύνη, εὐσέβεια (on which
+Diog. 119), χρηστότης, εὐκοινωνησία, εὐσυναλλαξία. Diog. 126, is
+slightly different. Stobæus gives the definitions of all these virtues,
+and Diogenes of some. By Stobæus, they are generally described as
+ἐπιστῆμαι; by Diogenes, as ἕξεις or διαθέσεις. Otherwise, the
+definitions are the same. A definition of εὐταξία is given by Cic. Off.
+i. 40, 142.
+
+[644] Diog. 93; Stob. 104.
+
+[645] Sto. Rep. 7.
+
+[646] Plut. Vir. Mor. 2: Ἀρίστων δὲ ὁ Χῖος τῇ μὲν οὐσίᾳ μίαν καὶ αὐτὸς
+ἀρετὴν ἐποίει καὶ ὑγίειαν ὠνόμαζε· τῷ δὲ πρός τι διαφόρους καὶ
+πλείονας, ὡς εἴ τις ἐθέλοι τὴν ὅρασιν ἡμῶν λευκῶν μὲν ἀντιλαμβανομένην
+λευκοθέαν καλεῖν, μελάνων δὲ μελανθέαν ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον. καὶ γὰρ ἡ
+ἀρετὴ, κ.τ.λ. See p. 260, 3. καθάπερ τὸ μαχαίριον ἓν μέν ἐστιν, ἄλλοτε
+δὲ ἄλλο διαιρεῖ· καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἐνεργεῖ περὶ ὕλας διαφόρους μιᾷ φύσει
+χρώμενον.
+
+[647] Galen. Hipp. et Plat. vii. 1, p. 590: νομίζει γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐκεῖνος,
+μίαν οὖσαν τὴν ἀρετὴν ὀνόμασι πλείοσιν ὀνομάζεσθαι κατὰ τὴν πρός τι
+σχέσιν. Conf. note 5 and Diog. vii. 161: ἀρετάς τ’ οὔτε πολλὰς εἰσῆγεν,
+ὡς ὁ Ζήνων, οὔτε μίαν πολλοῖς ὀνόμασι καλουμένην, ὡς οἱ Μεγαρικοὶ, ἀλλὰ
+καὶ [l. κατὰ] τὸ πρός τί πως ἔχειν (scil. πολλοῖς ὀνόμασι καλουμένην).
+
+[648] See p. 260, 3.
+
+[649] Their distinguishing features fall under the category of ποιὸν,
+to use Stoic terms, not under that of πρός τί πως ἔχον, as Aristo
+maintained.
+
+[650] Galenus l.c. continues: ὁ τοίνυν Χρύσιππος δείκνυσιν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ
+πρός τι σχέσει γενόμενον τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀρετῶν τε καὶ κακιῶν, ἀλλ’ ἐν
+ταῖς οἰκείαις οὐσίαις ὑπαλλαττομέναις κατὰ τὰς ποιότητος. Plut. Sto.
+Rep. 7, 3: Χρύσιππος, Ἀρίστωνι μὲν ἐγκαλῶν, ὅτι μιᾶς ἀρετῆς σχέσεις
+ἔλεγε τὰς ἄλλας εἶναι. Id. Vir. Mor. 2: Χρύσιππος δὲ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν
+ἀρετὴν ἰδίᾳ ποιότητι συνίστασθαι νομίζων.
+
+[651] Stob. ii. 110: πάσας δὲ τὰς ἀρετὰς, ὅσαι ἐπιστῆμαί εἰσι καὶ
+τέχναι (compare on this additions p. 255, 1) κοινά τε θεωρήματα ἔχειν
+καὶ τέλος, ὡς εἴρηται (p. 108—the same is more fully set forth by
+Panætius, p. 112), τὸ αὐτὸ, διὸ καὶ ἀχωρίστους εἶναι· τὸν γὰρ μίαν
+ἔχοντα πάσας ἔχειν, καὶ τὸν κατὰ μίαν πράττοντα κατὰ πάσας πράττειν.
+Diog. 125: τὰς δ’ ἀρετὰς λέγουσιν ἀντακολουθεῖν ἀλλήλαις καὶ τὸν μίαν
+ἔχοντα πάσας ἔχειν· εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῶν τὰ θεωρήματα κοινὰ, as Chrysippus,
+Apollodorus, and Hecato assert. τὸν γὰρ ἐνάρετον θεωρητικόν τ’ εἶναι
+καὶ πρακτικὸν τῶν ποιητέων. τὰ δὲ ποιητέα καὶ αἱρετέα ἐστὶ καὶ
+ὑπομενητέα καὶ ἀπονεμητέα, knowledge and action including all the four
+principal instincts.
+
+[652] Cic. Parad. 3, 1: Una virtus est, consentiens cum ratione et
+perpetua constantia. Nihil huic addi potent, quo magis virtus sit;
+nihil demi, ut virtus nomen relinquatur. Conf. Sen. Ep. 66, 9. See p.
+267.
+
+[653] Stob. 112 (conf. Diog. 126): διαφέρειν δ’ ἀλλήλων τοῖς
+κεφαλαίοις. φρονήσεως γὰρ εἶναι κεφάλαια τὸ μὲν θεωρεῖν καὶ πράττειν ὃ
+ποιητέον προηγουμένως, κατὰ δὲ τὸν δεύτερον λόγον τὸ θεωρεῖν καὶ ἃ δεῖ
+ἀπονέμειν, χάριν τοῦ ἀδιαπτώτως πράττειν ὃ ποιητέον· τῆς δὲ σωφροσύνης
+ἴδιον κεφάλαιόν ἐστι τὸ παρέχεσθαι τὰς ὁρμὰς εὐσταθεῖς καὶ θεωρεῖν
+αὐτὰς προηγουμένως, κατὰ δὲ τὸν δεύτερον λόγον τὰ ὑπὸ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρετὰς,
+ἕνεκα τοῦ ἀδιαπτώτως ἐν ταῖς ὁρμαῖς ἀναστρέφεσθαι. Similarly of
+bravery, which has for its basis πᾶν ὃ δεῖ ὑπομένειν; and of justice,
+which has τὸ κατ’ ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ. Plut. Alex. Virt. 11: The Stoics teach
+that μία μὲν ἀρετὴ πρωταγωνιστεῖ πράξεως ἑκάστης, παρακαλεῖ δὲ τὰς
+ἄλλας καὶ συντείνει πρὸς τὸ τέλος.
+
+[654] Stob. 116: φασὶ δὲ καὶ πάντα ποιεῖν τὸν σοφὸν κατὰ πάσας τὰς
+ἀρετάς· πᾶσαν γὰρ πρᾶξιν τελείαν αὐτοῦ εἶναι. Plut. Sto. Rep. 27, 1,
+conf. Alex. Virt. l.c.: τὰς ἀρετάς φησι [Χρύσιππος] ἀντακολουθεῖν
+ἀλλήλαις, οὐ μόνον τῷ τὸν μίαν ἔχοντα πάσας ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ τὸν κατὰ
+μίαν ὁτιοῦν ἐνεργοῦντα κατὰ πάσας ἐνεργεῖν· οὔτ’ ἄνδρα φησὶ τέλειον
+εἶναι τὸν μὴ πάσας ἔχοντα τὰς ἀρετὰς, οὔτε πρᾶξιν τελείαν, ἥτις οὐ κατὰ
+πάσας πράττεται τὰς ἀρετάς. If Chrysippus allowed, as Plutarch states,
+that the brave man does not always act bravely, nor the bad man always
+like a coward, it was a confession to which he was driven by
+experience, contrary to Stoic principles.
+
+[655] Cic. Acad. i. 10, 38: Nec virtutis usum modo [Zeno dicebat] ut
+superiores (whom the Stoic evidently wrongs), sed ipsum habitum per se
+esse præclarum. Id. Parad. 3, 1: Nec enim peccata rerum eventu sed
+vitiis hominum metienda sunt. Sen. Benef. vi. 11, 3: Voluntas est, quæ
+apud nos ponit officium, which Cleanthes then proceeds to illustrate by
+a parable of two slaves, one of whom diligently seeks for the man whom
+he is sent to find but without success, whilst the other taking it easy
+accidentally comes across him. Ibid. i. 5, 2: A benefaction is only
+ipsa tribuentis voluntas. 6, 1: Non quid fiat aut quid detur refert,
+sed qua mente.
+
+[656] Compare also the paradoxical statement—Qui libenter beneficium
+accepit, reddidit—which Sen. l.c. ii. 31, 1, justifies by saying: Cum
+omnia ad animum referamus, fecit quisque quantum voluit.
+
+[657] Cleanthes, in Stob. Floril. 6, 19:
+
+    ὅστις ἐπιθυμῶν ἀνέχετ’ αἰσχροῦ πράγματος
+    οὗτος ποιήσει τοῦτ’ ἐὰν καιρὸν λάβῃ.
+
+[658] On the notions of κατόρθωμα and ἁμάρτημα, see Plut. Sto. Rep. 11,
+1: τὸ κατόρθωμά φασι νόμου προστάγμα εἶναι, τὸ δ’ ἁμάρτημα νόμου
+ἀπαγόρευμα. To a bad man, law only gives prohibitions, and not
+commands: οὐ γὰρ δύνανται κατορθοῦν. Chrysippus, Ibid. 15, 10: πᾶν
+κατόρθωμα καὶ εὐνόμημα καὶ δικαιοπράγημά ἐστι. Stob. ii. 192: ἔτι δὲ
+τῶν ἐνεργημάτων φασὶ τὰ μὲν εἶναι κατορθώματα, τὰ δ’ ἁμαρτήματα, τὰ δ’
+οὐδέτερα (examples of the latter are speaking, giving, &c.) ... πάντα
+δὲ τὰ κατορθώματα δικαιοπραγήματα εἶναι καὶ εὐνοήματα καὶ εὐτακτήματα,
+κ.τ.λ. τὰ δὲ ἁμαρτήματα ἐκ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἀδικήματα καὶ ἀνομήματα καὶ
+ἀτακτήματα.
+
+[659] It is to this view that the distinction between κατόρθωμα and
+καθῆκον refers from the one side. A καθῆκον (the conceptions of which
+will be subsequently more fully discussed) is, in general, any
+discharge of duty, or rational action; κατόρθωμα only refers to a
+perfect discharge of duty, or to a virtuous course of conduct. Conf.
+Stob. 158: τῶν δὲ καθηκόντων τὰ μὲν εἶναί φασι τέλεια, ἃ δὴ καὶ
+κατορθώματα λέγεσθαι. κατορθώματα δ’ εἶναι τὰ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἐνεργήματα
+... τὸ δὲ καθῆκον τελειωθὲν κατόρθωμα γίνεσθαι. Similarly, 184: A
+κατόρθωμα is a καθῆκον πάντας ἐπέχον τοὺς ἀριθμούς. Cic. Fin. iii. 18,
+59: Quoniam enim videmus esse quiddam, quod recte factum appellemus, id
+autem est perfectum officium; erit autem etiam inchoatum; ut, si juste
+depositum reddere in recte factis sit, in officiis (καθήκοντα) ponatur
+depositum reddere. Off. i. 3, 8: Et medium quoddam officium dicitur et
+perfectum; the former is called κατόρθωμα, the latter καθῆκον. A
+virtuous action can only be done by one who has a virtuous intention,
+i.e. by a wise man. Cic. Fin. iv. 6, 15: If we understand by a life
+according to nature, what is rational, rectum est, quod κατόρθωμα
+dicebas, contingitque sapienti soli. Off. iii. 3, 14: Illud autem
+officium, quod rectum iidem [Stoici] appellant, perfectum atque
+absolutum est, et, ut iidem dicunt, omnes numeros habet, nec præter
+sapientem, cadere in quenquam potest. Off. iii. 4, 16: When the Decii
+and Scipios are called brave, Fabricius and Aristides just, Cato and
+Lælius wise, the wisdom and virtue of the wise man are not attributed
+to them in the strict sense of the term: sed ex mediorum officiorum
+frequentia similitudinem quandam gerebant speciemque sapientum.
+
+[660] See p. 263, 2.
+
+[661] In Simpl. Categ. 61, β (Schol. in Arist. 70, b, 28), the Stoics
+say: τὰς μὲν ἕξεις ἐπιτείνεσθαι δύνασθαι καὶ ἀνίεσθαι· τὰς δὲ διαθέσεις
+ἀνεπιτάτους εἶναι καὶ ἀνέτους. Thus straightness is, for instance, a
+διάθεσις, and no mere ἕξις. οὑτωσὶ δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς διαθέσεις εἶναι,
+οὐ κατὰ τὸ μόνιμον ἰδίωμα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀνεπίτατον καὶ ἀνεπίδεκτον τοῦ
+μᾶλλον· τὰς δὲ τέχνας, ἤτοι δυσκινήτους οὔσας ἢ μὴ (add οὐκ) εἶναι
+διαθέσεις. Conf. p. 103, 1. Ibid. 72, δ (Schol. 76, a, 12): τῶν
+Στωϊκῶν, οἵτινες διελόμενοι χωρὶς τὰς ἀρετὰς ἀπὸ τῶν μέσων τεχνῶν
+ταύτας οὔτε ἐπιτείνεσθαι λέγουσιν οὔτε ἀνίεσθαι, τὰς δὲ μέσας τέχνας
+καὶ ἐπίτασιν καὶ ἄνεσιν δέχεσθαι φασίν. Simpl. (73, α. Schol. 76, a,
+24) replies: This would be true, if virtue consisted only in
+theoretical conviction: such a conviction must be either true or false,
+and does not admit of more or less truth (for the same line of
+argument, see p. 267, 1); but it is otherwise where it is a matter for
+exercise. It may be remarked, in passing, that a further distinction
+was made between ἀρετὴ and τέχνη—the one being preceded by an ἀξιόλογος
+προκοπὴ, the other by a simple ἐπιτηδειότης (Simpl. Categ. 62, β;
+Schol. 71, a, 38). There is also a definition of τέχνη attributed by
+Olympiodorus, in Gorg. 53 (Jahrb. für Philol. See Supplementb. xiv.
+239), to Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus; to Zeno in Sext. Pyrrh. iii.
+241; Math. vii. 109 and 373; more fully in Lucian, Paras. c. 4, Conf.
+Cic. Acad. ii. 7, 22.
+
+[662] Diog. vii. 127: ἀρέσκει δὲ αὐτοῖς μηδὲν μέσον εἶναι ἀρετῆς καὶ
+κακίας· τῶν Περιπατητικῶν μεταξὺ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας εἶναι λεγόντων τὴν
+προκοπήν· ὡς γὰρ δεῖν, φασιν, ἢ ὀρθὸν εἶναι ξύλον ἢ στρεβλὸν, οὕτως ἢ
+δίκαιον ἢ ἄδικον· οὔτε δὲ δικαιότερον οὔτε ἀδικώτερον, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν
+ἄλλων ὁμοίως. Similarly, Sen. Ep. 71, 18: Quod summum bonum est, supra
+se gradum non habet ... hoc nec remitti nec intendi posse, non magis,
+quam regulam, qua rectum probari solet, flectes. Quicquid ex illa
+mutaveris injuria est recti. Stob. ii. 116: ἀρετῆς δὲ καὶ κακίας οὐδὲν
+εἶναι μεταξύ.
+
+[663] The much-discussed paradox (Cic. Parad. 3; Fin. iv. 27; Diog. 101
+and 120; Stob. 218; Plut. Sto. Rep. 13, 1; Sext. Math. vii. 422; Sen.
+Ep. 66, 5) is this: ὅτι ἴσα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ τὰ κατορθώματα. It was,
+according to Diog., supported, on the one hand, by the proposition, πᾶν
+ἀγαθὸν ἐπ’ ἄκρον εἶναι αἱρετὸν καὶ μήτε ἄνεσιν μήτε ἐπίτασιν δέχεσθαι;
+on the other hand, by the remark, to which Sext. and Simpl. in Categ.,
+Schol. in Arist. 76, a, 30, refer: If truth and falsehood admit of no
+difference of degree, the same must be true of the errors of our
+conduct. A man is not at the mark, no matter whether he is one or a
+hundred stadia away. Similarly, Stobæus: The Stoics declare all errors
+to be ἴσα, although not ὅμοια· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐπίσης ψεῦδος
+συμβέβηκεν· (a statement quoted as Stoical by Alex. in Metaph. p. 258,
+3 Bon. 667, a, 19 Brand) every ἁμαρτία is the result of a διάψευσις. It
+is, however, impossible for κατορθώματα not to be equal to one another,
+if vices are equal; πάντα γάρ ἐστι τέλεια, διόπερ οὔτ’ ἐλλείπειν οὔθ’
+ὑπερέχειν δύναιτ’ ἂν ἀλλήλων. Cicero and Seneca devoted particular
+attention to this enquiry. The investigations of Cicero in the Paradoxa
+result in bringing him to the passage quoted p. 263, 2, from which it
+follows that nothing can be recto rectius, nor bono melius. The
+equality of faults is a corollary from the equality of virtues; it also
+follows from the consideration that whatever is forbidden at all is
+equally forbidden. De Fin.: It is said, all faults are equal, quia nec
+honesto quidquam honestius nec turpi turpius. Seneca (Ep. 66, 5) raises
+the question, How, notwithstanding the difference between goods (see p.
+230, 3 end), can all be equal in value? and at once replies: Is
+virtue—or, what is the same thing, a rightly moulded soul—the only
+primary good? Virtue, indeed, admits of various forms, according to the
+activities imposed on it, but can neither be increased nor diminished;
+Decrescere enim summum bonum non potest, nec virtuti ire retro licet.
+It cannot increase, quando incrementum maximo non est: nihil invenies
+rectius recto, non magis quam verius vero, quam temperato temperatius.
+All virtue consists in modo, in certa mensura. Quid accedere perfecto
+potest? Nihil, aut perfectum non erat, cui accessit: ergo ne virtuti
+quidem, cui si quid adjici potest, defuit ... ergo virtutes inter se
+pares sunt et opera virtutis et omnes homines, quibus illæ contigere
+... una inducitur humanis virtutibus regula. Una enim est ratio recta
+simplexque. Nihil est divino divinius, cœlesti cœlestius. Mortalia
+minuuntur ... crescunt, &c.; divinorum una natura est. Ratio autem
+nihil aliud est, quam in corpus humanum pars divini spiritus mersa ...
+nullum porro inter divina discrimen est: ergo nec inter bona. Ibid. 32:
+Omnes virtutes rationes sunt: rationes sunt rectæ: si rectæ sunt, et
+pares sunt. Qualis ratio est, tales et actiones sunt: ergo omnes pares
+sunt: ceterum magna habebunt discrimina variante materia, etc. On the
+same ground, Seneca, Ep. 71, defended the equality of all goods and of
+all good actions, in particular p. 18, where to the quotation given, p.
+266, 3, the words are added: Si rectior ipsa [virtus] non potest fieri,
+nec quæ ab illa quidem fiunt, alia aliis rectiora sunt.
+
+[664] Plut. C. Not. 10, 4: ναὶ, φασίν· ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ ὁ πῆχυν ἀπέχων ἐν
+θαλάττῃ τῆς ἐπιφανείας οὐδὲν ἧττον πνίγεται τοῦ καταδεδυκότος ὀργυίας
+πεντακοσίας, οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ πελάζοντες ἀρετῇ τῶν μακρὰν ὄντων ἧττόν
+εἰσιν ἐν κακίᾳ καὶ καθάπερ οἱ τυφλοὶ τυφλοί εἰσι κἂν ὀλίγον ὕστερον
+ἀναβλέπειν μέλλωσιν, οὕτως οἱ προκόπτοντες ἄχρις οὗ τὴν ἀρετὴν
+ἀναλάβωσιν ἀνόητοι καὶ μοχθηροὶ διαμένουσιν. Diog. 127 (see p. 266, 3).
+Stob. ii. 236: πάντων τε τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἴσων ὄντων καὶ τῶν
+κατορθωμάτων καὶ τοὺς ἄφρονας ἐπίσης πάντας ἄφρονας εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ
+ἴσην ἔχοντας διάθεσιν. Cic. Fin. iii. 14, 48: Consentaneum est his quæ
+dicta sunt, ratione illorum, qui illum bonorum finem quod appellamus
+extremum quod ultimum crescere putent posse, iisdem placere, esse alium
+alio etiam sapientiorem, itemque alium magis alio vel peccare vel recte
+facere. Quod nobis non licet dicere, qui crescere bonorum finem non
+putamus. Then follow the same comparisons as in Plutarch. Sen. Ep. 66,
+10: As all virtues are equal, so are omnes homines quibus illæ
+contigere. Ep. 79, 8: What is perfect admits of no increase; quicunque
+fuerint sapientes pares erunt et æquales.
+
+[665] Stob. ii. 198: ἀρέσκει γὰρ τῷ τε Ζήνωνι καὶ τοῖς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
+Στωϊκοῖς φιλοσόφοις, δύο γένη τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἶναι, τὸ μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων
+τὸ δὲ τῶν φαύλων· καὶ τὸ μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου χρῆσθαι
+ταῖς ἀρεταῖς τὸ δὲ τῶν φαύλων ταῖς κακίαις.
+
+[666] Plut. Aud. Poet. 7, p. 25: μήτε τι φαῦλον ἀρετῇ προσεῖναι μήτε
+κακίᾳ χρηστὸν ἀξιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ πάντως μὲν ἐν πᾶσιν ἁμαρτωλὸν εἶναι τὸν
+ἀμαθῆ, περὶ πάντα δ’ αὖ κατορθοῦν τὸν ἀστεῖον.
+
+[667] Stob. Ecl. ii. 116; 120; 196; 198; 220; 232; Diog. vii. 117; 125;
+Cic. Acad. i. 10, 38; ii. 20, 66; Plut. Sto. Rep. 11, 1; Sen. Benef.
+iv. 26; Sext. Math. vii. 434.
+
+[668] Compare the collection of expressions respecting the wise and
+unwise in Baumhauer, Vet. Phil. Doct. De Mort. Volunt. p. 169.
+
+[669] Diog. 121; 32; Cic. Acad. ii. 44. 136. Parad. 5: ὅτι μόνος ὁ
+σοφὸς ἐλεύθερος καὶ πᾶς ἄφρων δοῦλος.
+
+[670] Plut. C. Not. 28, 1; Cic. Acad. l.c.: Sext. Math xi. 170.
+
+[671] Cic. Parad. 6; Acad. l.c.; Cleanthes, in Stob. Floril. 94, 28;
+Sext. l.c.; Alex. Aphr. Top. 79.
+
+[672] Sen. Benef. vii. 3, 2; 6, 3; 8, 1.
+
+[673] Cic. Acad. l.c.; Diog. vii. 125.
+
+[674] Cic. l.c.; Diog. vii. 122; Stob. ii. 206; Plut. Arat. 23. On all
+the points discussed, Plut. C. Not. 3, 2; De Adul. 16, p. 58; Tran. An.
+12, p. 472; Ps. Plut. De Nobil. 17, 2; Cic. Fin. iii. 22, 75; Hor. Ep.
+i. 1, 106; Sat. i. 3, 124.
+
+[675] Plut. Tran. An. 12; Cic. Divin. ii. 63, 129: Stob. ii. 122; conf.
+Ps. Plut. Vit. Hom. 143.
+
+[676] Stob. ii. 122 and 216; Diog. 119; Sen. Provid. i. 5. Philodemus,
+περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς (Vol. Hercul. vi. 29), quotes a Stoic saying that
+the wise are the friends of heaven, and heaven of the wise.
+
+[677] Sen. Ep. 81, 11; Stob. ii. 118.
+
+[678] Sen. Benef. v. 12, 3; Plut. Sto. Rep. 12, 1: C. Not. 20, 1; and
+above, p. 230, 1.
+
+[679] Stob. ii. 196; Plut. Stoic. Abs. Poët. Dic. 1, 4.
+
+[680] Chrysippus, in Plut. Sto. Rep. 13, 2; Com. Not. 33, 2; Stob. ii.
+198. Seneca, Prov. i. 5: Bonus ipse tempore tantum a Deo differt. Ibid.
+6, 4: Jupiter says to the virtuous: Hoc est, quo Deum antecedatis: ille
+extra patientiam malorum est, vos supra patientiam. Ep. 73, 11; De
+Const. 8, 2; Cic. N. D. ii. 61, 153; Epictet. Diss. i. 12, 26; Man. 15;
+Horat. Ep. i. l. 106.
+
+[681] See p. 239, 1; Sen. Ep. 53, 11: Non multo te Di antecedent ...
+diutius erunt. At mehercules magni artificis est clusisse totum in
+exiguo. Tantum sapienti sua, quantum Deo omnis ætas patet. 73, 13:
+Jupiter quo antecedit virum bonum? Diutius bonus est: sapiens nihilo se
+minoris æstimat, quod virtutes ejus spatio breviore cluduntur.
+
+[682] πᾶς ἄφρων μαίνεται. Cic. Parad. 4; Tusc. iii. 5, 10; Diog. vii.
+124; Stob. Ecl. ii. 124; Horat. Sat. ii. 3, 43.
+
+[683] The Peripatetic Diogenianus raises the objection (in Eus. Præp.
+Ev. vi. 8, 10): πῶς οὖν οὐδένα φῂς ἄνθρωπον, ὃς οὐχὶ μαίνεσθαί σοι
+δοκεῖ κατ’ ἴσον Ὀρέστῃ καὶ Ἀλκμαίωνι, πλὴν τοῦ σοφοῦ; ἕνα δὲ ἢ δύο
+μόνους φῂς σοφοὺς γεγονέναι. Similarly Plut. Sto. Rep. 31, 5.
+
+[684] Sext. Math. ix. 90 in the argument quoted, p. 146, 1: Man can be
+the most perfect being, οἷον εὐθέως, ὅτι διὰ κακίας πορεύεται τὸν πάντα
+χρόνον, εἰ δὲ μή γε, τὸν πλεῖστον· καὶ γὰρ εἴ ποτε περιγένοιτο ἀρετῆς,
+ὀψὲ καὶ πρὸς ταῖς τοῦ βίου δυσμαῖς περιγίνεται.
+
+[685] This point will be again considered in the next chapter. Compare
+at present Sext. Math. ix. 133, who says: εἰσὶν ἄρα σοφοί· ὅπερ οὐκ
+ἤρεσκε τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς, μεχρὶ τοῦ νῦν ἀνευρέτου ὄντος κατ’ αὐτοὺς
+τοῦ σοφοῦ. Alex. Aphrod. De Fat. 28, p. 90: τῶν δὲ ἀνθρώπων οἱ πλεῖστοι
+κακοὶ, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀγαθὸς μὲν εἷς ἢ δεύτερος ὑπ’ αὐτῶν γεγονέναι
+μυθεύεται, ὥσπερ τι παράδοξον ζῷον καὶ παρὰ φύσιν, σπανιώτερον τοῦ
+Φοίνικος ... οἱ δὲ πάντες κακοὶ καὶ ἐπίσης ἀλλήλοις τοιοῦτοι, ὡς μηδὲν
+διαφέρειν ἄλλον ἄλλου, μαίνεσθαι δὲ ὁμοίως πάντας. Philodem. De Mus.
+(Vol. Herc. i.), col. 11, 18: The Stoic cannot take his stand upon the
+opinion of the majority (consensus gentium), since he has declared it
+to be profane and impious.
+
+[686] Benef. i. 10, 1–3.
+
+[687] De Ira, iii. 26, 4; Benef. v. 17, 3.
+
+[688] De Clemen. i. 6, 3; De Ira, ii. 28, 1; iii. 27, 3.
+
+[689] Ep. 41, 9; Vit. Be. i. 4.
+
+[690] See the pathetic description, De Ira, ii. 8–10, amongst other
+passages the following: Ferarum iste conventus est: ... certatur
+ingenti quidem nequitiæ certamine: major quotidie peccandi cupiditas,
+minor verecundia est, &c.
+
+[691] Diog. vii. 91: τεκμήριον δὲ τοῦ ὑπαρκτὴν εἶναι τὴν ἀρετήν φησιν ὁ
+Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ λόγῳ τὸ γενέσθαι ἐν προκοπῇ τοὺς
+περὶ Σωκράτην, Διογένην καὶ Ἀντισθένην. The limitation likewise
+contained herein will be presently discussed. Epictet. Man. 15,
+mentions Heraclitus as well as Diogenes as θεῖοι.
+
+[692] See the immoderate language of praise of his admirer Sen. De
+Const. 7, 1: The wise man is no unreal ideal, although, like everything
+else that is great, he is seldom met with; ceteram hic ipse M. Cato
+vereor ne supra nostrum exemplar sit. Ibid. 2, 1: Catonem autem certius
+exemplar sapientis viri nobis Deos immortales dedisse quam Ulixen et
+Herculem prioribus sæculis.
+
+[693] Plutarch, Prof. in Virt. 2, p. 76; Cic. Off. iii. 4, 16, p. 265,
+2.
+
+[694] Sen. Benef. iv. 27, 2: Itaque errant illi, qui interrogant
+Stoicos: quid ergo? Achilles timidus est? quid ergo? Aristides, cui
+justitia nomen dedit, injustus est? &c. Non hoc dicimus, sic omnia
+vitia esse in omnibus, quomodo in quibusdam singula eminent: sed malum
+ac stultum nullo vitio vacare ... omnia in omnibus vitia sunt, sed non
+omnia in singulis extant (i.e., all points are not equally prominent in
+each one). It hardly requires to be pointed out how nearly this view
+coincides with that of Augustine on the virtues of the heathen, how
+close a resemblance the Stoic doctrine of folly bears to the Christian
+doctrine of the unregenerate, and how the contrast between wisdom and
+folly corresponds to that between the faithful and unbelievers.
+
+[695] Plut. C. N. 10, 1; Prof. in Virt. 12, p. 82; Sen. Ep. 75, 8.
+
+[696] Plut. C. Not. 9; Stoic. Abs. Poët. Dic. 2. The Stoics are here
+ridiculed because, according to their view, a man may go to bed ugly,
+poor, vicious, miserable, and rise the next morning wise, virtuous,
+rich, happy, and a king. In Prof. in Virt. 1, p. 75, a saying of Zeno’s
+is given, that it is possible to tell by a dream whether we are
+advancing in virtue.
+
+[697] See p. 266, 3; Plut. Prof. in Virt. 1; Com. Not. 10, 2; see p.
+269, 1; Sen. Ep. 75, 8.
+
+[698] Plut. C. Not. 9, 1: τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας παραγινομένης
+πολλάκις οὐδ’ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸν κτησάμενον οἴονται διαλεληθέναι δ’ αὐτὸν
+ὅτι μικρῷ πρόσθεν ἀθλιώτατος ὢν καὶ ἀχρονέστατος νῦν ὁμοῦ φρόνιμος καὶ
+μακάριος γέγονεν. So Sto. Rep. 19, 3. In explanation of these words,
+Ritter, iii. 657, aptly refers to Stob. ii. 234 (γίγνεσθαι δὲ καὶ
+διαλεληθότα τινὰ σοφὸν νομίζουσι κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους χρόνους), and Philo,
+De Agric. p. 325: Those yet inexperienced in wisdom παρὰ τοῖς
+φιλοσόφοις διαλεληθότες εἶναι λέγονται σοφοί· τοὺς γὰρ ἄχρι σοφίας
+ἄκρας ἐληλακότας καὶ τῶν ὅρων αὐτῆς ἄρτι πρῶτον ἁψαμένους ἀμήχανον
+εἰδέναι, φασι, τὴν ἑαυτῶν τελείωσιν. μὴ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἄμφω
+συνίστασθαι τήν τε πρὸς τὸ πέρας ἄφιξιν καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀφίξεως κατάληψιν,
+ἀλλ’ εἶναι μεθόριον ἄγνοιαν, κ.τ.λ. Sen. Ep. 75, 9, likewise
+investigates the same point, but ranges those who have not yet attained
+the consciousness of perfection among advancers, but not among the
+wise. Prantl’s conjecture (Gesch. d. Logik, i. 490, 210), that the
+σοφὸς διαλεληθὼς is connected with the fallacy known as διαλανθάνων,
+appears to be questionable.
+
+[699] See p. 230, 3.
+
+[700] Cic. Fin. iii. 5, 17. Gell. N. A. xii. 5, 7: The primary objects
+of natural self-love are the πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν; and self-love consists
+mainly in this: Ut omnibus corporis sui commodis gauderet
+[unusquisque], ab incommodis omnibus abhorreret. Stob. Ecl. ii. 142:
+Some things are according to nature, others contrary to nature, others
+neither one nor the other. Health, strength, and such like, are among
+things according to nature. Ibid. p. 148: τῶν δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἀδιαφόρων
+ὄντων τὰ μὲν ἐστι πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν τὰ δὲ κατὰ μετοχήν. πρῶτα μέν ἐστι
+κατὰ φύσιν κίνησις ἢ σχέσις κατὰ τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους γινομένη,
+οἷον ὑγιεία καὶ αἴσθησις, λεγὼ δὲ τὴν κατάληψιν καὶ ἰσχύν. κατὰ μετοχὴν
+δὲ ... οἷον χεὶρ ἀρτία καὶ σῶμα ὑγιαῖνον καὶ αἰσθήσεις μὴ πεπηρωμέναι
+ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν παρὰ φύσιν κατ’ ἀνάλογον. Conf. Ibid. p. 60, where
+the enumeration of the πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν is also in the Stoic sense, and
+above, p. 225.
+
+[701] Cic. Fin. iii. 15, 50: Deinceps explicatur differentia rerum:
+quam si non ullam esse diceremus, confunderetur omnis vita, ut ab
+Aristone: nec ullum sapientis munus aut opus inveniretur, cum inter res
+eas, quæ ad vitam degendam pertinerent, nihil omnino interesset neque
+ullum delectum adhiberi oporteret. The same argument was used by the
+Stoa against the theoretical ἀδιαφορία of the Sceptics (see above, p.
+37, 1), with which the practical ἀδιαφορία of Aristo is most closely
+connected. It differs only in name from the ἀταραξία of the sceptics,
+Aristo having a leaning towards Scepticism. See p. 61, 1.
+
+[702] Cic. Fin. iii. 6, 21: Prima est enim conciliatio [οἰκείωσις]
+hominis ad ea quæ sunt secundum naturam, simul autem cepit
+intelligentiam vel notionem potius, quam appellant ἔννοιαν illi,
+viditque rerum agendarum ordinem et ut ita dicam concordiam, multo eam
+pluris æstimavit quam omnia ilia quæ primum dilexerat: atque ita
+cognitione et ratione collegit ut statueret in eo collocatum summum
+illud hominis per se laudandum et expetendum bonum ... cum igitur in eo
+sit id bonum, quo referenda sint omnia ... quamquam post oritur, tamen
+id solum vi sua et dignitate expetendum est, eorum autem quæ sunt prima
+naturæ propter se nihil expetendum, &c. Similarly Gell. l.c.
+
+[703] Plut. Com. Not. 4; Cic. Fin. iv. 17; v. 24, 72; 29, 89.
+
+[704] Cic. Fin. iii. 6, 22: Ut recte dici possit, omnia officia eo
+referri, ut adipiscamur principia naturæ: nec tamen ut hoc sit bonorum
+ultimum, propterea quod non inest in primis naturæ conciliationibus
+honesta actio. Consequens enim est et post oritur.
+
+[705] Plut. C. Not. 26, 2: εἰ γὰρ αὐτὰ μὲν [τὰ] πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν ἀγαθὰ
+μή ἐστιν, ἡ δ’ εὐλόγιστος ἐκλογὴ καὶ λῆψις αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ πάντα τὰ παρ’
+ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖν ἕκαστον ἕνεκα τοῦ τυγχάνειν τῶν πρώτων κατὰ φύσιν, κ.τ.λ.
+εἴπερ γὰρ οἴονται, μὴ στοχαζομένους μήδ’ ἐφιεμένους τοῦ τυχεῖν ἐκεῖνον
+τὸ τέλος ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ οὗ δεῖ ἐκεῖνα ἀναφέρεσθαι, τὴν τούτων ἐκλογὴν, καὶ
+μὴ ταῦτα. τέλος μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἐκλέγεσθαι καὶ λαμβάνειν ἐκεῖνα φρονίμως·
+ἐκεῖνα δ’ αὐτὰ καὶ τὸ τυγχάνειν αὐτῶν οὐ τέλος, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ὕλη τις
+ὑπόκειται τὸν ἐκλεκτικὴν ἀξίαν ἔχουσα. Cic. See p. 279, 3.
+
+[706] Cic. l.c. 6, 20; Plut. l.c.; Stob. ii. 142: Diog. vii. 105.
+
+[707] See p. 232. Stob. ii. 132: διαφέρειν δὲ λέγουσιν αἱρετὸν καὶ
+ληπτὸν ... καὶ καθόλου τὸ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ ἀξίαν ἔχοντος.
+
+[708] Diog. vii. 165: Herillus taught διαφέρειν τέλος καὶ ὑποτελίδα·
+(On this expression compare Stob. ii. 60) τῆς μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοὺς μὴ
+σοφοὺς στοχάζεσθαι, τοῦ δὲ μόνον τὸν σοφόν. Hence Cic. Fin. iv. 15, 40,
+raises the objection, Facit enim ille duo sejuncta ultima bonorum,
+because he neither despises external things, nor connects them with the
+ultimate aim. Diog. l.c., however, says that he taught τὰ μεταξὺ ἀρετῆς
+καὶ κακίας ἀδιάφορα εἶναι; and Cic. Off. i. 2, 6, mentions him,
+together with Pyrrho and Aristo, as upholders of ἀδιαφορία. It would
+appear from these passages that Herillus was not far removed from true
+Stoicism. According to Cic. Fin. ii. 13, 43 (conf. Offic.), he had no
+followers after the time of Chrysippus.
+
+[709] Cic. Legg. i. 21, 55: Si, ut Chius Aristo dixit, solum bonum esse
+diceret quod honestum esset malumque quod turpe, ceteras res omnes
+plane pares ac ne minimum quidem utrum adessent an abessent interesse.
+Ibid. 13, 38. Fin. iv. 17, 47: Ut Aristonis esset explosa sententia
+dicentis, nihil differre aliud ab alio nec esse res ullas præter
+virtutes et vitia intra quas quidquam omnino interesset. Ibid. ii. 13,
+43; iii. 3, 11; 15, 50; iv. 16, 43; 25, 68; v. 25, 73; Acad. ii. 42,
+130; Offic. Fragm. Hortens. (in Nonn. Præfract.); Diog. vii. 160; Sext.
+Math. xi. 64. Cic. usually places Aristo together with Pyrrho.
+
+[710] Diog. l.c.: τέλος ἔφησεν εἶναι τὸ ἀδιαφόρως ἔχοντα ζῇν πρὸς τὰ
+μεταξὺ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας μηδὲ ἡντινοῦν ἐν αὐτοῖς παραλλαγὴν ἀπολείποντα
+ἀλλ’ ἐπίσης ἐπὶ πάντων ἔχοντα. Cic. Acad. l.c.: Huic summum bonum est
+in his rebus (the morally adiaphora) neutram in partem moveri; quæ
+ἀδιαφορία ab ipso dicitur. Chrysippus, in Plut. C. Not. 27, 2:
+Indifference to that which is neither good nor bad presupposes the idea
+of the good, and yet, according to Aristo, the good only consists in
+that state of indifference. Stob. i. 920; Clem. Strom. ii. 416, C. See
+Cic. Fin. iv. 25, 68, for Chrysippus’ attack on this ἀδιαφορία.
+
+[711] Diog. vii. 105: τῶν ἀδιαφόρων τὰ μὲν λέγουσι προηγμένα τὰ δὲ
+ἀποπροηγμένα. προηγμένα μὲν τὰ ἔχοντα ἀξίαν· ἀποπροηγμένα δὲ τὰ ἀπαξίαν
+ἔχοντα. By ἀξία, the three meanings of which are discussed, they
+understand here μέσην τινὰ δύναμιν ἢ χρείαν συμβαλλομένην πρὸς τὸν κατὰ
+φύσιν βίον. 107: τῶν προηγμένων τὰ μὲν δι’ αὑτὰ προῆκται, τὰ δὲ δι’
+ἕτερα, τὰ δὲ δι’ αὑτὰ καὶ δι’ ἕτερα.... δι’ αὑτὰ μὲν ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν
+ἐστί. δι’ ἕτερα δὲ ὅτι περιποιεῖ χρείας οὐκ ὀλίγας. ὁμοίως δὲ ἔχει καὶ
+ἀποπροηγμένον κατὰ τὸν ἐναντίον λόγον. Essentially the same account,
+only somewhat fuller, in Stob. Ecl. ii. 142. Conf. Cic. Acad. i. 10,
+36; Fin. iii. 15, 50; iv. 26, 72; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 191; Math. xi. 60;
+Alex. Aphr. De An. 157. Zeno (in Stob. 156; Cic. Fin. iii. 16, 52)
+explains the conception προηγμένον, and its distinction from ἀγαθόν:
+προηγμένον δ’ εἶναι λέγουσιν, ὃ ἀδιάφορον ὂν ἐκλεγόμεθα κατὰ
+προηγούμενον λόγον ... οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν εἶναι προηγμένον, διὰ τὸ τὴν
+μεγίστην ἀξίαν αὐτὰ ἔχειν. τὸ δὲ προηγμένον, τὴν δευτέραν χώραν καὶ
+ἀξίαν ἔχον, συνεγγίζειν πως τῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν φύσει οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν αὐλῇ τὸν
+προηγούμενον εἶναι τὸν βασιλέα, ἀλλὰ τὸν μετ’ αὐτὸν τεταγμένον.
+
+[712] Stob. ii. 142: ἀδιάφορα δ’ εἶναι λέγουσι τὰ μεταξὺ τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ
+τῶν κακῶν, διχῶς τὸ ἀδιάφορον νοεῖσθαι φάμενοι, καθ’ ἕνα μὲν τρόπον τὸ
+μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε κακὸν καὶ τὸ μήτε αἱρετὸν μήτε φευκτόν· καθ’ ἕτερον δὲ
+τὸ μήτε ὁρμῆς μήτε ἀφορμῆς κινητικόν—τὰ καθάπαξ ἀδιάφορα. Similarly
+Diog. vii. 104. Sext. M. vi. 60, distinguishes a third meaning. It is,
+however, only a subdivision of the second.
+
+[713] Stob. ii. 144, 156; Sext. P. iii. 191; M. xi. 62.
+
+[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.
+
+[885] M. Aurel. ix. 40: We ought not to pray the Gods to give us
+something, or to protect us from something, but only to pray: διδόναι
+αὐτοὺς τὸ μήτε φοβεῖσθαί τι τούτων μήτε ἐπιθυμεῖν τινος τούτων. Diog.
+vii. 124: We ought, in fact, only to pray for what is good.
+
+[886] See p. 144, 2. Sext. Math. ix. 28, says that Rome of the younger
+Stoics (perhaps Posidonius, whose views on the primitive condition have
+been already mentioned, p. 293, 1) traced the belief in Gods back to
+the golden age.
+
+[887] In this spirit, Epict. Diss. ii. 20, 32, blames those who throw
+doubts on the popular Gods, not considering that by so doing they
+deprive many of the preservatives from evil, the very same argumentum
+ab utili which is now frequently urged against free criticism.
+
+[888] Characteristic are the utterances of the sceptic pontifex Cotta,
+in Cic. N. D. i. 22, 61; iii. 2.
+
+[889] Plut. Sto. Rep. 6, 1; Diog. vii. 33. See p. 322, 5.
+
+[890] Ep. 41, 1: Non sunt ad cœlum elevandæ manus nec exorandus
+ædituus, ut nos ad aures simulacri, quasi magis exaudiri possimus,
+admittat: prope est a te Deus, tecum est, intus est. Nat. Qu. ii. 35,
+1: What is the meaning of expiations, if fate is unchangeable? They are
+only ægræ mentis solatia. See p. 343, 2.
+
+[891] Benef. iv. 19, 1: Deos nemo sanus timet. Furor est enim metuere
+salutaria nee quisquam amat quos timet. Not only do the Gods not wish
+to do harm, but such is their nature that they cannot do harm. De Ira,
+ii. 27, 1; Benef. vii. 1, 7; Ep. 95, 49. It hardly needs remark, how
+greatly these statements are at variance with the Roman religion, in
+which fear holds such a prominent place.
+
+[892] Ep. 95, 47: Quomodo sint Di colendi, solet præcipi: accendere
+aliquem lucernas sabbatis prohibeamus, quoniam nec lumine Di egent et
+ne homines quidem delectantur fuligine. Vetemus salutationibus
+matutinis fungi et foribus adsidere templorum: humana ambitio istis
+officiis capitur: Deum colit, qui novit. Vetemus lintea et strigiles
+ferre et speculum tenere Junoni: non quærit ministros Deus. Quidni?
+Ipse humano generi ministrat, ubique et omnibus præsto est.... Primus
+est Deorum cultus Deos credere. Deinde reddere illis majestatem suam,
+reddere bonitatem, &c. Vis Deos propitiare? Bonus esto. Satis illos
+coluit, quisquis imitatus est. Fr. 123 (in Lactant. Inst. vi. 25, 3):
+Vultisne vos Deum cogitare magnum et placidum ... non immolationibus et
+sanguine multo colendum—quæ enim ex trucidatione immerentium voluptas
+est?—sed mente pura, bono honestoque proposito. Non templa illi
+congestis in altitudinem saxis extruenda sunt: in suo cuique
+consecrandus est pectore. Conf. Benef. vii. 7, 3: The only worthy
+temple of God is the universe.
+
+[893] In Fr. 120 (in Lact. ii. 2, 14), Seneca shows how absurd it is to
+pray and kneel before images, the makers of which are thought little of
+in their own profession. On this point he expressed his opinion with
+great severity in the treatise, De Superstitione, fragments of which
+Augustin. Civ. D. vi. 10, communicates (Fr. 31 Haase). The immortal
+Gods, he there says, are transformed into lifeless elements. They are
+clothed in the shape of men and beasts, and other most extraordinary
+appearances; and are honoured as Gods, though, were they alive, they
+would be designated monsters. The manner, too, in which these Gods are
+honoured is most foolish and absurd; such as by mortification and
+mutilation, stupid and immoral plays, &c. The wise man can only take
+part in such acts tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam Diis grata. This
+view of worship had been previously set forth by Heraclitus, who
+otherwise was so much admired by the Stoics.
+
+[894] Fr. 119 (in Lact. i. 16, 10): Quid ergo est, quare apud poetas
+salacissimus Jupiter desierit liberos tollere? Utrum sexagenarius
+factus est, et illi lex Papia fibulam imposuit? An impetravit jus trium
+liberorum? An ... timet, ne quis sibi faciat, quod ipse Saturno?
+Similarly Fr. 39 (in Augustin. l.c.); Brevit. Vit. 16, 5; Vit. Be. 26,
+6, the ineptiæ poetarum which, as in the stories of Jupiter’s many
+adulteries, give free rein to sins.
+
+[895] Augustin. l.c. Fr. 33: Quid ergo tandem? Veriora tibi videntur T.
+Tatii aut Romuli aut Tulli Hostilii somnia? Cloacinam Tatius dedicavit
+Deam, Picum Tiberinumque Romulus, Hostilius Pavorem atque Pallorem,
+teterrimos hominum adfectus.... Hæc numina potius credes et cœlo
+recipies? Fr. 39: Omnem istam ignobilem Deorum turbam, quam longo ævo
+longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus ut meminerimus cultum ejus
+magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere.
+
+[896] N. D. ii. 24, 63: Alia quoque ex ratione et quidem physica fluxit
+multitudo Deorum; qui induti specie humana fabulas poetis
+suppeditaverunt hominum autem vitam superstitione omni referserunt.
+Atque hic locus a Zenone tractatus post a Cleanthe et Chrysippo
+pluribus verbis explicatus est ... physica ratio non inelegans inclusa
+est in impias fabulas. Still stronger language is used by the Stoic, c.
+28, 70, respecting the commentitii et ficti Dei, the superstitiones
+pæne aniles, the futilitas summaque levitas of their anthropomorphic
+legends.
+
+[897] Phædrus (Philodemus), col. 2 of his fragment, according to
+Petersen’s restoration. Conf. Cic. N. D. ii. 17, 45; Diog. vii. 147;
+both of whom assert that the Stoics do not think of the Gods as human
+in form; and Lactant. De Ir. D. c. 18: Stoici negant habere ullam
+formam Deum.
+
+[898] The Epicurean in Cic. N. D. i. 14, 36.
+
+[899] Cic. l.c. 37. Conf. Krische, Forschung. i. 406 and 415.
+
+[900] Clem., indeed, says (Strom. vii. 720, D): οὐδὲ αἰσθησέων αὐτῷ [τῷ
+θεῷ] δεῖ, καθάπερ ἤρεσε τοῖς Στωῑκοῖς, μάλιστα ἀκοῆς καὶ ὄψεως· μὴ γὰρ
+δύνασθαί ποτε ἑτέρως ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι. But, according to all accounts,
+this must be a misapprehension. Clement confounds what Stoic writers
+have conditionally asserted, for the purpose of disproving it, with
+their real opinion. Conf. Sext. Math. ix. 139.
+
+[901] Plut. Plac. i. 6, 16, in a description of the Stoic theology,
+evidently borrowed from a good source: The Gods have been represented
+as being like men: διότι τῶν μὲν ἁπάντων τὸ θεῖον κυριώτατον, τῶν δὲ
+ζῴων ἄνθρωπος κάλλιστον καὶ κεκοσμημένον ἀρετῇ διαφόρως κατὰ τὴν τοῦ
+νοῦ σύστασιν, (τὸ κράτιστον—probably these words should be struck out),
+τοῖς οὖν ἀριστεύουσι τὸ κράτιστον ὁμοίως καὶ καλῶς ἔχειν διενοήθησαν.
+
+[902] Plut. Sto. Rep. 38, 5; C. Not. 31, 5; Def. Orac. 19, p. 420.
+
+[903] The numina, quæ singula adoramus et colimus, which are dependent
+on the Deus omnium Deorum, and whom ministros regni sui genuit. Sen.
+Fr. 26, 16 (in Lact. Inst. i. 5, 26).
+
+[904] Diog. vii. 147.
+
+[905] See p. 206, 1.
+
+[906] Plut. De Fac. Lun. 6, 3.
+
+[907] Cic. N. D. i. 14, 36.
+
+[908] See p. 131.
+
+[909] Cic. N. D. i. 15, 39; ii. 26; Diog. vii. 147.
+
+[910] Plut. De Is. c. 66; Cic. l.c. ii. 23, 60; i. 15, 38, where this
+view is attributed, in particular, to Zeno’s pupil Persæus. Krische
+(Forschung. i. 442) reminds, with justice, of the assertion of
+Prodicus, that the ancients deified everything which was of use to man.
+
+[911] Phædr. (Philodemus), Nat. De. col. 3, and Cic. N. D. i. 15, 38,
+attribute this assertion specially to Persæus and Chrysippus. Id. ii.
+24, 64, after speaking of the deification of Hercules, Bacchus,
+Romulus, &c., continues: Quorum cum remanerent animi atque æternitate
+fruerentur, Dii rite sunt habiti, cum et optimi essent et æterni. Diog.
+vii. 151. See p. 351, 1.
+
+[912] This is done in Plut. Plac. i. 6, 9. Belief in the Gods, it is
+there said, is held in three forms—the physical, the mythical, and the
+form established by law (theologia civilis). All the gods belong to
+seven classes, εἴδη: (1) τὸ ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων καὶ μετεώρων: the
+observation of the stars, and their regularity of movement, the changes
+of season, &c., has conducted many to faith; and, accordingly, heaven
+and earth, sun and moon, have been honoured. (2 and 3) τὸ βλάπτον καὶ
+ὠφελοῦν: beneficent Beings are Zeus, Here, Hermes, Demeter: baleful
+Beings are the Erinnyes, Ares, &c. (4 and 5) πράγματα, such as Ἐλπὶς,
+Δίκη, Εὐνομία; and πάθη, such as Ἔρως, Ἀφροδίτη, Πόθος. (6) τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν
+ποιητῶν πεπλασμένον (τὸ μυθικὸν), such as the Gods invented by Hesiod
+for the purpose of his genealogies—Coios, Hyperion, &c. (7) Men who are
+honoured for their services to mankind—Hercules, the Dioscuri,
+Dionysus. This list includes not only things which deserve divine
+honours, but all things to which they have been actually given: hence
+it includes, besides the purely mythical Gods, things which the Stoics
+can never have regarded as Gods, such as the baleful Gods and emotions,
+on which see p. 345, 1; 346, 2. On the other hand, they could raise no
+objection to the worship of personified virtues. In the above list the
+elementary Gods, such as Here, are grouped, together with the Gods of
+fruits, under the category of useful. Another grouping was that
+followed by Dionysius (whether the well-known pupil of Zeno—see p. 44,
+1—or some later Stoic, is unknown), who, according to Tertullian (Ad
+Nat. ii. 2, conf. c. 14), divided Gods into three classes: the
+visible—the sun and moon, for instance; the invisible, or powers of
+nature, such as Neptune (that is, natural forces as they make
+themselves felt in the elements and in planets); and those facti, or
+deified men.
+
+[913] Plut. Com. Not. 31, 5: ἀλλὰ Χρύσιππος καὶ Κλεάνθης, ἐμπεπληκότες,
+ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, τῷ λόγῳ θεῶν τὸν οὐρανὸν, τὴν γῆν, τὸν ἀέρα, τὴν
+θάλατταν, οὐδένα τῶν τοσούτων ἄφθαρτον οὐδ’ ἀΐδιον ἀπολελοίπασι πλὴν
+μόνου τοῦ Διὸς, εἰς ὃν πάντας καταναλίσκουσι τοὺς ἄλλους.
+
+[914] Conf. Wachsmuth, Die Ansichten der Stoiker über Mantik und
+Dämonen (Berl. 1860), pp. 29–39.
+
+[915] Tim. 90, A.
+
+[916] Posid. in Galen. Hipp. et Plat. v. 6, p. 469: τὸ δὴ τῶν παθῶν
+αἴτιον, τουτέστι τῆς τε ἀνομολογίας καὶ τοῦ κακοδαίμονος βίου, τὸ μὴ
+κατὰ πᾶν ἕπεσθαι τῷ ἐν αὑτῷ δαίμονι συγγενεῖ τε ὄντι καὶ τὴν ὁμοίαν
+φύσιν ἔχοντι τῷ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον διοικοῦντι, τῷ δὲ χείρονι καὶ ζῳώδει
+ποτὲ συνεκκλίνοντας φέρεσθαι. Sen. Ep. 41, 2, according to the
+quotation, p. 344, 4: Sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum
+bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos. Hic prout a nobis tractatus
+est, ita nos ipse tractat. Ep. 31, 11: Quid aliud voces hunc [animus
+rectus, bonus, magnus] quam Deum in corpore humano hospitantem? Just as
+Kant calls the moral idea, a primary notion which mankind has embraced,
+the moral tone a good spirit governing us. Epict. Diss. i. 14, 12:
+ἐπίτροπον [ὁ Ζεὺς] ἑκάστῳ παρέστησε τὸν ἑκάστου δαίμονα, καὶ παρέδωκε
+φυλάσσειν αὐτὸν αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦτον ἀκοίμητον καὶ ἀπαραλόγιστον. He who
+retires within himself is not alone, ἀλλ’ ὁ θεὸς ἔνδον ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ
+ὑμέτερος δαίμων ἐστί. To him each one has taken an oath of allegiance,
+as a soldier has to his sovereign, but ἐκεῖ μὲν ὀμνύουσιν, αὐτοῦ μὴ
+προτιμήσειν ἕτερον· ἐνταῦθα δ’ αὑτοὺς ἁπάντων; so that the demon is
+lost in the αὐτὸς within. M. Aurel. v. 27: ὁ δαίμων, ὃν ἑκάστῳ
+προστάτην καὶ ἡγεμόνα ὁ Ζεὺς ἔδωκεν, ἀπόσπασμα ἑαυτοῦ. οὗτος δέ ἐστιν ὁ
+ἑκάστου νοῦς καὶ λόγος. See ii. 13 and 17; iii. 3; Schl. 5, 6, 7, 12,
+16; v. 10; viii. 45.
+
+[917] See the passage quoted from Diog. vii. 88, on p. 227, 3.
+(Diogenes had only just before named Chrysippus περὶ τέλους, as
+source), which receives its explanation (if it needs one) from the
+above words of Posidonius.
+
+[918] In this sense, the words of Sen. Ep. 110, 1, must be understood:
+Sepone in præsentia quæ quibusdam placent, unicuique nostrum pædagogum
+dari Deum, non quidem ordinarium, sed hunc inferioris notæ ... ita
+tamen hoc seponas volo, ut memineris, majores nostros, qui crediderunt,
+Stoicos fuisse: singulis enim et Genium et Junonem dederunt, i.e., the
+old Romans, not the Stoics.
+
+[919] Conf. Sext. Math. ix. 86. Amongst other things, quoted p. 146, 1,
+it is there said: If living beings exist on the earth and in the sea,
+there must be νοερὰ ζῷα in the air, which is so much purer; and these
+are the demons.
+
+[920] Diog. vii. 151: φασὶ δ’ εἶναι καί τινας δαίμονας ἀνθρώπων
+συμπάθειαν ἔχοντας, ἐπόπτας τῶν ἀνθρωπείων πραγμάτων· καὶ ἥρωας τὰς
+ὑπολελειμμένας τῶν σπουδαίων ψυχάς. Plut. De Is. 25, p. 360: Plato,
+Pythagoras, Xenocrates, and Chrysippus hold, with the old theologians
+(amongst whom Wachsmuth, p. 32, 40, rightly thinks of the Orphics),
+that the demons are stronger than men, from which the language used of
+them by Chrysippus does not follow. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: The Stoics
+believe demons to be mortal. Plac. i. 8, 2: Θαλῆς, Πυθαγόρας, Πλάτων,
+οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, δαίμονας ὑπάρχειν οὐσίας ψυχικάς. A special treatise περὶ
+ἡρώων καὶ δαιμόνων proceeded from the pen of Posidonius, probably, as
+was his wont, containing more learned than dogmatic statements, an
+extract from which is given by Macrob. Sat. i. 23, containing the
+etymology of δαίμων.
+
+[921] Plut. Quæst. Rom. 51, p. 277: καθάπερ οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον οἴονται
+φιλόσοφοι φαῦλα δαιμόνια περινοστεῖν, οἷς οἱ θεοὶ δημίοις χρῶνται
+καλασταῖς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνοσίους καὶ ἀδίκους ἀνθρώπους. Id. Def. Orac. 17,
+p. 419: φαύλους ... δαίμονας οὐκ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μόνον ... ἀπέλιπεν, ἀλλὰ
+καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ξενοκράτης καὶ Χρύσιππος—a statement which, particularly
+as it is extended to Plato, would prove little. The baleful Gods of
+mythology (p. 350, 2) were explained as being evil demons by those who
+did not deny their existence altogether. Those demons, however, which
+purify the soul in another world (Sallust. De Mund. c. 19, p. 266, and
+whom Villoisin on Cornutus, p. 553, reminds of), are not borrowed from
+Stoicism, but from Plato (Rep. x. 615, E) and the Neoplatonists.
+
+[922] Plut. Sto. Rep. 37, 2. See p. 191, 2.
+
+[923] Tertull. Test. An. 3, after speaking of demons, adds: Aliqui
+Chrysippi sectator illudit ea.
+
+[924] The Stoics are not the first who resorted to allegorical
+explanations of myths. Just as, before philosophy had broken away from
+mythology, a Pherecydes, an Empedocles, the Pythagoreans had, whether
+consciously or unconsciously, veiled their thoughts in the language of
+legend, and even subsequently Plato had used a veil of poetry; so, now
+that the breach between the two was open, many attempts were made to
+conceal its breadth, and individual beliefs were represented as the
+real meaning of popular beliefs, it being always supposed that the
+original framers had an eye to this meaning. Thus a twofold method of
+treating the myths resulted—that by natural explanation, and that by
+allegorical interpretation. The former method referred them to facts of
+history, the latter to general truths, whether moral or scientific.
+Both methods agreed in looking for a hidden meaning besides the literal
+one. This method of treating myths had been already met with among the
+older teachers, such as Democritus, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, and other
+followers of Anaxagoras (according to Hesych. even Agamemnon was
+explained to be the ether). It appears to have been a favourite one in
+the time of the Sophists (Plato, Theæt. 153, C; Rep. ii. 378, D; Phædr.
+229, C; Crat. 407, A, to 530, C; Gorg. 493, A; Xen. Sym. 3, 6), as
+appears from Euripides and Herodotus. It follows naturally from the
+view of Prodicus on the origin of belief in the Gods. Plato disapproved
+of it. Aristotle occasionally appealed to it to note glimmers of truth
+in popular notions without attributing to it any higher value. The
+founder of Cynicism and his followers pursued it zealously. From the
+Cynics the Stoics appear to have taken it. They carried it much further
+than any of their predecessors, and they, too, exercised a greater
+influence on posterity than the Cynics.
+
+[925] Cic. N. D. 24, 63; iii. 24, 63, see p. 346, 3.
+
+[926] The definition of allegory: ὁ γὰρ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος, ἕτερα
+δὲ ὧν λέγει σημαίνων, ἐπωνύμως ἀλληγορία καλεῖται (Heraclit. Alleg.
+Hom. c. 5, p. 6). Accordingly, it includes every kind of symbolical
+expression. In earlier times, according to Plut. Aud. Po. c. 4, p. 19,
+it was termed ὑπόνοια, which term is found in Plato, Rep. ii. 378, D,
+conf. Io. 530, D; Xen. Symp. 3, 6.
+
+[927] In this way Zeno treated all the poems of Homer and Hesiod (Dio
+Chrysost. Or. 53, p. 275; Diog. vii. 4; Krische, Forsch. 393), and so
+did Cleanthes (Diog. vii. 175; Phædr. [Philodem.] De Nat. De. col. 3;
+Plut. Aud. Po. 11, p. 31; De Fluv. 5, 3, p. 1003; Krische, 433) and
+Persæus. Chrysippus explained the stories in Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus,
+and Musæus (Phæd. col. 3; Galen. Hipp. et Plat. iii. 8, vol. v. 349,
+Krische, 391 and 479), and was followed by Diogenes (Phæd. col. 5; Cic.
+N. D. i. 15, 41). Compare also Plut. Def. Orac. 12, p. 415, and
+respecting the theological literature of the Stoics Villoisin on
+Cornutus, p. xxxix. Among the Romans, the same method was followed by
+Varro (Preller, Röm. Myth. 29), and from his writings Heraclitus
+(living under Augustus) derived the material for his Homeric Allegories
+(edited by Mehler), and Cornutus for his work on the nature of the Gods
+edited by Osann from Villoisin’s papers.
+
+[928] Cic. N. D. iii. 24, 63.
+
+[929] Corn. c. 17, p. 80: δεῖ δὲ μὴ συγχεῖν τοὺς μύθους, μήδ’ ἐξ ἑτέρου
+τὰ ὀνόματα ἐφ’ ἕτερον μεταφέρειν, μηδ’ εἴ τι προσεπλάσθη ταῖς κατ’
+αὐτοὺς παραδιδομέναις γενεαλογίαις ὑπὸ τῶν μὴ συνέντων ἃ αἰνίττονται
+κεχρημένων δ’ αὐτοῖς ὡς τοῖς πλάσμασιν, ἀλόγως τίθεσθαι.
+
+[930] Proofs may be found in abundance in Heraclitus and Cornutus.
+Conf. Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 45, 1: The ancients did not believe that
+Jupiter hurled his thunderbolts broadcast; sed eundem, quem nos Jovem
+intelligunt, rectorem custodemque universi, animum ac spiritum mundi,
+&c.
+
+[931] Dio Chrysost. Or. 53, p. 276, R. speaking of Zeno’s commentaries
+on Homer, says: ὁ δὲ Ζήνων οὐδὲν τῶν τοῦ Ὁμήρου λέγει, ἀλλὰ διηγούμενος
+καὶ διδάσκων, ὅτι τὰ μὲν κατὰ δόξαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν γέγραφεν.... ὁ
+δὲ λόγος οὗτος Ἀντισθένειός ἐστι πρότερον ... ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν οὐκ
+ἐξειργάσατο αὐτὸν οὐδὲ κατὰ τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ἐδήλωσεν.
+
+[932] Special references are hardly necessary after those already
+quoted, p. 148, 1; 153, 2; 164, 2: 165, 5. Conf. the hymn of Cleanthes;
+Chrysippus, in Stob. Ecl. i. 48; Arat. Phæn. Begin.; Plut. Aud. Poët.
+c. 11, p. 31; Varro, in August. Civ. D. vii. 5; 6; 9; 28; Servius, in
+Georg. i. 5; Heraclit. c. 15, p. 31; c. 23, 49; c. 24, 50; Corn. pp. 7;
+26; 35; 38, where Ζεὺς is derived from ζῇν or ζέειν and Διὸς from διὰ,
+ὅτι δι’ αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα; conf. Villoisin and Osann on the passage of
+Cornutus, who give further authorities in their notes on the respective
+passages. The same on Cornutus, p. 6, discuss the derivation of θεὸς
+from θέειν or τιθέναι; of αἰθὴρ from αἴθειν or ἀεὶ θέειν. A portion of
+these etymologies is well known to be Platonic.
+
+[933] Πολυώνυμος, as he is called by Cleanthes, v. 1. Conf. Diog. 147;
+Corn. c. 9 and 26. The further expansion of this idea may be found in
+the Neoplatonic doctrine.
+
+[934] See Diog. l.c.; Cic. N. D. ii. 26, 66; Phæd. (Philodem.), Fragm.
+col. 2–5; Heracl. c. 25, p. 53. On Here, consult Heracl. c. 15 and 41,
+p. 85; Corn. c. 3; on Hephæstus, Heracl. c. 26, 55; 43, 91; Corn. c.
+19, p. 98; Plut. De Is. c. 66, p. 377 (Diog. l.c. perhaps confounds as
+Krische, p. 399, supposes, common fire with πῦρ τεχνικὸν, but it is
+also possible that the artificial God of mythology may have been
+explained now one way now another in the Stoic School, which is not
+always uniform in its interpretations); on Poseidon, Heracl. c. 7, 15;
+c. 18, 77; c. 46, 117; Corn. c. 12; Plut. De Is. c. 40, Schl. p. 367;
+on Hades, whom Cicero l.c. makes the representative of terrena vis;
+Heracl. c. 23, p. 50; c. 41, 87; Corn. 5; on Demeter and Hestia, Corn.
+c. 28, p. 156; Plut. l.c.; on Athene, Heracl. c. 19, 39; c. 28, 59; c.
+61, 123; Corn. c. 20, 103. It is only by a forced interpretation of a
+passage in Homer, that (Heraclit. 25, 53) Athene is made to be earth.
+That even Zeno treated individual Gods in this way, as parts of one
+general divine power or Zeus, is rendered probable by Krische, Forsch.
+399, by a comparison of Phædr. col. 5, with the passages quoted from
+Cicero and Diogenes.
+
+[935] Sen. Benef. iv. 8, 1: Hunc [Jovem] et Liberum patrem et Herculem
+et Mercurium nostri putant. Liberum patrem, quia omnium parens sit....
+Herculem, quia vis ejus invicta sit, quandoque lassata fuerit operibus
+editis, in ignem recessura. Mercurium, quia ratio penes illum est
+numerusque et ordo et scientia. The solution of Helios into Zeus
+(Macrob. Sat. i. 23) appears also to be of Stoic origin.
+
+[936] Heracl. c. 25, 52. Conf. Il. i. 395.
+
+[937] Heracl. c. 40, 83; Il. xv. 18.
+
+[938] Ibid. c. 37, 73; Il. viii. 18.
+
+[939] Heracl. c. 26, 54, who applies the same method of interpretation
+to the legend of Prometheus (otherwise interpreted by Corn. c. 18, 96),
+Corn. c. 19, 98. On the lameness of Hephæstus, Plut. Fac. Lun. 5, 3, p.
+922.
+
+[940] According to Eustath. in Il. p. 93, 46, probably following a
+Stoic interpretation, Here is the spouse of Zeus, because the air is
+surrounded by the ether; but does not agree with him, because the two
+elements are opposed to each other.
+
+[941] Heracl. c. 39, 78 (conf. Plut. Aud. Po. p. 19), where this
+explanation is given very fully. The occurrence on Mount Ida is said to
+represent the passage of winter into spring. Here’s tresses are the
+foliage of trees, &c.
+
+[942] See Diog. vii. 187; Proœm. 5; Orig. con. Cels. iv. 48; Theophil.
+ad Autol. iii. 8, p. 122, C; Clement. Homil. v. 18.
+
+[943] c. 64. Proteus, according to this explanation, denotes unformed
+matter; the forms which he assumes denote the four elements
+
+[944] See the description. Alleg. Hom. 43–51, p. 90, of which the above
+is a meagre abstract.
+
+[945] According to Heraclit. 53, 112.
+
+[946] We learn from Ps. Plut. De Fluv. 5, 3, p. 1003, that Cleanthes
+wrote a θεομαχία, a small fragment of which, containing a portion or
+the Prometheus legend in a later and evidently apologetically moulded
+form, is there preserved. The theomachy described by Cleanthes (the
+Stoic Cleanthes seems to be meant) is, however, not the Homeric
+theomachy, but the struggle of the Gods with the Giants and Titans,
+described in the book περὶ γιγάντων (Diog. vii. 175). Perhaps on this
+occasion he may have discussed the other. At any rate the moral
+interpretation given by Heraclitus to Homer’s θεομαχία is quite in the
+style of the interpretation of the legend of Hercules, and was probably
+borrowed from Cleanthes.
+
+[947] Further particulars on Hermes, Alleg. Hom. c. 72, 141.
+
+[948] Alleg. Hom. c. 54.
+
+[949] Conf. Heracl. c. 6, p. 11; Corn. 32, p. 191; 34, 206; Cic. N. D.
+ii. 27, 68; Phædr. (Philodem.) Nat. De. col. 5 and 2. In Phædrus, too,
+col. 2 (τοὺς δὲ τὸν Ἀπόλλω), if ἥλιον seems too wild, perhaps φῶς
+should be substituted for τούς, for Apollo cannot well symbolise the
+earth.
+
+[950] Plut. Fac. Lun. 5, 2, p. 922. The Stoics address the moon as
+Artemis and Athene.
+
+[951] See p. 147, 1.
+
+[952] The name Apollo is explained by Cleanthes, in Macrob. Sat. i. 17,
+ὡς ἀπ’ ἄλλων καὶ ἄλλων τόπων τὰς ἀνατολὰς ποιουμένου; by Chrysippus, as
+derived from α privative and πολὺς, ὡς οὐχὶ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ φαύλων
+αὐσιῶν τοῦ πυρὸς ὄντα. The latter explanation is quoted by Plotin. v.
+5, 6, p. 525, as Pythagorean, and Chrysippus may have taken it from
+Pythagoras, or the later Pythagoreans from Chrysippus. Cicero, in
+imitation, makes his Stoic derive sol from solus. The epithet of
+Apollo, Loxias, is referred by Cleanthes to the ἕλικες λοξαὶ of the
+sun’s course, or the ἀκτῖνες λοξαὶ of the sun; and by Œnopides, to the
+λοξὸς κύκλος (the ecliptic). The epithet Λύκιος is explained by
+Cleanthes, quod veluti lupi pecora rapiunt, ita ipse quoque humorem
+eripit radiis; Antipater, ἀπὸ τοῦ λευκαίνεσθαι πάντα φωτίζοντος ἡλίου.
+In the same author Macrobius found the derivation of πύθιος from πύθειν
+(because the sun’s heat produces decay). Other explanations of these as
+well as of other epithets of Apollo, of the name of Artemis and her
+epithets, of the attributes and symbols of these Gods, are to be found
+in abundance in Cornutus, c. 32, 34, and in Macrobius, l.c., who
+probably got most of them from Stoic sources.
+
+[953] The first of these stories is explained by Macrob. Sat. i. 17,
+down to the most minute details, in the sense of the cosmical views
+already given, p. 162, 2, and likewise the story of the slaying of the
+Pytho, the dragon being taken to represent the heavy vapours of the
+marshy earth, which were overcome by the sun’s heat (the arrows of
+Apollo). This interpretation being expressly attributed to Antipater by
+Macrobius, it appears probable that the first one came from the same
+source. Another likewise quoted by him, according to which the dragon
+represents the sun’s course, is perhaps also Stoical.
+
+[954] Cornutus, c. 2, p. 10, points to this in explaining Leto as Ληθὼ,
+and referring it to night, because everything is forgotten in sleep at
+night.
+
+[955] c. 8, especially p. 16, 22, 28. Ibid. c. 12, p. 24, 28, the clang
+of Apollo’s arrows is explained to be the harmony of the spheres.
+
+[956] c. 15, p. 31.
+
+[957] Ibid. c. 19, 72, p. 39, 141.
+
+[958] See Corn. c. 20, 105, and Villoisin’s notes on the passage. The
+most varied derivations of Athene are given: from ἀθρεῖν by Heracl. c.
+19, 40; Tzetz. in Hesiod. Ἐρ. καὶ Ἡμε. 70; Etymol. Mag. Ἀθηνᾶ—from
+θῆλυς or θηλάζειν (Ἀθήνη = ἀθήλη or ἀθηλᾶ = ἡ μὴ θηλάζουσα), by Phædr.
+Nat. D. col. 6; Athenag. Leg. pro Christ. c. 17, p. 78—from θείνω,
+because virtue never allows itself to be beaten—from αἰθὴρ + ναίω, so
+that Ἀθηναία = Αἰθεροναῖα.
+
+[959] This explanation had been already given by Diogenes, according to
+Phædr. col. 6. Cornutus also mentions it (20, 108), but he prefers the
+derivation from τρεῖν.
+
+[960] c. 33, p. 69.
+
+[961] It is to be found in Galen. Hipp. et Plat. iii. 8, pp. 349–353,
+but, according to Phædr. (Philodem.) l.c., conf. Cic. N. D. I. 15, 41,
+was already put forward by Diogenes. For himself, he prefers the other
+explanation, according to which Athene comes forth from the head of
+Jupiter, because the air which she represents occupies the highest
+place in the universe. Cornut. c. 20, 103, leaves us to choose between
+this explanation and the assumption that the ancients regarded the head
+as the seat of the ἡγεμονικόν. Heracl. c. 19, 40, states the latter,
+Eustath. in Il. 93, 40, the former, as the reason.
+
+[962] p. 349, 4, Corn. 30, p. 172.
+
+[963] See p. 359, 1, Plut. De Is. c. 40, Schl. p. 367: Demeter and Core
+are τὸ διὰ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν κάρπων διῆκον πνεῦμα. Phædr. col. 2: τὴν
+Δήμητρα γῆν ἢ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γόνευμα [γόνιμον πνεῦμα]. On Demeter as γῆ
+μήτηρ or Δηὼ μήτηρ, see Corn. c. 28, p. 156, and Villoisin on the
+passage.
+
+[964] Plut. l.c.: Dionysus is τὸ γόνιμον πνεῦμα καὶ τρόφιμον.
+
+[965] Macrob. Sat. i. 18: Cleanthes derived the name Dionysus from
+διανύσαι, because the sun daily completes his course round the world.
+It is well known that, before and after his time, the identification of
+Apollo with Dionysus was common, and it is elaborately proved by
+Macrobius. Servius, too, on Georg. i. 5, says that the Stoics believed
+the sun, Apollo, and Bacchus—and likewise the moon, Diana, Ceres, Juno,
+and Proserpine—to be identical. Other etymologies of Διόνυσος are given
+by Corn. c. 30, 173.
+
+[966] Corn. 30, discusses the point at large, referring both the story
+and the attributes of Dionysus to wine. He, and also Heracl. c. 35, p.
+71, refer the story of Dionysus and Lycurgus to the vintage.
+
+[967] Corn. c. 28, p. 163, who also refers the legend and worship of
+Demeter, in all particulars, to agriculture; and the rape of
+Persephone, to the sowing of fruits. Conf. Cic. N. D. ii. 26, 66.
+According to Plut. De Is. 66, p. 377, Cleanthes had already called
+Περσεφόνη, τὸ διὰ τῶν καρπῶν φερόμενον καὶ φονευόμενον πνεῦμα. A
+somewhat different explanation of the rape of Persephone is given in a
+passage of Mai’s Mythograph, vii. 4, p. 216, quoted by Osann. on
+Cornutus, p. 343.
+
+[968] The legend of Triptolemus is explained by Cornutus, l.c. p. 161,
+as referring to the discovery of agriculture by Triptolemus.
+
+[969] Chrysippus, in Stob. i. 180; Eus. Pr. Ev. vi. 8, 7 (Theodoret.
+Cur. Gr. Aff. vi. 14, p. 87), see p. 171, 1. Conf. Plut. Sto. Rep. 47,
+5; Corn. c. 13, p. 38; and Plato, Rep. x. 617, C.
+
+[970] According to Sen. Benef. i. 3, 8; 4, 4, he had filled a whole
+book, probably of a treatise not otherwise mentioned on kind deeds,
+with these ineptiæ—ita ut de ratione dandi accipiendi reddendique
+beneficii pauca admodum dicat, nee his fabulas, sed hæc fabulis
+inserit. A portion of these was made use of by Hecato in his work on
+this subject.
+
+[971] Chrysippus, in Phædr. (Philodemus), col. 4. Further particulars
+in Sen. l.c., and Corn. 15, 55. Somewhat similar is the explanation of
+Λιταί (Corn. 12, 37; Heracl. 37, 75), which at best are only casual
+personifications.
+
+[972] Corn. 14, 43, who, at the same time, mentions their names and
+number; Philodem. De Mus. Vol. Herc. i. col. 15; Erato indicates the
+importance of music for ἐρωτικὴ ἀρετή. Ibid. 10, 33, on the Erinnyes;
+29, 171, on the Horoi.
+
+[973] Heracl. 31, 63; Plut. Am. 13, 15, p. 757.
+
+[974] Heracl. 28, 60; 30, 62, and above, p. 360.
+
+[975] Ibid. 69, 136. In this sense, Aphrodite might be identified with
+Zeus, which was really done by Phædr. Nat. De. col. 1: ἀνάλογον εὐν ...
+θαι [Petersen suggests εὐνομεῖσθαι, but probably it should be
+ὀνομάζεσθαι] τὸν Δία καὶ τὴν κοινὴν πάντων φύσιν καὶ εἱμαρμένην καὶ
+ἀνάγκην καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι καὶ Εὐνομίαν καὶ Δίκην καὶ Ὁμόνοιαν καὶ
+Εἰρήνην καὶ Ἀφροδίτην καὶ τὸ παραπλήσιον πᾶν.
+
+[976] The story of Ares, νείατον ἐς κενεῶνα, means, according to
+Heracl. 31, 64, that Diomedes, ἐπὶ τὰ κενὰ τῆς τῶν ἀντεπάλων τάξεως
+παρεισελθὼν, defeated the enemy; that of Aphrodite (ἀφροσύνη, ibid. 30,
+62), that, by his experience in war, he overcame the inexperienced
+troops of barbarians.
+
+[977] In Plut. Aud. Po. c. 4, p. 19, the connection of Ares and
+Aphrodite is explained as meaning a conjunction of the two planets.
+Heracl. 69, 136, gives the alternative of referring this connection to
+the union of φιλία and νεῖκος, which produces harmony, or to the fact
+that brass (Ares) is moulded in the fire (Hephæstus) into objects of
+beauty (Aphrodite). The latter interpretation is given by Corn. 19,
+102, who also explains the relation of Ares to Aphrodite to mean the
+union of strength and beauty.
+
+[978] Corn. 27, 148; Plut. Krat. 408, C.
+
+[979] His lewdness was said to indicate the fulness of the σπερματικοὶ
+λόγοι in nature; his sojourn in the wilderness, the solitariness of the
+world.
+
+[980] Corn. 17, 91. Conf. Osann ad locum, who points out similar
+interpretations, probably of Stoic origin, in the Scholia to the
+theogony, and also in Etymol. M.
+
+[981] Besides the etymologies of οὐρανὸς in Corn. c. 1, and the
+observation of Plut. Pl. i. 6, 9, that heaven is the father of all
+things, because of its fertilising rains, and earth the mother, because
+she brings forth everything, the words in Cic. N. D. ii. 24, 63, on
+which Krische, Forsch. 397, comments, deserve notice. It is there said,
+probably after Zeno: Uranos is the Ether, and was deprived of his
+vitality, because he did not need it for the work of begetting things.
+Cronos is Time (the same is said by Heraclit. c. 41, 86, who sees in
+Rhea the ever flowing motions), and consumes his children, just as Time
+does portions of time. Cronos was bound by Zeus, the unmeasured course
+of time having been bound by the courses of the stars. A second
+explanation is given by Corn. 7, 21, after making (c. 3, 10) vain
+attempts at etymological interpretations of Cronos and Rhea. Cronos
+(from κραίνειν) stands for the order of nature, putting an end to the
+all too-violent atmospheric currents on earth, by diminishing the
+vapour-masses (compare the quotation from Chrysippus on p. 161, 2), and
+he is bound by Zeus, to represent that change in nature is limited.
+Macrob. Sat. i. 8 (who betrays that he is following a Stoic example by
+quoting Chrysippus’s definition of time: certa dimensio quæ ex cœli
+conversione colligitur, conf. p. 197, 2), gives another explanation:
+Before the separation of elements, time was not; after the seeds of all
+things had flowed from heaven down to the earth in sufficient quantity,
+and the elements had come into being, the process came to an end, and
+the different sexes were left to propagate animal life.
+
+[982] See p. 292, 4, and Sen. Benef. i. 13, 3.
+
+[983] C. 31, 187.
+
+[984] Plut. De Is. 44, Schl. p. 367: He is τὸ πληκτικὸν καὶ διαιρετικὸν
+πνεῦμα. Sen. Benef. iv. 8, 1. See above, p. 359, 2, and what Villoisin
+quotes on Cornutus, p. 366. from Schol. Apollon. Among the natural
+philosophers, i.e. the Stoics, Hercules symbolises strength and
+intelligence.
+
+[985] Pers. Sat. v. 63.
+
+[986] Heraclit. c. 33, p. 67, who, in the introduction, expressly
+refers to δοκιμώτατοι Στωϊκῶν.
+
+[987] C. 70–75.
+
+[988] C. 70–73, p. 137.
+
+[989] Conf. the way in which Heraclitus, 74, 146, expresses himself as
+to Plato’s and Epicurus’s attacks upon Homer.
+
+[990] Conf. Wachsmuth’s treatise mentioned above, p. 351, 2.
+
+[991] Cic. Divin. i. 3, 6. He there mentions two books of Chrysippus on
+divination, which are also referred to (as Wachsmuth, p. 12, shows) by
+Diog. vii. 149; Varro (in Lactant. Inst. i. 6, 9); Phot. Amphiloch.
+Quæst. (Montfaucon, Bibl. Coisl. p. 347); Philodemus, περὶ θεῶν
+διαγωγῆς, Vol. Herc. vi. 49, col. 7, 33; and from which Cicero has
+borrowed Divin. i. 38, 82; ii. 17, 41; 49, 101; 15, 35; 63, 130; and
+perhaps De Fato, 7. Chrysippus also wrote a book, περὶ χρησμῶν (Cic.
+Divin. i. 19, 37; ii. 56, 115; 65, 134; Suid. νεοττός); and one περὶ
+ὀνείρων (Cic. Divin. i. 20, 39; ii. 70, 144; 61, 126; 63, 130; i. 27,
+66: Suid. τιμωροῦντος). In the former, he collected oracular responses;
+in the latter, prophetic dreams.
+
+[992] Diog. vii. 178, mentions a treatise of Sphærus περὶ μαντικῆς.
+Cic. (Divin. i. 3, 6; i. 38, 83; ii. 17, 41; 43, 90; 49, 101) mentions
+a treatise having the same title as that of Diogenes of Seleucia, and
+two books of Antipater περὶ μαντικῆς, in which many interpretations of
+dreams were given. The same writer (Divin. i. 3, 6; 20, 39; 38, 83; 54,
+123; ii. 70, 144; 15, 35; 49, 101) mentions a treatise of Posidonius
+περὶ μαντικῆς in five books, Diog. vii. 149; Cic. Divin. i. 3, 6; 30,
+64; 55, 125; 57, 130; ii. 15, 35; 21, 47; De Fato, 3; Boëth. De Diis et
+Præsens (in Orelli’s Cicero, v. 1) p. 395.
+
+[993] Boëthus, in his commentary on Aratus, attempted to determine and
+explain the indications of a storm. Cic. Divin. i. 8, 14; ii. 21, 47.
+On Panætius’s objections to μαντικὴ a word will be presently said.
+
+[994] Cic. Divin. i. 52, 118: Non placet Stoicis, singulis jecorum
+fissis aut avium cautibus interesse Deum; neque enim decorum est, nec
+Diis dignum, nec fieri ullo pacto potest. Ibid. 58, 132: Nunc illa
+testabor, non me sortilegos, neque eos, qui quæstus causa hariolentur,
+ne psychomantia quidem ... agnoscere. Similarly in Sen. Nat. Qu. ii.
+32, 2 (see p. 374, 3), the difference between the Stoic view and the
+ordinary one is stated to be this, that, according to the Stoics,
+auguries non quia significatura sunt fiant, but quia facta sunt
+significent. In c. 42, it is said to be an absurd belief that Jupiter
+should hurl bolts which as often hit the innocent as the guilty, an
+opinion invented ad coercendos animos imperitorum.
+
+[995] Conf. Diogenian, in Eus. Pr. Ev. iv. 3, 5: τὸ χρειῶδες αὐτῆς
+(divination) καὶ βιωφελὲς, δι’ ὃ καὶ μάλιστα Χρύσιππος δοκεῖ ὑμνεῖν τὴν
+μαντικήν; and M. Aurel. ix. 27; God shows his care for the wicked by
+means of prophecies and by dreams.
+
+[996] Cic. N. D. ii. 5, 13, where among the four reasons from which
+Cleanthes deduced belief in Gods, the first is præsensio rerum
+futurarum, extraordinary natural phenomena—pestilence, earthquakes,
+monsters, meteors, &c., being the third. Ibid. 65, 105: The Stoic says
+of divination: Mihi videtur vel maxime confirmare, Deorum providentia
+consuli rebus humanis, Sext. Math. ix. 132: If there were no Gods, all
+the varieties of divination would be unmeaning; these are nevertheless
+universally admitted. Cic. Divin. i. 6, and the quotations on p. 175,
+3, 4.
+
+[997] Cic. Divin. i. 5, 9: Ego enim sic existimo: si sint ea genera
+divinandi vera, de quibus accepimus quæque colimus, esse Deos,
+vicissimque si Dii sint, esse qui divinent. Arcem tu quidem Stoicorum,
+inquam, Quinte, defendis. Ibid. 38, 82: Stoic proof of divination: Si
+sunt Dii neque ante declarant hominibus quæ futura sunt, aut non
+diligunt homines, aut quid eventurum sit ignorant, aut existimant nihil
+interesse hominum, scire quid futurum sit, aut non censent esse suæ
+majestatis præsignificare hominibus quæ sunt futura, aut ea ne ipsi
+quidem Dii præsignificare possunt. At neque non diligunt nos, &c. Non
+igitur sunt Dii nee significant futura (οὐκ ἄρα εἰσὶ μὲν θεοὶ οὐ
+προσημαίνουσι δὲ—the well-known expression of Chrysippus for εἰ θεοί
+εἰσιν, οὐ προσημαίνουσι, conf. p. 114, 1); sunt autem Dii: significant
+ergo: et non, si significant, nullas vias dant nobis ad significationis
+scientiam, frustra enim significarent: nec, si dant vias, non est
+divinatio. Est igitur divinatio. This proof, says Cicero, was used by
+Chrysippus, Diogenes, Antipater. It may be easily recognised as
+belonging to Chrysippus. Cic. ii. 17, 41; 49, 101, again reverts to the
+same proof. Conf. id. i. 46, 104: Id ipsum est Deos non putare, quæ ab
+iis significantur, contemnere. Diog. vii. 149: καὶ μὴν καὶ μαντικὴν
+ὑφεστάναι πᾶσάν φασιν, εἰ καὶ πρόνοιαν εἶναι. Some read ᾗ καὶ πρόνοιαν
+εἶναι, in which case the argument would be reversed, not from
+providence to divination, but from divination to providence.
+
+[998] Cic. Div. i. 55, 125: Primum mihi videtur, ut Posidonius facit, a
+Deo ... deinde a fato, deinde a natura vis omnis divinandi ratioque
+repetenda.
+
+[999] Cic. l.c. 55, 126.
+
+[1000] Ibid. 57, 129.
+
+[1001] See p. 370, 3; 371, 1.
+
+[1002] Cic. Divin. i. 27, 56 (Suid. τιμωροῦντος), ii. 65, 135 (Suid.
+νεοττός), ii. 70, 144, quoting from Chrysippus; i. 54, 123, quoting
+from Antipater; i. 30, 64, De Fat. 3, 5, from Posidonius—gives
+instances of stories to which the Stoics attached great value, whilst
+their opponents either pronounced the stories to be false, or the
+prophecies to be deceptive, or their fulfilment to be accidental (Cic.
+Divin. i. 19, 37; ii. 11, 27; 56, 115; De Fato, 3, 5).
+
+[1003] Aristotle, in a somewhat different sense, had explained the
+marvellous by a reference to natural causes, even allowing the
+existence of presentiments within certain limits.
+
+[1004] Cic. Divin. i. 3, 6, after the passage quoted: Sed a Stoicis vel
+princeps ejus disciplinæ Posidonii doctor discipulus Antipatri
+degeneravit Panætius, nec tamen ausus est negate vim esse divinandi,
+sed dubitare se dixit. Ibid. i. 7, 12; ii. 42, 88; Acad. ii. 33, 107;
+Diog. vii. 149; Epiphan. Adv. Hær. Cicero appears to have borrowed from
+Panætius, as Wachsmuth rightly observes, this denial of Astrology
+(Divin. ii. 42–46), and he allows, c. 42, 88; 47, 97, that Panætius was
+the only Stoic who rejected it.
+
+[1005] Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 32, 3: Nimis illum [Deum] otiosum et pusillæ
+rei ministrum facis, si aliis somnia aliis exta, disponit. Ista
+nihilominus divina ope geruntur. Sed non a Deo pennæ avium reguntur nec
+pecudum viscera sub securi formantur. Alia ratione fatorum series
+explicatur ... quicquid fit alicujus rei futuræ signum est ... cujus
+rei ordo est etiam prædictio est, &c. Cic. Divin. i. 52, 118, after the
+passage quoted, p. 371, 3: Sed ita a principio inchoatum esse mundum,
+ut certis rebus certa signa præcurrerent, alia in extis, alia in
+avibus, &c. Posidonius, ibid. 55, 125 (see p. 373, 2). Nor was the
+meaning otherwise, when portents (according to Cic. Divin. ii. 15, 33;
+69, 142) were based on a συμπάθεια τῆς φύσεως (on which see p. 183, 2),
+an opponent not without reason doubting whether it existed, for
+instance, between a rent in the liver of a victim and an advantageous
+business, or between an egg in a dream and treasure trove.
+
+[1006] As in the passage quoted from Boëthus on p. 371, 2.
+
+[1007] Conf. p. 374, 2; 379, 1, and Cic. Div. ii. 43, 90, according to
+whom Diogenes of Seleucia conceded so much to astrology as to allow
+that, from the condition of the stars at birth, it might be known quali
+quisque natura et ad quam quisque maxime rem aptus futurus sit. More he
+would not allow, because twins often differ widely in their course of
+life and destiny.
+
+[1008] Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 32, 5.
+
+[1009] Cic. l.c. ii. 15, 35: Chrysippus, Antipater, and Posidonius
+assert: Ad hostiam deligendam ducem esse vim quandam sentientem atque
+divinam, quæ tota confusa mundo sit, as was explained i. 52, 118.
+
+[1010] Cic. ii. 15, 35: Illud vero multum etiam melius, quod ...
+dicitur ab illis (conf. i. 52, 118): cum immolare quispiam velit, tum
+fieri extorum mutationem, ut aut absit aliquid, aut supersit: Deorum
+enim numini parere omnia. See p. 374, 3.
+
+[1011] Cic. i. 53, 120, defends auguries somewhat similarly by arguing:
+If an animal can move its limbs at pleasure, must not God have greater
+power over His? (his body according to them being the whole world).
+
+[1012] See p. 181.
+
+[1013] Cic. Divin. ii. 8, 20; Diogenian, in Eus. Pr. Ev. iv. 3, 5;
+Alex. Aph. De Fat. 31, p. 96.
+
+[1014] Upon the use of divination depends the whole argument for its
+reality, based on the divine kindness. Cic. i. 38, 83, and above, p.
+372, 1.
+
+[1015] Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 37, 2; 38, 2: Effugiet pericula si expiaverit
+prædictas divinitus minas. At hoc quoque in fato est, ut expiet, &c.
+This answer probably came from Chrysippus, who, as it appears from Cic.
+Divin. ii. 63, 130, and Philodem. περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς, Vol. Herc. vi.
+col. 7, 33, defended the use of expiation. In the above-quoted and more
+general form it is found in Alexander and Eusebius, probably also taken
+from Chrysippus, see p. 181.
+
+[1016] According to the definition in Sext. Math. ix. 132, which Cic.
+Divin. ii. 63, 130, attributes to Chrysippus, it is an ἐπιστήμη (Cic.
+more accurately: a vis = δύναμις, since besides scientific there is
+also natural divination), θεωρητικὴ καὶ ἐξηγητικὴ τῶν ὑπὸ θεῶν
+ἀνθρώποις διδομένων σημείων. Stob. Ecl. ii. 122 and 238; Eus. Pr. Ev.
+iv. 3, 5.
+
+[1017] Plut. Vit. Hom. 212, p. 1238: [τῆς μαντικῆς] τὸ μὲν τεχνικόν
+φασιν εἶναι οἱ Στωϊκοί. οἷον ἱεροσκοπίαν καὶ οἰωνοὺς καὶ τὸ περὶ φήμας
+καὶ κληδόνας καὶ σύμβολα, ἅπερ συλλήβδην τεχνικὰ προσηγόρευσαν· τὸ δὲ
+ἄτεχνον καὶ ἀδίδακτον, τουτέστιν ἐνύπνια καὶ ἐνθουσιασμούς. To the same
+effect, Cic. Divin. i. 18, 34; ii. 11, 26.
+
+[1018] Conf. the fragment quoted in ‘Aristotle and the Peripatetics,’
+p. 300, which throws light on old and well-known views in the spirit of
+the Platonic Aristotelian philosophy, without, however, defending them.
+
+[1019] Cic. Divin. i. 30, 64; ii. 10, 26: The naturale genus divinandi
+is, quod animos arriperet aut exciperet extrinsecus a divinitate, unde
+omnes animos haustos aut acceptos aut libatos haberemus. Plut. Plac. v.
+1; where, however, the words κατὰ θειότητα τῆς ψυχῆς are only a gloss
+on the preceding words κατὰ τὸ ἔνθεον, κ.τ.λ. Galen. Hist. Phil. p.
+320.
+
+[1020] Cic. Divin. i. 50, 115, and Plut. Compare the many Stoic stories
+of dreams and presentiments in Cic. i. 27, 56; 30, 64; ii. 65, 134; 70,
+144.
+
+[1021] See besides the passages just quoted, Cic. Divin. i. 49, 110;
+50, 113; 51, 115; and in particular i. 57, 129. Hence the prophecies of
+the dying (ibid. 30, 63, according to Posidonius; conf. Arist. l.c.),
+and the statement (ibid. 53, 121; see p. 380, 1) that true dreams come
+of innocent sleep.
+
+[1022] Conf. the quotations on p. 375, 4, from Cic. Divin. ii. 10, 26;
+15, 35; and his remarks on the instinct us afflatusque divinus. Cic. i.
+18, 34.
+
+[1023] According to Cic. Divin. i. 30, 64, Posidonius thought prophetic
+dreams were realised in one of three ways: uno, quod prævideat animus
+ipse per sese, quippe qui Deorum cognitione teneatur; altero, quod
+plenus aër sit immortalium animorum, in quibus tanquam insignitæ notæ
+veritatis appareant; tertio, quod ipsi Dii cum dormientibus
+colloquantur. Of these three modes, not the first only, but also the
+second, corresponds with the Stoic hypotheses. Indeed, in Stob. Ecl.
+ii. 122, 238, μαντικὴ is defined = ἐπιστήμη θεωρητικὴ σημείων τῶν ἀπὸ
+θεῶν ἢ δαιμόνων πρὸς ἀνθρώπινον βίον συντεινόντων. Posidonius can only
+have spoken of Gods in condescension to popular views; as a Stoic, he
+would only know of that connection with the soul of the universe which
+is referred to in the first mode.
+
+[1024] Amongst such external helps, the Stoic in Cic. Divin. i. 50,
+114; 36, 79, enumerates the impression derived from music, natural
+scenery, mountains, woods, rivers, seas and vapours arising from the
+earth. But it is difficult to understand how, on Stoic principles, he
+can have attached value to oracles (ibid. 18, 34) by lot, or justified
+them otherwise than in the way mentioned on p. 375, 4.
+
+[1025] Cic. i. 18, 34; 33, 72.
+
+[1026] Ibid. i. 56, 127.
+
+[1027] Cicero, ii. 11, 26, enumerates the above-named varieties, after
+having previously (i. 33) treated them separately. Similarly, Ps. Plut.
+V. Hom. 212. See above, p. 377, 2, Stob. Ecl. ii. 238, mentions
+tentatively, as varieties of μαντικὴ τό τε ὀνειροκριτικὸν, καὶ τὸ
+οἰωνοσκοπικὸν, καὶ θυτικόν. Sext. Math. ix. 132, says: If there were no
+Gods, there would be neither μαντικὴ nor θεοληπτικὴ, ἀστρομαντικὴ nor
+λογικὴ πρόῤῥησις δι’ ὀνείρων. Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 3, gives a theory
+of dreams; but in how far it represents the views of the Stoics, it is
+impossible to say. Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 39, i. 41, clearly distinguishes
+the discussion of natural omens from the doctrines of philosophy.
+
+[1028] Cic. i. 55, 124; 56, 128.
+
+[1029] Ibid. i. 56, 127.
+
+[1030] Cic. i. 53, 121: Ut igitur qui se tradet quieti præparato animo
+cum bonis cogitationibus tunc rebus (for instance, nourishment; conf.
+c. 29, 60; 51, 115) ad tranquillitatem accommodatis, certa et vera
+cernit in somnis; sic castus animus purusque vigilantis et ad astrorum
+et ad avium reliquorumque signorum et ad extorum veritatem est
+paratior.
+
+[1031] See p. 46.
+
+[1032] See p. 139.
+
+[1033] See p. 132.
+
+[1034] Whether Diogenes, in connecting the Stoics with the Cynics, was
+following a Stoic authority or not (vii.), is a moot point;
+nevertheless, the view comes to us from a time in which the relations
+of the two must have been well known, and the quotation from Posidonius
+on p. 274, 2, quite accords herewith. Not to mention others, Diog. vi.
+14, speaking of Antisthenes, says: δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀνδρωδεστάτης
+Στωϊκῆς κατάρξαι ... οὗτος ἡγήσατο καὶ τῆς Διογένους ἀπαθείας καὶ τῆς
+Κράτητος ἐγκρατείας καὶ τῆς Ζήνωνος καρτερίας, αὐτὸς ὑποθέμενος τῇ
+πόλει τὰ θεμέλια: and Juvenal, xiii. 121, calls the Stoic dogmas a
+Cynicis tunica (the common dress in distinction to the tribon)
+distantia.
+
+[1035] Krische, Forschungen, i. 363, and above, p. 145, 2.
+
+[1036] On Aristo see p. 59; 260; 281.
+
+[1037] Aristo cannot, therefore, be considered (as he is by Krische,
+Forsch. 411) the best representative of the original Stoic theory. On
+the contrary, he only represents a reaction of the Cynic element in
+Stoicism against the other component parts of this philosophy.
+
+[1038] See p. 290.
+
+[1039] Apart from the testimony of Numenius (in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5,
+10), to which no great value can be attached, the acquaintance of Zeno
+with Heraclitus is established by the fact that not only the ethics,
+but also the natural science of the Stoic School owes its origin to
+him. See pp. 40, 3; 62, 2, 3; 126, 2; 141, 2; 144, 4; 145, 1, 2; 146,
+4; 148, 2; 151, 1. Diog. mentions treatises of Cleanthes, vii. 174; ix.
+15, of Aristo, ix. 5, of Sphærus (vii. 178; ix. 15) treating of
+Heraclitus; and Phædrus (Philodem.), Fragm. col. 4, says that
+Chrysippus explained the old myths after the manner of Heraclitus.
+
+[1040] Instances have often occurred. See p. 144, 4; 145, 1, 2; 232, 4.
+Conf. Sen. Ep. 83, 9.
+
+[1041] Besides meteorological and other points of natural science,
+which the Stoics may have borrowed from Heraclitus, Heraclitus’
+attitude towards the popular faith also belongs here.
+
+[1042] See p. 101, 2.
+
+[1043] See p. 100, 4, 5; 101, 2; 140, 1.
+
+[1044] As an illustration of the difference, take Heraclitus’ statement
+of the daily extinction of the sun, which every one must admit would
+not have been possible in the Stoic School.
+
+[1045] πνεῦμα as with the Stoics.
+
+[1046] See particularly Antiochus and also Cicero in many passages. See
+above, p. 39, 2.
+
+[1047] See p. 46, 1, 2.
+
+[1048] The story in Diog. vii. 3 bears out this view, that Zeno was
+first won for philosophy by Xenophon’s Memorabilia, and that on asking
+who was the representative of this line of thought, he was referred to
+Crates. According to the quotations on pp. 274, 2; 387, 1, the Cynics
+were regarded in the Stoic School as genuine followers of Socrates.
+
+[1049] Consult, on this subject, the valuable treatise of Steinhart, in
+Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, sect. i. vol. 35, pp. 459–477.
+
+[1050] Diog. x. i. He is frequently mentioned as an Athenian, belonging
+to the δῆμος Gargettos. Diog. l.c.; Lucret. Nat. Rer. vi. 1; Cic. Ad
+Fam. xv. 16; Ælian, V. H. iv. 13.
+
+[1051] Diog. i.; Strabo, xiv. 1, 18, p. 638. According to these
+authorities, and Cic. N. D. i. 26, 72, his father had gone thither as a
+κληροῦχος. That this happened before his birth has been demonstrated by
+Steinhart, p. 461.
+
+[1052] Apollodorus (in Diog. x. 14) mentions 7 Gamelion, Ol. 109, 3, as
+the birthday of Epicurus. It was observed (Epicurus’ will, Diog. 18) τῇ
+προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος. Gamelion being the seventh month of the
+Attic year, the time of his birth must have been either early in 341
+B.C., or the last days of 342 B.C.
+
+[1053] His father, according to Strabo, was a schoolmaster, and
+Epicurus had assisted him in teaching (Hermippus and Timon, in Diog. 2;
+Athen. xiii. 588, a). His mother is said to have earned money by
+repeating charms (καθαρμοί), and Epicurus to have assisted in this
+occupation (Diog. 4). Although the latter statement evidently comes
+from some hostile authority, it would seem that his circumstances in
+early life were not favourable to a thoroughly scientific education.
+His language in disparagement of culture would lead us to the same
+conclusion, even were the express testimony of Sext. Math. i. 1
+wanting: ἐν πολλοῖς γὰρ ἀμαθὴς Ἐπίκουρος ἐλέγχεται, οὐδὲ ἐν ταῖς
+κοιναῖς ὁμιλίαις (in common expressions, conf. the censure passed on
+him by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Aristophanes in Diog. 4, 13)
+καθαρεύων. Cic. Fin. i. 7, 26: Vellem equidem, aut ipse doctrinis
+fuisset instructor—est enim ... non satis politus in artibus, quas qui
+tenent eruditi appellantur—aut ne deterruisset alios a studiis. Athen.
+xiii. 588, a: ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας ἀμύητος ὤν.
+
+[1054] According to his own statement (Diog. 2), he was not more than
+fourteen (Suid. Ἐπικ. has twelve) years of age when he began to
+philosophise, i.e. to think about philosophical subjects; probably
+about chaos, following the suggestion of Hesiod’s verses. He
+subsequently boasted that he had made himself what he was without a
+teacher, and refused to own his obligations to those shown to be his
+teachers. Cic. N. D. i. 26, 72; 33, 93; Sext. Math. i. 2, who mentions
+his disparagement of Nausiphanes; Diog. 8, 13; Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 18,
+4; conf. Sen. Ep. 52, 3. It is, however, established that in his youth
+he enjoyed the instruction of Pamphilus and of that Nausiphanes, who is
+sometimes called a follower of Democritus, sometimes of Pyrrho (Cic.;
+Sext.; Diog. x. 8; 13; 14; ix. 64; 69; Proœm. 15; Suid. Ἐπικ.; Clem.
+Strom. i. 301, D). The names of two other supposed instructors are also
+mentioned, Nausicydes and Praxiphanes (Diog. Proœm. 15; x. 13), but
+they almost seem to be corruptions for Pamphilus and Nausiphanes.
+
+[1055] According to Cic. l.c., he denied the fact. Others, however,
+asserted it, and, among them, Demetrius of Magnesia. Diog. 13.
+
+[1056] Whither he came, in his eighteenth year, according to Heraclides
+Lembus, in Diog. 1. Conf. Strabo, l.c.: τραφῆναί φασιν ἐνθάδε (in
+Samos) καὶ ἐν Τέῳ καὶ ἐφηβεῦσαι Ἀθήνῃσι.
+
+[1057] According to Hermippus (Diog. 2) Democritus first gave him the
+impulse to pursue philosophy; but this is only a conjecture. Besides
+Democritus, Aristippus is also mentioned as a philosopher whose
+doctrines he followed (Diog. 4). Epicurus is even said to have
+expressed a disparaging opinion of Democritus (Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93;
+Diog. 8). Nor is this denied by Diog. 9: but it probably refers to
+particular points only, or it may have reference to the attitude of
+later Epicureans, such as Colotes (Plut. Adv. Col. 3, 3, p. 1108).
+Plut. l.c., says, not only that Epicurus for a long time called himself
+a follower of Democritus, but he also quotes passages from Leonteus and
+Metrodorus, attesting Epicurus’ respect for Democritus. Philodem. περὶ
+παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. 2, col. 20, seems to refer to expressions of
+Epicurus which excuse certain mistakes of Democritus. Lucret. iii. 370,
+v. 620, also speaks of Democritus with great respect; and Philodem. De
+Mus. Vol. Herc. i. col. 36, calls him ἀνὴρ οὐ φυσιολογώτατος μόνον τῶν
+ἀρχαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἱστορουμένων οὐδενὸς ἧττον πολυπράγμων.
+
+[1058] Diog. 1, 15 mentions Colophon, Mytilene, and Lampsacus. Strabo,
+xiii. 1, 19, p. 589, also affirms that Epicurus resided for some time
+at Lampsacus, and there made the acquaintance of Idomeneus and
+Leonteus.
+
+[1059] Diog. 2, on the authority of Heraclides and Sotion. According to
+him, Epicurus returned to Athens in the archonship of Anaxicrates,
+307–6 B.C. In that case the numbers must be slightly reduced in the
+statement (Diog. 15) that he came to Mytilene when 32, and taught there
+and in Lampsacus for five years.
+
+[1060] Not immediately, however, since Diog. 2 says, on the authority
+of Heraclides: μέχρι μέν τινος κατ’ ἐπιμιξίαν τοῖς ἄλλοις φιλοσοφεῖν,
+ἔπειτ’ ἰδίᾳ πως τὴν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ κληθεῖσαν αἵρεσιν συστήσασθαι.
+
+[1061] On this celebrated garden, after which the Epicureans were
+called οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν κήπων, see Diog. 10, 17; Plin. H. N. xix. 4, 51; Cic.
+Fin. i. 20, 65; v. 1, 3; Ad Fam. xiii. 1; Sen. Ep. 21, 10; Steinhart,
+p. 462, 45; 463, 72. Epicurus had purchased it for 80 minæ.
+
+[1062] This subject will be discussed at a later period.
+
+[1063] Such as Themista or Themisto, the wife of Leonteus (Diog. 5; 25;
+26; Clem. Strom. iv. 522, D).
+
+[1064] Diog. 4; 6; 7; Cleomed. Meteor. p. 92, Balfor.; Plut. N. P.
+Suav. Vivi, 4, 8; 16, 1 and 6; Lat. Viv. 4, 2. The best-known among
+these ἑταῖραι is Leontion, who lived with Metrodorus, a pupil of
+Epicurus (Diog. 6; 23), and wrote with spirit against Theophrastus
+(Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93; Plut. Hist. Nat. Præf. 29). Conf. Diog. 5;
+Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. 2, Fr. 9. Athen. xiii. 593, b,
+tells a fine story of self-sacrifice of her daughter Danaë.
+
+[1065] Ol. 127, 2, in the archonship of Pytharatus, and in his
+seventy-second year. Diog. 15; Cic. De Fat. 9, 19.
+
+[1066] Diog. 15; 22; Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 26; Fin. ii. 30, 96; Sen. Ep.
+66, 47; 92, 25. That he put an end to his own life (Baumhauer, Vet.
+Philo. Doct. De Mort. Volunt. 322), Hermippus (Diog. 15) by no means
+implies.
+
+[1067] According to Diog. Pro. 16, x. 26, he was, next to Chrysippus,
+the most voluminous writer of the ancient philosophers, his writings
+filling 300 rolls. The titles of his most esteemed works are given by
+Diog. 27. Conf. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 595, Harl.
+
+[1068] Three epistles in Diog. 35; 84; 122; and the κύριαι δόξαι, an
+epitome of his ethics, mentioned by Cic. N. D. i. 30, 85, and 139. Of
+his 37 books περὶ φύσεως, fragments of books 2 and 11 have been edited
+(Vol. Hercul. ii.).
+
+[1069] Fragments in Diog. 5; 7. Besides the testament and the letter to
+Idomeneus (Diog. 16–22), many individual expressions of Epicurus have
+been preserved by Seneca.
+
+[1070] Aristophanes (in Diog. 13) calls his style ἰδιωτικωτάτη.
+Cleomed. Meteor. p. 91, complains of his awkward and barbarous
+expressions, instancing: σαρκὸς εὐσταθῆ καταστήματα· τὰ περὶ ταύτης
+πιστὰ ἐλπίσματα· λιπάσμα ὀφθαλμῶν· ἱερὰ ἀνακραυγάσματα· γαργαλισμοὺς
+σώματος. In this respect, Chrysippus may be compared with him. See
+above, p. 48, 1.
+
+[1071] See Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 598, Harl. They were, no doubt, very
+numerous. Diog. x. 9, probably exaggerates their number in saying the
+friends of Epicurus would fill towns. Cic. Fin. i. 20, 65, speaks of
+magni greges amicorum. Plut. Lat. Viv. 3, 1, also mentions his friends
+in Asia and Egypt. In Greece, however, on his own testimony, and that
+of Metrodorus (Sen. Ep. 79, 15), they attracted little notice.
+
+[1072] A native of Lampsacus (Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589), and, next
+to Epicurus, the most celebrated teacher of the School. Cicero, Fin.
+ii. 28, 92, calls him pæne alter Epicurus, and states (Fin. ii. 3, 7)
+that Epicurus gave him the name of a wise man (Diog. 18; Sen. Ep. 52,
+3). Further particulars respecting him and his writings in Diog. x. 6;
+18; 21–24; Philodem. De Vitiis, ix. (Vol. Herc. iii.), col. 12; 21; 27;
+Athen. vii. 279; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 7, 1; 12, 2; 16, 6 and 9; Adv.
+Col. 33, 2 and 6; Sen. Ep. 98, 9; 99, 25. Fragments of the letters are
+to be found in Plutarch, Seneca, and Philodemus. Whether the fragments
+of a treatise περὶ αἰσθητῶν in vol. vi. of Vol. Hercul. belong to him,
+is very uncertain. According to Diog. 23, he died seven years before
+Epicurus, in his fifty-third year, and must therefore have been born
+330 or 329 B.C. For the education of his children probably by Leontion,
+whom Diog. 23 calls παλλακὴ, and Sen. Fr. 45 in Hieron. Adv. Jovin. i.
+191 calls his wife, provision is made by Epicurus in his will (Diog.
+19, 21).
+
+[1073] Son of Athenodorus, likewise a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 24), a
+capital mathematician, according to Cic. Acad. ii. 33, 106; Fin. i. 6,
+20. Diog. l.c. calls him ἐπιεικὴς καὶ φιλήκοος; Metrodorus, in
+Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας (Vol. Herc. v. a), col. 6, ἀποφθεγματίας. Sen.
+Ep. 6, 6, calls him, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus, viros magnos.
+Philodemus (vol. v. b), Fr. 49. praises his frankness towards his
+teacher. A son of his is also mentioned in Epicurus’ will (Diog. 19),
+whose mother would appear to have been a courtesan, according to Plut.
+N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 6.
+
+[1074] This individual’s name, formerly written Hermachus, appears as
+Hermarchus in the modern editions of Diogenes, Cicero, and Seneca. The
+latter form is now established beyond doubt by the Herculanean
+fragments from Philodemus (περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς, vol. vi. col. 13, 20; De
+Vitiis, ix. vol. iii. col. 25, 1), and the inscription on a monument to
+him (Antiquitat. Hercul. V. 17). His birthplace was Mytilene,
+Agemarchus being his father. (Diog. 17, 15, 24.) Diog. 24 gives a list
+of his books. Epicurus (Diog. 20) describes him as one of his oldest
+and most faithful friends, in the words: μετὰ τοῦ συγκαταγεγηρακότος
+ἡμῖν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ. On his character, see Sen. Ep. 6, 6.
+
+[1075] According to what is stated in the testament of Epicurus. Diog.
+16.
+
+[1076] Colotes, a native of Lampsacus. Diog. 25. Further particulars
+about him may be obtained from Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 5; 1, 1; N. P. Suav.
+Vivi, 1, 1; Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 2. Vol. Hercul. iv. Introd. in
+Polystr. p. iii.
+
+[1077] In particular, Neocles, Chairedemus, and Aristobulus, the
+brothers of Epicurus (Diog. 3, 28; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 5, 3; where
+Ἀγαθόβουλος is evidently a copyist’s error; 16, 3; De Lat. Viv. 3, 2);
+Idomeneus, a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 25; 22; 23; 5; Plut. Adv. Col.
+18, 3; Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589; Athen. vii. 279; Philodem. περὶ
+παῤῥησίας. Fr. 72, Vol. Herc. v. 2; Sen. Ep. 21, 3 and 7; 22, 5; Phot.
+Lex.; and Suid. Πύθια καὶ Δήλια), from whose historical writings many
+fragments are quoted by Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 489; Leonteus,
+likewise a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 5; 25; Plut. Adv. Col. 3, 3;
+Strabo, l.c.); Herodotus (Diog. 4 and 34); Pythocles (Diog. 5 and 83;
+Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 12, 1; Adv. Col. 29, 2; Philodem. περὶ
+παῤῥησίας, Fr. 6); Apelles (Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 12, 1); Menœceus
+(Diog. 121); Nicanor (Diog. 20); Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus,
+who afterwards fell out with Epicurus (Diog. 4 and 6; 23 and 28; Cic.
+N. D. i. 33, 93: Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Adv. Col. 32, 7;
+Comment. in Hesiod. Fr. 7, 1; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v.
+a, col. 20). This Timocrates must not be confounded with the Athenian
+Timocrates, whom Epicurus appointed his heir, jointly with Amynomachus
+(Diog. 16; Cic. Fin. ii. 31, 101). The two last named were probably
+pupils of Epicurus. Other pupils were: Mithras, a Syrian, an official
+under Lysimachus (Diog. 4 and 28; Plut. Adv. Col. 33, 2; N. P. Suav.
+Viv. 15, 5); Mys, a slave of Epicurus, on whom he bestowed liberty
+(Diog. 21; 3; 10; Gell. ii. 18, 8; Macrob. Sat. i. 11; the ladies
+mentioned on p. 407, 2, 3; likewise Anaxarchus, to whom Epicurus
+addressed a letter, and Timarchus, to whom Metrodorus addressed one
+(Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 3); Hegesianax, who died early (Plut. N. P. Suav.
+Vivi, 20, 5); the poet Menander, whose wondrous epigram on Epicurus is
+to be found in the anthology; and probably Dionysius ὁ μεταθέμενος.
+(See above, p. 44, 1.)
+
+[1078] Diog. 16. In Cicero’s time, the plot of ground, together with
+the tenement standing thereupon, and at that time in ruins (parietinæ),
+was in the hands of C. Memmius, a distinguished Roman, to whom Cicero
+wrote (Ad Fam. xiii. 1), conf. Ad Att. v. 11, begging him to restore it
+to the School. Whether he was successful is not known from Sen. Ep. 21,
+10.
+
+[1079] Diog. 25. does not say that Polystratus was a personal disciple
+of Epicurus, but it seems probable. Fragments of a treatise of his περὶ
+ἀλόγου καταφρονήσεως in the fourth volume of Vol. Hercul.
+
+[1080] According to Valer. Max. i. 8, ext. 17, both these individuals
+were born on the same day, and passed their whole lives together with a
+common purse. Lysias, according to the older text of Diog. x. 25, was a
+cotemporary, at whose house Hermarchus died, as Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii.
+606 believes, and who is styled in Athen. v. 215, b, tyrant of Tarsus,
+Cobet, however, reads παραλύσει instead of παρὰ Λυσίᾳ.
+
+[1081] Diog. 25. The Dionysius referred to can hardly be Dionysius ὁ
+μεταθέμενος (see p. 44, 1), or Diogenes would have said so. Besides the
+chronology forbids such an assumption.
+
+[1082] Strabo, xiv. 2, 20, p. 658. He is probably the Protarchus whose
+sayings are quoted by Simpl. Phys. 78, a; Themist. Phys. 27, a.
+
+[1083] According to Strabo, l.c., Diog. 26, Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. iii.
+137, Math. viii. 348, x. 219, Erotian, Lex. Hippocr. Κλαγγώδη,
+Demetrius was one of the most distinguished Epicureans. Whether a
+treatise on mathematics, illegible fragments of which are found in
+Herculaneum (Vol. Herc. iv. Introd. in Polystr. iii. 2), is his, or
+belongs to another Demetrius mentioned by Strabo, xii. 3, 16, page 548,
+it is impossible to say.
+
+[1084] Both the Ptolemies of Alexandria (Diog. 25); Diogenes of Tarsus
+(Diog. vi. 81; x. 26; 97; 118; 136; 138); Orion (Diog. 26); Timagoras
+(Cic. Acad. ii. 25, 80); and also Metrodorus of Stratonice, who went
+over from Epicurus to Carneades (Diog. 9)—a very rare thing for an
+Epicurean to do—may be named among his pupils.
+
+[1085] According to Athen. xii. 547, a, Ælian, V. H. ix. 12, two
+Epicureans, Alcius and Philiscus, were banished from Rome, in the
+consulate of L. Postumius (173 or 155 B.C.; see Clinton’s Fasti),
+because of their evil influence on youth. Although the story is
+obviously taken from a hostile authority and in Suid. (Ἐπίκουρος, vol.
+i. b, 419 Bern.), it is told with such exaggerations as to inspire
+grave mistrust, it can hardly be altogether without some foundation.
+Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 19, 4, says, that in some cities severe laws were
+passed against the Epicureans, and just at that time there was a strong
+feeling in Rome against innovations, witness the well-known enquiry
+into the Bacchanalia instituted 186 B.C.
+
+[1086] According to Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 6, Amafinius seems to have come
+forward not long after the philosophic embassy of 156 B.C.; nor is this
+at variance with Lucr. v. 336, who claims primus cum primis to have set
+forth the Epicurean teaching in Latin. His works made a great
+impression at the time, according to Cic. l.c. (cujus libris editis
+commota multitudo contulit se ad eam potissimum disciplinam). According
+to Acad. i. 2, 5, he pursued natural science, carefully following the
+views of Epicurus. Cicero then complains of him and Rabirius, we know
+not which one is meant, nor whether he was an Epicurean, qui nulla arte
+adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vulgari sermone disputant: nihil
+definiunt, nihil partiuntur, &c. Conf. Tusc. ii. 3, 7. Cassius, too
+(Cic. Ad Fam. xv. 12), calls him and Catius (see p. 414, 3) mali
+verborum interpretes.
+
+[1087] Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 7: Post Amafinium autem multi ejusdem æmuli
+rationis multa cum scripsissent, Italiam totam occupaverunt, quodque
+maxumum argumentum est non dici illa subtiliter, quod et tam facile
+ediscantur et ab indoctis probentur, id illi firmamentum esse discipliæ
+putant. Conf. in Fin. i. 7, 25, the question: Cur tam multi sint
+Epicurei?
+
+[1088] Surnamed ὁ κηποτύραννος, the writer of more than 400 books.
+Diog. 25; 2; 13; vii. 181.
+
+[1089] Diog. vii. 35, x. 25, and Procl. in Euclid. 55, says that Zeno
+was a native of Sidon, and a pupil of Apollodorus; nor can these
+statements be referred to an older Zeno, as some previous writers
+maintained, believing Apollodorus to be called in error a pupil of
+Epicurus by Diog. x. 25, instead of to the one mentioned by Cicero. For
+no trace of such a one exists; and Diogenes vii. 35 would then have
+passed over the teacher of Cicero without notice, although the latter
+cannot possibly have been unknown to him. According to Cic. Acad. i.
+12, 46, Zeno attended the lectures of Carneades and admired them; and
+since Carneades died not later than 129 B.C., Zeno cannot have been
+born much later than 150 B.C. If, therefore, Zeno was really the
+successor of Apollodorus, the latter must be placed entirely in the
+second century. But this fact is not sufficiently established. Cicero,
+in company with Atticus, attended his lectures (Cic. l.c.; Fin. i. 5,
+16; Tusc. iii. 17, 38. In Cic. N. D. i. 21, 58, Cotta says the same of
+himself), on his first visit to Athens, 78 or 79 B.C.; conf. N. D. i.
+34, 93; but this cannot possibly be the same Zeno or Xeno (as Krische,
+Forsch. 26, maintains) whom Cic. Ad Att. v. 10, 11; xvi. 3 mentions as
+living in 50 and 43 B.C. Cic. N. D. i. 21, calls him princeps
+Epicureorum (and Philo of Larissa, coryphæus Epicureorum); Tusc. l.c.,
+acriculus senex, istorum (Epicureans) acutissimus. Diog. x. 25, calls
+him πολύγραφος ἀνήρ. From Procl. in Euclid. 55; 59; 60, we hear of a
+treatise of Zeno, in which he attacked the validity of mathematical
+proofs. Philodemus’ treatise περὶ παῤῥησίας (Vol. Herc. v. a) seems,
+from the title, to have been an abstract from Zeno. Cotemporary with
+Zeno was that Aristio, or Athenio, who played a part in Athens during
+the Mithridatic war, and is sometimes called a Peripatetic, and
+sometimes an Epicurean (Plut. Sulla, 12; 14; 23). See Zeller’s
+Philosophie der Griechen, vol. ii. b, 759, 2. Perhaps to the time of
+his despotism the statement may be referred (Demetrius Magnes in Athen.
+xiii. 611, b) that the Stoic Theotimus, who wrote against Epicurus, was
+killed at the instance of Zeno.
+
+[1090] Cicero (N. D. i. 33, 93; Fin. i. 5, 16; v. 1, 3; Legg. i. 20,
+53) had also studied under him in Athens, and previously in Rome, where
+Phædrus must then have been residing (Ad Fam. xiii. 1). He was old when
+Cicero for the second time was brought into relations with him.
+According to Phlegon, in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 97, p. 84, a, 17, he was
+succeeded by Patro (Ol. 177, 3, or 70 B.C.) in the headship of the
+School, after holding it only for a very short time; but this is not a
+well-ascertained fact. Cicero l.c. praises the character of Phædrus. He
+calls him nobilis philosophus (Philip, v. 5, 13). It is supposed that
+Cicero’s description (N. D. i. 10, 25; 15, 41), and that the fragments
+first published by Drummond (Herculanensia: London, 1810), and then by
+Petersen (Phædri ... de Nat. De. Fragm.: Hamb. 1833), and illustrated
+by Krische (Forschungen), were from a treatise of Phædrus on the Gods,
+to which perhaps Cic. Ad Att. xiii. 39 refers. But Spengel (from the
+Herculanean rolls, Philodemus περὶ εὐσεβείας. Abh. d. Münch. Akad.
+Philos-philol. Kl. x. 1, 127) and Sauppe (De Philodemi libro ... de
+pietate. Gött. Lectionsverz. für Sommer, 1864) have shown that the
+Neapolitan (Vol. Herc. Coll. Alt. i. ii. 1862) editors are right in
+regarding these fragments as the remains of a treatise of Philodemus
+περὶ εὐσεβείας.
+
+[1091] Philodemus (see Vol. Herc. i. 1; Gros, Philod. Rhet. cxii.;
+Preller, Allg. Encycl. Sect. III. Bd. xxiii. 345) was a native of
+Gadara. in Cœle-Syria (Strabo, xvi. 2, 29, p. 759). He lived at Rome in
+Cicero’s time, and is mentioned by Cicero as a learned and amiable man
+(Fin. ii. 35, 119; Or. in Pison. 28). Besides philosophic works, he
+also wrote poems (Cic. In Pis.; Hor. Sat. i. 2, 121). A number of the
+latter, in the shape of epigrams, are preserved. Of his philosophical
+works mentioned by Diog. x. 3; 24, no fewer than thirty-six books were
+discovered in Herculaneum, which have, for the most part, been
+published (Vol. Herc. iv. Introd. in Polystr. iii.) so far as they were
+legible. Spengel and Gros have separately edited Rhet. IV.; Sauppe, De
+Vitiis X.; and Petersen and Sauppe, the fragments περὶ εὐσεβείας.
+
+[1092] Cic. Acad. ii. 33, 106; Fin. ii. 35, 110; Ad Fam. vi. 11.
+According to Virgil, Catal. 7, 9; 10, 1, Donat. Vita Virg. 79, Serv. Ad
+Ecl. vi. 13, Æn. vi. 264, he was the teacher of Virgil. The name is
+variously written as Syro, Siro, Sciro, Scyro. Somewhat earlier is the
+grammarian Pompilius Andronicus, from Syria, who, according to Sueton.
+Illust. Gram. c. 8, lived at Rome at the same time as Gnipho, the
+teacher of Cæsar (Ibid. c. 7), and gave up his profession for the
+Epicurean philosophy, and afterwards lived at Cumæ.
+
+[1093] Cic. Ad Fam. xiii. 1; Ad Att. v. 11; vii. 2; Ad Quint. Fratr. i.
+2, 4, where besides him an Epicurean Plato of Sardes is mentioned, and
+above, pp. 410, 1; 413, 1.
+
+[1094] Besides Lucretius, the most important among them are T.
+Albutius, called by Cic. Brut. 35, 131, perfectus Epicureus (Cic. Brut.
+26, 102; Tusc. v. 37, 108; N. D. i. 33, 93; Fin. i. 3, 8 [De Orat. iii.
+43, 171]; In Pison. 38, 92; Offic. ii. 14, 50; Orator, 44, 149; In
+Cæcil. 19, 63; Provin. Cons. 7, 15; De Orat. ii. 70, 281), and
+Velleius, who, as Krische (Forsch. 20) proves, by a gloss on Nat. De.
+i. 29, 82 and Cic. De N. D. i. 28, 79 (conf. Divin. i. 36, 79), was a
+native of Lanuvium, and was considered the most distinguished Epicurean
+of his time (Cic. N. D. i. 6, 15; 21, 58; conf. De Orat. iii. 21, 78).
+Other Epicureans were: C. Catius, a native of Gaul, spoken of by Cicero
+(Ad Fam. xv. 16) as one long ago dead. By Quintilian, x. 1, 124, he is
+called levis quidem sed non injucundus tamen auctor; and the Comment.
+Cruqu. in Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 1, says that he wrote four books De Rerum
+Natura et De Summo Bono;—C. Cassius, the well-known leader of the
+conspiracy against Cæsar (Cic. Ad Fam. xv. 16, 19; Plut. Brut. 37); C.
+Vibius Pansa, who died as consul at Mutina in 43 B.C. (Cic. Ad Fam.
+vii. 12; xv. 19); Gallus (Ad Fam. vii. 26); L. Piso, the patron of
+Philodemus (Cic. in Pis. 28, see above, p. 413, 2; l.c. 9, 20; 16, 37;
+18, 42; 25, 59; Post Red. 6, 14); Statilius (Plut. Brut. 12); a second
+Statilius appears to be meant (Cat. Min. 65); L. Manlius Torquatus, to
+whom Cic. Fin. i. 5, 13 delegates the representation of the Epicurean
+teaching. T. Pomponius Atticus, the well-known friend of Cicero,
+approached nearest to the Epicurean School, calling its adherents
+nostri familiares (Cic. Fin. v. 1, 3) and condiscipuli (Legg. i. 7,
+21). He was a pupil of Zeno and Phædrus and a friend of Patro’s; but
+his relations to philosophy were too free to entitle him properly to be
+ranked in any one school (Cic. Fam. xiii. 1). The same observation
+applies also to his friend, L. Saufeius (Nepos, Att. 12; Cic. Ad Att.
+iv. 6). Still less can C. Sergius Orata (Cic. Fin. ii. 22, 70; Off.
+iii. 16, 67; De Orat. i. 39, 178), L. Thorius Balbus (Fin. l.c.), and
+Postumius (Ibid.) be called Epicureans. Nor can anything be stated with
+certainty respecting L. Papirius Pætus (Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 17 to 26),
+not even from the chief passage Ep. 25, or respecting C. Trebatius from
+Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 12. C. Memmius (from the way in which he is spoken of
+by Cic. Ad Fam. xiii. 1) cannot be regarded as a member of the
+Epicurean School, although Lucret. De Rer. Nat. i. 24; v. 9, expressed
+the hope of winning him.
+
+[1095] Born, according to Hieron, (in Eus. Chron.), 95 B.C., he died in
+his 44th year, or 51 B.C. In Vita Virgilii, 659 ought therefore to be
+substituted for 699 A.U.C. It is clear, from Nepos, Att. 12, that he
+was dead before the assassination of Cæsar. Teuffel (in Pauly’s
+Realencycl. iv. 1195) justly disputes the statement of Hieronymus, that
+he committed suicide in a fit of madness.
+
+[1096] According to Sext. Math. vii. 201, a cotemporary of Antiochus of
+Ascalon, whose language towards him is there quoted, and reckoned by
+Galen. Isag. c. 4, vol. xiv. 683 among the leaders of the logical
+School of Physicians. His medical treatises are often referred to by
+Galen. Plutarch in his Placita often names him.
+
+[1097] Known for three things—his theory of atoms, his theory of the
+acquisition of knowledge, and his resolution of the soul into matter.
+
+All bodies, he held, consist of atoms, which differ from the atoms of
+Democritus in that they owe their origin to the meeting and breaking up
+of greater masses, and are not in quality alike and unchangeable
+(ἀπαθεῖς). Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 32; Math. ix. 363; x. 318; viii. 220; iii.
+5; Galen. l.c. 9, p. 698; Dionys.; Alex. (in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 23, 4);
+Cœl. Aurelian. De Pass. Acut. i. 14. See Fabric. on Pyrrh. iii. 32. The
+latter is probably in error in describing the primary atoms of
+Asclepiades as without quality, differing only in size, form, number,
+and arrangement. Although in this respect he resembled Heraclides, with
+whom he is generally classed, and applied, like him, the name ὄγκοι to
+atoms, still it is probable that his knowledge of Heraclides was
+traditionally derived from the Epicureans.
+
+He also asserted, with Epicurus (Antiochus, in Sext. Math. vii. 201):
+τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ὄντως καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀντιλήψεις εἶναι, λόγῳ δὲ μηδὲν ὅλως
+ἡμᾶς καταλαμβάνειν. At the same time he maintained that our senses
+cannot distinguish the component parts of things, but even Epicurus and
+Democritus admitted as much in respect of atoms.
+
+He differs entirely from Epicurus in denying the existence of a soul
+apart from body, and in referring every kind of notion, including the
+soul itself, to the action of the senses (Sext. Math. vii. 380; Plut.
+Plac. iv. 2, 6; Cœl. Aurelian. l.c. in Fabric. on the passage of Sext.;
+Tertullian, De An. 15). What is elsewhere stated of Asclepiades,
+leaving alone his medical views, for instance, that with Heraclitus he
+believed in a perpetual flux of things, is not at variance with
+Epicurean principles.
+
+[1098] Quint Inst. vi. 3, 78, names L. Varus as an Epicurean, a friend
+of Augustus, perhaps the individual who according to Donat. V. Virg.
+79, Serv. on Ecl. vi. 13. attended the lectures of Syro in company with
+Virgil. Horace, notwithstanding Ep. i. 4, 15, was no Epicurean, but
+only a man who gathered everywhere what he could make use of (Sat. i.
+5, 101). In Caligula’s time, a senator Pompedius was an Epicurean
+(Joseph. Antiquit. ix. 1, 5); under Nero, Aufidius Bassus, a friend of
+Seneca (Sen. Ep. 30, 1 and 3 and 5; 14), the elder Celsus (Orig. c.
+Cels. i. 8), and Diodorus, who committed suicide (Sen. Vi. Be. 19, 1);
+under Vespasian or his sons, Pollius (Stat. Silv. ii. 2, 113). In the
+first half of the second century, Cleomedes, Met. p. 87, complained of
+the honours paid to Epicurus. In the second half of the same century
+lived Antonius, mentioned by Galen. De Prop. An. Affect. v. 1, and
+Zenobius, who, according to Simpl. Phys. 113, b, was an opponent of
+Alexander of Aphrodisias. In the first half of the third century lived
+Diogenes Laërtius, who, if not a perfect Epicurean himself, was at
+least a friend of the Epicureans. Amongst other Epicureans, the names
+of Athenæus (whose epigram on Epicurus is quoted by Diog. x. 12).
+Autodorus (Diog. v. 92), and Hermodorus (Lucian, Icaromen. 16) may be
+mentioned; but Diog. x. 11 does not justify us calling Diocles of
+Magnesia an Epicurean.
+
+[1099] Diog. x. 9, in the first half of the third century, writes: ἥ τε
+διδαχὴ πασῶν σχεδὸν ἐκλιπουσῶν τῶν ἄλλων ἐσαεὶ διαμένουσα καὶ νηρίθμους
+ἀρχὰς ἀπολύουσα ἄλλην ἐξ ἄλλης τῶν γνωρίμων. The testimony of
+Lactantius, Inst. iii. 17, to the wide extension of Epicureanism is not
+so trustworthy, although he treats it as an existing fact. It may be
+that he is only following older writers, as Cicero does. See above, p.
+412, 1.
+
+[1100] Cic. Fin. ii. 7, 20: Quis enim vestrum non edidicit Epicuri
+κυρίας δόξας? Diog. 12 (according to Diocles). Epicurus often exhorted
+his scholars (Ibid. 83; 85; 35) to commit to memory what they had
+heard. His last exhortation to his friends was (Diog. 16): τῶν δογμάτων
+μεμνῆσθαι.
+
+[1101] He speaks of himself and Metrodorus in Cic. Fin. ii. 3, 7, as
+wise men. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 18, 5, quotes, as coming from him: ὡς
+Κολώτης μὲν αὐτὸν φυσιολογοῦντα προσκυνήσειεν γονάτων ἁψάμενος· Νεοκλῆς
+δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς εὐθὺς ἐκ παίδων ἀποφαίνοιτο μηδένα σοφώτερον Ἐπικούρου
+γεγονέναι μηδ’ εἶναι· ἡ δὲ μήτηρ ἀτόμους ἔσχεν ἐν αὑτῇ τοσαύτας, οἷαι
+συνελθοῦσαι σοφὸν ἂν ἐγέννησαν. Conf. Id. Frat. Am. 16, p. 487; Adv.
+Col. 17, 5; Cleomed. Meteor. p. 89. Not only was Epicurus’ birthday
+observed by the Epicurean School during his lifetime, but the 20th of
+every month was celebrated as a festival in honour of him and
+Metrodorus. In his testament Epicurus especially ordered this twofold
+observance for the future. Diog. 18; Cic. Fin. ii. 31, 101; Plut. N. P.
+Suav. Viv. 4, 8; Plin. H. N. xxxv. 5. Athen. vii. 298 d: Ἐπικούρειός
+τις εἰκαδιστῆς. Epicurus’ picture is constantly referred to (Cic. Fin.
+v. 1, 3; Plin. l.c.). The extravagant importance attached to Epicurus
+in his School is proved by the high eulogies in Lucret. i 62; iii. 1
+and 1040; v. 1; vi. 1. Metrodorus, in Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 4, praises τὰ
+Ἐπικούρου ὡς ἀληθῶς θεόφαντα ὄργια.
+
+[1102] Cic. Tusc. ii. 3, 8.
+
+[1103] Sen. Ep. 33, 4, compares the scientific independence of the
+Stoics with the Epicurean’s dependence on the founder: Non sumus sub
+rege: sibi quisque se vindicat. Apud istos quicquid dicit Hermarchus,
+quicquid Metrodorus, ad unum refertur. Omnia quæ quisquam in illo
+contubernio locutus est, unius ductu et auspiciis dicta sunt. On the
+other hand, Numenius (in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 3), little as he can
+agree with their tenets, commends the Epicureans for faithfully
+adhering to their master’s teaching, a point in which only the
+Pythagoreans are their equals. Of the Epicureans, it may be said: μηδ’
+αὐτοῖς εἰπεῖν πω ἐναντίον οὔτε ἀλλήλοις οὔτε Ἐπικούρῳ μηδὲν [μηδένα]
+εἰς μηδὲν, ὅτου καὶ μνησθῆναι ἄξιον, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς παρανόμημα,
+μᾶλλον δὲ ἀσέβημα, καὶ κατέγνωσται τὸ καινοτομηθέν. Thus the Epicurean
+School resembles a state animated by one spirit, in which there are no
+divisions of party.
+
+[1104] It has been already observed, p. 405, 1; 406, 1, that Epicurus
+ignored his obligations to his teachers Pamphilus and Nausicydes, and
+only confessed his debt to Democritus. All other philosophers provoked
+not only his contempt, but likewise his abuse. Diog. 8, probably on the
+authority of Timocrates, communicates his remarks on Plato, Aristotle,
+and others. Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93: Cum Epicurus Aristotelem vexarit
+contumeliosissime, Phædoni Socratico turpissime maledixerit. Plut. N.
+P. Suav. Vivi, 2, 2: Compared with Epicurus and Metrodorus, Colotes is
+polite; τὰ γὰρ ἐν ἀνθρώποις αἴσχιστα ῥήματα, βωμολοχίας, ληκυθισμοὺς,
+κ.τ.λ. συναγαγόντες Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Σωκράτους καὶ Πυθαγόρου καὶ
+Πρωταγόρου καὶ Θεοφράστου καὶ Ἡρακλείδου καὶ Ἱππάρχου, καὶ τίνος γὰρ
+οὐχὶ τῶν ἐπιφανῶν, κατεσκέδασαν.
+
+[1105] Cic. N. D. ii. 29, 73: Nam vobis, Vellei, minus notum est, quem
+ad modum quidque dicatur; vestra enim solum legitis, vestra amatis,
+ceteros causa incognita condemnatis. Ibid. i. 34, 93: Zeno not only
+despised cotemporary philosophers, but he even called Socrates a scurra
+Atticus, Macrob. Somn. i. 2 (Colotes ridiculing Plato’s Republic).
+
+[1106] Sext. Math. xi. 169: Ἐπίκουρος ἔλεγε τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἐνέργειαν
+εἶναι λόγοις καὶ διαλογισμοῖς τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον περιποιοῦσαν. Conf.
+Epic. in Diog. 122: The demand to study philosophy in youth, as well as
+in age, is supported on the ground that it is never too early nor too
+late to be happy.
+
+[1107] It was mentioned, p. 408, 3, that Epicurus’ own education was
+defective. Not content therewith, he upholds this defectiveness on
+principle. Nullam eruditionem, says the Epicurean in Cic. Fin. i. 21,
+71, esse duxit, nisi quæ beatæ vitæ disciplinam adjuvaret. In poets,
+nulla solida utilitas omnisque puerilis est delectatio. Music,
+geometry, arithmetic, astronomy et a falsis initiis profecta vera esse
+non possunt, et si essent vera nihil afferrent, quo jucundius, i.e. quo
+melius viveremus.
+
+[1108] Cic. Fin. ii. 4, 12: Vestri quidem vel optime disputant, nihil
+opus esse eum, philosophus qui futurus sit, scire literas. They fetch
+their philosophers, like Cincinnatus, from the plough. In this spirit,
+Epicurus (Diog. 6; Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 12, 1) wrote to Pythocles:
+παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν (the παιδεία ἐγκύκλιος, the learned culture),
+μακάριε, φεῦγε τὸ ἀκάτιον ἀράμενος; and to Apelles (Plut. l.c.; Athen.
+xiii. 588, a): μακαρίζω σε, ὦ οὗτος, ὅτι καθαρὸς πάσης αἰτίας (Plut.
+explains it: τῶν μαθημάτων ἀποσχόμενος) ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ὥρμησας.
+Metrodorus asserted (Plut. l.c.) that it need not be a source of
+trouble to anyone, if he had never read a line of Homer, and did not
+know whether Hector were a Trojan or a Greek. The art of reading and
+writing, γραμματικὴ in the limited sense, was the only art recognised
+by Epicurus. Sext. Math. i. 49.
+
+[1109] Sext. Math. i. 1; Cic. Fin. i. 6, 20.
+
+[1110] Cic. Fin. i. 21 (see p. 421, 1), which probably only means, that
+mathematical ideas cannot be applied to phenomena. Hence Acad. ii. 33,
+106 (conf. Fin. i. 6, 20): Polyænus ... Epicuro adsentiens totam
+geometriam falsam esse credidit. Conf. Procl. in Eucl. p. 85.
+
+[1111] See p. 421, 1; Sext. Math. i. 1: Epicurus rejects mathematics ὡς
+τῶν μαθημάτων μηδὲν συνεργούντων πρὸς σοφίας τελείωσιν. According to
+Diog. 93, Epicurus calls astronomy τὰς ἀνδραποδώδεις τῶν ἀστρολόγων
+τεχνιτείας. Conf. Diog. 79.
+
+[1112] Plut. l.c. 13, 1. Philodemus, in his treatise περὶ μουσικῆς, had
+discussed at length the value of music, as we gather from the fragments
+of the 4th Book, Vol. Herc. i.; in particular rejecting the notion that
+it has a moral effect, see col. i. 24, 28. He was even opposed to music
+at table (Col. 38, as Epicurus was in Plut., l.c.). The statement of
+Diog. 121, that only the wise man can give a right opinion on poetry
+and music, is not at variance with these passages.
+
+[1113] Philodemus, De Rhet. Vol. Herc. iv. col. 3; 12. The same polemic
+is continued in the further fragments of this treatise. Ibid. V. Col.
+6.
+
+[1114] Cic. Fin. i. 7, 22: In logic iste vester plane, ut mihi quidem
+videtur, inermis ac nudus est. Tollit definitiones: nihil de dividendo
+ac partiendo docet. Non quomodo efficiatur concludaturque ratio,
+tradit, non qua via captiosa solvantur, ambigua distinguantur,
+ostendit. Ibid. 19, 63: In dialectica autem vestra nullam existimavit
+[Epic.] esse nec ad melius vivendum nec ad commodius disserendum viam.
+Acad. ii. 30, 97: Ab Epicuro, qui totam dialecticam et contemnit et
+inridet. Diog. 31: τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ὡς παρέλκουσαν ἀποδοκιμάζουσιν·
+ἀρκεῖν γὰρ τοὺς φυσικοὺς χωρεῖν κατὰ τοὺς τῶν πραγμάτων φθόγγους.
+
+[1115] See p. 424.
+
+[1116] Cic. Fin. i. 19, 63: In physicis plurimum posuit [Epic.]. Ibid.
+6, 17: In physicis, quibus maxime gloriatur, primum totus est alienus.
+
+[1117] Epic. in Diog. x. 82 and 85: μὴ ἄλλο τι τέλος ἐκ τῆς περὶ
+μετεώρων γνώσεως ... νομίζειν δεῖ εἶναι ἤπερ ἀταραξίαν καὶ πίστιν
+βέβαιον καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. Ibid. 112: εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ περὶ
+τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου ... οὐκ ἂν
+προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας; but this becomes necessary, since, without
+knowledge of nature, we cannot he perfectly free from fear. The same in
+Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 8, 7; conf. Diog. 79 and 143; Cic. Fin. iv. 5,
+11; Lucret. i. 62; iii. 14; vi. 9.
+
+[1118] In Cic. Fin. i. 19, 63, the Epicurean speaks of a fivefold, or,
+excluding Canonic, of a fourfold use of natural science: fortitudo
+contra mortis timorem; constantia contra metum religionis; sedatio
+animi omnium rerum occultarum ignoratione sublata; moderatio natura
+cupiditatum generibusque earum explicatis.
+
+[1119] Diog. 29: διαιρεῖται τοίνυν [ἡ φιλοσοφία] εἰς τρία, τό τε
+κανονικὸν καὶ φυσικὸν καὶ ἠθικόν. Canonic was also called περὶ
+κριτηρίου καὶ ἀρχῆς καὶ στοιχειωτικόν; natural science, περὶ γενέσεως
+καὶ φθορᾶς καὶ περὶ φύσεως; ethics, περὶ αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν καὶ περὶ
+βίων καὶ τέλους.
+
+[1120] Diog. 30: τὸ μὲν οὖν κανονικὸν ἐφόδους ἐπὶ τὴν πραγματείαν ἔχει.
+
+[1121] Diog. l.c.: εἰώθασι μέντοι τὸ κανονικὸν ὁμοῦ τῷ φυσικῷ
+συντάττειν. Cic. Fin. i. 19. See p. 423, 4. Hence Sext. Math. vii. 14:
+Some reckon Epicurus amongst those who only divide philosophy into
+natural and moral science; whilst, according to others, he adhered to a
+threefold division, at the same time rejecting the Stoic logic. Sen.
+Ep. 89, 11: Epicurei duas partes philosophiæ putaverunt esse, naturalem
+atque moralem: rationalem removerunt, deinde cum ipsis rebus
+cogerentur, ambigua secernere, falsa sub specie veri latentia
+coarguere, ipsi quoque locum, quem de judicio et regula appellant, alio
+nomine rationalem induxerunt: sed eum accessionem esse naturalis partis
+existimant.
+
+[1122] Ritter, iii. 463; Schleiermacher, Gesch. d. Phil. p. 123.
+
+[1123] Steinhart in the treatise often referred to.
+
+[1124] Diog. 29; Sext. Math. vii. 22.
+
+[1125] Cic. Fin. i. 7, 22. See p. 422, 4.
+
+[1126] Cic. Fin. i. 7, 22; Sext. Math. vii. 203. If, according to Diog.
+31, and Cic. Acad. ii. 46, 142, Epicurus named three criteria—πρόληψις,
+αἴσθησις, and πάθη—instead of the above two, it must be an inaccuracy
+of expression; πρόληψις, as we have seen, is derived from sensation.
+
+[1127] Epicurus, in Diog. x. 146; Lucr. iv. 467–519; Cic. Fin. i. 19,
+54. Colotes (in Plut. Adv. Col. 24, 3) replies to the Cyrenaic
+scepticism by saying: μὴ δύνασθαι ζῇν μηδὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς πράγμασιν. In
+this case, as in the case of the Stoics, the dogmatism in favour of the
+senses is based on a practical postulate, the need of a firm basis of
+conviction for human life.
+
+[1128] Epic. in Diog. x. 50, and 147; Sext. Math. vii. 203–210; viii.
+9; 63; 185; Plut. Adv. Col. 4, 3; 5, 2; 25, 2; Plac. iv. 9, 2: Lucr.
+iv. 377–519; Cic. Acad. ii. 25, 79; 32, 101; Fin. i. 7, 22; N. D. i.
+25, 70; Tertull. De An. 17. Further particulars below respecting
+sense-perception.
+
+[1129] Diog. x. 31; Lucr. iv. 480.
+
+[1130] Sext. Math. vii. 203 and 216. In Diog. x. 52, instead of
+ἐνεργείας, we should read with Cobet ἐναργείας. Besides this peculiar
+expression, Epicurus uses sometimes αἴσθησις, sometimes φαντασία (Sext.
+l.c.), for sensation. An impression on the senses, he calls φανταστικὴ
+ἐπιβολή. Diog. 50.
+
+[1131] Diog. 32.
+
+[1132] Diog. 33: τὴν δὲ πρόληψιν λέγουσιν οἱονεὶ κατάληψιν ἢ δόξαν
+ὀρθὴν ἢ ἔννοιαν ἢ καθολικὴν νόησιν ἐναποκειμένην, τουτέστι μνήμην τοῦ
+πολλάκις ἔξωθεν φανέντος. By the help of this passage, Cicero’s
+description, N. D. i. 16, 43, must be corrected.
+
+[1133] Diog. l.c.: ἅμα γὰρ τῷ ῥηθῆναι ἄνθρωπος εὐθὺς κατὰ πρόληψιν καὶ
+ὁ τύπος αὐτοῦ νοεῖται προηγουμένων τῶν αἰσθήσεων. παντὶ οὖν ὀνόματι τὸ
+πρώτως ὑποτεταγμένον ἐναργές ἐστι· καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐζητήσαμεν τὸ ζητούμενον,
+εἰ μὴ πρότερον ἐγνώκειμεν αὐτὸ ... οὐδ’ ἂν ὠνομάσαμέν τι μὴ πρότερον
+αὐτοῦ κατὰ πρόληψιν τὸν τύπον μαθόντες. Hence the exhortation in
+Epicurus’ letter to Herodotus (in Diog. x. 37): πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τὰ
+ὑποτεταγμένα τοῖς φθόγγοις δεῖ εἰληφέναι ὅπως ἂν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἢ
+ζητούμενα ἢ ἀπορούμενα ἔχωμεν εἰς ὃ ἀνάγοντες ἐπικρίνειν, κ.τ.λ. Every
+impression must be referred to definite perceptions; apart from
+perceptions, no reality belongs to our impressions; or, as it is
+expressed Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 107, Math. viii. 13, 258: The Epicureans
+deny the existence of a λεκτὸν, and between a thing and its name there
+exists a third intermediate something—a conception. See also Sext. vii.
+267.
+
+[1134] Diog. 33. Sext. Math. i. 57 (xi. 21): οὔτε ζητεῖν οὔτε ἀπορεῖν
+ἔστι κατὰ τὸν σόφον Ἐπίκουρον ἄνευ προλήψεως. Ibid. viii. 337, p. 521;
+Plut. De An. 6: The difficulty, that all learning presupposes
+knowledge, the Stoics met by φυσικαὶ ἔννοιαι, the Epicureans by
+προλήψεις, which accordingly are the natural test of truth.
+
+[1135] See p. 426, 1. Diog. l.c.: ἐναργεῖς οὖν εἰσιν αἱ προλήψεις καὶ
+τὸ δοξαστὸν ἀπὸ προτέρου τινὸς ἐναργοῦς ἤρτηται, ἐφ’ ὃ ἀναφέροντες
+λέγομεν.
+
+[1136] See previous note and Epic. in Diog. 38: ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον
+ἐννόημα καθ’ ἕκαστον φθόγγον βλέπεσθαι καὶ μηθὲν ἀποδείξεως
+προσδεῖσθαι, εἴπερ ἕξομεν τὸ ζητούμενον ἢ ἀπορούμενον καὶ δοξαζόμενον
+ἐφ’ ὃ ἀνάξομεν.
+
+[1137] Diog. 33 (conf. 38, 104): περὶ τῶν ἀδήλων ἀπὸ τῶν φαινομένων χρὴ
+σημειοῦσθαι.
+
+[1138] See p. 422, 4. Steinhart, p. 466, goes too far in saying that
+Epicurus defied all law and rule in thought.
+
+[1139] Diog. 32: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐπίνοιαι πᾶσαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων γεγόνασι,
+κατά τε περίπτωσιν (probably: the coincidence of several sensations
+which must be distinguished from their σύνθεσις or free combination)
+καὶ ἀναλογίαν καὶ ὁμοιότητα καὶ σύνθεσιν, συμβαλλομένου τι καὶ τοῦ
+λογισμοῦ. Conf. p. 422, 4; 429, 1, and the corresponding doctrine of
+the Stoics, p. 80, with the teaching of Epicurus, on the genesis of
+thoughts from sensations.
+
+[1140] Diog. 33: καὶ τὸ δοξαστὸν ἀπὸ προτέρου τινὸς ἐναργοῦς ἤρτηται
+... τὴν δὲ δόξαν καὶ ὑπόληψιν λέγουσιν. ἀληθῆ τέ φασι καὶ ψευδῆ· ἂν μὲν
+γὰρ ἐπιμαρτυρῆται ἢ μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρῆται ἀληθῆ εἶναι· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ
+ἐπιμαρτυρῆται ἢ ἀντιμαρτυρῆται ψευδῆ τυγχάνειν. Sext. Math. vii. 211:
+τῶν δοξῶν κατὰ τὸν Ἐπίκουρον αἱ μὲν ἀληθεῖς εἰσιν αἱ δὲ ψευδεῖς·
+ἀληθεῖς μὲν αἵ τε ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι καὶ οὐκ ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι πρὸς τῆς
+ἐναργείας, ψευδεῖς δὲ αἵ τε ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι καὶ οὐκ ἐπιμαρτυρούμεναι
+πρὸς τῆς ἐναργείας. Ritter, iii. 486, observes that these statements
+are contradictory. According to Sextus, an opinion is only then true
+when it can be proved and not refuted; according to Diogenes, when it
+can be proved or not refuted. The latter is, however, clearly meant by
+Sextus, and is affirmed by Epicurus in Diog. 50 and 51.
+
+[1141] Epicur. in Diog. 50; Ibid. 33; Sext. vii. 212. The object of a
+future sensation is called by Diog. 38, τὸ προσμένον. Diog. x. 34,
+himself gives a perverted explanation of this term, which probably
+misled Steinhart, p. 466.
+
+[1142] Sext. l.c. 213.
+
+[1143] The two tests of truth, proof and absence of refutation, do not,
+therefore, as Sextus expressly says, refer to the same cases. Our
+assumptions in respect of external appearances must be proved, before
+they can be allowed to be true; our impressions of the secret causes of
+these appearances must not be refuted. The former test applies to
+opinions regarding τὸ προσμένον; the latter, to opinions regarding τὸ
+ἄδηλον. Diog. 38.
+
+[1144] Compare the passages in Sext. vii. 206, quoted p. 427, 1.
+
+[1145] Cic. Acad. ii. 14, 45: Nam qui voluit subvenire erroribus
+Epicurus iis, qui videntur conturbare veri cognitionem, dixitque
+sapientis esse opinionem a perspicuitate sejungere, nihil profecit,
+ipsius enim opinionis errorem nullo modo sustulit.
+
+[1146] Plut. Adv. Col. 7, 2 (Stob. Ecl. i. 366; Lucr. ii. 795): ὁ
+Ἐπίκουρος οὐκ εἶναι λέγων τὰ χρώματα συμφυῆ τοῖς σώμασιν, ἀλλὰ
+γεννᾶσθαι κατὰ ποιάς τινας τάξεις καὶ θέσεις πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν. For says
+Epicurus, οὐκ οἶδα ὅπως δεῖ τὰ ἐν σκότει ταῦτα ὄντα φῆσαι χρώματα
+ἔχειν. Often some see colour where others do not; οὐ μᾶλλον οὖν ἔχειν ἢ
+μὴ ἔχειν χρῶμα ῥηθήσεται τῶν σωμάτων ἕκαστον.
+
+[1147] Simpl. Categ. 109, β (Schol. in Arist. 92, a, 10): Since
+Democritus and Epicurus attribute all qualities, to atoms except those
+of form and mode of combination, ἐπιγίνεσθαι λέγουσι τὰς ἄλλας
+ποιότητας, τάς τε ἁπλᾶς, οἷον θερμότητας καὶ λειότητας, καὶ τὰς κατὰ
+χρώματα καὶ τοὺς χυμούς. Lucret. l.c.
+
+[1148] Compare the passages already quoted, on the truth of the
+impressions of the senses, and the words of Epicurus, in Diog. 68: ἀλλὰ
+μὴν καὶ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰ χρώματα καὶ τὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ βάρεα καὶ ὅσα
+ἄλλα κατηγορεῖται κατὰ τοῦ σώματος ὡς ἂν εἰς αὐτὸ βεβηκότα καὶ πᾶσιν
+ἐνόντα ἢ τοῖς ὁρατοῖς καὶ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν αὐτὴν γνωστοῖς, οὐθ’ ὡς
+καθ’ ἑαυτάς εἰσι φύσεις δοξαστέον (οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν ἐπινοῆσαι τοῦτο),
+οὔθ’ ὅλως ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶν, οὔθ’ ὡς ἕτερά τινα προσυπάρχοντα τούτῳ ἀσώματα
+οὔθ’ ὡς μορία τούτου, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ ὅλον σῶμα καθόλου μὲν ἐκ τούτων πάντων
+τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἔχον ἀΐδιον, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[1149] Epic. in Diog. 143: οὐκ ἦν τὸν φοβούμενον περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων
+λύειν μὴ κατειδότα τίς ἡ τοῦ σύμπαντος φύσις ἀλλ’ ὑποπτευόμενόν τι τῶν
+κατὰ τοὺς μύθους. ὥστε οὐκ ἦν ἄνευ φυσιολογίας ἀκεραίας τὰς ἡδονὰς
+ἀπολαμβάνειν. For further particulars, p. 422.
+
+[1150] οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἰδιολογίας καὶ κενῆς δόξης ὁ βίος ἡμῶν ἔχει χρείαν,
+ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀθορύβως ἡμᾶς ζῇν. Epic. in Diog. 87.
+
+[1151] Diog. 27, mentions 37 books of his περὶ φύσεως, besides smaller
+works.
+
+[1152] Epic. in Diog. 78: καὶ μὴν καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν κυριωτάτων αἰτίαν
+ἐξακριβῶσαι φυσιολογίας ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τὸ μακάριον ἐν τῇ
+περὶ τῶν μετεώρων γνώσει ἐνταῦθα πεπτωκέναι· καὶ ἐν τῷ, τίνες φύσεις αἱ
+θεωρούμεναι κατὰ τὰ μετέωρα ταυτὶ, καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ πρὸς τὴν εἰς ταῦτα
+ἀκρίβειαν· ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸ πλεοναχῶς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις εἶναι [evidently
+μὴ εἶναι must be read], καὶ τὸ εὐδεχομένως καὶ ἄλλως πως ἔχειν, ἀλλ’
+ἁπλῶς μὴ εἶναι ἐν ἀφθάρτῳ καὶ μακαρίᾳ φύσει τῶν διάκρισιν ὑποβαλλόντων
+ἢ τάραχον μηθέν· καὶ τοῦτο καταλαβεῖν τῇ διανοίᾳ ἔστιν ἁπλῶς οὕτως
+εἶναι. τὸ δ’ ἐν τῇ ἱστορίᾳ πεπτωκὸς τῆς δύσεως καὶ ἀνατολῆς καὶ τροπῆς
+καὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ τούτοις μηθὲν ἔτι πρὸς τὸ μακάριον τῆς
+γνώσεως συντείνειν (how very different from Aristotle! See Zeller,
+Philosophie der Griechen, ii. b, 113, 3; 114, 3; 359, 2), ἀλλ’ ὁμοίως
+τοὺς φόβους ἔχειν τοὺς ταῦτα κατιδόντας τίνες δὲ αἱ φύσεις ἀγνοοῦντας
+καὶ τίνες αἱ κυριώταται αἰτίαι, καὶ εἰ (as if) μὴ προσῄδεσαν ταῦτα,
+τάχα δὲ καὶ πλείους, ὅταν τὸ θάμβος ἐκ τῆς τούτων προκατανοήσεως μὴ
+δύνηται τὴν λύσιν λαμβάνειν κατὰ τὴν περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων οἰκονομίαν.
+(Conf. Lucr. vi. 50; v. 82.) διὸ δὴ καὶ πλείους αἰτίας εὑρίσκομεν
+τροπῶν, κ.τ.λ. καὶ οὐ δεῖ νομίζειν τὴν ὑπὲρ τούτων χρείαν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ
+ἀπειληφέναι ὅση πρὸς τὸ ἀτάραχον καὶ μακάριον ἡμῶν συντείνει, κ.τ.λ.
+Ibid. 104: καὶ κατ’ ἄλλους δὲ τρόπους πλείονας ἐνδέχεται κεραυνοὺς
+ἀποτελεῖσθαι. μόνον ὁ μῦθος ἀπέστω.
+
+[1153] Ibid. 87: πάντα μὲν οὖν γίνεται ἀσείστως κατὰ πάντων, κατὰ
+πλεοναχὸν τρόπον ἐκκαθαιρομένων συμφώνως τοῖς φαινομένοις, ὅταν τις τὸ
+πιθανολογούμενον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν δεόντως καταλίπῃ. ὅταν δέ τις τὸ μὲν
+ἀπολίπῃ, τὸ δὲ ἐκβάλῃ ὁμοίως σύμφωνον ὂν τῷ φαινομένῳ δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐκ
+παντὸς ἐκπίπτει φυσιολογήματος ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν μῦθον καταῤῥεῖ. Ibid. 98: οἱ
+δὲ τὸ ἓν λαμβάνοντες (those who allow only one explanation for every
+phenomenon) τοῖς τε φαινομένοις μάχονται καὶ τοῦ τί δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ
+θεωρῆσαι διαπεπτώκασιν. In investigating nature, they proceed on
+suppositions chosen at random (ἀξιώματα κενὰ καὶ νομοθεσίαι, Epic. l.c.
+86). Conf. 94; 104; 113. Lucret. vi. 703.
+
+[1154] Epic. in Diog. 88; 92–95. Many other similar instances might be
+quoted. In support of the view that the sun was extinguished at
+setting, Epicurus, according to Cleomed. Meteora, p. 89, is said to
+have appealed to the story (respecting which Posidonius in Strabo, iii.
+1, 5, p. 138) that, as it sets, the hissing of the ocean may be heard
+on the sea-shore.
+
+[1155] The principle is thus expanded by Lucret. i. 1021:—
+
+    Nam certe neque consilio primordia rerum
+    Ordine se suo quæque sagaci mente locarunt,
+    Nec quos quæque darent motuspepigere profecto;
+    Sed quia multa modis multis mutata per omne
+    Ex infinito vexantur percita plagis,
+    Omne genus motus et cœtus experiundo,
+    Tandem deveniunt in tales disposituras,
+    Qualibus hæc rebus consistit summa creata.
+
+v. 156:
+
+    Dicere porro hominum causa voluisse [scil. Deos] parare
+    Præclaram mundi naturam, &c.
+    Desipere est. Quid enim immortalibus atque beatis
+    Gratia nostra queat largirier emolumenti,
+    Ut nostra quidquam causa gerere adgrediantur?
+    Quidve novi potuit tanto post ante quietos
+    Inlicere, ut cuperent vitam mutare priorem?...
+    Exemplum porro gignundis rebus et ipsa
+    Notities hominum, Dis unde est insita primum; ...
+    Si non ipsa dedit specimen natura creandi?
+
+Conf. iv. 820; v. 78; 195; 419. In these views, he is only following
+Epicurus. Heavenly phenomena, says the latter, in Diog. 76, μήτε
+λειτουργοῦντός τινος νομίζειν δεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ διατάττοντος ἢ
+διατάξαντος καὶ ἅμα τὴν πᾶσαν μακαριότητα ἔχοντος μετ’ ἀφθαρσίας· οὐ
+γὰρ συμφωνοῦσι πραγματεῖαι καὶ φροντίδες καὶ ὀργαὶ καὶ χάριτες τῇ
+μακαριότητι, ἀλλ’ ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει τῶν πλησίον ταῦτα
+γίνεται. Ibid. 97: ἡ θεία φύσις πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῆ προσαγέσθω, ἀλλ’
+ἀλειτούργητος διατηρείσθω καὶ ἐν τῇ πάσῃ μακαριότητι. Ibid. 113. With
+these passages Cic. N. D. i. 20, 52, and Plut. Plac. i. 7, 7 (likewise
+ii. 3, 2; Stob. i. 442), are quite in agreement.
+
+[1156] Lucr. i. 440:—
+
+    Præterea per se quodcumque erit aut faciet quid
+    Aut aliis fungi [πάσχειν] debebit agentibus ipsum,
+    Aut erit, ut possint in eo res esse gerique.
+    At facere et fungi sine corpore nulla potest res,
+    Nec præbere locum porro nisi inane vacansque.
+    Ergo præter inane et corpora tertia per se
+    Nulla potest rerum in numero natura relinqui.
+
+Epic. in Diog. 67: καθ’ ἑαυτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι νοῆσαι τὸ ἀσώματον πλὴν ἐπὶ
+τοῦ κενοῦ. τὸ δὲ κενὸν οὔτε ποιῆσαι οὔτε παθεῖν δύναται, ἀλλὰ κίνησιν
+μόνον δι’ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς σώμασι παρέχεται. ὥσθ’ οἱ λέγοντες ἀσώματον εἶναι
+τὴν ψυχὴν ματαιάζουσιν. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἂν ἐδύνατο ποιεῖν οὔτε πάσχειν εἰ ἦν
+τοιαύτη.
+
+[1157] Diog. 68; 40. Lucr. i. 449, who expresses συμβεβηκότα by
+conjuncta, and συμπτώματα by eventa. Among the latter Lucretius, 459,
+reckons time, because in itself it is nothing, and only comes to our
+knowledge through motion and rest. Likewise Epicurus, in Diog. 72
+(conf. Stob. i. 252), shows that time is composed of days and nights,
+and their portions, of states of feeling or unconsciousness, of motion
+or rest, and hence that it is only a product (σύμπτωμα) of these
+phenomena; and these being again συμπτώματα, time is defined by the
+Epicurean Demetrius (Sext. Math. x. 219; Pyrrh. iii. 137): σύμπτωμα
+συμπτωμάτων παρεπόμενον ἡμέραις τε καὶ νυξὶ καὶ ὥραις καὶ πάθεσι καὶ
+ἀπαθείαις καὶ κινήσεσι καὶ μοναῖς. The distinction between abstract and
+sensuous or undivided time (Steinhart, l.c. 466) does not appear to
+exist in Diogenes. His χρόνοι διὰ λόγου θεωρητοὶ (Diog. 47) are
+imperceptibly small divisions of time, tempora multa, ratio quæ
+comperit esse, which, according to Lucret. iv. 792, are contained in
+every given time.
+
+[1158] Lucret. i. 358.
+
+[1159] Lucret. l.c. and i. 329; Diog. 40 and 67; Sext. Math. vii. 213;
+viii. 329. Most of the remarks in Lucret. i. 346 and 532 point to the
+same fundamental idea: Without vacant interstices, nourishment cannot
+be diffused over the whole bodies of plants or animals, nor can noise,
+cold, fire and water penetrate through solid bodies, or any body be
+broken up into parts. The same in Themist. 40, b; Simpl. De Cœlo,
+Schol. in Arist. 484, a, 26.
+
+[1160] Lucr. i. 440; Diog. 39; Plut. Adv. Col 11, 5.
+
+[1161] Body is defined by Epicurus (Sext. Math. i. 21; x. 240; 257; xi.
+226) as τὸ τριχῆ διαστατὸν μετὰ ἀντιτυπίας, or as σύνοδος κατὰ
+ἀθροισμὸν μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος καὶ ἀντιτυπίας καὶ βάρους. Emptiness is
+(according to Sext. x. 2) φύσις ἀναφὴς or ἔρημος παντὸς σώματος. When
+occupied by a body, it is called τόπος; when bodies pass through it, it
+is χώρα; so that all three expressions, as Stob. Ecl. i. 388 rightly
+observes, are only different names for the same thing. To the same
+effect is the statement in Plut. Plac. i. 20.
+
+[1162] Hence, in Diog. 69, ἄθροισμα and συμπεφορήμενον are used of
+bodies; in Diog. 71, all bodies are called συμπτώματα; and according to
+Epicurus (Sext. Math. x. 42), all changes in bodies are due to local
+displacement of the atoms. Plut. Amator. 24, 3, p. 769, observes that
+Epicurus deals with ἁφὴ and συμπλοκὴ, but never with ἑνότης.
+
+[1163] Epic. in Diog. 40: τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι συγκρίσεις τὰ δ’ ἐξ
+ὧν αἱ συγκρίσεις πεποίηνται· ταῦτα δέ ἐστιν ἄτομα καὶ ἀμετάβλητα εἴπερ
+μὴ μέλλει πάντα εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν φθαρήσεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἰσχύοντα ὑπομένειν ἐν
+ταῖς διαλύσεσι τῶν συγκρίσεων ... ὥστε τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀτόμους ἀναγκαῖον
+εἶναι σωμάτων φύσεις. Ibid. 56; Lucr. i. 147; ii. 551; 751; 790.
+Further arguments for the belief in atoms in Lucret. i. 498: Since a
+body and the space in which it is are entirely different, both must
+originally have existed without any intermingling. If things exist
+composed of the full and the empty, the full by itself must exist, and
+likewise the empty. Bodies in which there is no empty space cannot be
+divided. They may be eternal, and must be so, unless things have been
+produced out of nothing. Without empty space, soft bodies could not
+exist, nor hard bodies without something full. If there were no
+indivisible parts, everything must have been long since destroyed. The
+regularity of phenomena presupposes unchangeable primary elements. All
+that is composite must ultimately consist of simple indivisible parts.
+If there were no indivisible parts, every body would consist of
+innumerable parts, as many in the smaller as in the greater body (conf.
+Epic. in Diog. 56). If nature did not reduce things to their smallest
+parts, it could not make new things. These arguments, very unequal in
+value, were borrowed by Lucretius from Epicurus. Plut. in Eus. Pr. Ev.
+1, 8, 9, quotes, as an Epicurean principle, that unchangeable Being
+must be at the bottom of everything.
+
+[1164] Epicurus and Lucretius, l.c. Lucr. i. 529; Sext. Math. ix. 219;
+x. 318; Stob. Ecl. i. 306; Plut. Pl. Phil. i. 3, 29.
+
+[1165] Epic. in Diog. 41; Lucret. i. 528; Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol. in
+Arist. 484, a, 23.
+
+[1166] Diog. 44 and 55; Lucret. i. 266, where it is proved, by many
+analogies, that there may be invisible bodies; Stob. l.c.; Plut. l.c.;
+Simpl. Phys. 216, a.
+
+[1167] Diog. 44; 54; Lucr. ii. 736 and 841; Plut. l.c. See page 433, 2.
+
+[1168] Lucret. v. 235.
+
+[1169] Diog.; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 29. The statement there made, that
+Democritus only allowed to atoms size and shape, and that Epicurus
+added weight, is not correct.
+
+[1170] Diog. 42; Lucr. ii. 333 and 478; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 30 (where,
+however, it would be against the sense to substitute ἢ for μὴ as
+Steinhart l.c. p. 473 note 94 does); Alex. Aphr. in Philop. Gen. et
+Corr. 3, b; Cic. N. D. i. 24, 66. It does not, however, appear that
+Lucret. ii. 333, made the variety of figures as great as the number of
+atoms. (Ritter, iv. 101.)
+
+[1171] Lucret. i. 500.
+
+[1172] Diog. x. 55; Lucr. ii. 381.
+
+[1173] See the passages quoted, p. 442, 6, and 445, 5. The text of
+Stobæus, Ecl. i. 346, must be corrected by the aid of these passages.
+Plut. Plac. i. 12, 5.
+
+[1174] Epic. in Diog. 41: ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι· τὸ γὰρ
+πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει· τὸ δ’ ἄκρον παρ’ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται. ὥστε οὐκ
+ἔχον ἄκρον πέρας οὐκ ἔχει, πέρας δ’ οὐκ ἔχον ἄπειρον ἂν εἴη καὶ οὐ
+πεπερασμένον. The same argument is used by Lucret. i. 951; 1008–1020.
+He continues 984, 1021: If space were limited, all bodies would collect
+towards its lower part by reason of their weight, and their motion
+would cease. Unless the quantity of matter were unlimited, the amount
+lost by bodies in their mutual contact could not be supplied. Conf.
+also Plut. Adv. Col. 13, 3; in Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 9; Plac. i. 3, 28;
+Alex. in Simpl. Phys. 107, b, who mentions the above-quoted argument of
+Epicurus as the chief argument of the Epicureans.
+
+[1175] We have but little information; but it has been already shown p.
+433, 2, and follows too as a matter of course, that he referred all the
+properties of bodies to the shape and arrangement of the atoms.
+Whenever he found in the same body different qualities combined, he
+assumed that it was composed of different kinds of atoms. For instance,
+he asserted of wine: οὐκ εἶναι θερμὸν αὐτοτελῶς τὸν οἶνον, ἀλλ’ ἔχειν
+τινὰς ἀτόμους ἐν αὑτῷ θερμασίας ἀποτελεστικὰς, ἑτέρας δ’ αὖ ψυχρότητος.
+According to the difference of constitution, it has on some a cooling,
+on others a heating effect. Plut. Qu. Conviv. iii. 5, 1, 4; Adv. Col.
+6. This agrees with the remarks made on Democritus in vol. i. 597.
+
+[1176] Diog. 43; 47; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54. What idea Epicurus formed to
+himself of motion we are not told. We learn, however, from Themist.
+Phys. 52, b, that he replied to Aristotle’s proof of motion, that no
+constant quantities can be composed of indivisible particles (Phys. vi.
+1), by saying: Whatever moves in a given line moves in the whole line,
+but not in the individual indivisible portions of which the line
+consists. With reference to the same question, the Epicureans,
+according to Simpl. Phys. 219, b, asserted that everything moves
+equally quickly through indivisible spaces.
+
+[1177] Cic. Fin. i. 6, 18; Lucret. i. 1074.
+
+[1178] Lucr. ii. 1052 (the text being faulty); Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol.
+in Arist. 510, b, 30; 486, a, 7. The latter writer inaccurately groups
+Epicurus together with others (Democritus and Strato). The same point,
+according to Simpl. Phys. 113, b, was a subject of contention between
+Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Epicurean Zenobius, at the close of
+the second century after Christ.
+
+[1179] As Aristotle had already done.
+
+[1180] Diog. 60; conf. Plut. Def. Orac. 28, p. 425.
+
+[1181] Epic. in Diog. 43; 61; Lucr. ii. 225; Plut. C. Not. 43, i. p.
+1082. This objection was borrowed from Aristotle by Epicurus.
+
+[1182] Lucr. ii. 216; 261; Cic. Fin. i. 6, 18; N. D. i. 25, 69; De
+Fato, 10, 22; Plut. An. Procr. 6, 9, p. 1015; Solert. Anim. 7, 2, p.
+964; Plac. i. 12, 5; 23, 4; Stobæus, Ecl. i. 346, 394.
+
+[1183] Diog. 44; conf. 62; 90; Plut. Plac. i. 12, 5; Fac. Lun. 4, 5, p.
+921; Stob. i. 346; Lucret. v. 432.
+
+[1184] Diog. 73; Lucr. i. 1021. See above, p. 437, 1; Plut. Def. Or.
+19, p. 420.
+
+[1185] Cic. Fin. i. 6, 17. See p. 444, 3.
+
+[1186] Diog. 45; 73; Lucret. ii. 1048; Plut. Plac. ii. 1, 3. It need
+hardly be remarked that by worlds world-bodies are not meant. In Diog.
+88, Epicurus defines the world as a part of the heaven, surrounding the
+earth and stars, having a definite shape, and, towards other parts of
+the heaven, bounded.
+
+[1187] Diog. 45; 74; 88; Plut. Plac. ii. 2, 2; 7, 3; Stob. i. 490; Cic.
+N. D. ii. 18, 48; Acad. ii. 40, 125.
+
+[1188] Plut. in Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 9: Epicurus says, ὅτι οὐδὲν ξένον
+ἀποτελεῖται ἐν τῷ παντὶ παρὰ τὸν ἤδη γεγενημένον χρόνον ἄπειρον.
+
+[1189] Diog. 73; 89; Lucret. ii. 1105; v. 91 and 235, where the
+transitory character of the world is elaborately proved; Cic. Fin. i.
+6, 21. Stob. i. 418; Epicurus makes the world decay in the greatest
+variety of ways. Plut. Plac. ii. 4, 2.
+
+[1190] Diog. x. 89.
+
+[1191] v. 324, arguing that historical memory would otherwise go much
+further back, and arts and sciences be of much greater antiquity.
+
+[1192] On this point see Lucret. ii. 1112. The principle that similar
+elements naturally congregate is there explained in this way.
+
+[1193] Lucr. v. 416–508; Plut. Plac. i. 4. The latter view has been
+referred, in vol. i. 604, to the Atomists. It would now appear that it
+must be deduced from Epicureanism, and its agreement with the views
+attributed to Leucippus in other places explained by the well-known
+connection between Epicurus and Democritus. The views of Epicurus on
+the formation of the world do not entirely agree with those of
+Democritus. It was probably with an eye to Democritus (compare the
+extracts in vol. i. 608 from Orig. Philosoph. p. 17) that Epicurus, in
+Diog. 90, denied that the world could be increased from without, or
+that sun and moon could be possibly absorbed in our world. Lucret. ii.
+1105, however, supposes an increase of the world from without to be
+possible.
+
+[1194] On these mœnia mundi, which, according to Lucretius, coincide
+with the ether or fire-belt, see Epic. in Diog. 88; Id. περὶ φύσεως,
+xi. (Vol. Herc. ii.) col. 2; Plut. Plac. ii. 7, 3; Lucr. i. 73; ii.
+1144; v. 454.
+
+[1195] On this point see page 434.
+
+[1196] See p. 437, 1.
+
+[1197] In Diog. 77; 81; Lucret. v. 78 and 114, where the contrast is
+more fully brought out. By ζῷα οὐράνια, in Plut. Plac. v. 20, 2, we
+must by no means think of the stars.
+
+[1198] Examples have already been met with, p. 436. A complete review
+of the Epicurean astronomy is not worth our while. It may be studied in
+the following passages: For the substance of the stars, consult Plut.
+Plac. ii. 13, 9; for their rising and setting, Diog. 92; Lucr. v. 648;
+Cleomed. Met. p. 87; for their revolution and deviation, Diog. 92;
+112–114; Lucr. v. 509; 612; for the appearance of the moon, Diog. 94,
+and Lucr. v. 574, 703; for eclipses of sun and moon, Diog. 96; Lucr. v.
+749; for changes in the length of day, Diog. 98; Lucr. v. 678.
+
+[1199] Diog. 91; Cic. Acad. ii. 26, 82; Fin. i. 6, 20; Sen. Qu. Nat. i.
+3, 10; Cleomed. Met. ii. 1; Plut. Plac. ii. 21, 4; 22, 4; Lucr. v. 564.
+The body of the sun was considered by Epicurus (Plut. Plac. ii. 20, 9;
+Stob. i. 530) to consist of earth-like and spongy matter, saturated
+with fire. According to Lucret. v. 471, sun and moon stand midway
+between ether and earth in point of density.
+
+[1200] It is still more difficult to imagine the world as stationary,
+which is tacitly assumed. It would then be bounded by endless space,
+and soon come into collision with other masses.
+
+[1201] Lucr. v. 534. Conf. Epic. in Diog. 74, and περὶ φύσεως, xi. col.
+1. In the latter passage, Epicurus appeals to the fact that the earth
+is equidistant from the bounds of the world.
+
+[1202] Further particulars: on clouds, Diog. 99: Lucr. vi. 451; Plut.
+Plac. iii. 4, 3; on rain, Diog. 100; Lucret. vi. 495; on thunder, Diog.
+100; 103; Lucret. vi. 96; on lightning, Diog. 101; Lucr. vi. 160; on
+sirocco, Diog. 104; Lucr. vi. 423; Plac. iii. 3, 2; on earthquakes,
+Diog. 105; Lucr. vi. 535; Plac. iii. 15, 11; Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 20, 5;
+on winds, Diog. 106; on hail, Diog. 106; Plac. iii. 4, 3; on snow,
+thaw, ice, frost, Diog. 107–109; on the rainbow, Diog. 109; on the halo
+of the moon, Diog. 110; on comets, Diog. 111; on shooting-stars, Diog.
+114. Explanations are given by Lucretius of volcanoes (vi. 639), of the
+overflow of the Nile (vi. 712), of Lake Avernus (vi. 738–839), of the
+magnet (vi. 906–1087), of the reputed chilling of the springs in summer
+(vi. 840).
+
+[1203] Lucret. ii. 1157; v. 780. Otherwise, we learn that the
+Epicureans were as far as the Stoics from attributing to plants a soul.
+Plut. Plac. v. 26, 3.
+
+[1204] Lucr. ii. 1155; v. 787, giving further particulars as to the
+origin and maintenance of living beings, and the subsequent abatement
+of the productive powers of earth.
+
+[1205] Epic. in Diog. 74.
+
+[1206] Anaximander, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, and
+Democritus, all taught the procreation of living beings from earth.
+
+[1207] Lucr. v. 834–921.
+
+[1208] v. 922–1008. Conf. Plato, Polit. 274, B; Arist. Polit. ii. 8,
+1269, a, 4; Horace, Serm. i. 3, 99, appears to have had an eye to
+Lucretius.
+
+[1209] Lucr. v. 1009–1025.
+
+[1210] Epicurus, in Diog. 75, thus sums up his views on the origin of
+language: τὰ ὀνόματα ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὴ θέσει γενέσθαι, ἀλλ’ αὐτὰς τὰς φύσεις
+τῶν ἀνθρώπων καθ’ ἕκαστα ἔθνη ἴδια πασχούσας πάθη καὶ ἴδια λαμβανούσας
+φαντάσματα ἰδίως τὸν ἀέρα ἐκπέμπειν ... ὕστερον δὲ κοινῶς καθ’ ἕκαστα
+τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἴδια τεθῆναι πρὸς τὸ τὰς δηλώσεις ἧττον ἀμφιβόλους γενέσθαι
+ἀλλήλοις καὶ συντομωτέρως δηλουμένας. He who invents any new thing
+puts, at the same time, new words into circulation. Lucret. v.
+1026–1088, explains more fully that language is of natural origin. On
+the voice, Ibid. iv. 522; Plut. Plac. iv. 19, 2.
+
+[1211] Epic. in Diog. 75: ἀλλὰ μὴν ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων
+φύσιν πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτὴν περιεστώτων πραγμάτων διδαχθῆναί
+τε καὶ ἀναγκασθῆναι· τὸν δὲ λογισμὸν τὰ ὑπὸ ταύτης παρεγγυηθέντα καὶ
+ὕστερον ἐπακριβοῦν καὶ προσεξευρίσκειν, ἐν μέν τισι θᾶττον ἐν δέ τισι
+βραδύτερον.
+
+Lucr. v. 1450:—all arts
+
+    Usus et impigræ simul experientia mentis
+    Paulatim docuit.
+
+Ibid. 1103:—
+
+    Inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem
+    Commutare novis monstrabant rebu’ benigni
+    Ingenio qui præstabant et corde vigebant.
+
+In harmony with these premises, Lucretius then tries to explain various
+inventions. The first fire was obtained by lightning, or the friction
+of branches in a storm. The sun taught cooking (v. 1089). Forests on
+fire, melting brass, first taught men how to work in metal (v.
+1239–1294). Horses and elephants were used for help in war, after
+attempts had been previously made with oxen and wild beasts (v. 1295).
+Men first dressed themselves in skins; afterwards they wore twisted,
+and then woven materials (v. 1009; 1348; 1416). The first ideas of
+planting and agriculture were from the natural spread of plants (v.
+1359). The first music was in imitation of birds; the first musical
+instrument was the pipe, through which the wind was heard to whistle;
+from this natural music, artificial music only gradually grew (v.
+1377). The measure and arrangement of time was taught by the stars (v.
+1434); and, comparatively late, came the arts of poetry and writing (v.
+1438).
+
+[1212] Lucr. v. 1106.
+
+[1213] Lucr. iii. 161; Diog. 67. See p. 439, 1.
+
+[1214] Lucr. iii. 177; Diog. 63.
+
+[1215] Diog. 63: ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμά ἐστι λεπτομερὲς παρ’ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα (the
+body), παρεσπαρμένον· προσεμφερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν
+ἔχοντι. 66: ἐξ ἀτόμων αὐτὴν συγκεῖσθαι λειοτάτων καὶ στρογγυλοτάτων
+πολλῷ τινι διαφερουσῶν τῶν τοῦ πυρός.
+
+[1216] Lucr. iii. 231; 269; Plut. Plac. iv. 3, 5 (Stob. i. 798), conf.
+Alex. Aphr. De An. 127, b.
+
+[1217] Lucr. iii. 288.
+
+[1218] According to Plut. Plac. v. 3, 5, he considered the seed an
+ἀπόσπασμα ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος; and, since he believed in a feminine
+σπέρμα, he must have regarded the soul of the child as formed by the
+intermingling of the soul-atoms of both parents. Ibid. v. 16, 1.
+
+[1219] Diog. 63; Lucret. iii. 216; 276; 323; 370.
+
+[1220] Metrodor. περὶ αἰσθητῶν (Vol. Herc. vi.), col. 7.
+
+[1221] Lucr. iii. 98, contradicts the assertion that the soul is the
+harmony of the body; Epicurus having already replied (in Philop. De An.
+E. 1) to one of the objections urged against it by Plato.
+
+[1222] Diog. 66; Lucr. iii. 94; 136; 396; 612; Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 3.
+Lucretius calls the rational part animus or mens, and the irrational
+part anima. The statement, Pl. Phil. iv. 23, 2, that Epicurus made
+feeling reside in the organs of sense, because the ἡγεμονικὸν was
+feelingless, can hardly be correct.
+
+[1223] Diog. and Lucr. In sleep, a portion of the soul is supposed to
+leave the body (Lucr. iv. 913, conf. Tertull. De An. 43), whilst
+another part is forcibly confined within the body. Probably this is all
+that is meant by Diog. 66.
+
+[1224] Epic. in Diog. 64. Lucr. iii. 417–827, gives an elaborate proof
+of the mortality of the soul. Other passages, Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi,
+27, 1 and 3; 30, 5; Sext. Math. ix. 72, hardly need to be referred to.
+Observe the contrast between Epicureanism and Stoicism. In Stoicism,
+the soul keeps the body together; in Epicureanism, the body the soul.
+In Stoicism, the soul survives the body; in Epicureanism, this is
+impossible. In Stoicism, the mind is a power over the world, and hence
+over the body; in Epicureanism, it is on a level with the body, and
+dependent on it.
+
+[1225] Epic. in Diog. 124–127, for instance: τὸ φρικωδέστατον οὖν τῶν
+κακῶν ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· ἐπειδήπερ ὅταν μὲν ἡμεῖς ὦμεν ὁ
+θάνατος οὐ πάρεστιν· ὅταν δὲ ὁ θάνατος παρῇ τόθ’ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμεν. Id.
+in Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 229 (Alex. Aphr. Anal. Pri. 117, Top. 9. Gell. N.
+A. ii. 8, 1; Stob. Serm. 118, 30): ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμας· τὸ γὰρ
+διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ, τὸ δὲ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Lucr. iii.
+828–975.
+
+[1226] Lucr. iii. 830.
+
+[1227] Diog. 81; 142; Lucr. iii. 37.
+
+[1228] Lucr. ii. 991:—
+
+    Denique cœlesti sumus omnes semine oriundi, &c.
+
+999:—
+
+    Cedit item retro de terra quod fuit ante
+    In terras: et quod missum est ex ætheris oris
+    Id rursum cœli rellatum templa receptant.
+
+[1229] Democritus, from whom Epicurus has borrowed the rest of this
+theory, makes them mould the air.
+
+[1230] Epic. in Diog. 46–50; 52; and in the fragments of the second
+book περὶ φύσεως; Lucr. iv. 26–266; 722; vi. 921 Cic. Ad Famil. xv. 16;
+Plut. Qu. Conviv. viii. 10, 2, 2; Plac. iv. 3, 1; 19, 2; Sext. Math.
+vii. 206; Gell. N. A. v. 16; Macrob. Sat. vii. 14; the remarks of Lucr.
+iv. 267; 568; Plut. Plac. iv. 14, 2, on reflected images and the echo
+belong likewise to the doctrine of idola.
+
+[1231] For instance, the impressions in the minds of dreamers and
+madmen. Diog. 32; Lucr. iv. 730.
+
+[1232] Plut. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: εἰ δὲ χρὴ γελᾷν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ τὰ
+εἴδωλα γελαστέον τὰ κωφὰ καὶ τυφλὰ καὶ ἄψυχα, ἃ ποιμαίνουσιν [sc. οἱ
+Ἐπικούρειοι] ἀπλέτους ἐτῶν περιόδους ἐμφαινόμενα καὶ περινοστοῦντα
+πάντη τὰ μὲν ἔτι ζώντων τὰ δὲ πάλαι κατακαέντων ἢ κατασαπέντων
+ἀποῤῥυέντα.
+
+[1233] Lucr. l.c.
+
+[1234] Sext. l.c.; Lucr. iv. 351.
+
+[1235] Lucr. iv. 766–819; and on the incessant streaming forth of
+images, v. 141; Diog. 48.
+
+[1236] Epic. in Diog. x. 52: τὸ δὲ διημαρτημένον οὐκ ἂν ὑπῆρχεν, εἰ μὴ
+ἐλαμβάνομεν καὶ ἄλλην τινὰ κίνησιν ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς συνημμένην μὲν,
+διάληψιν [al. διάλειψιν] δʹ ἔχουσαν κατὰ δὲ ταύτην τὴν συνημμένην τῇ
+φανταστικῇ ἐπιβολῇ [impression on the senses], διάληψιν δ’ ἔχουσαν ἐὰν
+μὲν μὴ ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ τὸ ψεῦδος γίνεται, ἐὰν δὲ
+ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ τὸ ἀληθές.
+
+[1237] As to terminology, Epicurus, according to Plut. Plac. iv. 8, 2,
+Diog. 32, called the faculty of sensation αἴσθησις, and sensation
+itself, ἐπαίσθημα.
+
+[1238] Lucr. iv. 874; conf. Galen, De Hipp. et Plat. v. 2, vol. v. 367,
+K.
+
+[1239] Diog. 133: τὸ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς ἀδέσποτον· ᾧ καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ
+ἐναντίον παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκεν. ἐπεὶ κρεῖττον ἦν τῷ περὶ θεῶν μύθῳ
+κατακολουθεῖν ἢ τῇ τῶν φυσικῶν εἱμαρμένῃ δουλεύειν.
+
+[1240] Cic. N. D. i. 25, 70: [Epicurus] pertimuit, ne si concessum
+esset hujusmodi aliquid: aut vivet cras aut non vivet Epicurus,
+alterutrum fieret necessarium; totum hoc; aut etiam aut non negavit
+esse necessarium. Acad. ii. 30, 97; De Fat. 10, 21.
+
+[1241] Steinhart, p. 466.
+
+[1242] Cic. De Fato, 16, 37, at least says, referring to the above
+question: Nisi forte voluimus Epicureorum opinionem sequi, qui tales
+propositiones nec veras nec falsas esse dicunt, aut cum id pudet illud
+tamen dicunt, quod est impudentius, veras esse ex contrariis
+disjunctiones, sed quæ in his enuntiata essent eorum neutrum esse
+verum. Cicero indeed adds: O admirabilem licentiam et miserabilem
+inscientiam dicendi! but he has no reason for this exclamation; for the
+proposition: Either A or B must follow is not identical with the
+proposition: It may be stated either of A or of B that it will follow.
+Epicurus could, therefore, justly allow the former and deny the latter.
+In so doing he is really following Aristotle.
+
+[1243] Diog. x. 123: οἵους δ’ αὐτοὺς [τοὺς θεοὺς] οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν
+οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς οἵους νομίζουσιν. ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ
+τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺς ἀναιρῶν ἀλλ’ ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας θεοῖς
+προσάπτων. Conf. Cic. N. D. i. 16, 42.
+
+[1244] iii. 14; vi. 49; and, specially, the celebrated passage i. 62:—
+
+    Humana ante oculos fœde cum vita jaceret
+    In terris oppressa gravi sub relligione,
+    Quæ caput a cœli regionibus ostendebat
+    Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, &c.
+
+as far as to 101:—
+
+    Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum.
+
+Conf. Epic. in Diog. 81, and above p. 423, 3; 437, 1.
+
+[1245] Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 4: [Ἐπίκουρος] ἅπασαν ὁμοῦ ποιητικὴν
+ὥσπερ ὀλέθριον μύθων δέλεαρ ἀφοσιούμενος. Ibid. c. 75.
+
+[1246] Plut. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: Ἐπικουρείων δὲ χλευασμοὺς καὶ
+γέλωτας οὔτι φοβητέον οἷς τολμῶσι χρῆσθαι καὶ κατὰ τῆς προνοίας μῦθον
+αὐτὴν ἀποκαλοῦντες. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 2: διαβάλλοντες τὴν πρόνοιαν
+ὥσπερ παισὶν Ἔμπουσαν ἢ Ποινὴν ἀλιτηριώδη καὶ τραγικὴν ἐπιγεγραμμένην.
+In Cic. N. D. i. 8, 18, the Epicurean calls πρόνοια anus fatidica, to
+which it was often reduced, no doubt, by the Stoics.
+
+[1247] See p. 460, 1.
+
+[1248] Lucr. v. 196; ii. 1090; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 10. Conf. the
+disputation of the Stoic and Epicurean in Lucian, Jup. Trag. c. 35, and
+especially c. 46.
+
+[1249] Lucr. v. 165; conf. p. 437, 1; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 8.
+
+[1250] Diog. 76; 97; 113; see p. 437, 1; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 52; Plut.
+Plac. i. 7, 7.
+
+[1251] Cic. l.c. 54.
+
+[1252] Plut. Def. Orac. 19; Plac. i. 83.
+
+[1253] Conf. the captious argument of Hermarchus, in Procl. in Tim. 66,
+E: If prayer is necessary for everything, it is necessary for prayer,
+and so on, ad infin.
+
+[1254] Diog. 135; Lucr. v. 379; Plut. Plac. v. 1, 2; Cic. N. D. i. 20,
+55; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Tertull. De An. 46.
+
+[1255] Lucr. v. 1159–1238; conf. iv. 33; vi. 49; Sext. Math. ix. 25;
+vi. 19; Diog. 98; 115.
+
+[1256] This view is especially prominent in Lucretius. See p. 462, 2.
+Conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 10; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54.
+
+[1257] He drew up separate treatises περὶ θεῶν and περὶ ὁσιότητος.
+Diog. 27; Cic. N. D. i. 41, 115; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 11.
+
+[1258] Posidonius, in Cic. N. D. i. 44, 123; Conf. 30, 85; iii. 1, 3;
+Plut. l.c.
+
+[1259] Epic. in Diog. 123: θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσι· ἐναργὴς μὲν γάρ ἐστιν
+αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις. The Epicurean in Cic. N. D. i. 16, 43: Solus enim
+[Epicurus] vidit, primum esse Deos, quod in omnium animis eorum
+notionem impressisset ipsa natura. Quæ est enim gens aut quod genus
+hominum quod non habeat sine doctrina anticipationem quandam Deorum?
+quam appellat πρόληψιν Epicurus, &c. These statements must, however, be
+received with some caution, since Cicero appears to give up his own
+views as to innate ideas. Inasmuch, however, as he expressly refers to
+Epicurus’ treatise περὶ κανόνος, we may assume that belief in Gods with
+Epicurus rests on a general πρόληψις.
+
+[1260] In support of this view, see Cic. N. D. i. 18, 46. It is there
+said of the form of the Gods: A natura habemus omnes omnium gentium
+speciem nullam aliam nisi humanam Deorum. Quæ enim alia forma occurrit
+umquam aut vigilanti cuiquam aut dormienti? φυσικὴ πρόληψις is here
+referred to sensations derived from εἴδωλα. Ibid. 19, 49; and Lucr. vi.
+76:
+
+    de corpore quæ sancto simulacra feruntur
+    In mentis hominum divinæ nuntia formæ.
+
+[1261] Diog. 121. Cic. N. D. i. 17, 45: Si nihil aliud quæreremus, nisi
+ut Deos pie coleremus et ut superstitione liberaremur, satis erat
+dictum: nam et præstans Deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et
+æterna esset et beatissima ... et metus omnis a vi atque ira Deorum
+pulsus esset. Ibid. 20, 56: We do not fear the Gods, et pie sancteque
+colimus naturam excellentem atque præstantem. Ibid. 41, 115. Sen.
+Benef. iv. 19, 3: Epicurus denied all connection of God with the world,
+but, at the same time, would have him honoured as a father, propter
+majestatem ejus eximiam singularemque naturam.
+
+[1262] Cic. N. D. i. 18, 46; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 218;
+Plut. Pl. Phil. i. 7, 18 (Stob. i. 66); Phædr. (Philodem.) Fragm. col.
+7; Metrodorus, περὶ αἰσθητῶν (Vol. Herc. vi.), col. 10; col. 16, 21.
+
+[1263] Cic. N. D. i. 34, 95.
+
+[1264] Epic. in Diog. 123: πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ
+μακάριον νομίζων ... μηδὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς
+μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε, κ.τ.λ. Ibid. 139. Cic. N. D. i.
+17, 45; 19, 51; Lucr. ii. 646; v. 165.
+
+[1265] Cic. N. D. ii. 23, 59; i. 18, 49; 25, 71; 26, 74; Divin. ii. 17,
+40; Lucr. v. 148; Metrodor. περὶ αἰσθητῶν, col. 7; Plut. l.c. Epicurus
+has, as Cicero remarks, monogrammos Deos; his Gods have only quasi
+corpus and quasi sanguinem. They are perlucidi and perflabiles, or,
+according to Lucretius, tenues, so that they cannot be touched, and are
+indestructible.
+
+[1266] Cic. Divin. ii. 17, 40; Lucr. ii. 646; iii. 18; v. 146; Sen.
+Benef. iv. 19, 2.
+
+[1267] Epic. in Diog. 77; 97; 139; Cic. N. D. i. 19, 51 (amongst other
+things: nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium
+vacatione munerum ponimus, both of which features must therefore be
+attributed to the Gods); Legg. i. 7, 21; Lucr. ii. 646; iii. 1092; iv.
+83; vi. 57; Sen. Benef. iv. 4, 1; 19, 2. Conf. p. 436; 464, 1; 466, 1.
+
+[1268] In the fragments of his treatise περὶ τῆς τῶν θεῶν εὐστοχουμένης
+διαγωγῆς, κατὰ Ζήνωνα, col. 12.
+
+[1269] The κλίσια discussed by Hermarchus and Pythocles, col. 13, 20,
+had reference to these, and not to ordinary feasts.
+
+[1270] Col. 14: The reason being assigned that λέγονται μὴ πολὺ
+διαφερούσαις κατὰ τὰς ἀρθρώσεις χρῆσθαι φωναῖς, καὶ μόνον οἴδαμεν
+γεγονότας θεοὺς Ἑλληνίδι γλώττῃ χρωμένους. The first statement seems to
+refer to the words of the divine language quoted by Homer; the second
+statement, to stories of appearances of the Gods. For the whole tone of
+the system militates against our thinking of men who have afterwards
+become Gods. The sceptical question, Whether the Gods possess speech?
+raised by Carneades in Sext. Math. ix. 178, appears to refer to this
+μυθολογία Ἐπικούρου.
+
+[1271] Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54; Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 1.
+
+[1272] Philodem. De Mus. iv. (V. Herc. i.) col. 4, says that the Gods
+do not need this worship, but it is natural for us to show it: μάλιστα
+μὲν ὁσίαις προλήψεσιν, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὸ πάτριον
+παραδεδομένοις ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος.
+
+[1273] Cic. l.c. i. 19, 50, the sentence, et si quæ interimant,
+belonging, however, to Cicero only. For Epicurus cannot have described
+his ease-taking Gods as sustainers of the universe.
+
+[1274] Cic. N. D. i. 19, 49: (Epicurus) docet eam esse vim et naturam
+Deorum ut primum non sensu sed mente cernatur: nec soliditate quadam
+nec ad numerum, ut ea, quæ ille propter firmitatem στερέμνια appellat,
+sed imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis: cum infinita
+simillimarum imaginum species ex innumerabilibus individuis exsistat et
+ad Deos (probably instead of Deos, which gives no sense, we should read
+nos. See the commentators in the editions of Moser and Kreuzer)
+affluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam
+infixamque nostram intelligentiam capere quæ sit et beata natura et
+æterna. The meaning of these words appears to be, that ideas of the
+Gods are not formed in the same way as the ideas of other solid bodies,
+by a number of similar pictures from the same object striking our
+senses (nec soliditate nec ad numerum, Diog. x. 95), but by single
+pictures emanating from innumerable divine individuals, all so much
+alike that they leave behind them the impressions of perfect happiness
+and immortality. The passage of Diog. x. 139, ought probably to be
+corrected by that in Cicero. It runs: ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι, τοὺς θεοὺς
+λόγῳ θεωρητοὺς εἶναι· οὓς μὲν κατ’ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ κατὰ
+ὁμοειδίαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιῤῥύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ
+ἀποτετελεσμένους ἀνθρωποειδῶς. The similarity of most of the
+expressions leaves no doubt that Diogenes followed the same authority
+as Cicero (probably the same as Plut. Plac. i. 7, 18 followed), but in
+the words οὓς μὲν κ.τ.λ., it asserts the very opposite of this and the
+Epicurean teaching. There must, therefore, be some error here, either
+due to Diogenes or a copyist. This error does not apparently belong to
+the words κατ’ ἀριθμὸν, which Cicero renders ad numerum, so that
+Steinhart’s suggestion, p. 477, καθ’ ἁρμὸν or καθ’ ἁρμοὺς, is clearly
+wrong. It is more probably to be found in the words οὓς μὲν—οὓς δὲ. We
+might suggest for οὓς μὲν, οὐ μέντοι.
+
+[1275] In Phædrus (Philodem. περὶ εὐσεβείας), Fragm. col. 7 (10) it is
+said in answer to the Stoics: ἐπιδεικνύσθωσαν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἕνα μόνον
+[θεὸν] ἅπαντα λέγοντες οὐδὲ πάντας ὅσους ἡ κοινὴ φήμη παρέδωκεν, ἡμῶν
+οὐ μόνον ὅσους φασὶν οἱ Πανέλληνες ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείονας εἶναι λεγόντων
+ἔπειθ’ ὅτι τοιούτους οὐδὲ μεμήκασιν ἀπολείπειν, οἵους σέβονται πάντες
+καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν. ἀνθρωποειδεῖς γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι οὐ νομίζουσιν ἀλλὰ
+ἀέρα καὶ πνεύματα καὶ αἰθέρα, ὥστ’ ἔγωγε καὶ τεθαῤῥηκότως εἴπαιμι
+τούτους Διαγόρου μᾶλλον πλημμελεῖν. It is then shown how little the
+natural substances of the Stoics resemble Gods (col. 9): τὰ θεῖα
+τοιαῦτα καταλείπουσιν ἃ καὶ γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτὰ φαίνεται, τοῖς δὲ πᾶσιν
+ἡμεῖς ἀκολούθως ἀϊδίους κἀφθάρτους εἶναι δογματίζομεν. Here we have a
+phenomenon witnessed in modern times, Deists and Pantheists mutually
+accusing one another of atheism, the former missing personality, the
+latter missing activity in the deity of their opponents.
+
+[1276] See p. 469, 1.
+
+[1277] Lucr. ii. 598, explains the Mother of the Gods as meaning the
+earth. ii. 655, he allows the expressions, Neptune, Ceres, Bacchus, for
+the sea, corn, and wine. iii. 976, he interprets the pains of the
+nether-world as the qualms now brought on by superstition and folly.
+
+[1278] Epic. in Diog. 128: τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι τοῦ
+μακαρίως ζῇν ... πρῶτον ἀγαθὸν τοῦτο καὶ σύμφυτον ... πᾶσα οὖν ἡδονὴ
+... ἀγαθόν.... καθάπερ καὶ ἀλγηδὼν πᾶσα κακόν. Ibid. 141. Cic. Fin. i.
+9, 29; Tusc. v. 26, 73: Cum præsertim omne malum dolore definiat, bonum
+voluptate.
+
+[1279] Diog. 129: ταύτην γὰρ ἀγαθὸν πρῶτον καὶ συγγενικὸν ἔγνωμεν καὶ
+ἀπὸ ταύτης καταρχόμεθα πάσης αἱρέσεως καὶ φευγῆς καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτην
+καταντῶμεν ὡς κανόνι τῷ πάθει τὸ ἀγαθὸν κρίνοντες. Plut. Adv. Col. 27,
+1.
+
+[1280] Diog. 137; Cic. Fin. i. 7, 23; 9, 30; ii. 10, 31; Sext. Pyrrh.
+iii. 194; Math. xi. 96.
+
+[1281] Stob. Ecl. ii. 58: τοῦτο δ’ [the τέλος] οἱ κατ’ Ἐπίκουρον
+φιλοσοφοῦντες οὐ προσδέχονται λέγειν ἐνεργούμενον, διὰ τὸ παθητικὸν
+ὑποτίθεσθαι τὸ τέλος, οὐ πρακτικόν· ἡδονὴ γάρ· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν ἔννοιαν
+ἀποδιδόασι τοῦ τέλους, τὸ οἰκείως διατεθεῖσθαι ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν
+χωρὶς τῆς ἐπ’ ἄλλο τε ἁπάσης ἐπιβολῆς. Alex. Aphr. De An. 154, a: τοῖς
+δὲ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον ἡδονὴ τὸ πρῶτον οἰκεῖον ἔδοξεν εἶναι ἁπλῶς· προϊόντων
+δὲ διαρθροῦσθαι ταύτην τὴν ἡδονήν φασι.
+
+[1282] Diog. 129; Cic. Fin. i. 14, 48; Tusc. v. 33, 95; Sen. De Otio,
+7, 3.
+
+[1283] Epic. in Diog. 139 (Gell. N. A. ii. 9, 2): ὅρος τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν
+ἡδονῶν ἡ παντὸς τοῦ ἀλγοῦντος ὑπεξαίρεσις. Id. in Diog. 128: τούτων γὰρ
+[τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν] ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπαναγαγεῖν
+οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν. ἐπεὶ
+τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῇν ἐστι τέλος. τούτου γὰρ χάριν ἅπαντα πράττομεν
+ὅπως μήτε ἀλγῶμεν μήτε ταρβῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ ἅπαξ τοῦτο περὶ ἡμᾶς γένηται
+λύεται πᾶς ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χειμὼν οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ ζῴου βαδίζειν ὡς πρὸς
+ἐνδέον τι ... τότε γὰρ ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι
+τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα. Ibid.
+131; 144; conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 3, 10; Stob. Serm. 17, 35;
+Lucr. ii. 14; Cic. Fin. i. 11, 37.
+
+[1284] Epicurus and Metrodorus, in Plut. l.c. 7, 1.
+
+[1285] Diog. 136, quotes the words of Epicurus: ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ
+ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναὶ, ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ
+κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται. Ritter, iii. 469, suggests instead of
+ἐνεργείᾳ ἐναργείᾳ, but ἐνεργείᾳ gives a very fair meaning: they appear
+actually in motion. Sen. Ep. 66, 45: Apud Epicurum duo bona sunt, ex
+quibus summum illud beatumque componitur, ut corpus sine dolore sit,
+animus sine perturbatione.
+
+[1286] Hence Sen. Brevit. Vit. 14, 2: Cum Epicuro quiescere. Benef. iv.
+4, 1: Quæ maxima Epicuro felicitas videtur, nihil agit.
+
+[1287] Diog. 131. Similar views are expressed by Metrodorus, in
+Clement, Strom. v. 614, B, in praise of philosophers who escape all
+evils by rising to the contemplation of the eternal καθαροὶ καὶ
+ἀσήμαντοι τούτου, ὃ νῦν σῶμα περιφέροντες ὀνομάζομεν. Id. in Plut. Adv.
+Col. 17, 4: ποιήσωμέν τι καλὸν ἐπὶ καλοῖς, μόνον οὐ καταδύντες ταῖς
+ὁμοιοπαθείαις καὶ ἀπαλλαγέντες ἐκ τοῦ χαμαὶ βίου εἰς τὰ Ἐπικούρου ὡς
+ἀληθῶς θεόφαντα ὄργια.
+
+[1288] Epic. in Diog. 122: μήτε νέος τις ὢν μελλέτω φιλοσοφεῖν μήτε
+γέρων ὑπάρχων κοπιάτω φιλοσοφῶν. οὔτε γὰρ ἄωρος οὐδείς ἐστιν οὔτε
+πάρωρος πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν ὑγιαῖνον. He who says it is too early or too
+late to study philosophy means πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μήπω παρεῖναι τὴν
+ὥραν ἢ μηκέτι εἶναι. Id. in Sen. Ep. 8, 7: Philosophiæ servias oportet,
+ut tibi contingat vera libertas.
+
+[1289] Epic. in Diog. 127: τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ αἱ δὲ
+κεναί· καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον. τῶν δὲ
+ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ
+σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῇν. Ibid. 149, further
+particulars are given as to the classes. Ibid. 144; Lucr. ii. 20; Cic.
+Fin. i. 13, 45; Tusc. v. 33, 94; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 3, 10;
+Eustrat. Eth. N. 48, b; Sen. Vit. Be. 13, 1.
+
+[1290] Sen. Benef. iii. 4, 1: Epicuro ... qui adsidue queritur, quod
+adversus præterita simus ingrati. Epic. in Sen. Ep. 15, 10: Stulta vita
+ingrata est et trepida, tota in futurum fertur; and Lucr. iii. 929.
+
+[1291] Diog. 11; 130; 144; 146; Stob. Floril. 17; 23; 30; 34; Sen. Ep.
+2, 5; 16, 7; 25, 4.
+
+[1292] Diog. 144: βραχεῖα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ
+κυριώτατα ὁ λογισμὸς διῴκηκε. The like in Stob. Ecl. ii. 354; Cic. Fin.
+i. 19, 63; Sen. De Const. 15, 4; Epicurus and Metrodorus in Cic. Tusc.
+v. 9, 26, and Plut. Aud. Po. 14, p. 37.
+
+[1293] Diog. 135: κρεῖττον εἶναι νομίζων εὐλογίστως ἀτυχεῖν ἢ ἀλογίστως
+εὐτυχεῖν.
+
+[1294] Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 20, 4.
+
+[1295] Diog. 118; Plut. l.c. 3, 9; Sen. Ep. 66, 18; 67, 15; Cic. Tusc.
+v. 26, 73.
+
+[1296] Diog. 22; Cic. Fin. ii. 30, 96; Tusc. ii. 7, 17; M. Aurel. ix.
+41; Sen. Ep. 66, 47; 92, 25; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 18, 1, the latter
+perverting Epicurus’ words to a terrible extent.
+
+[1297] Diog. 137: ἔτι πρὸς τοὺς Κυρηναϊκοὺς διαφέρεται. οἱ μὲν γὰρ
+χείρους τὰς σωματικὰς ἀλγηδόνας λέγουσι τῶν ψυχικῶν ... ὁ δὲ τὰς
+ψυχικάς. τὴν γοῦν σάρκα διὰ τὸ παρὸν μόνον χειμάζειν, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν καὶ
+διὰ τὸ παρελθὸν καὶ τὸ παρὸν καὶ τὸ μέλλον. οὕτως οὖν καὶ μείζονας
+ἡδονὰς εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς. Further particulars in Plut. l.c. 3, 10: Cic.
+Tusc. v. 33, 96. The Epicureans spoke of bodily pleasure by ἥδεσθαι,
+mental by χαίρειν. Plut. l.c. 5, 1.
+
+[1298] Diog. 145. Epicurus appears to have first used σὰρξ to express
+the body in contrast to the soul: σῶμα, in his system, includes the
+soul. See Diog. 137; 140; 144; Metrodor. in Plut. Colot. 31, 2. (Plut.
+in N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Plut. has γαστρὶ instead of σαρκί.)
+
+[1299] Diog. x. 6, from Epicurus περὶ τέλους: οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω
+τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονὰς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ τὰς δι’
+ἀφροδισίων καὶ τὰς δι’ ἀκροαμάτων καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφᾶς (-ῆς). The like,
+in a more expanded form, in Cic. Tusc. iii. 18, 41.
+
+[1300] Plut. l.c. 16, 9: ὡς καὶ ἐχάρην καὶ ἐθρασυνάμην ὅτε ἔμαθον παρ’
+Ἐπικούρου ὀρθῶς γαστρὶ (see previous note) χαρίζεσθαι; and: περὶ
+γαστέρα γὰρ, ὦ φυσιολόγε Τιμόκρατες, τὸ ἀγαθόν. Conf. ibid. 3, 1.
+
+[1301] See p. 478, 1, and Epic. in Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 4, 10: τὸ γὰρ
+εὐσταθὲς σαρκὸς κατάστημα καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν ἔλπισμα τὴν
+ἀκροτάτην χαρὰν καὶ βεβαιοτάτην ἔχει τοῖς ἐπιλογίζεσθαι δυναμένοις.
+Ibid. 5, 1: τὸ μὲν ἡδόμενον τῆς σαρκὸς τῷ χαίροντι τῆς ψυχῆς
+ὑπερείδοντες, αὖθις δ’ ἐκ τοῦ χαίροντος εἰς τὸ ἡδόμενον τῇ ἐλπίδι
+τελευτῶντας.
+
+[1302] Conf., besides the extracts on p. 478, 1 and 2, Cic. Fin. i. 17,
+55: Animi autem voluptates et dolores nasci fatemur e corporis
+voluptatibus et doloribus; it is only a misapprehension on the part of
+several Epicureans to deny this fact. Mental pleasures and pains may
+therefore be the stronger ones for the reasons assigned above.
+
+[1303] In his last letter (Diog. 22), after describing his painful
+illness, Epicurus continues: ἀντιπαρετάττετο δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις τὸ κατὰ
+ψυχὴν χαῖρον ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν γεγονότων ἡμῖν διαλογισμῶν μνήμῃ.
+
+[1304] Diog. 142; Cic. Fin. ii. 7, 21.
+
+[1305] Diog. 140; 133; Cic. Fin. i. 15, 49; Plut. Aud. Po. 14, p. 36;
+M. Aurel. vii. 33, 64.
+
+[1306] Diog. 140: οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῇν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ
+δικαίως, οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ δικαίως ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως. The same p. 132,
+138. Cic. Tusc. v. 9, 26; Fin. i. 16, 50; 19, 62; Sen. Ep. 85, 18.
+
+[1307] Sen. Vit. Be. 13, 1 (conf. 12, 4): In ea quidem ipse sententia
+sum (invitis nec nostris popularibus—the Stoics—dicam), sancta Epicurum
+et recta præcipere, et si propius accesseris tristia: voluptas enim
+illa ad parvum et exile revocatur, et quam nos virtuti legem dicimus
+eam ille dicit voluptati ... itaque non dico, quod plerique nostrorum,
+sectam Epicuri flagitiorum magistram esse, sed illud dico: male audit,
+infamis est, et immerito. Ep. 33, 2: Apud me vero Epicurus est et
+fortis, licet manuleatus sit. Seneca not infrequently quotes sayings of
+Epicurus, and calls (Ep. 6, 6) Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyænus,
+magnos viros. Conf. Cic. Fin. ii. 25, 81.
+
+[1308] Epic. in Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 3: ἐγὼ δ’ ἐφ’ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς
+παρακαλῶ, καὶ οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀρετὰς, κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας
+τῶν κάρπων τὰς ἐλπίδας.
+
+[1309] Diog. 138: διὰ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς δεῖν αἱρεῖσθαι οὐ
+δι’ αὑτάς· ὥσπερ τὴν ἰατρικὴν διὰ τὴν ὑγίειαν, καθά φησι καὶ Διογένης.
+Cic. Fin. i. 13, 42 (conf. ad Att. vii. 2): Istæ enim vestræ eximiæ
+pulchræque virtutes nisi voluptatem efficerent, quis eas aut laudabiles
+aut expetendas arbitraretur? ut enim medicorum scientiam non ipsius
+artis sed bonæ valetudinis causa probamus, &c. ...; sic sapientia, quæ
+ars vivendi putanda est, non expeteretur si nihil efficeret; nunc
+expetitur quod est tanquam artifex conquirendæ et comparandæ
+voluptatis. Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, b: [ἡ ἀρετὴ] περὶ τὴν ἐκλογήν ἐστι
+τῶν ἡδέων κατ’ Ἐπίκουρον.
+
+[1310] Sen. Ep. 85, 18: Epicurus quoque judicat, cum virtutem habeat
+beatum esse, sed ipsam virtutem non satis esse ad beatam vitam, quia
+beatum efficiat voluptas quæ ex virtute est, non ipsa virtus.
+
+[1311] Diog. 132; Cic. Fin. i. 13, 43; 19, 62.
+
+[1312] Cic. Fin. i. 13, 47.
+
+[1313] Cic. l.c. 13, 49. Diog. 120: τὴν δὲ ἀνδρείαν φύσει μὴ γίνεσθαι,
+λογισμῷ δὲ τοῦ συμφέροντος.
+
+[1314] Cic. Fin. i. 16, 50; Diog. 144; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 6, 1;
+Sen. Ep. 97, 13 and 15. Lucr. v. 1152: The criminal can never rest, and
+often in delirium or sleep betrays himself. Epicurus, however, refused
+to answer the question, Whether the wise man would do what is
+forbidden, if he could be certain of not being discovered? Plut. col.
+34, 1.
+
+[1315] Philodemus, De Rhet. Vol. Herc. v. a, col. 25: The laws ought to
+be kept τῷ μὴ τὰ διωρισμένα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τὴν ὁμοείδειαν αὐτοῖς
+ἔχοντα διαφυλάττειν, κἀκεῖνα μὴ μόνον συνειδότων, ἀλλὰ κἂν λανθάνωμεν
+ἀπαξάπαντας, καὶ μεθ’ ἡδονῆς, οὐ δι’ ἀνάγκην, καὶ βεβαίως, ἀλλ’ οὐ
+σαλευομένως.
+
+[1316] Diog. 117; 118; 119.
+
+[1317] Plut. Adv. Col. 19, 2.
+
+[1318] Diog. 118; Sen. Ep. 81, 11. The Stoic assertion of the equality
+of virtues and vices was, however, denied by the Epicureans. Diog. 120.
+
+[1319] Diog. 135; conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 7, 3; Lucr. iii. 323.
+
+[1320] Cic. Fin. i. 19, 61; v. 27 80: Semper beatum esse sapientem.
+Tusc. v. 9, 26; Stob. Serm. 17, 30. See p. 477.
+
+[1321] Diog. 117.
+
+[1322] Diog. 117: τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφὸν μηκέτι τὴν ἐναντίαν
+λαμβάνειν διάθεσιν μήδ’ ἐπαλλάττειν ἑκόντα. The latter words appear to
+admit the possibility of an involuntary loss of wisdom, perhaps through
+madness.
+
+[1323] Diog. 126; 145; Cic. Fin. i. 19, 63.
+
+[1324] See also page 476, 2.
+
+[1325] We gather this from the fragments of Philodemus’ treatise περὶ
+κακιῶν καὶ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἀγαθῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν οἷς εἰσὶ καὶ περὶ ἅ. The
+10th book of this treatise gives a portrait of the ὑπερήφανος, and
+kindred faults, after the manner of Theophrastus; the 9th, a mild
+criticism of Xenophon’s and Aristotle’s οἰκονομικός. It is objected to
+the latter that the master of the house is there made (col. ii. 30) to
+rise earlier than his servants, and to go to bed later than they do,
+such conduct being ταλαίπωρον καὶ ἀνοίκειον φιλοσόφου.
+
+[1326] Diog. 144; 146; 130; Stob. Floril. 17, 23; Sen. Ep. 16, 7; Lucr.
+ii. 20; iii. 59; v. 1115; Philod. De Vit. ix. col. 12: φιλοσόφῳ δ’ ἐστὶ
+πλούτου μικρόν· ὃ παρεδώκαμεν ἀκολούθως [for thus and not by εὐκαίρως
+must the defective -ως be represented] τοῖς καθηγεμόσιν ἐν τοῖς περὶ
+πλούτου λόγοις. Conf. p. 476, 3; 477.
+
+[1327] Diog. 130.
+
+[1328] Stob. Floril. 17, 24 and 37; Sen. Ep. 21, 7; 14, 17; 2, 5:
+Honesta, inquit, res est læta paupertas. Ep. 17, 11: Multis parasse
+divitias non finis miseriarum fuit, sed mutatio.
+
+[1329] Stob. Flor. 17, 30. Conf. Sen. Ep. 9, 20: Si cui sua non
+videntur amplissima, licet totius mundi dominus sit tamen miser est.
+
+[1330] Diog. 11; Stob. Floril. 17, 34; Cic. Tusc. v. 31, 89; Sen. Ep.
+25, 4. Epicurus lived very abstemiously. The charge of luxury brought
+against him was fully disposed of by Gassendi, De Vit. et Mor. Epic.
+153. Timocrates, on the strength of one of his letters, asserts that he
+spent a mina every day on his table. If this statement be not a pure
+invention, it must refer to the whole circle of his friends. It could
+otherwise only have happened at such a time as the siege of Athens by
+Demetrius Poliorcetes, when a modius of wheat cost 300 drachmæ, and
+when Epicurus counted out to his friends the beans on which they lived.
+Plut. Demetr. 33. The further statement of Timocrates—(Diog. 6: αὐτὸν
+δὶς τῆς ἡμέρας ἐμεῖν ἀπὸ τρυφῆς)—is certainly an unfounded calumny. The
+moderation of Epicurus is admitted by Sen. Vit. B. 12, 4; 13, 1; and
+Epicurus flatters himself, in Sen. Ep. 18, 9: Non toto asse pasci,
+Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto; and, in Diog. 11,
+because he was satisfied with bread and water. Ibid. he writes: πέμψον
+μοι τυροῦ Κυθνίου, ἵν’ ὅταν βούλωμαι πολυτελεύσασθαι, δύνωμαι. Still
+less have we any reason to connect the diseases of which Epicurus and
+some of his scholars died (as Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 5, 3 does, herein
+following Timocrates in Diog. 7) with their presumed luxuriousness.
+
+[1331] Stob. Floril. 17, 30. See p. 477, 2.
+
+[1332] Epicurus and Metrodorus, in Stob. Floril. 16, 28; 20, Conf.
+Plut. Tran. An. 16, p. 474: ὁ τῆς αὔριον ἥκιστα δεόμενος, ὥς φησιν
+Ἐπίκουρος, ἥδιστα πρόσεισι πρὸς τὴν αὔριον.
+
+[1333] Serious charges on this head, against which Gassendi defends
+him, are preferred against Epicurus by Timocrates, in Diog. 6; but
+neither the testimony of Timocrates, nor the fact that a woman of loose
+morality (see above p. 406) was in his society, can be considered
+conclusive. Chrysippus in Stob. Floril. 63, 31, calls Epicurus
+ἀναίσθητος. Epicurus is, however, far below our standard of morality.
+Thus, in the quotation on p. 479, 1, he reckons ἡδοναὶ δι’ ἀφροδισίων
+among the necessary ingredients of the good. By Eustrat. in Eth. N. 48,
+such pleasures are included among φυσικαὶ (see p. 476, 3), not among
+ἡδοναὶ ἀναγκαῖαι. They are treated in the same light by Lucr. v. 1050;
+and Plut. Qu. Conviv. iii. 6, 1, 1, not only discusses the most
+suitable time for the enjoyment of love, but quotes as the words of
+Epicurus: εἰ γέρων ὁ σοφὸς ὢν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος πλησιάζειν ἔτι ταῖς τῶν
+καλῶν ἁφαῖς χαίρει καὶ ψηλαφήσεσιν (N. P. Suav. V. 12, 3). These
+enjoyments, according to Epicurus, are only then allowed when they do
+not entail any bad consequences (Diog. 118), or produce passionate
+states of feeling. Hence he not only forbids unlawful commerce (Diog.
+118), but declares οὐκ ἐρασθήσεσθαι τὸν σοφόν. Diog. 118; Stob. Floril.
+63, 31. Eros is defined (Alex. Aphr. Top. 75) = σύντονος ὄρεξις
+ἀφροδισίων. Conf. Plut. Amat. 19, 16, p. 765. It is consequently a
+passionate and disturbing state, which the wise man must avoid. The
+Stoics, on the contrary, allowed Eros to their wise man. The same view
+is taken of Eros by Lucretius, who cannot find words strong enough to
+express the restlessness and confusion entailed by love, the state of
+dependence in which it places man, and the loss to his fortune and good
+name. His advice is to allay passion as quickly as possible by means of
+Venus volgivaga, and to gratify it in a calm way.
+
+[1334] Diog. 120; 140; Cic. Tusc. ii. 12, 28; Lucr. iii. 59; 993.
+
+[1335] Sen. De Const. 16, 1.
+
+[1336] Diog. 118: οὐδὲ ταφῆς φροντιεῖν.
+
+[1337] Lucr. iii. 74.
+
+[1338] See pp. 479, 455. A further argument may, however, be here
+quoted. In Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 16, 3, he says: ὅτι νόσῳ νοσῶν ἀσκίτῃ
+τινὰς ἑστιάσεις φίλων συνῆγε, καὶ οὐκ ἐφθόνει τῆς προσαγωγῆς τοῦ ὑγροῦ
+τῷ ὕδρωπι, καὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων Νεοκλέους λόγων μεμνημένος ἐτήκετο τῇ μετὰ
+δακρύων ἡδονῇ. It is true that a certain mawkishness and self-conceit
+may be detected in this language.
+
+[1339] Diog. 119; Philodem. De Vit. ix. 12; 27, 40.
+
+[1340] Diog. 120: κτήσεως προνοήσεσθαι καὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος. 121:
+χρηματίσεσθαί τε ἀπὸ μόνης σοφίας ἀπορήσαντα. The limitation implied in
+the text would, however, seem to require μόνης. Philodem. in the same
+sense l.c. 23, 23, says that Epicurus received presents from his
+scholars, Conf. Plut. Adv. Col. 18, 3, also 15, 31.
+
+[1341] Diog. 121: εἰκόνας τε ἀναθήσειν εἰ ἔχοι· ἀδιαφόρως ἕξειν ἂν μὴ
+σχοίη (Cobet, not intelligibly: ἀδιαφόρως ἂν σχοίης).
+
+[1342] Epic. in Diog. 130: καὶ τὴν αὐτάρκειαν δὲ ἀγαθὸν μέγα νομίζομεν
+οὐχ ἵνα πάντως τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα, ἀλλ’ ὅπως ἐὰν μὴ ἔχωμεν τὰ πολλὰ
+τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα πεπεισμένοι γνησίως ὅτι ἥδιστα πολυτελείας
+ἀπολαύουσιν οἱ ἥκιστα αὐτῆς δεόμενοι.
+
+[1343] The Epicurean in Cic. Fin. i. 15, 49: Si tolerabiles sint
+[dolores] feramus, sin minus, æquo animo e vita, cum ea non placeat,
+tanquam e theatro exeamus. Epic. in Sen. Ep. 12, 10: Malum est in
+necessitate vivere, sed in necessitate vivere necessitas nulla est. On
+the other hand, Ep. 24, 22: Objurgat Epicurus non minus eos qui mortem
+concupiscunt, quam eos, qui timent, et ait: ridiculum est currere ad
+mortem tædio vitæ, cum genere vitæ ut currendum esset ad mortem
+effeceris. Diog. 119, the older editions read: καὶ πηρωθεὶς τὰς ὄψεις
+μεθέξειν αὐτὸν τοῦ βίου. Cobet: μετάξειν αὑτὸν τοῦ βίου. Instead of
+πηρωθεὶς πηρωθέντα is read, or, as we might prefer, instead of μετάξειν
+μετάξει. Suicide was only allowed by Epicurus in extreme cases. In
+Seneca’s time, when an Epicurean, Diodorus, committed suicide, his
+fellow-scholars were unwilling to allow that suicide was permitted by
+the precepts of Epicurus (Sen. Vit. B. 19, 1).
+
+[1344] Epict. Diss. ii. 20, 6: Ἐπίκουρος ὅταν ἀναιρεῖν θέλῃ τὴν φυσικὴν
+κοινωνίαν ἀνθρώποις πρὸς ἀλλήλους, κ.τ.λ.
+
+[1345] Diog. 150; 154. From this point of view, Lucr. v. 1106, gives a
+long description of the rise of a state.
+
+[1346] Stob. Floril. 43, 139.
+
+[1347] Diog. 150; Lucr. v. 1149; Sen. Ep. 97, 13, and 15; Plut. Adv.
+Col. 35. See p. 482, 4.
+
+[1348] Diog. 150–153.
+
+[1349] Diog. 140.
+
+[1350] Plut. Adv. Col. 31; 33, 4; N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Epictet.
+Diss. i. 23, 6; Lucr. v. 1125; Cic. pro Sext. 10, 23. Philodem. περὶ
+ῥητορικῆς (Vol. Herc. iv.) col. 14: οὐδὲ χρησίμην ἡγούμεθα τὴν
+πολιτικὴν δύναμιν, οὔτ’ αὐτοῖς τοῖς κεκτημένοις, οὔτε ταῖς πόλεσιν,
+αὐτὴν καθ’ αὑτήν· ἀλλὰ πολλάκις αἰτίαν καὶ συμφορῶν ἀνηκέστων, when
+combined with uprightness, it benefits the community, and is sometimes
+useful; at other times, harmful to statesmen themselves.
+
+[1351] Plut. De Latenter Vivendo, c. 4. In this respect, T. Pomponius
+Atticus is the true type of an Epicurean, on whose conduct during the
+civil war and withdrawal from public life, see Nepos, Att. 6.
+
+[1352] Metrodorus, in Stob. Floril. 45, 26: ἐν πόλει μήτε ὡς λέων
+ἀναστρέφου μήτε ὡς κώνωψ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐκπατεῖται τὸ δὲ καιροφυλακεῖται.
+
+[1353] Seneca well expresses the difference on this point between
+Epicureans and Stoics in the passage quoted, p. 320, 3.
+
+[1354] Plut. Tranq. An. c. 2, p. 465.
+
+[1355] Epic. in Sen. Ep. 29, 10: Nunquam volui populo placere; nam quæ
+ego scio non probat populus, quæ probat populos ego nescio. Similar
+expressions from Stoics have been previously quoted.
+
+[1356] Diog. 121: καὶ μόναρχον ἐν καιρῷ θεραπεύσειν [τὸν σοφόν]. Lucr.
+v. 1125:—
+
+    Ut satius multo jam sit parere quietum,
+    Quam regere imperio res velle et regna tenere.
+
+[1357] Epict. Diss. i. 23, 3 (against Epicurus): διατὶ ἀποσυμβουλεύεις
+τῷ σοφῷ τεκνοτροφεῖν; τί φοβῇ μὴ διὰ ταῦτα εἰς λύπας ἐμπέσῃ; ii. 20,
+20: Ἐπίκουρος τὰ μὲν ἀνδρὸς πάντ’ ἀπεκόψατο καὶ τὰ οἰκοδεσπότου καὶ
+φίλου. The last words prove with what caution these statements must be
+taken.
+
+[1358] Diog. 119. The passage is, however, involved in much obscurity,
+owing to a difference of reading. The earlier text was: καὶ μὴν καὶ
+γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφὸν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ταῖς διαπορίαις
+καὶ ἐν ταῖς περὶ φύσεως. κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου οὐ γαμήσειν.
+Cobet reads instead: καὶ μηδὲ γαμήσειν μηδὲ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν ...
+κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν. What the MS. authority for this
+reading is, we are not told. In sense it agrees with Hieron. Adv.
+Jovin. i. 191, quoting from Seneca, De Matrimonio: Epicurus ... raro
+dicit sapienti ineunda conjugia, quia multa incommoda admixta sunt
+nuptiis. Like riches, honours, health, ita et uxores sitas in bonorum
+malorumque confinio, grave autem esse viro sapienti venire in dubium,
+utrum bonam an malam ducturus sit.
+
+[1359] Plut. Adv. Col. 27, 6; De Am. Prol. 2, p. 495; Epictet. Diss. i.
+23, 3.
+
+[1360] Diog. 10: ἥ τε πρὸς τοὺς γονέας εὐχαριστία καὶ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς
+ἀδελφοὺς εὐποιΐα. Diogenes himself appeals to Epicurus’ testament,
+ibid. 18.
+
+[1361] Diog. 120: καὶ τὴν φιλίαν διὰ τὰς χρείας [γίνεσθαι] ...
+συνίστασθαι δὲ αὐτὴν κατὰ κοινωνίαν ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς. Epic. Ibid. 148
+(also in Cic. Fin. i. 20, 68): καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὡρισμένοις
+ἀσφάλεαν φιλίας μάλιστα κρήσει δεῖ νομίζειν συντελουμένην. (Cobet,
+however, reads: φιλίας μάλιστα κατιδεῖν εἶναι συντελυμένην, in which
+case φιλίᾳ should be substituted for φιλίας or else κτήσει for
+κατιδεῖν.) Sen. Ep. 9, 8: The wise man needs a friend, non ad hoc quod
+Epicurus dicebat in hac ipsa epistola (a letter in which Stilpo’s
+cynical self-contentment is blamed), ut habeat, qui sibi ægro adsideat,
+succurrat in vincula conjecto vel inopi; sed ut habeat aliquem, cui
+ipse ægro adsideat, quem ipse circumventum hostili custodia liberet.
+Cic. Fin. i. 20, 66: Cum solitudo et vita sine amicis insidiarum et
+metus plena sit, ratio ipsa monet amicitias comparare, quibus partis
+confirmatur animus et a spe pariendarum voluptatum sejungi non potest,
+etc. On the same grounds, Philodem. De Vit. ix. (V. Herc. iii.) col.
+24, argues that it is much better to cultivate friendship than to
+withdraw from it.
+
+[1362] Cic. Fin. i. 20, 69.
+
+[1363] Ibid. 70.
+
+[1364] Ibid. 67.
+
+[1365] The same need finds expression in the advice given by Epicurus
+(Sen. Ep. 11, 8; 25, 5): Let every one choose some distinguished man as
+his pattern, that so he may live, as it were, perpetually under his
+eye. Man requires a stranger to give him moral support.
+
+[1366] As illustrations in modern times, the reunions of the French
+freethinkers, or the societies of Rousseau, Mendelssohn, Jacobi, may be
+mentioned. It deserves notice that in these societies, as amongst the
+Epicureans, an important part was played by women. This is quite
+natural, when philosophy is confined to cultivated intercourse and
+conversation.
+
+[1367] Diog. 148: ὧν ἡ σοφία παρασκευάζεται εἰς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου
+μακαριότητα πολὺ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις. Cic. Fin. ii. 25,
+80: Epicurus exalts friendship to heaven. In Diog. 120, Cobet reads
+instead of the usual φίλον τε οὐδένα κτήσεσθαι [τὸν σοφὸν], which is
+altogether untrustworthy, φίλων τε οὐδὲν κτήσεσθαι.
+
+[1368] Sen. Ep. 19, 10, with the addition: Nam sine amico visceratio
+leonis ac lupi vita est.
+
+[1369] Plut. Adv. Col. 8, 7; Diog. 121. We have no reason to suppose,
+with Ritter, iii. 474, that this was not the expression of a real
+sentiment. That it is inconsistent we can well allow.
+
+[1370] The Epicureans in Cic. Fin. i. 20, 65: At vero Epicurus una in
+domo, et ea quidem angusta, quam magnos quantaque amoris conspiratione
+consentientes tenuit amicorum greges! quod fit etiam nunc ab Epicureis.
+Ibid. ii. 25, 80.
+
+[1371] Instances have already been quoted, p. 418, 2, of the
+extravagant honours required by Epicurus; nor did he fail to eulogise
+his friends, as the fragments of his letters to Leontion, Themista, and
+Pythocles (Diog. 5) prove. When Metrodorus had tried to obtain the
+release of a captive friend, Epicurus applauded him (Plut. N. P. Sua.
+Vivi, 15, 5, Adv. Col. 33, 2): ὡς εὖ τε καὶ νεανικῶς ἐξ ἄστεως ἅλαδε
+κατέβη Μίθρῳ τῷ Σύρῳ βοηθήσων. Ibid. 15, 8, he expresses his thanks for
+a present: δαΐως τε καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶς ἐπεμελήθητε ἡμῶν τὰ περὶ τὴν τοῦ
+σίτου κομιδὴν, καὶ οὐρανομήκη σημεῖα ἐνδέδειχθε τῆς πρὸς ἐμὲ εὐνοίας.
+He wrote of Pythocles before he was 18: οὐκ εἶναι φύσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ
+Ἑλλάδι ἀμείνω, καὶ τερατικῶς αὐτὸν εὖ ἀπαγγέλλειν, καὶ πάσχειν αὖ τὸ
+τῶν γυναικῶν, εὐχόμενος ἀνεμέσητα εἶναι πάντα καὶ ἀνεπίφθονα τῆς
+ὑπερβολῆς τοῦ νεανισκοῦ (Plut. Adv. Col. 29, 2); and he also said
+(Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Fr. 6, V. Herc. v. 2, 11): ὡς διὰ Πυθοκλέα
+τύχην θεώσει παρὰ τὸ τεθεμισμένον. Compare the remarks on p. 488, 3.
+
+[1372] Diog. 11: τόν τε Ἐπίκουρον μὴ ἀξιοῦν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν κατατίθεσθαι
+τὰς οὐσίας καθάπερ τὸν Πυθαγόραν κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων λέγοντα,
+ἀπιστούντων γὰρ εἶναι τὸ τοιοῦτον· εἰ δ’ ἀπίστων οὐδὲ φίλων.
+
+[1373] Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας (V. Herc. v. 2), Fr. 15; 72; 73,
+mentions Epicurus and Metrodorus as patterns of genial frankness
+towards friends. Probably the words in Sen. Ep. 28, 9—initium salutis
+est notitia peccati—are taken from a moral exhortation addressed to a
+friend.
+
+[1374] Not only does Diogenes 9, praise his unequalled benevolence, his
+kindness to his slaves, and his general geniality, but Cicero calls him
+(Tusc. ii. 19, 44) vir optimus, and (Fin. ii. 25, 30) bonum virum et
+comem et humanum.
+
+[1375] Diog. 118: οὔτε κολάσειν οἰκέτας ἐλεήσειν μέντοι, καὶ συγγνώμην
+τινὶ ἕξειν τῶν σπουδαίων. 121. ἐπιχαρίσεσθαί τινι ἐπὶ τῷ διορθώματι.
+
+[1376] Plut. N. P. Suav. Vi. 15, 4 (similarly C. Princ. Philos. 3, 2,
+p. 778): αὐτοὶ δὲ δήπου λέγουσιν ὡς τὸ εὖ ποιεῖν ἥδιόν ἐστι τοῦ
+πάσχειν. Conf. Alex. Aphr. Top. 123. A similar maxim is attributed by
+Ælian, V. H. xiii. 13, to Ptolemy Lagi. Conf. Acts xx. 35.
+
+[1377] Cic. Fin. ii. 25, 81: Et ipse bonus vir fuit et multi Epicurei
+fuerunt et hodie sunt, et in amicitiis fideles et in omni vita
+constantes et graves nec voluptate sed officio consilia moderantes.
+Atticus is a well-known example of genuine human kindness and ready
+self-sacrifice, and Horace may be also quoted as an illustration of the
+same character. See Steinhart’s remarks, l.c. p. 470.
+
+[1378] See p. 445.
+
+[1379] Conf. p. 126, 2, with 439, 1.
+
+[1380] It has been already stated, p. 405, 1, 4, that Epicurus admitted
+his debt to Democritus, but not without some reserve; otherwise he
+claimed to be entirely self-taught, and to have learned nothing from
+the ancient teachers, and expressed himself with such conceit and scorn
+as to spare neither them nor their writings. Diog. 8, besides
+mentioning his abuse of Nausiphanes (sup. 342, 1), refers also to his
+calling the Platonists Διονυσοκόλακας, Plato himself in irony the
+golden Plato, Heraclitus κυκητήν, Democritus Ληρόκριτον, Antidorus
+Σαινίδωρον, the Cynics ἐχθροὺς τῆς Ἑλλάδος, the Dialecticians
+πολυφθονέρους, Pyrrho ἀμαθῆν and ἀπαίδευτον, and charging Aristotle and
+Protagoras with vices in their youth. Diogenes refuses to allow that
+any of these statements are true, Epicurus’ friendliness being well
+known. But the devotion of Epicurus to his friends and admirers does
+not exclude hatred and injustice towards his predecessors (see p. 418,
+2), of whom a fair estimate was rendered impossible by the superficial
+nature of his knowledge and the onesidedness of his point of view.
+Sext. Math. i. 2, attests τὴν πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη καὶ
+τοὺς ὁμοίους δυσμένειαν; Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 1, mentions a false
+objection to Arcesilaus; and Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93, says: Cum Epicurus
+Aristotelem vexarit contumeliosissime, Phædoni Socratico turpissime
+maledixerit, etc. The rude jokes mentioned by Diogenes are in harmony
+with a man whom Cic. N. D. ii. 17, 46, calls homo non aptissimus ad
+jocandum minimeque resipiens patriam. On these jokes he apparently
+prided himself as well as on a certain bombastic elegance. See p. 496,
+6. In this Epicurus was followed by his pupils. Cic. N. D. i. 34, 93,
+says of Zeno: Non eos solum, qui tunc erant, Apollodorum, Silum,
+ceteros figebat maledictis, sed Socratem ipsum ... scurram Atticum
+fuisse dicebat (according to Cic. Brut. 85, 292, Epicurus had already
+expressed a disparaging opinion of the Socratic irony), Chrysippum
+nunquam nisi Chrysippam vocabat.
+
+[1381] Compare in this connection the quotations from Metrodorus on p.
+476, 1.
+
+[1382] Democritus had denied all truth to sensuous impressions. The
+same sceptical tone was more strongly apparent in Metrodorus (Aristocl.
+in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 19, 5; Sext. Math. vii. 88; Epiphan. Exp. Fid.
+1088, A, although he cannot be considered a full Sceptic,
+notwithstanding his usual agreement with the physical views of
+Democritus (Plut. in Eus. l.c. i. 8, 11; id. Fac. Lun. 15, 3, p. 928;
+Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 19). Scepticism appears to have passed from him to
+Pyrrho, Anaxarchus being the middleman (see p. 518, 2, 3), and herewith
+may be connected the Sceptical imperturbability. This doctrine of
+imperturbability being held by Epicurus, the pupil of Nansiphanes, it
+might be supposed that before Pyrrho’s time a doctrine not unlike that
+of Pyrrho had been developed in the School of Democritus, from whom it
+was borrowed by Epicurus. The connection is, however, uncertain. We
+have seen that the doubts of Democritus extended only to
+sense-impressions, not to intellectual knowledge. The case of
+Metrodorus was similar. His sceptical expressions refer only to the
+ordinary conditions of human knowledge, that of ideas derived from the
+senses: greater dependence is, however, placed on thought. We must
+therefore take the statement ὅτι πάντα ἐστὶν ὃ ἄν τις νοήσαι subject to
+this limitation. Anaxarchus is said (Sext. Math. vii. 87) to have
+compared the world to a stage-scene, which involves no greater
+scepticism than the similar expressions used by Plato as to the
+phenomenal world. However much, therefore, these individuals may have
+contributed to Pyrrhonism, a simple transference of Scepticism from
+Democritus to Pyrrho is not to be thought of. And as regards
+imperturbability, Epicurus may have borrowed the expression from
+Pyrrho, whom, according to Diog. ix. 64 and 69, he both knew and
+esteemed.
+
+[1383] Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 1; Diog. ix. 61. We are
+indebted almost exclusively to Diogenes for our information respecting
+Pyrrho. Besides Antigonus the Carystian, Apollodorus, Alexander
+Polyhistor, Diocles, &c., are the chief authorities drawn upon by
+Diogenes.
+
+[1384] Attention has been drawn to the chronological difficulties in
+‘Socrates and the Socratic Schools,’ p. 255, note 1 (2nd edition).
+Either Pyrrho is falsely called a pupil of Bryso, or Bryso is falsely
+called the son of Stilpo. The former seems more probable, Diog. ix. 61,
+having derived his statement from Alexander’s διαδοχαί, and it is quite
+in the style of the compilers of the διαδοχαὶ to assign a Megarian
+teacher to a Sceptic whose connection with that School was sufficiently
+obvious.
+
+[1385] Diog. ix. 61; Aristocl. l.c. 18, 20; 17, 8. We gather from them
+that Pyrrho was originally a painter. Suidas, Πύῤῥων, only copies the
+present text of Diogenes with a few mistakes.
+
+[1386] Besides the passage quoted from Sextus, p. 515, 1, which is
+little known, we have no proof of the sceptical tone in Anaxarchus
+which Sextus, Math. vii. 48, attributes to him, and since the latter
+quotes no proofs, it may be assumed that he had none. Anaxarchus
+appears to have been unjustly included among the Sceptics, like so many
+others who were called Sceptics by later writers on the strength of a
+single word or expression. According to other accounts, he belonged to
+the School of Democritus. Plut. Tranq. An. 4, p. 466. In Valer. Max.
+viii. 14, ext. 2, he propounds to Alexander the doctrine of an infinite
+number of worlds; and Clemens, Strom. i. 287, B, quotes a fragment, in
+which, agreeing with Democritus, he observes that πολυμαθία is only
+useful when it is properly made use of. Like Epicurus, Anaxarchus
+followed Democritus, calling happiness the highest object of our
+desire; and this assertion probably gained for him the epithet ὁ
+εὐδαιμονικός (Clemens, l.c.; Athen. vi. 250; xii. 548, b; Æl. V. H. ix.
+37). In other respects, he differed from Democritus. For first he is
+charged by Clearchus in Athen. xii. 548, b, with a luxurious indulgence
+far removed from the earnest and pure spirit of Democritus; and
+according to Plut. Alex. 52, he had, when in Asia, renounced the
+independence of a philosopher for a life of pleasure; Timon also in
+Plut. Virt. Mor. 6, p. 446, says he was led away by φύσις ἡδονοπλὴξ
+contrary to his better knowledge. Again, he is said to have commended
+in Pyrrho (Diog. ix. 63) an indifference which went a good deal beyond
+the imperturbability of Democritus; and Timon commends him for his
+κυνικὸν μένος. He meets external pain with the haughty pride expressed
+in his much-admired dictum under the blows of Nitocreon’s club—Diog.
+ix. 59; Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 10, p. 449; Clemens, Strom. iv. 496, D;
+Valer. Max. iii. 3, ext. 4; Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 87; Tertull. Apol.
+50; Dio Chrysos. Or. 37, p. 126, B. But he treats men with the same
+contempt; and whilst meeting the Macedonian conqueror with an air of
+independence, he spoils the whole by adroit flattery. Conf. Plut. Alex.
+52; Ad Princ. Iner. 4, p. 781; Qu. Conv. ix. 1, 2, 5; Æl. V. H. ix. 37;
+Athen. vi. 250. His indifference was, at any rate, very much lacking in
+nobility. Respecting Anaxarchus see Lusac. Lect. Att. 181.
+
+[1387] Diog. ix. 64; 109.
+
+[1388] According to Diog. 64, they made him head-priest, and, on his
+account, allowed to philosophers immunity from taxation. According to
+Diocles (Diog. 65), the Athenians presented him with citizenship for
+his services in putting a Thracian prince Cotys to death.
+
+[1389] Diog. 66; 62.
+
+[1390] Examples in Diog. 67. It sounds, however, highly improbable; and
+doubts were expressed by Ænesidemus whether his indifference ever went
+to the extent described by Antigonus, Ibid. 62, of not getting out of
+the way of carriages and precipices, so that he had to be preserved
+from danger by his friends. He must, moreover, have enjoyed a special
+good fortune to attain the age of 90, notwithstanding such senseless
+conduct.
+
+[1391] All the dates here are very uncertain. Neither the date of his
+death nor of his birth is given, and the notice in Suidas that he lived
+after the 111 Olympiad (336–332 B.C.) is indefinite. If, however, as
+Diog. 62 says, he attained the age of 90, and if he joined Anaxarchus
+at Alexander’s first invasion of Asia, being then between 24 and 30,
+the statements above given are true.
+
+[1392] Diog. Pro. 16; 102; Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 1 are
+better authorities than Sext. Math. i. 282, or Plut. Alex. Fort. i. 10,
+p. 331. Neither does Sextus say that the supposed poem on Alexander was
+extant. The whole statement is evidently untrustworthy.
+
+[1393] Timon (see Wachsmuth, De Timone Phliasio, Leipzig, 1859) was a
+native of Phlius (Diog. ix. 109). A public dancer at first (Diog. 109;
+Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 12), when tired of this mode of life
+he repaired to Megara, to hear Stilpo (Diog. 109). Stilpo being alive
+in the third century, and Timon’s birth having happened approximately
+between 325–315 B.C., the connection is not so impossible as Wachsmuth,
+p. 5, and Preller, Hist. Phil. Gr. et Rom. 398, suppose, though in the
+uncertainty of chronological data it cannot be positively stated.
+Subsequently Timon became acquainted with Pyrrho, and leaving his
+staunch admirers (Diog. 109, 69; Aristocl. l.c. 11, 14, 21), removed
+with his wife to Elis. He then appeared as a teacher in Chalcis, and,
+having amassed a fortune, concluded his life in Athens (Diog. 110;
+115). It appears from Diog. 112 and 115, that he survived Arcesilaus
+(who died 241 B.C.), having nearly attained the age of 90. His death
+may therefore be approximately fixed in 230, his birth in 320 B.C. For
+his life and character, see Diog. 110; 112–115; Athen. x. 438, a; Æl.
+V. H. ii. 41. Of his numerous writings, the best known is a witty and
+pungent satire on previous and cotemporary philosophers. Respecting
+this satire (Diog. 110) consult Wachsmuth, p. 9 and 3. The latter, p.
+51, has collected the fragments.
+
+[1394] Diog. 67–69, mentions, besides Timon, a certain Eurylochus as
+his pupil, who, however, was not very successful in the way of keeping
+his temper; also Philo, an Athenian, Hecatæus of Abdera, the well-known
+historian (on whom see Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 384); and
+Nausiphanes, the teacher of Epicurus. The last assertion is only
+tenable on the supposition that Nausiphanes appeared as a teacher only
+a few years after Pyrrho, for Pyrrho cannot have returned to Elis
+before 322 B.C., and Epicurus must have left the School of Nausiphanes
+before 310 B.C. See p. 406, 3. According to Diog. 64, Epicurus must
+have become acquainted with Pyrrho whilst a pupil of Nausiphanes.
+Nausiphanes is said not to have agreed with Pyrrho, but only to have
+admired his character (Diog. l.c.), so that he cannot properly be
+called his pupil. The mention of Numenius, by Diog. 102 (conf. 68),
+among Pyrrho’s συνήθεις, is suspicious, because Ænesidemus is named at
+the same time. It may be questioned whether he as well as Ænesidemus
+does not belong to a later period of Scepticism.
+
+[1395] According to Diog. 115, Menodotus (a Sceptic belonging to the
+latter half of the second century after Christ) asserted that Timon
+left no successor, and that the School was in abeyance from Timon to
+Ptolemæus, i.e. until the second half of the first century B.C. Sotion
+and Hippobotus, however, asserted that his pupils were Dioscurides,
+Nicolochus, Euphranor, and Praÿlus. His son, too, the physician
+Xanthus, followed the father. (Diog. 109.) That Timon was himself a
+physician, as Wachsmuth, p. 5, supposes, cannot be concluded with
+certainty from the words ἰατρικὸν ἐδίδαξε, since these words only imply
+that he had received instruction in medicine. On the other hand,
+according to Suid. Πύῤῥων, the second Pyrrho, called Timon’s pupil, was
+a changeling. If Aratus of Soli was a pupil (Suid. Ἄρατος; conf. Diog.
+ix. 113), he was certainly not a follower of his views. See p. 43, 2.
+
+[1396] In Diog. 116, Eubulus is called a pupil of Euphranor, also on
+the authority of Sotion and Hippobotus. If Ptolemæus was the next one
+who is said to have come after him, no philosopher of Pyrrho’s ἀγωγὴ
+can have been known for 150 years.
+
+[1397] Diog. 114.
+
+[1398] Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 2: ὁ δέ γε μαθητὴς αὐτοῦ
+Τίμων φησὶ δεῖν τὸν μέλλοντα εὐδαιμονήσειν εἰς τρία ταῦτα βλέπειν·
+πρῶτον μὲν ὁποῖα πέφυκε τὰ πράγματα· δεύτερον δὲ, τίνα χρὴ τρόπον ἡμᾶς
+πρὸς αὐτὰ διακεῖσθαι· τελευταῖον δὲ τί περιέσται τοῖς οὕτως ἔχουσιν.
+
+[1399] Aristocl. l.c.: τὰ μὲν οὖν πράγματά φησιν αὐτὸν (Pyrrho)
+ἀποφαίνειν ἐπίσης ἀδιάφορα καὶ ἀστάθμητα καὶ ἀνεπίκριτα, διὰ τοῦτο [τὸ]
+μήτε τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἡμῶν μήτε τὰς δόξας ἀληθεύειν ἢ ψεύδεσθαι. Diog. ix.
+61: οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον τόδε ἢ τόδε εἶναι ἕκαστον. Gell. xi. 5, 4: Pyrrho is
+said to have stated οὐ μᾶλλον οὕτως ἔχει τόδε ἢ ἐκείνως ἢ οὐθετέρως.
+
+[1400] See the above-quoted passage of Aristocles and Diog. ix. 114.
+
+[1401] Timon, in Diog. ix. 105: τὸ μέλι ὅτι ἐστὶ γλυκὺ οὐ τίθημι· τὸ δ’
+ὅτι φαίνεται ὁμολογῶ.
+
+[1402] Diog. ix. 61: οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔφασκεν οὔτε καλὸν οὔτε αἰσχρὸν οὔτε
+δίκαιον οὔτε ἄδικον, καὶ ὁμοίως ἐπὶ πάντων, μηδὲν εἶναι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ,
+νόμῳ δὲ καὶ ἔθει πάντα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πράττειν, οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον τόδε ἢ
+τόδε εἶναι ἕκαστον. Sext. Math. xi. 140: οὔτε ἀγαθόν τί ἐστι φύσει οὔτε
+κακὸν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ταῦτα νόῳ κέκριται κατὰ τὸν Τίμωνα.
+
+[1403] In this sense the words of Ænesidemus, in Diog. ix. 106, must be
+understood: οὐδέν φησιν ὁρίζειν τὸν Πύῤῥωνα δογματικῶς διὰ τὴν
+ἀντιλογίαν. See note 1.
+
+[1404] Diog. ix. 114, on Timon: συνεχές τε ἐπιλέγειν εἰώθει πρὸς τοὺς
+τὰς αἰσθήσεις μετ’ ἐπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ νοῦ ἐγκρίνοντας· συνῆλθεν
+Ἀτταγᾶς τε καὶ Νουμήνιος. The meaning of this proverb has been already
+explained.
+
+[1405] Diog. ix. 79 refers these τρόποι to Pyrrho, but inasmuch as he
+was there describing Sceptic views, the author of which to his mind was
+Pyrrho, nothing follows from his statement. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 36
+generally attributes them to the ancient Sceptics, by whom, according
+to Math. vii. 345, he understood Ænesidemus and his followers.
+Aristocles, l.c. 18, 11, refers them to Ænesidemus, and they may easily
+have been referred to Pyrrho by mistake, since Ænesidemus himself
+(Diog. ix. 106) and subsequent writers (Favorin. in Gell. xi. 5, 5;
+Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 491) call every kind of sceptical statement
+λόγοι or τρόποι Πυῤῥώνειοι. That they cannot belong to Pyrrho in the
+form in which they are presented by Sextus and Diogenes is clear, since
+they obviously refer to later views.
+
+[1406] Sext. Math. vi. 66; x. 197 quotes an argument of Timon against
+the reality of time, and further states (Math. iv. 2) that Timon, in
+his conflict with the philosophers of nature, maintained that no
+assertion should be made without proof: in other words, he denied
+dogmatism; for every proof supposes something established, i.e. another
+proof, and so on for ever.
+
+[1407] Aristocl. l.c. 18, 3: διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μηδὲ πιστεύειν αὐτοῖς δεῖν,
+ἀλλ’ ἀδοξάστους καὶ ἀκλινεῖς καὶ ἀκραδάντους εἶναι περὶ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου
+λέγοντας ὅτι οὐ μᾶλλον ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἢ καὶ ἔστι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἢ
+οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν. Diog. ix. 61. Ibid. 76: οὐ μᾶλλον means,
+according to Timon, τὸ μηδὲν ὁρίζειν ἀλλὰ ἀπροσθετεῖν.
+
+[1408] Ænesidem. in Diog. ix. 106: οὐδὲν ὁρίζειν τὸν Πύῤῥωνα δογματικῶς
+διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν, τοῖς δὲ φαινομένοις ἀκολουθεῖν. Timon. Ibid. 105.
+See p. 522, 3.
+
+[1409] Diog. ix. 103: περὶ μὲν ὧν ὡς ἄνθρωποι πάσχομεν ὁμολογοῦμεν ...
+περὶ δὲ ὧν οἱ δογματικοὶ διαβεβαιοῦνται τῷ λόγῳ φάμενοι κατειλῆφθαι
+ἐπέχομεν περὶ τούτων ὡς ἀδήλων· μόνα δὲ τὰ πάθη γινώσκομεν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ
+ὅτι ὁρῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ τὸ ὅτι τόδε νοοῖμεν γινώσκομεν, πῶς δ’
+ὁρῶμεν ἢ πῶς νοοῦμεν ἀγνοοῦμεν· καὶ ὅτι τόδε λευκὸν φαίνεται
+διηγηματικῶς λέγομεν οὐ διαβεβαιούμενοι εἰ καὶ ὄντως ἐστί ... καὶ γὰρ
+τὸ φαινόμενον τιθέμεθα οὐχ ὡς καὶ τοιοῦτον ὄν· καὶ ὅτι πῦρ καίει
+αἰσθανόμεθα· εἰ δὲ φύσιν ἔχει καυστικήν, ἐπέχομεν.
+
+[1410] Diog. l.c.: περὶ δὲ τῆς Οὐδὲν ὁρίζω φωνῆς καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων
+λέγομεν ὡς οὐ δογμάτων· οὐ γάρ εἰσιν ὅμοια τῷ λέγειν ὅτι σφαιροειδής
+ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος· ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἄδηλον, αἱ δὲ ἐξομολογήσεις εἰσίν. ἐν ᾧ
+οὖν λέγομεν μηδὲν ὁρίζειν οὐδ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὁριζόμεθα. Diog. gives this
+view in its later form, probably following Sext. Pyrrh. i. 197, but
+agreeing in substance with the quotations from Timon and Pyrrho.
+
+[1411] Diog. ix. 61 and 107; Aristocl. l.c. The expressions ἀφασία,
+ἀκαταληψία, ἐποχὴ, invariably mean the same thing. Later writers use
+instead of them, ἀῤῥεψία, ἀγνωσία τῆς ἀληθείας κ.τ.λ. If, according to
+Aristocles and Diog. 107, Timon first mentioned ἀφασία in dealing with
+the third of his questions, this statement is obviously inaccurate.
+
+[1412] Πυῤῥώνειοι, σκεπτικοὶ, ἀπορητικοὶ, ἐφεκτικοὶ, ζητητικοί. Conf.
+Diog. 69.
+
+[1413] Aristocl. l.c. 2: τοῖς μέντοι διακειμένοις οὕτω περιέσεσθαι
+Τίμων φησὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἀφασίαν ἔπειτα δ’ ἀταραξίαν. Diog. 107: τέλος δὲ
+οἱ σκεπτικοί φασι τὴν ἐποχὴν, ᾗ σκιᾶς τρόπον ἐπακολουθεῖ ἡ ἀταραξία, ὥς
+φασιν οἵ τε περὶ τὸν Τίμωνα καὶ Αἰνεσίδημον. Apathy is substituted for
+ataraxy in Diog. 108; Cic. Acad. ii. 42, 130.
+
+[1414] Timon, in Aristocl. l.c. 18, 14, speaking of Pyrrho:—
+
+    ἀλλ’ οἷον τὸν ἄτυφον ἐγὼ ἴδον ἠδ’ ἀδάμαστον
+    πᾶσιν, ὅσοις δάμνανται ὁμῶς ἄφατοί τε φατοί τε
+                                               (conf. Wachsmuth, p. 62)
+    λαῶν ἔθνεα κοῦφα, βαρυνόμεν’ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα
+    ἐκ παθέων δόξης τε καὶ εἰκαίης νομοθήκης.
+
+Id. in Sext. Math. xi. 1: The Sceptic lives—
+
+            ῥῇστα μεθ’ ἡσυχίης
+    αἰεὶ ἀφροντίστως καὶ ἀκινήτως κατὰ ταὐτὰ
+    μὴ προσέχων δειλοῖς ἡδυλόγου σοφίης.
+
+Id. in Diog. 65.
+
+[1415] Cic. Fin. ii. 13, 43: Quæ (externals) quod Aristoni et Pyrrhoni
+omnino visa sunt pro nihilo, ut inter optime valere et gravissime
+ægrotare nihil prorsus dicerent interesse. iii. 3, 11: Cum Pyrrhone et
+Aristone qui omnia exæquent. Acad. ii. 42, 130: Pyrrho autem ea ne
+sentire quidem sapientem, quæ ἀπάθεια nominatur. Epictet. Fragm. 93 (in
+Stob. Serm. 121, 28): Πύῤῥων ἔλεγεν μηδὲν διαφέρειν ζῇν ἢ τεθνάναι.
+
+[1416] Cic. Fin. iv. 16, 43: Pyrrho ... qui virtute constituta nihil
+omnino quod appetendum sit relinquat. The same Ibid. ii. 13, 43; iii.
+4, 12.
+
+[1417] See p. 521, 3; 525, 3.
+
+[1418] Diog. 105: ὁ Τίμων ἐν τῷ Πύθωνί φησι μὴ ἐκβεβηκέναι [τὸν
+Πύῤῥωνα] τὴν συνήθειαν. καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἰνδαλμοῖς οὕτω λέγει· ἀλλὰ τὸ
+φαινόμενον παντὶ σθένει οὗπερ ἂν ἔλθῃ. (Conf. Sext. Math. vii. 30.)
+Ibid. 106, of Pyrrho: τοῖς δὲ φαινομένοις ἀκολουθεῖν. See p. 519, 4.
+
+[1419] See p. 524, 1, 2.
+
+[1420] Sext. Math. xi. 20: κατὰ δὲ τὸ φαινόμενον τούτων ἕκαστον ἔχομεν
+ἔθος ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ἢ ἀδιάφορον προσαγορεύειν καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Τίμων ἐν
+τοῖς ἰνδαλμοῖς ἔοικε δηλοῦν ὅταν φῇ
+
+    ἦ γὰρ ἐγὼν ἐρέω ὥς μοι καταφαίνεται εἶναι
+        μῦθον ἀληθείης ὀρθὸν ἔχων κανόνα·
+    ὡς ἡ τοῦ θείου τε φύσις καὶ τἀγαθοῦ αἰεὶ,
+        ἐξ ὧν ἰσότατος γίγνεται ἀνδρὶ βίος.
+
+[1421] According to an anecdote preserved by Antigonus of Carystus
+(Aristocl. l.c. 18, 19; Diog. ix. 66), Pyrrho apologised for being
+agitated by saving: It is difficult to lay aside humanity altogether.
+This language only proves what his aim was, and that he had found no
+mediating principle between the apathy required by his system and
+practical needs. Neither do the remarks of Ritter, iii. 451, prove that
+the doctrine of moderation belongs to Pyrrho and his school.
+
+[1422] Conf. Diog. ix. 114. Tennemann’s view (Gesch. d. Phil. iv. 190),
+that Arcesilaus arrived at his conclusions independently of Pyrrho,
+does not appear to be tenable.
+
+[1423] Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 10; 6, 5, says that Zeno and
+Arcesilaus were fellow-pupils under Polemo, and that their rivalry
+whilst at school was the origin of the later quarrels between the Stoa
+and the Academy. The same may have been stated by Antiochus, since Cic.
+Acad. i. 9, 35, ii. 24, 76, appeals to him to prove that they were
+together at school. Still the assertion is valueless. There can be no
+doubt that both Zeno and Arcesilaus were pupils of Polemo, but it is
+hardly possible that they can have been under him at the same time; nor
+if they were, could the intellectual differences of the two schools be
+referred simply to their personal relation.
+
+[1424] Cic. De Orat. ii. 18, 68; Diog. iv. 28; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16;
+Sext. Pyrrh. i. 220. Clemens, Strom. i. 301, C, calls Arcesilaus the
+founder of the New (second or middle) Academy.
+
+[1425] Arcesilaus (see Geffers, De Arcesila, Gött. 1842, Gymn. Progr.)
+was born at Pitane, in Æolia (Strabo, xiii. 1, 67, p. 614; Diog. iv.
+28). His birth-year is not stated; but as Lacydes (Diog. iv. 61) was
+his successor in 240 B.C., and he was then 75 years of age (Diog. 44),
+it must have been about 315 B.C. Having enjoyed the instruction of the
+mathematician Autolycus in his native town, he repaired to Athens,
+where he was first a pupil of Theophrastus, but was won for the Academy
+by Crantor (Diog. 29; Numen. in Eus. xiv. 6, 2). With Crantor he lived
+on the most intimate terms; but as Polemo was the president of the
+Academy, he is usually called a pupil of Polemo (Cic. De Orat. iii. 18,
+67; Fin. v. 31, 94; Strabo). On the death of Polemo, he was probably a
+pupil of Crates; but it is not stated by Diog. 33, or Numen. in Eus.
+l.c. xiv. 5, 10, that he was a pupil of either Pyrrho, Menedemus, or
+Diodorus. If Eusebius seems to imply it, he may have misunderstood the
+statement that he made use of their teaching. Fortified with
+extraordinary acuteness, penetrating wit, and ready speech (Diog. 30;
+34; 37; Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18; Numen. in Eus. xiv. 6, 2; Plut. De Sanit.
+7, p. 126; Qu. Conv. vii. 5, 3, 7; ii. 1, 10, 4; Stob. Floril. ed.
+Mein. iv. 193, 28), learned, especially in mathematics (Diog. 32), and
+well acquainted with native poets (Diog. 30, who mentions his own
+attempts at poetry, quoting some of his epigrams), he appears to have
+early distinguished himself. From Plut. Adv. Col. 26, p. 1121, it
+appears that in Epicurus’ lifetime, consequently before 270 B.C., he
+had propounded his sceptical views with great success. Apollodorus,
+however, appears to have placed his career too early (Diog. 45), in
+making his ἀκμὴ between 300 and 296 B.C. On the death of Crates, the
+conduct of the School devolved upon Arcesilaus (Diog. 32), through whom
+it attained no small note (Strabo, i. 2, 2, p. 15; Diog. 37; Numen. in
+Eus. xiv. 6, 14). From public matters he held aloof, and lived in
+retirement (Diog. 39), esteemed even by opponents for his pure, gentle,
+and genial character (Diog. 37; quoting many individual traits, 44;
+vii. 171; ix. 115; Cic. Fin. v. 31, 94; Plut. De Adulat. 22, p. 63;
+Coh. Ira, 13, p. 461. Ælian, V. H. xiv. 96). On his relations to
+Cleanthes, conf. Diog. vii. 171; Plut. De Adulat. 11, p. 55. He left no
+writings (Diog. 32; Plut. Alex. Virt. 4, p. 328).
+
+[1426] Cic. De Orat. iii. 18, 67: Arcesilas primum ... ex variis
+Platonis libris sermonibusque Socraticis hoc maxime arripuit, nihil
+esse certi quod aut sensibus aut animo percipi possit: quem ferunt ...
+aspernatum esse omne animi sensusque judicium, primumque instituisse
+... non quid ipse sentiret ostendere, sed contra id, quod quisque se
+sentire dixisset, disputare. This is, in fact, the calumniandi licentia
+with which Augustin, herein doubtless following Cicero, c. Acad. iii.
+17, 39, charges him, contra omnia velle dicere quasi ostentationis
+causa.
+
+[1427] Conf. Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv, 6, 12, and above, p. 86, 4.
+
+[1428] Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 2; Cic. Acad. i. 12, 44. Ritter’s view of
+the latter passage, that Arcesilaus quoted the diversities of
+philosophic teaching by way of refuting it (iii. 478), appears to be
+entirely without foundation. He rather quoted its uniform resemblance
+by way of overcoming doubt.
+
+[1429] Cic. De Orat. iii. 18. See p. 530, 1.
+
+[1430] Sext. Pyrrh. i. 234; Diocles of Cnidus, in Numen. in Eus. Pr.
+Ev. xiv. 6, 5; Augustin, c. Acad. iii. 17, 38. Geffers regards
+Arcesilaus as a true follower of the older Academy.
+
+[1431] Sext. Math. vii. 153.
+
+[1432] Sext. Math. l.c. 154.
+
+[1433] Cic. Acad. ii. 24, 27. Zeno asserted: An irresistible or
+conceptional perception is such an impression of a real object as
+cannot possibly come from an unreal one. Arcesilaus endeavoured to
+prove nullum tale visum esse a vero, ut non ejusdem modi etiam a falso
+posset esse. The same view in Sext. l.c. To these may be added
+discussions on deceptions of the senses and contradictions in the
+statements of the senses in Sext. vii. 408, and others attributed to
+the Academicians. Conf. Cic. N. D. i. 25, 70: Urgebat Arcesilas
+Zenonem, cum ipse falsa omnia diceret, quæ sensibus viderentur, Zenon
+autem nonnulla visa esse falsa, non omnia. To these attacks on Zeno
+Plut. De An. (Fr. vii.) 1, probably refers: ὅτι οὐ τὸ ἐπιστητὸν αἴτιον
+τῆς ἐπιστήμης ὡς Ἀρκεσίλαος. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἀνεπιστημοσύνη τῆς ἐπιστήμης
+αἴτια φανεῖται. All that is here attributed to Arcesilaus is the
+assertion that ἐπιστητόν is the cause of ἐπιστήμη, and that it is so
+when it produces a φαντασία καταληπτική. The connection in which these
+statements were made by Arcesilaus was probably this: If there is such
+a thing as knowledge, there must be objects which produce it. These
+objects, however, do not exist, there being no object which does not
+admit a false opinion equally well with a true one.
+
+[1434] Sext. 155: μὴ οὔσης δὲ καταληπτικῆς φαντασίας οὐδὲ κατάληψις
+γενήσεται· ἦν γὰρ καταληπτικῇ φαντασίᾳ συγκατάθεσις· μὴ οὔσης δὲ
+καταλήψεως πάντα ἔσται ἀκατάληπτα.
+
+[1435] Sext. l.c.; Cic. Acad. i. 12, 45; ii. 20, 66; Plut. Adv. Col.
+24, 2; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16; 6, 4. By Sext. Pyrrh. i. 233, it is
+thus expressed: Arcesilaus regards ἐποχὴ as being a good in every case,
+συγκατάθεσις as an evil.
+
+[1436] Cic. Acad. i. 12, 45.
+
+[1437] Cic. Fin. ii. 1, 2; v. 4, 11; De Orat. iii. 18, 67; Diog. iv.
+28; conf. Plut. C. Not. 37, 7.
+
+[1438] Stob. Floril. 82, 4: Ἀρκεσίλαος ὁ φιλόσοφος ἔφη τοὺς
+διαλεκτικοὺς ἐοικέναι τοῖς ψηφοπαίκταις (jugglers), οἵτινες χαριέντως
+παραλογίζονται; and, Ibid. 10 (under the heading: Ἀρκεσιλάου ἐκ τῶν
+Σερήνου ἀπομνημονευμάτων): διαλεκτικὴν δὲ φεῦγε, συγκυκᾷ τἄνω κάτω.
+
+[1439] The authority is a very uncertain one, particularly as
+Arcesilaus left nothing in writing, and the remarks quoted would seem
+to be more appropriate to the Chian Aristo (see p. 59) than to
+Arcesilaus. Still, if Chrysippus condemned the dialectic of the
+Sceptics (according to p. 66, 1), Arcesilaus may very well have
+condemned that of the Stoics and Megarians. Does not even Cic. Acad.
+ii. 28, 91, probably following Carneades (see p. 541, 4), object to
+dialectic, because it furnishes no knowledge?
+
+[1440] This fact is recognised not only by Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv.
+6, 4, but by Sext. Pyrrh. i. 232. The difference which the later
+Sceptics draw between themselves and the Academicians, viz. that they
+assert the principle of doubt tentatively, whereas the Academicians
+assert it absolutely, does not apply to Arcesilaus (see p. 533, 1).
+Even Sextus says the same, but with some diffidence (πλὴν εἰ μὴ λέγοι
+τις ὅτι κ.τ.λ.). On account of this connection with Pyrrho, the Stoic
+Aristo called Arcesilaus (following Il. vi. 181): πρόσθε Πλάτων ὄπιθεν
+Πύῤῥων, μέσος Διόδωρος. Sext. l.c.; Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 11;
+Diog. iv. 33.
+
+[1441] It has been already seen that this was the key to the position
+which the Stoics and Epicureans took up against the Sceptics.
+
+[1442] Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 3, defending Arcesilaus against the attacks
+of Colotes, says: The opponents of Scepticism cannot show that ἐποχὴ
+leads to inactivity, for πάντα πειρῶσι καὶ στρέφουσιν αὐτοῖς οὐχ
+ὑπήκουσεν ἡ ὁρμὴ γενέσθαι συγκατάθεσις οὐδὲ τῆς ῥοπῆς ἀρχὴν ἐδέξατο τὴν
+αἴσθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἀγωγὸς ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις ἐφάνη μὴ δεομένη τοῦ
+προστίθεσθαι. Perception arises and influences the will without
+συγκατάθεσις. Since this statement was controverted by Chrysippus
+(Plut. Sto. Rep. 47, 12. See above 87, 1), there can be no doubt that
+it was propounded by Arcesilaus.
+
+[1443] Sext. Math. vii 158: ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδει καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ
+Βίου διεξαγωγῆς ζητεῖν ἥ τις οὐ χωρὶς κριτηρίου πέφυκεν ἀποδίδοσθαι,
+ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ ἡ εὐδαιμονία, τουτέστι τὸ τοῦ βίου τέλος, ἠρτημένην ἔχει τὴν
+πίστιν, φησὶν ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος, ὅτι ὁ περὶ πάντων ἐπέχων κανονιεῖ τᾶς
+αἱρέσεις καὶ φυγὰς καὶ κοινῶς τὰς πράξεις τῷ εὐλόγῳ, κατὰ τοῦτό τε
+προερχόμενος τὸ κριτήριον κατορθώσει· τὴν μὲν γὰρ εὐδαιμονίαν
+περιγίνεσθαι διὰ τῆς φρονήσεως, τὴν δὲ φρόνησιν κινεῖσθαι ἐν τοῖς
+κατορθώμασι, τὸ δὲ κατόρθωμα εἶναι (according to the Stoic definition)
+ὅπερ πραχθὲν εὔλογον ἔχει τὴν ἀπολογίαν. ὁ προσέχων οὖν τῷ εὐλόγῳ
+κατορθώσει καὶ εὐδαιμονήσει. It is a mistake to suppose, with Numen. in
+Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 6, that, Arcesilaus denied probabilities.
+
+[1444] In Plut. Tran. An. 9, sub fin. p. 470, he gives the advice
+rather to devote attention to oneself and ones own life than to works
+of art and other external things. In Stob. Floril. 95, 17, he says:
+Poverty is burdensome, but educates for virtue. Ibid. 43, 91: Where
+there are most laws, there are most transgressions of law. Plut. Cons.
+ad Apoll. 15, p. 110, has a saying of his as to the folly of the fear
+of death. Id. De Sanit. 7, p. 126, Qu. Conv. vii. 5, 3, 7, records a
+somewhat severe judgment on adulterers and prodigals. Quite unique is
+the statement in Tertull. Ad. Nation. ii. 2: Arcesilaus held that there
+were three kinds of Gods (in other words he divided the popular Gods
+into three classes): the Olympian, the stars, and the Titans. It
+implies that he criticised the belief in the Gods. It also appears by
+the language used in Plut. C. Not. 37, 7, respecting the Stoic theory
+of a κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλου, that his criticism of dogmatism extended to
+natural science.
+
+[1445] Conf. p. 529, 3 sub fin.
+
+[1446] Geffers, De Arcesilæ Successoribus (including Carneades): Gött.
+1845. Arcesilaus was succeeded by Lacydes of Cyrene, who died 240 B.C.,
+after presiding over the School for 26 years. In his lifetime (probably
+shortly before his death) he entrusted it to the care of the Phocæans
+Telecles and Euandros (Diog. iv. 59–61). The statements made in Diog.
+l.c., Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, Plut. De Adul. 22, p. 63, Ælian,
+V. H. ii. 41, Athen. x. 438, a. xiii. 606, C, Plin. H. N. x. 22, 51,
+refer to individual peculiarities which he appears to have had. They
+must be received with caution, particularly the gossip which Diog. 59
+mentions casually and Numenius dwells upon with intolerable garrulity.
+Diog. calls him ἀνὴρ σεμνότατος καὶ οὐκ ὀλίγους ἐσχηκὼς ζηλωτάς·
+φιλόπονός τε ἐκ νέου καὶ πένης μὲν, εὔχαρις δ’ ἄλλως καὶ εὐόμιλος. To
+his admirers belongs Attalus I. of Pergamum. A visit to his court was
+however declined in skilful language (Diog. 60, which Geffers, p. 5,
+clearly misunderstands). In doctrine, he deviated little from
+Arcesilaus, and, having been the first to commit to writing the
+teaching of the New Academy (Suid. Λακ.: ἔγραψε φιλόσοφα καὶ περὶ
+φύσεως—the latter is somewhat extraordinary for a Sceptic), he was by
+some mistake called its founder (Diog. 59). According to Diog. vii.
+183, see p. 46, 1, he appears to have taught in the Academy during
+Arcesilaus’ lifetime. Panaretus (Athen. xii. 552, d; Æl. V. H. x. 6),
+Demophanes, and Ecdemus or Ecdelus (Plutarch. Philopon. 1; Arat. 5, 7)
+are also called pupils of Arcesilaus. The most distinguished pupil of
+Lacydes, according to Eus. xiv. 7, 12, was Aristippus of Cyrene, also
+mentioned by Diog. ii. 83. Another, Paulus, is mentioned by Timotheus,
+in Clemens, Strom. 496, D. His successors were Telecles and Euander,
+who jointly presided over the School. Euander, however, according to
+Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16, Diog. 60, Eus. l.c., survived his colleague, and
+was followed by Hegesinus (Diog. 60; Cic. l.c.) or Hegesilaus (as he is
+called by Clemens, Strom. p. 301, C). who was the immediate predecessor
+of Carneades. Respecting these individuals nothing is known beyond the
+names.
+
+[1447] Carneades, the son of Epicomus or Philocomus, was born at Cyrene
+(Diog. iv. 62; Strabo, xvii. 3, 22, p. 838; Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 5), and
+died, according to Apollodorus (Diog. 65), 129 B.C., in his 85th year.
+Lucian, Macrob. 20, assigns to him the same age. With less probability
+Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16, Valer. Max. viii. 7, 5, extend his age to 90,
+making his birth-year 213 B.C. Later admirers find it remarkable that
+his birthday, like Plato’s, occurred on the Carnean festival (Plut. Qu.
+Conv. viii. 1, 2, 1). Little is known of his life. He was a disciple
+and follower of Hegesinus, but at the same time received instruction in
+dialectic (Cic. Acad. ii. 30, 98) from the Stoic Diogenes, and studied
+philosophic literature with indefatigable zeal (Diog. 62), more
+particularly the writings of Chrysippus (Diog. 62; Plut. Sto. Rep. 10,
+44; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 13). In 156 B.C. he took part in the
+well-known association of philosophers, and produced the greatest
+impression on his Roman hearers by the force of his language and the
+boldness with which he attacked the current principles of morals.
+Shortly before his death, probably also at an earlier period, he became
+blind (Diog. 66). He left no writings, the preservation of his
+doctrines being the work of his pupils, in particular of Clitomachus
+(Diog. 66, 67; Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 98; 32, 102). Respecting his
+character, we may gather from a few expressions that, whilst vigorous
+in disputation (Diog. 63; Gell. N. A. vi. 14, 10), he was not wanting
+in a repose of mind which was in harmony with his principles (Diog.
+66). That he was a just man, notwithstanding his speech against
+justice, we can well believe (Quintil. xii. 1, 35).
+
+The quotation in Diog. 64 (ἡ συστήσασα φύσις καὶ διαλύσει) does not
+indicate fear of death, but simple resignation to the course of nature.
+Still less does his language on Antipater’s suicide, and also what is
+quoted in Stob. (Floril. 119, 19) that he made a faint-hearted attempt
+to imitate him which he afterwards abandoned. It was only a not very
+clever way of ridiculing an action which appeared to Carneades
+eminently mad.
+
+[1448] Sext. Pyrrh. i. 220; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12; Lucian, Macrob.
+20.
+
+[1449] His School held him in such esteem, that it considered him,
+together with Plato, because of his birthday (unless the idea grew out
+of his name), to be a special favourite of Apollo. Tradition says that
+an eclipse of the moon (Suid. Καρν. adds an eclipse of the sun)
+commemorated his death; συμπάθειαν, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, αἰνιττομένου τοῦ
+μεθ’ ἥλιον καλλίστου τῶν ἄστρων (Diog. 64). Strabo, xvii. 3, 22, p.
+838, says of him: οὗτος δὲ τῶν ἐξ Ἀκαδημίας ἄριστος φιλοσόφων
+ὁμολογεῖται. There was only one opinion among the ancients as to the
+force of his logic, and the power and attraction of his eloquence.
+These gifts were aided by unusually powerful organs (see the anecdotes
+in Plut. Garrul. 21, p. 513; Diog. 63). Conf. Diog. 62; Cic. Fin. iii.
+12, 41; De Orat. ii. 38, 161; iii. 18, 68; Gell. N. A. vi. 14, 10;
+Numen. in Eusebius, Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 2 and 5; Lactant. Inst. v. 14;
+Plut. Cato Maj. 22. The latter, speaking of his success at Rome, says:
+μάλιστα δ’ ἡ Καρνεάδου χάρις, ἧς δύναμίς τε πλείστη καὶ δόξα τῆς
+δυνάμεως οὐκ ἀποδέουσα ... ὡς πνεῦμα τὴν πόλιν ἠχῆς ἐνέπλησε. καὶ λόγος
+κατεῖχεν, ὡς ἀνὴρ Ἕλλην εἰς ἔκπληξιν ὑπερφυὴς, πάντα κηλῶν καὶ
+χειρούμενος, ἔρωτα δεινὸν ἐμβέβληκε τοῖς νέοις, ὑφ’ οὗ τῶν ἄλλων ἡδονῶν
+καὶ διατριβῶν ἐκπεσόντες ἐνθουσιῶσι περὶ φιλοσοφίαν.
+
+[1450] Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16.
+
+[1451] See p. 536, note.
+
+[1452] Sext. Math. vii. 159: ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος. ὁ δὲ Καρνεάδης οὐ
+μόνον τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἀντιδιετάσσετο περὶ
+τοῦ κριτηρίου. In Math. ix. 1, Sextus charges the School of Carneades
+with unnecessary diffuseness in discussing the fundamental principles
+or every system. The Stoics were, however, the chief object of his
+attack. Cic. Tusc. v. 29, 82; N. D. ii. 65, 162; Plut. Garrul. 23, p.
+514; Augustin. c. Acad. iii. 17, 39.
+
+[1453] Sext. l.c.: καὶ δὴ πρῶτος μὲν αὐτῷ καὶ κοινὸς πρὸς πάντας ἐστὶ
+λόγος καθ’ ὃν παρίσταται ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστιν ἁπλῶς ἀληθείας κριτήριον, οὐ
+λόγος οὐκ αἴσθησις οὐ φαντασία οὐκ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὄντων· πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα
+συλλήβδην διαψεύδεται ἡμᾶς.
+
+[1454] Sext. l.c. 160–163.
+
+[1455] Conf. Sext. vii. 403; Cic. Acad. ii. 15, 47; 28, 89—where
+Carneades is undoubtedly meant, although he is not mentioned by name.
+For the other sceptical arguments which Cicero mentions tally with
+those which Sextus attributes to Carneades, and Cicero makes Antiochus
+refute them, who was the immediate adversary of Carneades.
+
+[1456] According to Cic. Acad. ii. 13, 40; 26, 83, the Academic system
+of proof rests on the four following propositions: (1) that there are
+false notions; (2) that these cannot be known, i.e. be recognised as
+true; (3) that of two indistinguishable notions, it is impossible to
+know the one and not the other; (4) that there is no true notion by the
+side of which a false one cannot be placed indistinguishable from it.
+The second and third of these propositions are not denied at all, and
+the first is only denied by Epicurus in regard to impressions on the
+senses. Hence all importance attaches to the fourth proposition, to
+which Sextus, vii. 164 and 402, and Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 4,
+look as the most important argument.
+
+[1457] Cic. Acad. ii. 13, 42: Dividunt enim in partes et eas quidem
+magnas: primum in sensus, deinde in ea, quæ ducuntur a sensibus et ab
+omni consuetudine, quam obscurari volunt (the συνήθεια against which
+Chrysippus already directed severe attacks. See p. 46, 2; 91, 2). Tum
+perveniunt ad eam partem, ut ne ratione quidem et conjectura ulla res
+percipi possit. Hæc autem universa etiam concidunt minutius.
+
+[1458] Sext. vii. 409; Cic. Acad. ii. 26, 84; 7, 19; 25, 79; Numen. in
+Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 5. Therewith is probably connected the statement
+in Galen, De Opt. Doct. c. 2, vol. i. 45, K, that Carneades
+persistently denied the axiom that two things that are equal to a third
+are equal to one another. His assertion probably comes to this, that it
+may be possible to distinguish two things as unequal, which cannot be
+distinguished from a third, that therefore two things may appear equal
+to a third without being or appearing equal to one another.
+
+[1459] Sext. 402 and 408.
+
+[1460] The fallacy called ψευδόμενος is carefully investigated in Cic.
+Acad. ii. 30, 95 (by Carneades as he says, 98), as an instance in
+point.
+
+[1461] Sext. 416; Cic. l.c. 29, 92. Since Chrysippus tried to meet the
+chain-argument, it may be supposed that this fallacy had been used by
+Arcesilaus against the Stoics.
+
+[1462] Sext. vii. 164; Augustin. c. Acad. ii. 5, 11.
+
+[1463] Sext. 165.
+
+[1464] Cic. Acad. ii. 28, 91, who here appears to be following Philo,
+and, subsequently, Carneades as well. Carneades also gives utterance to
+a similar view of dialectic in Stob. Floril. 93, 13 (conf. Plut. C.
+Not. 2, 4), comparing it to a polypus consuming its own tentacles. It
+is able, he conceives, to expose fallacies, but not to discover truth.
+
+[1465] Cic. Acad. ii. 36, 117. Carneades is not mentioned by name, but
+there can be no doubt that the reference is to some Academician, and it
+is probable that it was the work of Carneades.
+
+[1466] Diog. iv. 62.
+
+[1467] Cic. N. D. i. 2, 5, after a brief description of the Stoical
+views of Gods: Contra quos Carneades ita multa disseruit, ut excitaret
+homines non socordes ad veri investigandi cupiditatem.
+
+[1468] Cic. N. D. i. 23, 62; iii. 4, 11. Here, too, Carneades is not
+mentioned by name, but the reference to him is made clear by Cicero’s
+remark that he is quoting the Academic view.
+
+[1469] Conf. Cic. N. D. iii. 5, 11.
+
+[1470] The Academician in Cic. Acad. ii. 38, 120. That these arguments
+were used by Carneades is clear from Plut. in Porphyr. De Abst. iii.
+20, where, traversing the arguments of the Stoics, he justifies the
+existence of vermin, poisonous plants, and beasts of prey. In answer to
+Chrysippus’ assertion, that the final cause of a pig is to be killed,
+Carneades argues: A pig, therefore, by being killed, must attain the
+object for which it was destined; it is always beneficial for a thing
+to attain its object—therefore it must be beneficial to a pig to be
+killed and eaten.
+
+[1471] Cic. N. D. iii. 25, 65–70. It is here presumed that the leading
+thoughts in Cicero’s description belong to the School of Carneades.
+
+[1472] Ibid. 31, 76.
+
+[1473] Ibid. 32, 79.
+
+[1474] Cic. N. D. iii. 32, 80.
+
+[1475] Cic. Acad. ii. 38, 120; N. D. iii. 11, 28.
+
+[1476] Cic. N. D. iii. 8, 21; 10, 26; 11, 27.
+
+[1477] Ibid. 10, 25.
+
+[1478] L.c.
+
+[1479] Cic. N. D. iii. 12, 29; 14, 34.
+
+[1480] Cic. N. D. iii. 13, 32. More fully Sext. Math. ix. 139–147. Here
+too Carneades is expressly mentioned. But were he not mentioned the
+agreement of the argument with that given by Cicero would show that the
+same person was being referred to.
+
+[1481] Cic.; Ibid. Further proofs of the transient nature of all
+earthly beings are there given.
+
+[1482] Sext. Math. ix. 152–175, quotes the same argument for σωφροσύνη,
+and so does Cic. N. D. iii. 15, 38. Neither mentions Carneades by name,
+but since both writers introduce these proofs in the same position in a
+longer argument, in which Carneades is expressly mentioned both before
+and after, there can be no doubt that to him they refer.
+
+[1483] Sext. ix. 176. The argument has a look of sophistry about it. It
+alludes to the important question which engaged so much attention in
+the middle ages, viz. How is the universal related in Deity to the
+individual? Are goodness and reason a law for God independent of His
+will or not?
+
+[1484] As Epicurus did. See p. 468, 3.
+
+[1485] Sext. 178.
+
+[1486] Sext. l.c. 148–151; 180. That Sextus here refers to Carneades is
+clear from his agreement with Cic. N. D. 12, 29–31; 14, 34. Cicero
+introduces his remarks with the words: Illa autem, quæ Carneades
+afferebat, quemadmodum dissolvitis? Sextus himself seems to refer not
+only individual arguments, but the whole series of them, to Carneades,
+when he continues, 182: ἠρώτηνται δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Καρνεάδου καὶ
+σωριτικῶς τινες κ.τ.λ.
+
+[1487] Sext. 182–190. More fully in Cic. N. D. iii. 17, 43. Sextus also
+observes, 190: καὶ ἄλλους δὴ τοιούτους σωρείτας ἐρωτῶσιν οἱ περὶ τὸν
+Καρνεάδην εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι θεούς.
+
+[1488] To him, or probably to his School, belongs the learned argument
+given by Cic. N. D. iii. 21, 53, to 23, 60, in which he proves the want
+of unity in traditional myths by the multiplicity of Gods of the same
+name. The whole drift of this argument shows that it was borrowed from
+some Greek treatise.
+
+[1489] See Cic. Divin. i. 4, 7; 7, 12.
+
+[1490] Ibid. ii. 3, 9.
+
+[1491] Ibid. v. 13; but Carneades is not here mentioned by name.
+
+[1492] Ibid. i. 13, 23; 49, 109.
+
+[1493] Cic. l.c. and Divin. ii. 21, 48.
+
+[1494] Cic. l.c. ii. 11, 27.
+
+[1495] Cic. De Fato, 11, 23; 14, 31. The freedom of the will, he there
+says, may be asserted even granting that every motion is referred to a
+cause, for it is not necessary that this law should hold good of the
+will. He will therefore confine it to bodily motion, and not allow to
+it unconditional validity.
+
+[1496] Lact. Instit. v. 14, following Cic. De Rep. iii. 4; Plut. Cato
+Maj. c. 22; Quintil. Instit. xii. 1, 35.
+
+[1497] Lactant. l.c. 16; Cic. De Rep. iii. 8–12; 14; 17; Fin. ii. 18,
+59. On the above casuistical cases see De Off. iii. 13; 23, 89, and
+above, p. 299, 2. Probably Carneades was the cause of the study of
+casuistry among the later Stoics.
+
+[1498] Cic. Acad. ii. 34, 108; conf. 31, 98. In Id. Att. xiii. 21, he
+compares this ἐποχὴ to the drawing up of a charioteer, or to the guard
+of a pugilist. No doubt it is with reference to ἐποχὴ that Alex. Aphr.
+De An. 154 a, says: The Academicians consider ἀπτωσία the πρῶτον
+οἰκεῖον, πρὸς ταύτην γάρ φασιν ἡμᾶς οἰκείως ἔχειν πρώτην, ὥστε μηδὲν
+προσπταίειν. ἀπροσπτωσία or ἀπροπτωσία is, according to the Stoic
+definition (Diog. vii. 46) = ἐπιστήμη τοῦ πότε δεῖ συγκατατίθεσθαι καὶ
+μή. It consists, therefore, in not giving a hasty assent to any
+proposition. According to the Sceptics, this is only possible, and you
+are only then safe from error, when you give assent to none whatever.
+ἀπροσπτωσία becomes then identical with ἐποχὴ or ἄγνοια, which Max.
+Tyr. Diss. 35, 7, speaks of as the ultimate end of Carneades. Hence
+Carneades, as Arcesilaus had done before him, spoke for and against
+every subject without expressing a decided opinion. Cic. N. D. i. 5,
+11; Acad. ii. 18, 60; Divin. ii. 72, 150; Rep. iii. 5, 8; Tusc. v. 4,
+11; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12.
+
+[1499] Cic. Acad. ii. 9, 28.
+
+[1500] Sext. Math. vii. 166: ἀπατούμενος δὲ καὶ αὐτός [ὁ Καρνεάδης] τι
+κριτήριον πρός τε τὴν τοῦ βίου διεξαγωγὴν καὶ πρὸς τὴν τὴς εὐδαιμονίας
+περίκτησιν δυνάμιν ἀπαναγκάζεται καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸν περὶ τούτου
+διατάττεσθαι, κ.τ.λ. Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 99 (of Clitomachus): Etenim
+contra naturam esset, si probabile nihil esset, et sequitur omnis vitæ
+... eversio. Ibid. 101; 32, 104: Nam cum placeat, eum qui de omnibus
+rebus contineat se de assentiendo, moveri tamen et agere aliquid,
+reliquit ejusmodi visa, quibus ad actionem excitemur, etc. Hence the
+assurance (Ibid. 103; Stob. Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 234) that the
+Academicians do not wish to go into the question of perception. They
+accept it as a phenomenon of consciousness and a basis of action, but
+they deny that it strictly furnishes knowledge. The senses are ὑγιεῖς,
+but not ἀκριβεῖς.
+
+[1501] Sext. and Cic. l.c.
+
+[1502] Sext. l.c. 167–170.
+
+[1503] Ibid. 171–173; or, as it is expressed by Cicero, Acad. ii. 24,
+78: It is possible nihil percipere et tamen opinari. It is of no
+importance that Philo and Metrodorus said Carneades had proved this
+statement, whereas Clitomachus had stated, hoc magis ab eo disputatum
+quam probatum. Acad. ii. 48, 148; 21, 67, attributes the statement to
+Carneades, without any qualification, adding only: Adsensurum
+(aliquando, as the latter passage adds) non percepto, i.e. opinaturum
+sapientem.
+
+[1504] Conf. Augustin. c. Acad. ii. 11, 26 (undoubtedly in point of
+matter and probably in terms following Cicero): Id probabile vel
+verisimile Academici vocant, quod nos ad addendum sine adsensione
+potest invitare. Sine adsensione autem dico, ut id quod agimus non
+opinemur verum esse aut non id scire arbitremur, agamus tamen. To the
+same effect, Euseb. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12: Carneades declared it
+impossible to withhold judgment on all points, and asserted πάντα μὲν
+εἶναι ἀκατάληπτα, οὐ πάντα δὲ ἄδηλα. Conf. Cic. Acad. ii. 17, 54, where
+the objection is raised to the new Academicians: Ne hoc quidem cernunt,
+omnia se reddere incerta, quod nolunt; ea dico incerta, quæ ἄδηλα
+Græci.
+
+[1505] Sext. l.c. 173; 175–182; Pyrrh. i. 227; conf. Cic. Acad. ii. 11,
+33; 31, 99; 32, 104.
+
+[1506] Sext. l.c. 173; 181.
+
+[1507] Ibid. 176; 183.
+
+[1508] Ibid. 184.
+
+[1509] Sext. l.c. 174; Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 99.
+
+[1510] Cic. l.c. 32, 103; 48, 148. This explanation does away with the
+charge of inconsistency which is brought against Carneades in Cic.
+Acad. ii. 18, 59; 21, 67; 24, 78 (see p. 554, 3), on the ground that he
+allowed, in contradistinction to Arcesilaus, that the wise man will
+sometimes follow opinion, and will give his assent to certain
+statements. Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 7, even asserts that he
+expressed his own convictions to his friends in private; but this
+assertion is no more true of him than of Arcesilaus (see p. 531, 3), as
+may be seen from the passage on p. 557, 2.
+
+[1511] Sext. Pyrrh. i. 226: ἀγαθὸν γάρ τί φασιν εἶναι οἱ Ἀκαδημαϊκοὶ
+καὶ κακὸν, οὐχ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ πεπεῖσθαι ὅτι πιθανόν ἐστι
+μᾶλλον ὃ λέγουσιν εἶναι ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχειν ἢ τὸ ἐναντίον; καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ
+κακοῦ ὁμοίως.
+
+[1512] See p. 553, 2; 554, 4.
+
+[1513] Here the question arises, Whence does the Sceptic derive his
+conviction as to probabilities in morals? and as perception is not
+available for the purpose, Geffers concludes (De Arc. Successor. 20)
+that Carneades assumed a peculiar source of conviction in the mind. For
+such an assumption, however, our authorities give no proof. It cannot
+be gathered from the hypothetical language respecting the freedom of
+the will in Cic. De Fato, ii. 23. See p. 551, 2. Nor is it, indeed,
+necessary that Carneades, who never pretended to hold any psychological
+theory, should have had any opinion on the subject. Supposing he did
+have it, he might have appealed to experience quite as readily or more
+so than the Stoics, and have been content with the fact that certain
+things are far more agreeable or disagreeable, and either promote or
+disturb happiness.
+
+[1514] Cic. Fin. v. 6, 16, to 8, 23; conf. Tusc. v. 29, 84; Ritter,
+iii. 686, has hardly expressed with accuracy Carneades’ division, or he
+would not have accused it of being inaccurate and superficial.
+
+[1515] Cic. Acad. ii. 45, 139.
+
+[1516] Cic. Acad. ii. 42, 131: Introducebat etiam Carneades, non quo
+probaret, sed ut opponeret Stoicis, summum bonum esse frui iis rebus,
+quas primas natura conciliavisset (οἰκειοῦν). Similarly Fin. v. 7, 20;
+Tusc. v. 30, 84. This view differs from that of the Stoics, because it
+makes the highest Good consist not in natural activity as such, but in
+the enjoyment of natural goods.
+
+[1517] Cic. Fin. ii. 11, 35: Ita tres sunt fines expertes honestatis,
+unus Aristippi vel Epicuri (pleasure), alter Hieronymi (freedom from
+pain), Carneadis tertius (the satisfaction of natural instincts). Conf.
+Ibid. v. 7, 20; 8, 22.
+
+[1518] Cic. Acad. ii. 45, 139: Ut Calliphontem sequar, cujus quidem
+sententiam Carneades ita studiose defensitabat, ut eam probare etiam
+videretur. Callipho is reckoned among those who consider honestas cum
+aliqua accessione—or, as it is said, Fin. v. 8, 21; 25, 73; Tusc. v.
+30, 85, voluptas cum honestate—the highest Good.
+
+[1519] Plut. Tranq. An. 16, p. 475.
+
+[1520] Cic. Tusc. iii. 22, 54. Let it be observed that this view of
+Carneades is specially placed under the head of conviction on
+probabilities. It is said, he attacked the proposition, videri fore in
+ægritudine sapientem patria capta. The other statements of Carneades on
+ethics, such as that in Plut. De Adulat. 16, p. 51, have nothing
+characteristic about them.
+
+[1521] See p. 279.
+
+[1522] Plut. C. Not. 27, 14; Stob. Ecl. ii. 134. Plutarch, however,
+only quotes it as the opinion of individuals. It appears more probable
+that it was an opinion of Chrysippus which Antipater defended against
+Carneades. Carneades even practically attributes it to the Stoics.
+
+[1523] Cic. Fin. iii. 12, 41: Carneades tuus ... rem in summum
+discrimen adduxit, propterea quod pugnare non destitit, in omni hac
+quæstione, quæ de bonis et malis appelletur, non esse rerum Stoicis cum
+Peripateticis controversiam, sed nominum.
+
+[1524] Fin. iii. 17, 57.
+
+[1525] Cic. Tusc. iii. 25, 59.
+
+[1526] Ibid. v. 29, 83: Et quoniam videris hoc velle, ut, quæcumque
+dissentientium philosophorum sententia sit de finibus, tamen virtus
+satis habeat ad vitam beatam præsidii, quod quidem Carneadem disputare
+solitum accepimus, etc.
+
+[1527] He explicitly says, Fin. v. 7, 18, that as each one defines the
+highest good, so he determines the honestum (the καλὸν, virtue). The
+view of the Stoics, he says, places the honestum and bonum in activity
+aiming at what is according to nature; adding that, according to the
+view which places it in the possession of what is according to nature,
+the prima secundum naturam are also prima in animis quasi virtutum
+igniculi et semina.
+
+[1528] See p. 560, 3, and Plut. Tranq. An. 19, p. 477, where, however,
+the greater part seems to belong to Plutarch.
+
+[1529] Quintil. Instit. xii. 1, 35. See above 536, 1, end.
+
+[1530] Cic. N. D. iii. 17, 44: Hæc Carneades aiebat, non ut Deos
+tolleret—quid enim philosopho minus conveniens?—sed ut Stoicos nihil de
+Diis explicare convinceret. In this sense the Academician in Cicero (i.
+22, 62) frequently asserts, that he would not destroy belief in God,
+but that he finds the arguments unsatisfactory. Likewise Sextus, Pyrrh.
+iii. 2: τῷ μὲν βίῳ κατακολουθοῦντες ἀδοξάστως φαμὲν εἶναι θεοὺς καὶ
+σέβομεν θεοὺς καὶ προνοεῖν αὐτοὺς φαμέν.
+
+[1531] Ritter, iii. 730, 694.
+
+[1532] Clitomachus was a native of Carthage. Hence he is called by Max
+Tyr. Diss. 10, 3, ὁ Λίβυς. He originally bore the name of Hasdrubal. At
+home he devoted himself to study, and wrote several treatises in his
+mother tongue (τῇ ἰδίᾳ φωνῇ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι ἐφιλοσόφει). When 40 years of
+age (according to Steph. Byz. De urbe Καρχηδὼν; 28), he came to Athens,
+was initiated by Carneades into Greek philosophy, and devoted himself
+to it with such zeal and success (Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 17; 31, 98; Athen.
+ix. 402, c) that he became esteemed as a philosopher and voluminous
+writer (Diog. iv. 67). Treatises of his are mentioned by Cic. Acad. ii.
+31, 98; 32, 102; Diog. ii. 92. He died (according to Stob. Floril. vii.
+55) by suicide, not before 110 B.C. (as Zumpt remarks, Ueber d.
+philosoph. Schulen in Ath., Abh. d. Berl. Akad., Jahrg. 1842. Hist.
+Philol. Kl. p. 67), since, according to Cic. De Orat. i. 11, 45, L.
+Crassus, during his quæstorship, which falls at the earliest in this
+year, met him at Athens. He must then have been very old.
+
+[1533] Diog. iv. 67; Cic. Acad. ii. 32, 102.
+
+[1534] As the peculiar observation in Diog. iv. proves: (ἀνὴρ ἐν ταῖς
+τρισὶν αἱρέσεσι διαπρέψας, ἔν τε τῇ Ἀκαδημαϊκῇ Περιπατητικῇ καὶ
+Στωϊκῇ).
+
+[1535] According to Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 17; De Orat. i. 11. 45; Orator,
+16, 51, Charmadas was a pupil of Carneades, whom he followed not only
+in teaching but also in method. He must have survived Clitomachus,
+since he taught at the same time with Philo. See p. 566, 1. Philo,
+however, according to Clitomachus, undertook the presidency of the
+School (Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 9). According to Cic. De Orat. ii. 88,
+360. Tusc. i. 24, 59, he was remarkable for a good memory.
+
+[1536] Cic. De Orat. i. 18, 84: Charmadas asserted, eos qui rhetores
+nominabantur et qui dicendi præcepta traderent nihil plane tenere,
+neque posse quenquam facultatem assequi dicendi, nisi qui philosophorum
+inventa didicissent. Sext. Math. ii. 20, also mentions the hostile
+attitude of Clitomachus and Charmadas towards rhetoricians, and says
+that both he and the School to which he belonged were engaged in
+disputes with them. His fellow-disciple Agnon drew up a treatise,
+according to Quintil. ii. 17, 15, entitled ‘Charges against the
+rhetoricians.’ Ritter’s inferences, that Charmadas recommended
+philosophy as the only way to eloquence, and thus betrayed the object
+of the philosophical doctrine of probability, iii. 695, make far too
+much of a casual expression which means no more than what the Stoics,
+and before them Plato, had said.
+
+[1537] In addition to Clitomachus and Charmadas, Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16,
+mentions Agnon and Melanthius of Rhodes, the former of whom is also
+referred to by Quintilian. (See Athen. xiii. 602, d.) Cicero adds that
+Metrodorus of Stratonice passed for a friend of Carneades; he had come
+over from among the Epicureans (Diog. x. 9) to join him. This
+Metrodorus must neither be confounded with Metrodorus of Skepsis, the
+pupil of Charmadas (see p. 566, 1), nor with the Metrodorus
+distinguished as a painter, 168 B.C., whom Æmilius Paulus brought to
+Rome (Plin. H. N. xxxv. 11, 135). The former must have been younger,
+the latter older, than Metrodorus of Stratonice. A pupil of Melanthius
+(Diog. ii. 64), and also of Carneades in his later years (Plut. An
+Seni. s. ger. Resp. 13, 1, p. 791), was Æschines of Naples, according
+to Cic. De Orat. i. 11, 45, who was likewise a distinguished teacher in
+the Academic School towards the close of the second century. Another
+pupil, Mentor, was by Carneades forbidden the School, because he was
+caught with his concubine (Diog. iv. 63; Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8,
+7).
+
+[1538] Exc. Vatic. xii 26: καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων [τῶν ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ] τινὲς
+βουλόμενοι περί τε τῶν προφανῶς καταληπτῶν εἶναι δοκούντων καὶ περὶ τῶν
+ἀκαταλήπτων εἰς ἀπορίαν ἄγειν τοὺς προσμαχομένους τοιαύταις χρῶνται
+παραδοξολογίαις καὶ τοιαύτας εὐποροῦσι πιθανότητας, ὥστε διαπορεῖν,
+ἀδύνατόν [l. εἰ δυνατόν] ἐστι, τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις ὄντας ὀσφραίνεσθαι τῶν
+ἑψομένων ὠῶν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, καὶ διστάζειν, μή πω καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ
+διαλέγονται περὶ τούτων οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἄλλων ἄρ’ ἐν οἴκῳ κατακείμενοι τούτους
+διατίθενται τοὺς λόγους· ἐξ ὧν δι’ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς παραδοξολογίας εἰς
+διαβολὴν ἤχασι τὴν ὅλην αἵρεσιν, ὥστε καὶ τὰ καλῶς ἀπορούμενα παρὰ τοῖς
+ἀνθρώποις εἰς ἀπιστίαν ἦχθαι, καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ἰδίας ἀστοχίας καὶ τοῖς
+νέοις τοιοῦτον ἐντετόκασι ζῆλον, ὥστε τῶν μὲν ἠθικῶν καὶ πραγματικῶν
+λόγων μηδὲ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἐπίνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι, δι’ ὧν ὄνησις τοῖς
+φιλοσοφοῦσι, περὶ δὲ τὰς ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ παραδόξους εὑρεσιλογίας
+κενοδοξοῦντες κατατρίβουσι τοὺς βίους. In the time of Carneades, whose
+cotemporary was Polybius, to whom the language as to the enthusiasm of
+youth for Sceptical teaching refers, such depreciatory remarks could
+not have been made of the Academy. The historical value, therefore, of
+the whole passage is suspicious. It bears besides the mark of
+exaggeration so strongly that it is of no greater use for giving a view
+of the Academy than are the caricatures of opponents for conveying an
+idea of modern German philosophy.
+
+[1539] Among these pupils the tendency to lay stress on the doctrine of
+probabilities in relation to Scepticism was already strong. Proof may
+be found not only in the accounts already given us of Clitomachus and
+Æschines, but also in the circumstance that many of the older writers
+made the fourth Academy date from Philo and Charmadas, the fifth from
+Antiochus (Sext. Pyrrh. i. 220; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16). At a still
+earlier date, Metrodorus is said to have departed from the platform of
+Carneades. Augustin. c. Acad. iii. 18, 41, after speaking of Antiochus
+and his renunciation of Scepticism, says: Quamquam et Metrodorus id
+antea facere tentaverat, qui primus dicitur esse confessus, non decreto
+placuisse Academicis, nihil posse comprehendi, sed necessario contra
+Stoicos hujus modi eos arma sumsisse. Probably Augustin borrowed this
+passage from a lost treatise of Cicero; hence it may be relied upon.
+The Metrodorus referred to is probably Metrodorus of Stratonice (see p.
+564, 5), mentioned by Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16. Metrodorus of Skepsis might
+also be suggested (Strabo, xiii. 155, p. 609; xvi. 4, 16, p. 775; Plut.
+Lucull. 22; Diog. v. 84; Cic. De Orat. ii. 88, 360; 90, 365; iii. 20,
+75; Tusc. i. 24, 59; Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 24, 89; Quintil. x. 6, 1;
+xi. 2, 22; Müller, Hist. Gr. iii. 203), who first learned rhetoric at
+Chalcedon, afterwards entered the service of Mithridates, and was put
+to death by his orders, B.C. 70, at an advanced age. Cic. De Orat. iii.
+20, 75, calls him an Academician; and he is mentioned, Ibid. i. 11, 45,
+as a pupil of Charmadas. The language quoted by Augustin may have come
+from the treatise περὶ συνηθείας (Strabo, p. 775). He is otherwise only
+known as a rhetorician and politician. The same uncertainty prevails as
+to the Metrodorus referred to in Cic. Acad. ii. 24, 78 (see p. 554, 3).
+We do not know who he is, but it may be inferred that it is the same
+Metrodorus who is mentioned by Augustin.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77777 ***
author	www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org>	2026-01-25 11:32:41 -0800
committer	www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org>	2026-01-25 11:32:41 -0800
commit	6123683c0297ab7d7ceb4f99f072ff9eb8e97686 (patch)
tree	6f0b5e22386a0a01f083ed885194e354686496c2