{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_57342/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_57342","id":"gutenberg_57342","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57342","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Classics of Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Philosophers, Ancient -- Biography","Philosophy, Ancient"],"text":"BOHN\u2019S CLASSICAL LIBRARY\n\nDIOGENES LA\u00cbRTIUS\n\n\n\n\n G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.\n\n LONDON: PORTUGAL ST., KINGSWAY\n CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.\n NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.\n BOMBAY: A. H. WHEELER AND CO.\n\n\n\n\n THE LIVES AND OPINIONS OF\n EMINENT PHILOSOPHERS\n\n BY\n DIOGENES LA\u00cbRTIUS.\n\n LITERALLY TRANSLATED\n BY C. D. YONGE, M.A.,\n _Fellow of the Royal University of London;\n Regius Professor of English Literature and Modern\n History, Queen\u2019s College, Belfast._\n\n [Illustration]\n\n LONDON\n G. BELL AND SONS, LTD\n 1915\n\n [_Reprinted from Stereotype plates._]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n PAGE.\n\n PREFACE 1\n\n BOOK I.\n\n INTRODUCTION 3\n THALES 14\n SOLON 23\n CHILO 32\n PITTACUS 35\n BIAS 38\n CLEOBULUS 41\n PERIANDER 43\n ANACHARSIS, THE SCYTHIAN 46\n MYSON 49\n EPIMENIDES 50\n PHERECYDES 53\n\n BOOK II.\n\n ANAXIMANDER 57\n ANAXIMENES 57\n ARCHELAUS 62\n SOCRATES 63\n XENOPHON 75\n \u00c6SCHINES 79\n ARISTIPPUS 81\n PH\u00c6DO 96\n EUCLIDES 97\n STILPO 100\n CRITO 103\n SIMON 104\n GLAUCO 104\n SIMIAS 105\n CEBES 105\n MENEDEMUS 105\n\n BOOK III.\n\n PLATO 113\n\n BOOK IV.\n\n SPEUSIPPUS 152\n XENOCRATES 154\n POLEMO 158\n CRATES 160\n CRANTOR 161\n ARCESILAUS 163\n BION 171\n LACYDES 176\n CARNEADES 177\n CLITOMACHUS 178\n\n BOOK V.\n\n ARISTOTLE 181\n THEOPHRASTUS 194\n STRATO 202\n LYCON 205\n DEMETRIUS 209\n HERACLIDES 213\n\n BOOK VI.\n\n ANTISTHENES 217\n DIOGENES 224\n MONIMUS 248\n ONESICRITUS 249\n CRATES 249\n METROCLES 253\n HIPPARCHIA 254\n MENIPPUS 256\n MENEDEMUS 257\n\n BOOK VII.\n\n ZENO 259\n ARISTON 318\n HERILLUS 320\n DIONYSIUS 321\n CLEANTHES 322\n SPH\u00c6RUS 326\n CHRYSIPPUS 327\n\n BOOK VIII.\n\n PYTHAGORAS 338\n EMPEDOCLES 359\n EPICHARMUS 368\n ARCHYTAS 369\n ALCM\u00c6ON 371\n HIPPASUS 371\n PHILOLAUS 372\n EUDOXUS 372\n\n BOOK IX.\n\n HERACLITUS 376\n XENOPHANES 382\n PARMENIDES 384\n MELISSUS 386\n ZENO, THE ELEATIC 386\n LEUCIPPUS 388\n DEMOCRITUS 390\n PROTAGORAS 397\n DIOGENES, OF APOLLONIA 400\n ANAXARCHUS 400\n PYRRHO 402\n TIMON 420\n\n BOOK X.\n\n EPICURUS 424\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nDiogenes, the author of the following work, was a native (as is generally\nbelieved) of La\u00ebrte, in Cilicia, from which circumstance he derived the\ncognomen of La\u00ebrtius. Little is known of him personally, nor is even the\nage in which he lived very clearly ascertained. But as Plutarch, Sextus\nEmpiricus, and Saturninus are among the writers whom he quotes, he is\ngenerally believed to have lived near the end of the second century of\nour era: although some place him in the time of Alexander Severus, and\nothers as late as Constantine. His work consists of ten books, variously\ncalled: The Lives of Philosophers, A History of Philosophy, and The Lives\nof Sophists. From internal evidence (iii. 47, 29), we learn that he wrote\nit for a noble lady (according to some, Arria; according to others,\nJulia, the Empress of Severus), who occupied herself with the study of\nphilosophy, and especially of Plato.\n\nDiogenes La\u00ebrtius divides the philosophy of the Greeks into the Ionic,\nbeginning with Anaximander, and ending with Theophrastus (in which class,\nhe includes the Socratic philosophy and all its various ramifications);\nand the Italian, beginning with Pythagoras, and ending with Epicurus, in\nwhich he includes the Eleatics, as also Heraclitus and the Sceptics. From\nthe minute consideration which he devotes to Epicurus and his system, it\nhas been supposed that he himself belonged to that school.\n\nHis work is the chief source of information we possess concerning the\nhistory of Greek philosophy, and is the foundation of nearly all the\nmodern treatises on that subject; some of the most important of which are\nlittle more than translations or amplifications of it. It is valuable,\nas containing a copious collection of anecdotes illustrative of the life\nand manners of the Greeks; but he has not always been very careful in\nhis selection, and in some parts there is a confusion in his statements\nthat makes them scarcely intelligible. These faults have led some critics\nto consider the work as it now exists merely a mutilated abridgment of\nthe original. Bresl\u00e6us, who in the thirteenth century, wrote a Treatise\non the Lives and Manners of the Philosophers, quotes many anecdotes and\nsayings, which seem to be derived from Diogenes, but which are not to be\nfound in our present text; whence Schneider concludes that he had a very\ndifferent and far more complete copy than has come down to us.\n\nThe text used in the following translation is chiefly that of Huebner, as\npublished at Leipsic, A.D. 1828.\n\n\n\n\nLIVES AND OPINIONS OF EMINENT PHILOSOPHERS.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nI. Some say that the study of philosophy originated with the barbarians.\nIn that among the Persians there existed the Magi,[1] and among\nthe Babylonians or Assyrians the Chald\u00e6i,[2] among the Indians the\nGymnosophist\u00e6,[3] and among the Celts and Gauls men who were called\nDruids[4] and Semnothei, as Aristotle relates in his book on Magic,\nand Sotion in the twenty-third book of his Succession of Philosophers.\nBesides those men there were the Ph\u0153nician Ochus, the Thracian\nZamolxis,[5] and the Libyan Atlas. For the Egyptians say that Vulcan\nwas the son of Nilus, and that he was the author of philosophy, in which\nthose who were especially eminent were called his priests and prophets.\n\nII. From his age to that of Alexander, king of the Macedonians were\nforty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three years, and during this\ntime there were three hundred and seventy-three eclipses of the sun, and\neight hundred and thirty-two eclipses of the moon.\n\nAgain, from the time of the Magi, the first of whom was Zoroaster\nthe Persian, to that of the fall of Troy, Hermodorus the Platonic\nphilosopher, in his treatise on Mathematics, calculates that fifteen\nthousand years elapsed. But Xanthus the Lydian says that the passage of\nthe Hellespont by Xerxes took place six thousand years after the time of\nZoroaster,[6] and that after him there was a regular succession of Magi\nunder the names of Ostanes and Astrampsychos and Gobryas and Pazatas,\nuntil the destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander.\n\nIII. But those who say this, ignorantly impute to the barbarians the\nmerits of the Greeks, from whom not only all philosophy, but even the\nwhole human race in reality originated. For Mus\u00e6us was born among the\nAthenians, and Linus among the Thebans; and they say that the former,\nwho was the son of Eumolpus, was the first person who taught the system\nof the genealogy of the gods, and who invented the spheres; and that\nhe taught that all things originated in one thing, and when dissolved\nreturned to that same thing; and that he died at Phalerum, and that this\nepitaph was inscribed on his tomb:\u2014\n\n Phalerum\u2019s soil beneath this tomb contains\n Mus\u00e6us dead, Eumolpus\u2019 darling son.\n\nAnd it is from the father of Mus\u00e6us that the family called Eumolpid\u00e6\namong the Athenians derive their name. They say too that Linus was the\nson of Mercury and the Muse Urania; and that he invented a system of\nCosmogony, and of the motions of the sun and moon, and of the generation\nof animals and fruits; and the following is the beginning of his poem,\n\n There was a time when all the present world\n Uprose at once.\n\nFrom which Anaxagoras derived his theory, when he said that all things\nhad been produced at the same time, and that then intellect had come and\narranged them all in order.\n\nThey say, moreover, that Linus died in Eub\u0153a, having been shot with an\narrow by Apollo, and that this epitaph was set over him:\u2014\n\n The Theban Linus sleeps beneath this ground,\n Urania\u2019s son with fairest garlands crown\u2019d.\n\nIV. And thus did philosophy arise among the Greeks, and indeed its very\nname shows that it has no connection with the barbarians. But those who\nattribute its origin to them, introduce Orpheus the Thracian, and say\nthat he was a philosopher, and the most ancient one of all. But if one\nought to call a man who has said such things about the gods as he has\nsaid, a philosopher, I do not know what name one ought to give to him who\nhas not scrupled to attribute all sorts of human feelings to the gods,\nand even such discreditable actions as are but rarely spoken of among\nmen; and tradition relates that he was murdered by women;[7] but there\nis an inscription at Dium in Macedonia, saying that he was killed by\nlightning, and it runs thus:\u2014\n\n Here the bard buried by the Muses lies,\n The Thracian Orpheus of the golden lyre;\n Whom mighty Jove, the Sovereign of the skies,\n Removed from earth by his dread lightn\u2019ng\u2019s fire.\n\nV. But they who say that philosophy had its rise among the barbarians,\ngive also an account of the different systems prevailing among the\nvarious tribes. And they say that the Gymnosophists and the Druids\nphilosophize, delivering their apophthegms in enigmatical language,\nbidding men worship the gods and do no evil, and practise manly virtue.\n\nVI. Accordingly Clitarchus, in his twelfth book, says that the\nGymnosophists despise death, and that the Chald\u00e6ans study astronomy and\nthe science of soothsaying\u2014that the Magi occupy themselves about the\nservice to be paid to the gods, and about sacrifices and prayers, as\nif they were the only people to whom the deities listen: and that they\ndeliver accounts of the existence and generation of the gods, saying that\nthey are fire, and earth, and water; and they condemn the use of images,\nand above all things do they condemn those who say that the gods are male\nand female; they speak much of justice, and think it impious to destroy\nthe bodies of the dead by fire; they allow men to marry their mothers or\ntheir daughters, as Sotion tells us in his twenty-third book; they study\nthe arts of soothsaying and divination, and assert that the gods reveal\ntheir will to them by those sciences. They teach also that the air is\nfull of phantoms, which, by emanation and a sort of evaporation, glide\ninto the sight of those who have a clear perception; they forbid any\nextravagance of ornament, and the use of gold; their garments are white,\ntheir beds are made of leaves, and vegetables are their food, with cheese\nand coarse bread; they use a rush for a staff, the top of which they run\ninto the cheese, and so taking up a piece of it they eat it. Of all kinds\nof magical divination they are ignorant, as Aristotle asserts in his book\non Magic, and Dinon in the fifth book of his Histories. And this writer\nsays, that the name of Zoroaster being interpreted means, a sacrifice to\nthe stars; and Hermodorus makes the same statement. But Aristotle, in\nthe first book of his Treatise on Philosophy, says, that the Magi are\nmore ancient than the Egyptians; and that according to them there are two\nprinciples, a good demon and an evil demon, and that the name of the one\nis Jupiter or Oromasdes, and that of the other Pluto or Arimanius. And\nHermippus gives the same account in the first book of his History of the\nMagi; and so does Eudoxus in his Period; and so does Theopompus in the\neighth book of his History of the Affairs of Philip; and this last writer\ntells us also, that according to the Magi men will have a resurrection\nand be immortal, and that what exists now will exist hereafter under its\nown present name; and Eudemus of Rhodes coincides in this statement.\nBut Hecat\u00e6us says, that according to their doctrines the gods also are\nbeings who have been born. But Clearchus the Solensian, in his Treatise\non Education says, that the Gymnosophists are descendants of the Magi;\nand some say that the Jews also are derived from them. Moreover, those\nwho have written on the subject of the Magi condemn Herodotus; for they\nsay that Xerxes would never have shot arrows against the sun, or have\nput fetters on the sea, as both sun and sea have been handed down by the\nMagi as gods, but that it was quite consistent for Xerxes to destroy the\nimages of the gods.\n\nVII. The following is the account that authors give of the philosophy of\nthe Egyptians, as bearing on the gods and on justice. They say that the\nfirst principle is matter; then that the four elements were formed out\nof matter and divided, and that some animals were created, and that the\nsun and moon are gods, of whom the former is called Osiris and the latter\nIsis, and they are symbolised under the names of beetles and dragons, and\nhawks, and other animals, as Manetho tells us in his abridged account of\nNatural Philosophy, and Hecat\u00e6us confirms the statement in the first book\nof his History of the Philosophy of the Egyptians. They also make images\nof the gods, and assign them temples because they do not know the form of\nGod. They consider that the world had a beginning and will have an end,\nand that it is a sphere; they think that the stars are fire, and that it\nis by a combination of them that the things on earth are generated; that\nthe moon is eclipsed when it falls into the shadow of the earth; that the\nsoul is eternal and migratory; that rain is caused by the changes of the\natmosphere; and they enter into other speculations on points of natural\nhistory, as Hecat\u00e6us and Aristagoras inform us.\n\nThey also have made laws about justice, which they attribute to Mercury,\nand they consider those animals which are useful to be gods. They claim\nto themselves the merit of having been the inventors of geometry, and\nastrology, and arithmetic. So much then for the subject of invention.\n\nVIII. But Pythagoras was the first person who invented the term\nPhilosophy, and who called himself a philosopher; when he was conversing\nat Sicyon with Leon, who was tyrant of the Sicyonians or of the\nPhliasians (as Heraclides Ponticus relates in the book which he wrote\nabout a dead woman); for he said that no man ought to be called wise,\nbut only God. For formerly what is now called philosophy (\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1) was\ncalled wisdom (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1), and they who professed it were called wise men\n(\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76), as being endowed with great acuteness and accuracy of mind; but\nnow he who embraces wisdom is called a philosopher (\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2).\n\nBut the wise men were also called Sophists. And not only they, but poets\nalso were called Sophists: as Cratinus in his Archilochi calls Homer and\nHesiod, while praising them highly.\n\nIX. Now these were they who were accounted wise men. Thales, Solon,\nPeriander, Cleobulus, Chilo, Bias, Pittacus. To these men add Anacharsis\nthe Scythian, Myson the Chenean, Pherecydes the Syrian, and Epimenides\nthe Cretan; and some add, Pisistratus, the tyrant: These then are they\nwho were called the wise men.\n\nX. But of Philosophy there arose two schools. One derived from\nAnaximander, the other from Pythagoras. Now, Thales had been the\npreceptor of Anaximander, and Pherecydes of Pythagoras. And the one\nschool was called the Ionian, because Thales, being an Ionian (for he\nwas a native of Miletus), had been the tutor of Anaximander;\u2014but the\nother was called the Italian from Pythagoras, because he spent the chief\npart of his life in Italy. And the Ionic school ends with Clitomachus,\nand Chrysippus, and Theophrastus; and the Italian one with Epicurus; for\nAnaximander succeeded Thales, and he was succeeded again by Anaximenes,\nand he by Anaxagoras, and he by Archelaus, who was the master of\nSocrates, who was the originator of moral philosophy. And he was the\nmaster of the sect of the Socratic philosophers, and of Plato, who was\nthe founder of the old Academy; and Plato\u2019s pupils were Speusippus and\nXenocrates; and Polemo was the pupil of Xenocrates, and Crantor and\nCrates of Polemo. Crates again was the master of Arcesilaus, the founder\nof the Middle Academy, and his pupil was Lacydes, who gave the new\nAcademy its distinctive principles. His pupil was Carneades, and he in\nhis turn was the master of Clitomachus. And this school ends in this way\nwith Clitomachus and Chrysippus.\n\nAntisthenes was the pupil of Socrates, and the master of Diogenes the\nCynic; and the pupil of Diogenes was Crates the Theban; Zeno the Citti\u00e6an\nwas his; Cleanthes was his; Chrysippus was his. Again it ends with\nTheophrastus in the following manner:\u2014\n\nAristotle was the pupil of Plato, Theophrastus the pupil of Aristotle;\nand in this way the Ionian school comes to an end.\n\nNow the Italian school was carried on in this way. Pythagoras was the\npupil of Pherecydes; his pupil was Telauges his son; he was the master\nof Xenophanes, and he of Parmenides; Parmenides of Zeno the Eleatic,\nhe of Leucippus, he of Democritus: Democritus had many disciples, the\nmost eminent of whom were Nausiphanes and Nausicydes, and they were the\nmasters of Epicurus.\n\nXI. Now, of Philosophers some were dogmatic, and others were inclined\nto suspend their opinions. By dogmatic, I mean those who explain their\nopinions about matters, as if they could be comprehended. By those who\nsuspend their opinions, I mean those who give no positive judgment,\nthinking that these things cannot be comprehended. And the former class\nhave left many memorials of themselves; but the others have never written\na line; as for instance, according to some people, Socrates, and Stilpo,\nand Philippus, and Menedemus, and Pyrrho, and Theodorus, and Carneades,\nand Bryson; and, as some people say, Pythagoras, and Aristo of Chios,\nexcept that he wrote a few letters. There are some men too who have\nwritten one work only, Melissus, Parmenides, and Anaxagoras; but Zeno\nwrote many works, Xenophanes still more; Democritus more, Aristotle more,\nEpicurus more, and Chrysippus more.\n\nXII. Again, of philosophers some derived a surname from cities, as, the\nElians, and Megaric sect, the Eretrians, and the Cyrenaics. Some from\nthe places which they frequented, as the Academics and Stoics. Some\nfrom accidental circumstances, as the Peripatetics; or, from jests, as\nthe Cynics. Some again from their dispositions, as the Eud\u00e6monics; some\nfrom an opinion, as the Elenctic, and Analogical schools. Some from\ntheir masters, as the Socratic and Epicurean philosophers; and so on.\nThe Natural Philosophers were so called from their study of nature; the\nEthical philosophers from their investigation of questions of morals\n(\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7). The Dialecticians are they who devote themselves to\nquibbling on words.\n\nXIII. Now there are three divisions of philosophy. Natural, Ethical, and\nDialectic. Natural philosophy occupies itself about the world and the\nthings in it; Ethical philosophy about life, and the things which concern\nus; Dialectics are conversant with the arguments by which both the others\nare supported.\n\nNatural philosophy prevailed till the time of Archelaus; but after the\ntime of Socrates, Ethical philosophy was predominant; and after the time\nof Zeno the Eleatic, Dialectic philosophy got the upper hand.\n\nEthical philosophy was subdivided into ten sects; the Academic, the\nCyrenaic, the Elian, the Megaric, the Cynic, the Eretrian, the Dialectic,\nthe Peripatetic, the Stoic, and the Epicurean. Of the old Academic school\nPlato was the president; of the middle, Arcesilaus; and of the New,\nLacydes:\u2014the Cyrenaic school was founded by Aristippus the Cyrenian; the\nElian, by Ph\u00e6do, of Elis; the Megaric, by Euclid, of Megara; the Cynic,\nby Antisthenes, the Athenian; the Eretrian, by Menedemus, of Eretria;\nthe Dialectic by Clitomachus, the Carthaginian; the Peripatetic, by\nAristotle, the Stagirite; the Stoic, by Zeno, the Citti\u00e6an; the Epicurean\nschool derives its name from Epicurus, its founder.\n\nBut Hippobotus, in his Treatise on Sects, says that there are nine sects\nand schools: first, the Megaric; secondly, the Eretrian; thirdly, the\nCyrenaic; fourthly, the Epicurean; fifthly, the Annicerean; sixthly, the\nTheodorean; seventhly, the sect of Zeno and the Stoics; eighthly, that\nof the Old Academy; and ninthly, the Peripatetic;\u2014not counting either\nthe Cynic, or the Eliac, or the Dialectic school. That also which is\ncalled the Pyrrhonean is repudiated by many writers, on account of the\nobscurity of its principles. But others consider that in some particulars\nit is a distinct sect, and in others not. For it does appear to be a\nsect\u2014for what we call a sect, say they, is one which follows, or appears\nto follow, a principle which appears to it to be the true one; on which\nprinciple we correctly call the Sceptics a sect. But if by the name sect\nwe understand those who incline to rules which are consistent with the\nprinciples which they profess, then the Pyrrhonean cannot be called a\nsect, for they have no rules or principles.\n\nThese, then, are the beginnings, these are the successive masters, these\nare the divisions, and schools of philosophy.\n\nXIV. Moreover, it is not long ago, that a new Eclectic school was set\nup by Potamo, of Alexandria, who picked out of the doctrines of each\nschool what pleased him most. And as he himself says, in his Elementary\nInstruction, he thinks that there are certain criteria of truth: first\nof all the faculty which judges, and this is the superior one; the\nother that which is the foundation of the judgment, being a most exact\nappearance of the objects. And the first principles of everything he\ncalls matter, and the agent, and the quality, and the place. For they\nshow out of what, and by what, and how, and where anything is done. The\nend is that to which everything is referred; namely, a life made perfect\nwith every virtue, not without the natural and external qualities of the\nbody.\n\nBut we must now speak of the men themselves; and first of all about\nThales.\n\n\nLIFE OF THALES.\n\nI. Thales, then, as Herodotus and Duris and Democritus say, was the\nson of Euxamius and Cleobule; of the family of the Thelid\u00e6, who are\nPh\u0153nicians by descent, among the most noble of all the descendants of\nCadmus and Agenor, as Plato testifies. And he was the first man to whom\nthe name of Wise was given, when Damasius was Archon at Athens, in whose\ntime also the seven wise men had that title given to them, as Demetrius\nPhalereus records in his Catalogue of the Archons. He was enrolled as\na citizen at Miletus when he came thither with Neleus, who had been\nbanished from Ph\u0153nicia; but a more common statement is that he was a\nnative Milesian, of noble extraction.\n\nII. After having been immersed in state affairs he applied himself to\nspeculations in natural philosophy; though, as some people state, he\nleft no writings behind him. For the book on Naval Astronomy, which is\nattributed to him is said in reality to be the work of Phocus the Samian.\nBut Callimachus was aware that he was the discoverer of the Lesser Bear;\nfor in his Iambics he speaks of him thus:\n\n And, he, \u2019tis said, did first compute the stars\n Which beam in Charles\u2019s wain, and guide the bark\n Of the Ph\u0153nician sailor o\u2019er the sea.\n\nAccording to others he wrote two books, and no more, about the solstice\nand the equinox; thinking that everything else was easily to be\ncomprehended. According to other statements, he is said to have been the\nfirst who studied astronomy, and who foretold the eclipses and motions\nof the sun, as Eudemus relates in his history of the discoveries made in\nastronomy; on which account Xenophanes and Herodotus praise him greatly;\nand Heraclitus and Democritus confirm this statement.\n\nIII. Some again (one of whom is Ch\u0153rilus the poet) say that he was the\nfirst person who affirmed that the souls of men were immortal; and he was\nthe first person, too, who discovered the path of the sun from one end\nof the ecliptic to the other: and who, as one account tells us, defined\nthe magnitude of the sun as being seven hundred and twenty times as great\nas that of the moon. He was also the first person who called the last\nday of the month the thirtieth. And likewise the first to converse about\nnatural philosophy, as some say. But Aristotle and Hippias say that he\nattributed souls also to lifeless things, forming his conjecture from the\nnature of the magnet, and of amber. And Pamphile relates that he, having\nlearnt geometry from the Egyptians, was the first person to describe a\nright-angled triangle in a circle, and that he sacrificed an ox in honour\nof his discovery. But others, among whom is Apollodorus the calculator,\nsay that it was Pythagoras who made this discovery. It was Thales also\nwho carried to their greatest point of advancement the discoveries which\nCallimachus in his iambics says were first made by Euphebus the Phrygian,\nsuch as those of the scalene angle, and of the triangle, and of other\nthings which relate to investigations about lines. He seems also to have\nbeen a man of the greatest wisdom in political matters. For when Cr\u0153sus\nsent to the Milesians to invite them to an alliance, he prevented them\nfrom agreeing to it, which step of his, as Cyrus got the victory, proved\nthe salvation of the city. But Clytus relates, as Heraclides assures us,\nthat he was attached to a solitary and recluse life.\n\nIV. Some assert that he was married, and that he had a son named\nCibissus; others, on the contrary, say that he never had a wife, but that\nhe adopted the son of his sister; and that once being asked why he did\nnot himself become a father, he answered, that it was because he was fond\nof children. They say, too, that when his mother exhorted him to marry,\nhe said, \u201cNo, by Jove, it is not yet time.\u201d And afterwards, when he was\npast his youth, and she was again pressing him earnestly, he said, \u201cIt is\nno longer time.\u201d\n\nV. Hieronymus, of Rhodes, also tells us, in the second book of his\nMiscellaneous Memoranda, that when he was desirous to show that it was\neasy to get rich, he, foreseeing that there would be a great crop of\nolives, took some large plantations of olive trees, and so made a great\ndeal of money.\n\nVI. He asserted water to be the principle of all things, and that the\nworld had life, and was full of d\u00e6mons: they say, too, that he was the\noriginal definer of the seasons of the year, and that it was he who\ndivided the year into three hundred and sixty-five days. And he never had\nany teacher except during the time that he went to Egypt, and associated\nwith the priests. Hieronymus also says that he measured the Pyramids:\nwatching their shadow, and calculating when they were of the same size\nas that was. He lived with Thrasybulus the tyrant of Miletus, as we are\ninformed by Minyas.\n\nVII. Now it is known to every one what happened with respect to the\ntripod that was found by the fishermen and sent to the wise men by the\npeople of the Milesians. For they say that some Ionian youths bought a\ncast of their net from some Milesian fishermen. And when the tripod was\ndrawn up in the net there was a dispute about it; until the Milesians\nsent to Delphi: and the God gave them the following answer:\u2014\n\n You ask about the tripod, to whom you shall present it;\n \u2019Tis for the wisest, I reply, that fortune surely meant it.\n\nAccordingly they gave it to Thales, and he gave it to some one, who again\nhanded it over to another, till it came to Solon. But he said that it\nwas the God himself who was the first in wisdom; and so he sent it to\nDelphi. But Callimachus gives a different account of this in his Iambics,\ntaking the tradition which he mentions from Leander the Milesian; for he\nsays that a certain Arcadian of the name of Bathycles, when dying, left a\ngoblet behind him with an injunction that it should be given to the first\nof the wise men. And it was given to Thales, and went the whole circle\ntill it came back to Thales, on which he sent it to Apollo Didym\u00e6us,\nadding (according to Callimachus,) the following distich:\u2014\n\n Thales, who\u2019s twice received me as a prize,\n Gives me to him who rules the race of Neleus.\n\nAnd the prose inscription runs thus:\u2014\n\n Thales the son of Examius, a Milesian, offers this to Apollo\n Didym\u00e6us, having twice received it from the Greeks as the\n reward for virtue.\n\nAnd the name of the son of Bathycles who carried the goblet about from\none to the other, was Thyrion, as Eleusis tells us in his History of\nAchilles. And Alexander the Myndian agrees with him in the ninth book of\nhis Traditions. But Eudoxus of Cnidos, and Evanthes of Miletus, say that\none of the friends of Cr\u0153sus received from the king a golden goblet, for\nthe purpose of giving it to the wisest of the Greeks; and that he gave\nit to Thales, and that it came round to Chilo, and that he inquired of\nthe God at Delphi who was wiser than himself; and that the God replied,\nMyson, whom we shall mention hereafter. (He is the man whom Eudoxus\nplaces among the seven wise men instead of Cleobulus; but Plato inserts\nhis name instead of Periander.) The God accordingly made this reply\nconcerning him:\u2014\n\n I say that Myson, the \u0152t\u00e6an sage,\n The citizen of Chen, is wiser far\n In his deep mind than you.\n\nThe person who went to the temple to ask the question was Anacharsis; but\nagain D\u00e6dacus, the Platonic philosopher, and Clearchus, state that the\ngoblet was sent by Cr\u0153sus to Pittacus, and so was carried round to the\ndifferent men. But Andron, in his book called The Tripod, says that the\nArgives offered the tripod as a prize for excellence to the wisest of the\nGreeks; and that Aristodemus, a Spartan, was judged to deserve it, but\nthat he yielded the palm to Chilo; and Alc\u00e6us mentions Aristodemus in\nthese lines:\u2014\n\n And so they say Aristodemus once\n Uttered a truthful speech in noble Sparta:\n \u2019Tis money makes the man; and he who\u2019s none,\n Is counted neither good nor honourable.\n\nBut some say that a vessel fully loaded was sent by Periander to\nThrasybulus the tyrant of the Milesians; and that as the ship was wrecked\nin the sea, near the island of Cos, this tripod was afterwards found\nby some fishermen. Phanodicus says that it was found in the sea near\nAthens, and so brought into the city; and then, after an assembly had\nbeen held to decide on the disposal, it was sent to Bias\u2014and the reason\nwhy we will mention in our account of Bias. Others say that this goblet\nhad been made by Vulcan, and presented by the Gods to Pelops, on his\nmarriage; and that subsequently it came into the possession of Menelaus,\nand was taken away by Paris when he carried off Helen, and was thrown\ninto the sea near Cos by her, as she said that it would become a cause\nof battle. And after some time, some of the citizens of Lebedos having\nbought a net, this tripod was brought up in it; and as they quarrelled\nwith the fishermen about it, they went to Cos; and not being able to get\nthe matter settled there, they laid it before the Milesians, as Miletus\nwas their metropolis; and they sent ambassadors, who were treated with\nneglect, on which account they made war on the Coans; and after each side\nhad met with many revolutions of fortune, an oracle directed that the\ntripod should be given to the wisest; and then both parties agreed that\nit belonged to Thales: and he, after it had gone the circuit of all the\nwise men, presented it to the Didym\u00e6an Apollo. Now, the assignation of\nthe oracle was given to the Coans in the following words:\u2014\n\n The war between the brave Ionian race\n And the proud Meropes will never cease,\n Till the rich golden tripod which the God,\n Its maker, cast beneath the briny waves,\n Is from your city sent, and justly given\n To that wise being who knows all present things,\n And all that\u2019s past, and all that is to come.\n\nAnd the reply given to the Milesians was\u2014\n\n You ask about the tripod:\n\nand so on, as I have related it before. And now we have said enough on\nthis subject.\n\nBut Hermippus, in his Lives, refers to Thales what has been by some\npeople reported of Socrates; for he recites that he used to say that he\nthanked fortune for three things:\u2014first of all, that he had been born a\nman and not a beast; secondly, that he was a man and not a woman; and\nthirdly, that he was a Greek and not a barbarian.\n\nVIII. It is said that once he was led out of his house by an old woman\nfor the purpose of observing the stars, and he fell into a ditch and\nbewailed himself, on which the old woman said to him\u2014\u201cDo you, O Thales,\nwho cannot see what is under your feet, think that you shall understand\nwhat is in heaven?\u201d Timon also knew that he was an astronomer, and in his\nSilli he praises him, saying:\u2014\n\n Like Thales, wisest of the seven sages,\n That great astronomer.\n\nAnd Lobon of Argos, says, that which was written by him extends to about\ntwo hundred verses; and that the following inscription is engraved upon\nhis statue:\u2014\n\n Miletus, fairest of Ionian cities,\n Gave birth to Thales, great astronomer,\n Wisest of mortals in all kinds of knowledge.\n\nIX. And these are quoted as some of his lines:\u2014\n\n It is not many words that real wisdom proves;\n Breathe rather one wise thought,\n Select one worthy object,\n So shall you best the endless prate of silly men reprove.\u2014\n\nAnd the following are quoted as sayings of his:\u2014\u201cGod is the most ancient\nof all things, for he had no birth: the world is the most beautiful of\nthings, for it is the work of God: place is the greatest of things, for\nit contains all things: intellect is the swiftest of things, for it runs\nthrough everything: necessity is the strongest of things, for it rules\neverything: time is the wisest of things, for it finds out everything.\u201d\n\nHe said also that there was no difference between life and death. \u201cWhy,\nthen,\u201d said some one to him, \u201cdo not you die?\u201d \u201cBecause,\u201d said he, \u201cit\ndoes make no difference.\u201d A man asked him which was made first, night or\nday, and he replied, \u201cNight was made first by one day.\u201d Another man asked\nhim whether a man who did wrong, could escape the notice of the Gods.\n\u201cNo, not even if he thinks wrong,\u201d said he. An adulterer inquired of him\nwhether he should swear that he had not committed adultery. \u201cPerjury,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cis no worse than adultery.\u201d When he was asked what was very\ndifficult, he said, \u201cTo know one\u2019s self.\u201d And what was easy, \u201cTo advise\nanother.\u201d What was most pleasant? \u201cTo be successful.\u201d To the question,\n\u201cWhat is the divinity?\u201d he replied, \u201cThat which has neither beginning\nnor end.\u201d When asked what hard thing he had seen, he said, \u201cAn old man\na tyrant.\u201d When the question was put to him how a man might most easily\nendure misfortune, he said, \u201cIf he saw his enemies more unfortunate\nstill.\u201d When asked how men might live most virtuously and most justly,\nhe said, \u201cIf we never do ourselves what we blame in others.\u201d To the\nquestion, \u201cWho was happy?\u201d he made answer. \u201cHe who is healthy in his\nbody, easy in his circumstances, and well-instructed as to his mind.\u201d He\nsaid that men ought to remember those friends who were absent as well as\nthose who were present, and not to care about adorning their faces, but\nto be beautified by their studies. \u201cDo not,\u201d said he, \u201cget rich by evil\nactions, and let not any one ever be able to reproach you with speaking\nagainst those who partake of your friendship. All the assistance that\nyou give to your parents, the same you have a right to expect from your\nchildren.\u201d He said that the reason of the Nile overflowing was, that\nits streams were beaten back by the Etesian winds blowing in a contrary\ndirection.\n\nX. Apollodorus, in his Chronicles, says, that Thales was born in the\nfirst year of the thirty-fifth Olympiad; and he died at the age of\nseventy-eight years, or according to the statement of Sosicrates, at the\nage of ninety, for he died in the fifty-eighth Olympiad, having lived in\nthe time of Cr\u0153sus, to whom he promised that he would enable him to pass\nthe Halys without a bridge, by turning the course of the river.\n\nXI. There have also been other men of the name of Thales, as Demetrius\nof Magnesia says, in his Treatise on People and Things of the same name;\nof whom five are particularly mentioned, an orator of Calatia of a very\naffected style of eloquence; a painter of Sicyon, a great man; the third\nwas one who lived in very ancient times, in the age of Homer and Hesiod\nand Lycurgus; the fourth is a man who is mentioned by Duris in his work\non Painting; the fifth is a more modern person, of no great reputation,\nwho is mentioned by Dionysius in his Criticisms.\n\nXII. But this wise Thales died while present as a spectator at a\ngymnastic contest, being worn out with heat and thirst and weakness, for\nhe was very old, and the following inscription was placed on his tomb:\u2014\n\n You see this tomb is small\u2014but recollect,\n The fame of Thales reaches to the skies.\n\nI have also myself composed this epigram on him in the first book of my\nepigrams or poems in various metres:\u2014\n\n O mighty sun, our wisest Thales sat\n Spectator of the games, when you did seize upon him;\n But you were right to take him near yourself,\n Now that his aged sight could scarcely reach to heaven.\n\nXIII. The apophthegm, \u201cknow yourself.\u201d is his; though Antisthenes in\nhis Successions, says that it belongs to Phemonoe, but that Chilo\nappropriated it as his own.\n\nXIV. Now concerning the seven, (for it is well here to speak of them\nall together,) the following traditions are handed down. Damon the\nCyren\u00e6an, who wrote about the philosophers, reproaches them all, but\nmost especially the seven. And Anaximenes says, that they all applied\nthemselves to poetry. But Dic\u00e6archus says, that they were neither wise\nmen nor philosophers, but merely shrewd men, who had studied legislation.\nAnd Archetimus, the Syracusian, wrote an account of their having a\nmeeting at the palace of Cypselus, at which he says that he himself was\npresent. Ephorus says that they all except Thales met at the court of\nCr\u0153sus. And some say that they also met at the Pandionium,[8] and at\nCorinth, and at Delphi. There is a good deal of disagreement between\ndifferent writers with respect to their apophthegms, as the same one is\nattributed by them to various authors. For instance there is the epigram:\u2014\n\n Chilo, the Spartan sage, this sentence said:\n Seek no excess\u2014all timely things are good.\n\nThere is also a difference of opinion with respect to their number.\nLeander inserts in the number instead of Cleobulus and Myson, Leophantus\nGorsias, a native of either Lebedos or Ephesus; and Epimenides, the\nCretan; Plato, in his Protagoras, reckons Myson among them instead\nof Periander. And Ephorus mentions Anacharsis in the place of Myson;\nsome also add Pythagoras to the number. Dic\u00e6archus speaks of four, as\nuniversally agreed upon, Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and Solon; and then\nenumerates six more, of whom we are to select three, namely, Aristodemus,\nPamphilus, Chilo the Laced\u00e6monian, Cleobulus, Anacharsis, and Periander.\nSome add Acusilaus of Argos, the son of Cabas, or Scabras. But Hermippus,\nin his Treatise on the Wise Men says that there were altogether\nseventeen, out of whom different authors selected different individuals\nto make up the seven. These seventeen were Solon, Thales, Pittacus, Bias,\nChilo, Myson, Cleobulus, Periander, Anacharsis, Acusilaus, Epimenides,\nLeophantus, Pherecydes, Aristodemus, Pythagoras, Lasus the son of\nCharmantides, or Sisymbrinus, or as Aristoxenus calls him the son of\nChabrinus, a citizen of Hermione, and Anaxagoras. But Hippobotus in his\nDescription of the Philosophers enumerates among them Orpheus, Linus,\nSolon, Periander, Anacharsis, Cleobulus, Myson, Thales, Bias, Pittacus,\nEpicharmus, and Pythagoras.\n\nXV. The following letters are preserved as having been written by Thales:\u2014\n\nTHALES TO PHERECYDES.\n\nI hear that you are disposed, as no other Ionian has been, to discourse\nto the Greeks about divine things, and perhaps it will be wiser of you to\nreserve for your own friends what you write rather than to entrust it to\nany chance people, without any advantage. If therefore it is agreeable to\nyou, I should be glad to become a pupil of yours as to the matters about\nwhich you write; and if you invite me I will come to you to Syros; for\nSolon the Athenian and I must be out of our senses if we sailed to Crete\nto investigate the history of that country, and to Egypt for the purpose\nof conferring with the priests and astronomers who are to be found there,\nand yet are unwilling to make a voyage to you; for Solon will come\ntoo, if you will give him leave, for as you are fond of your present\nhabitation you are not likely to come to Ionia, nor are you desirous of\nseeing strangers; but you rather, as I hope, devote yourself wholly to\nthe occupation of writing. We, on the other hand, who write nothing,\ntravel over all Greece and Asia.\n\nTHALES TO SOLON.\n\nXVI. If you should leave Athens it appears to me that you would find\na home at Miletus among the colonists of Athens more suitably than\nanywhere else, for here there are no annoyances of any kind. And if you\nare indignant because we Milesians are governed by a tyrant, (for you\nyourself hate all despotic rulers), still at all events you will find it\npleasant to live with us for your companions. Bias has also written to\ninvite you to Priene, and if you prefer taking up your abode in the city\nof the Prieneans, then we ourselves will come thither and settle near you.\n\n\nLIFE OF SOLON.\n\nI. Solon the son of Execestides, a native of Salamis, was the first\nperson who introduced among the Athenians, an ordinance for the\nlowering[9] of debts; for this was the name given to the release of the\nbodies and possessions of the debtors. For men used to borrow on the\nsecurity of their own persons, and many became slaves in consequence of\ntheir inability to pay; and as seven talents were owed to him as a part\nof his paternal inheritance when he succeeded to it, he was the first\nperson who made a composition with his debtors, and who exhorted the\nother men who had money owing to them to do likewise, and this ordinance\nwas called \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1; and the reason why is plain. After that he enacted\nhis other laws, which it would take a long time to enumerate; and he\nwrote them on wooden revolving tablets.\n\nII. But what was his most important act of all was, when there had been\na great dispute about his native land Salamis, between the Athenians and\nMegarians, and when the Athenians had met with many disasters in war,\nand had passed a decree that if any one proposed to the people to go to\nwar for the sake of Salamis he should be punished with death, he then\npretended to be mad and putting on a crown rushed into the market place,\nand there he recited to the Athenians by the agency of a crier, the\nelegies which he had composed, and which were all directed to the subject\nof Salamis, and by these means he excited them; and so they made war\nagain upon the Megarians and conquered them by means of Solon. And the\nelegies which had the greatest influence on the Athenians were these:\u2014\n\n Would that I were a man of Pholegandros,[10]\n Or small Sicinna,[11] rather than of Athens:\n For soon this will a common proverb be,\n That\u2019s an Athenian who won\u2019t fight for Salamis.\n\nAnd another was:\u2014\n\n Let\u2019s go and fight for lovely Salamis,\n And wipe off this our present infamy.\n\nHe also persuaded them to take possession of the Thracian Chersonesus,\nand in order that it might appear that the Athenians had got possession\nof Salamis not by force alone, but also with justice, he opened some\ntombs, and showed that the corpses buried in them were all turned towards\nthe east, according to the Athenian fashion of sepulture; likewise the\ntombs themselves all looked east, and the titles of the boroughs to which\nthe dead belonged were inscribed on them, which was a custom peculiar to\nthe Athenians. Some also say that it was he who added to the catalogue of\nHomer, after the lines:\u2014\n\n With these appear the Salaminian bands,\n Whom Telamon\u2019s gigantic son commands\u2014\n\nThese other verses:\u2014\n\n In twelve black ships to Troy they steer their course,\n And with the great Athenians join their force.[12]\n\nIII. And ever after this time the people was willingly obedient to him,\nand was contented to be governed by him; but he did not choose to be\ntheir ruler, and moreover, as Sosicrates relates, he, as far as in him\nlay, hindered also his relative Pisistratus from being so, when he saw\nthat he was inclined to such a step. Rushing into one of the assemblies\narmed with a spear and shield, he forewarned the people of the design\nof Pisistratus, and not only that but told them that he was prepared to\nassist them; and these were his words: \u201cYe men of Athens, I am wiser\nthan some of you, and braver than others. Wiser than those of you who do\nnot perceive the treachery of Pisistratus; and braver than those who are\naware of it, but out of fear hold their peace.\u201d But the council, being in\nthe interest of Pisistratus, said that he was mad, on which he spoke as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n A short time will to all my madness prove,\n When stern reality presents itself.\n\nAnd these elegiac verses were written by him about the tyranny of\nPisistratus, which he foretold,\n\n Fierce snow and hail are from the clouds borne down,\n And thunder after brilliant lightning roars;\n And by its own great men a city falls,\n The ignorant mob becoming slaves to kings.\n\nIV. And when Pisistratus had obtained the supreme power, he, as he would\nnot influence him, laid down his arms before the chief council-house,\nand said, \u201cO my country, I have stood by you in word and deed.\u201d And then\nhe sailed away to Egypt, and Cyprus, and came to Cr\u0153sus. And while at\nhis court being asked by him, \u201cWho appears to you to be happy?\u201d[13] He\nreplied, \u201cTellus the Athenian, and Cleobis and Biton,\u201d and enumerated\nother commonly spoken of instances. But some people say, that once Cr\u0153sus\nadorned himself in every possible manner, and took his seat upon his\nthrone, and then asked Solon whether he had ever seen a more beautiful\nsight. But he said, \u201cYes, I have seen cocks and pheasants, and peacocks;\nfor they are adorned with natural colours, and such as are ten thousand\ntimes more beautiful.\u201d Afterwards leaving Sardis he went to Cilicia, and\nthere he founded a city which he called Soli after his own name; and he\nplaced in it a few Athenians as colonists, who in time departed from the\nstrict use of their native language, and were said to speak _Solecisms_;\nand the inhabitants of that city are called Solensians; but those of Soli\nin Cyprus are called Solians.\n\nV. And when he learnt that Pisistratus continued to rule in Athens as a\ntyrant, he wrote these verses on the Athenians:\u2014\n\n If through your vices you afflicted are,\n Lay not the blame of your distress on God;\n You made your rulers mighty, gave them guards,\n So now you groan \u2019neath slavery\u2019s heavy rod\u2014\n Each one of you now treads in foxes\u2019 steps,\n Bearing a weak, inconstant, faithless mind,\n Trusting the tongue and slippery speech of man;\n Though in his acts alone you truth can find.\n\nThis, then, he said to them.\n\nVI. But Pisistratus, when he was leaving Athens, wrote him a letter in\nthe following terms:\u2014\n\nPISISTRATUS TO SOLON.\n\nI am not the only one of the Greeks who has seized the sovereignty of\nhis country, nor am I one who had no right whatever to do so, since I\nam of the race of Codrus; for I have only recovered what the Athenians\nswore that they would give to Codrus and all his family, and what they\nafterwards deprived them of. And in all other respects I sin neither\nagainst men nor against gods, but I allow the Athenians to live under the\nlaws which you established amongst them, and they are now living in a\nbetter manner than they would if they were under a democracy; for I allow\nno one to behave with violence: and I, though I am the tyrant, derive no\nother advantage beyond my superiority in rank and honour, being content\nwith the fixed honours which belonged to the former kings. And every one\nof the Athenians brings the tithe of his possessions, not to me, but to\nthe proper place in order that it may be devoted to the public sacrifices\nof the city; and for any other public purposes, or for any emergencies of\nwar which may arise.\n\nBut I do not blame you for laying open my plans, for I know that you\ndid so out of regard for the city rather than out of dislike to me; and\nalso because you did not know what sort of government I was about to\nestablish; since, if you had been acquainted with it, you would have been\ncontent to live under it and would not have fled. Now, therefore, return\nhome again; believing me even without my swearing to you that Solon shall\nnever receive any harm at the hands of Pisistratus; know also that none\nof my enemies have suffered any evil from me; and if you will consent to\nbe one of my friends, you shall be among the first; for I know that there\nis no treachery or faithlessness in you. Or if you wish to live at Athens\nin any other manner, you shall be allowed to do so; only do not deprive\nyourself of your country because of my actions.\n\nThus wrote Pisistratus.\n\nVII. Solon also said, that the limit of human life was seventy years,\nand he appears to have been a most excellent lawgiver, for he enjoined,\n\u201cthat if any one did not support his parents he should be accounted\ninfamous; and that the man who squandered his patrimony should be equally\nso, and the inactive man was liable to prosecution by any one who choose\nto impeach him.\u201d But Lysias, in his speech against Nicias, says that\nDraco first proposed this law, but that it was Solon who enacted it. He\nalso prohibited all who lived in debauchery from ascending the tribunal;\nand he diminished the honours paid to Athletes who were victorious in\nthe games, fixing the prize for a victor at Olympia at five hundred\ndrachm\u00e6,[14] and for one who conquered at the Isthmian games at one\nhundred; and in the same proportion did he fix the prizes for the other\ngames, for he said, that it was absurd to give such great honours to\nthose men as ought to be reserved for those only who died in the wars;\nand their sons he ordered to be educated and bred up at the public\nexpense. And owing to this encouragement, the Athenians behave themselves\nnobly and valiantly in war; as for instance, Polyzelus, and Cyn\u00e6girus,\nand Callimachus, and all the soldiers who fought at Marathon, and\nHarmodius, and Aristogiton, and Miltiades, and numberless other heroes.\n\nBut as for the Athletes, their training is very expensive, and their\nvictories injurious, and they are crowned rather as conquerors of their\ncountry than of their antagonists, and when they become old, as Euripides\nsays:\u2014\n\n They\u2019re like old cloaks worn to the very woof.\n\nIX. So Solon, appreciating these facts, treated them with moderation.\nThis also was an admirable regulation of his, that a guardian of orphans\nshould not live with their mother, and that no one should be appointed a\nguardian, to whom the orphans\u2019 property would come if they died. Another\nexcellent law was, that a seal engraver might not keep an impression of\nany ring which had been sold by him, and that if a person struck out the\neye of a man who had but one, he should lose both his own, and that no\none should claim what he had not deposited, otherwise death should be his\npunishment. If an archon was detected being drunk, that too was a capital\ncrime. And he compiled the poems of Homer, so that they might be recited\nby different bards, taking the cue from one another, so that where one\nhad left off the next one might take him up, so that it was Solon rather\nthan Pisistratus who brought Homer to light, as Dieuchidas says, in the\nfifth book of his History of Megara, and the most celebrated of his\nverses were:\u2014\n\n Full fifty more from Athens stem the main.\n\nAnd the rest of that passage\u2014\u201cAnd Solon was the first person who called\nthe thirtieth day of the month \u1f14\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1.\u201d[15] He was the first person\nalso who assembled the nine archons together to deliver their opinions,\nas Apollodorus tells us in the second book of his Treatise on Lawgivers.\nAnd once, when there was a sedition in the city, he took part neither\nwith the citizens, nor with the inhabitants of the plain, nor with the\nmen of the sea-coast.\n\nX. He used to say, too, that speech was the image of actions, and that\nthe king was the mightiest man as to his power; but that laws were like\ncobwebs\u2014for that if any trifling or powerless thing fell into them,\nthey held it fast; but if a thing of any size fell into them, it broke\nthe meshes and escaped. He used also to say that discourse ought to be\nsealed by silence, and silence by opportunity. It was also a saying of\nhis, that those who had influence with tyrants, were like the pebbles\nwhich are used in making calculations; for that every one of those\npebbles were sometimes worth more, and sometimes less, and so that the\ntyrants sometimes made each of these men of consequence, and sometimes\nneglected them. Being asked why he had made no law concerning parricides,\nhe made answer, that he did not expect that any such person would exist.\nWhen he was asked how men could be most effectually deterred from\ncommitting injustice, he said, \u201cIf those who are not injured feel as\nmuch indignation as those who are.\u201d Another apophthegm of his was, that\nsatiety was generated by wealth, and insolence by satiety.\n\nXI. He it was who taught the Athenians to regulate their days by the\ncourse of the moon; and he also forbade Thespis to perform and represent\nhis tragedies, on the ground of falsehood being unprofitable; and when\nPisistratus wounded himself, he said it all came of Thespis\u2019s tragedies.\n\nXII. He gave the following advice, as is recorded by Apollodorus in\nhis Treatise on the Sects of Philosophers:\u2014\u201cConsider your honour, as\na gentleman, of more weight than an oath.\u2014Never speak falsely.\u2014Pay\nattention to matters of importance.\u2014Be not hasty in making friends; and\ndo not cast off those whom you have made.\u2014Rule, after you have first\nlearnt to submit to rule.\u2014Advise not what is most agreeable, but what is\nbest.\u2014Make reason your guide.\u2014Do not associate with the wicked.\u2014Honour\nthe gods; respect your parents.\u201d\n\nXIII. They say also that when Mimnermus had written:\u2014\n\n Happy\u2019s the man who \u2019scapes disease and care,\n And dies contented in his sixtieth year\n\nSolon rebuked him, and said:\u2014\n\n Be guided now by me, erase this verse,\n Nor envy me if I\u2019m more wise than you.\n If you write thus, your wish would not be worse,\n May I be eighty ere death lays me low.\n\nThe following are some lines out of his poems:\u2014\n\n Watch well each separate citizen,\n Lest having in his heart of hearts\n A secret spear, one still may come\n Saluting you with cheerful face,\n And utter with a double tongue\n The feigned good wishes of his wary mind.\n\nAs for his having made laws, that is notorious; he also composed speeches\nto the people, and a book of suggestions to himself, and some elegiac\npoems, and five thousand verses about Salamis and the constitution of the\nAthenians; and some iambics and epodes.\n\nXV. And on his statue is the following inscription\u2014\n\n Salamis that checked the Persian insolence,\n Brought forth this holy lawgiver, wise Solon.\n\nHe flourished about the forty-sixth Olympiad, in the third year of which\nhe was archon at Athens, as Sosicrates records; and it was in this year\nthat he enacted his laws; and he died in Cyprus, after he had lived\neighty years, having given charge to his relations to carry his bones to\nSalamis, and there to burn them to ashes, and to scatter the ashes on the\nground. In reference to which Cratinus in his Chiron represents him as\nspeaking thus:\u2014\n\n And as men say, I still this isle inhabit,\n Sown o\u2019er the whole of Ajax\u2019 famous city.\n\nThere is also an epigram in the before mentioned collection of poems, in\nvarious metres, in which I have made a collection of notices of all the\nillustrious men that have ever died, in every kind of metre and rhythm,\nin epigrams and odes. And it runs thus:\u2014\n\n The Cyprian flame devour\u2019d great Solon\u2019s corpse\n Far in a foreign land; but Salamis\n Retains his bones, whose dust is turned to corn.\n The tablets of his laws do bear aloft\n His mind to heaven. Such a burden light\n Are these immortal rules to th\u2019 happy wood.\n\nXVI. He also, as some say, was the author of the apophthegm\u2014\u201cSeek\nexcess in nothing.\u201d And Dioscorides, in his Commentaries, says, that,\nwhen he was lamenting his son, who was dead (with whose name I am not\nacquainted), and when some one said to him, \u201cYou do no good by weeping,\u201d\nhe replied, \u201cBut that is the very reason why I weep, because I do no\ngood.\u201d\n\nXVII. The following letters also are attributed to him:\u2014\n\nSOLON TO PERIANDER.\n\nYou send me word that many people are plotting against you; but if you\nwere to think of putting everyone of them out of the way, you would do\nno good; but some one whom you do not suspect would still plot against\nyou, partly because he would fear for himself, and partly out of dislike\nto you for fearing all sorts of things; and he would think, too, that he\nwould make the city grateful to him, even if you were not suspected. It\nis better, therefore, to abstain from the tyranny, in order to escape\nfrom blame. But if you absolutely must be a tyrant, then you had better\nprovide for having a foreign force in the city superior to that of the\ncitizens; and then no one need be formidable to you, nor need you put any\none out of the way.\n\nSOLON TO EPIMENIDES.\n\nXVIII. My laws were not destined to be long of service to the Athenians,\nnor have you done any great good by purifying the city. For neither\ncan the Deity nor lawgivers do much good to cities by themselves; but\nthese people rather give this power, who, from time to time, can lead\nthe people in any opinions they choose; so also the Deity and the laws,\nwhen the citizens are well governed, are useful; but when they are ill\ngoverned, they are no good. Nor are my laws or all the enactments that\nI made, any better; but those who were in power transgressed them, and\ndid great injury to the commonwealth, inasmuch as they did not hinder\nPisistratus from usurping the tyranny. Nor did they believe me when I\ngave them warning beforehand. But he obtained more credit than I did,\nwho flattered the Athenians while I told him the truth: but I, placing\nmy arms before the principal council-house, being wiser than they, told\nthose who had no suspicion of it, that Pisistratus was desirous to\nmake himself a tyrant; and I showed myself more valiant than those who\nhesitated to defend the state against him. But they condemned the madness\nof Solon. But at last I spoke loudly\u2014\u201cO, my country, I, Solon, here am\nready to defend you by word and deed; but to these men I seem to be mad.\nSo I will depart from you, being the only antagonist of Pisistratus; and\nlet these men be his guards if they please.\u201d For you know the man, my\nfriend, and how cleverly he seized upon the tyranny. He first began by\nbeing a demagogue; then, having inflicted wounds on himself, he came to\nthe Heli\u00e6a, crying out, and saying, \u201cThat he had been treated in this\nway by his enemies.\u201d And he entreated the people to assign him as guards\nfour hundred young men; and they, disregarding my advice, gave them to\nhim. And they were all armed with bludgeons. And after that he put down\nthe democracy. They in vain hoped to deliver the poor from their state of\nslavery, and so now they are all of them slaves to Pisistratus.\n\nSOLON TO PISISTRATUS.\n\nI am well assured that I should suffer no evil at your hands. For before\nyour assumption of the tyranny I was a friend of yours, and now my case\nis not different from that of any other Athenian who is not pleased\nwith tyranny. And whether it is better for them to be governed by one\nindividual, or to live under a democracy, that each person may decide\naccording to his own sentiments. And I admit that of all tyrants you are\nthe best. But I do not judge it to be good for me to return to Athens,\nlest any one should blame me, for, after having established equality of\ncivil rights among the Athenians, and after having refused to be a tyrant\nmyself when it was in my power, returning now and acquiescing in what you\nare doing.\n\nSOLON TO CR\u0152SUS.\n\nXX. I thank you for your goodwill towards me. And, by Minerva, if I did\nnot think it precious above everything to live in a democracy, I would\nwillingly prefer living in your palace with you to living at Athens,\nsince Pisistratus has made himself tyrant by force. But life is more\npleasant to me where justice and equality prevail universally. However,\nI will come and see you, being anxious to enjoy your hospitality for a\nseason.\n\n\nLIFE OF CHILO.\n\nI. Chilo was a Laced\u00e6monian, the son of Damagetus. He composed verses\nin elegiac metre to the number of two hundred: and it was a saying of\nhis that a foresight of future events, such as could be arrived at by\nconsideration was the virtue of a man. He also said once to his brother,\nwho was indignant at not being an ephor, while he himself was one, \u201cThe\nreason is because I know how to bear injustice; but you do not.\u201d And he\nwas made ephor in the fifty-fifth Olympiad; but Pamphila says that it\nwas in the fifty-sixth. And he was made first ephor in the year of the\narchonship of Euthydemus, as we are told by Sosicrates. Chilo was also\nthe first person who introduced the custom of joining the ephors to the\nkings as their counsellors: though Satyrus attributes this institution\nto Lycurgus. He, as Herodotus says in his first book, when Hippocrates\nwas sacrificing at Olympia, and the cauldrons began to boil of their own\naccord, advised him either to marry, or, if he were married already, to\ndiscard his wife, and disown his children.\n\nII. They tell a story, also, of his having asked \u00c6sop what Jupiter was\ndoing, and that \u00c6sop replied, \u201cHe is lowering what is high, and exalting\nwhat is low.\u201d Being asked in what educated men differed from those who\nwere illiterate, he said, \u201cIn good hopes.\u201d Having had the question put\nto him, What was difficult, he said, \u201cTo be silent about secrets; to\nmake good use of one\u2019s leisure, and to be able to submit to injustice.\u201d\nAnd besides these three things he added further, \u201cTo rule one\u2019s tongue,\nespecially at a banquet, and not to speak ill of one\u2019s neighbours; for\nif one does so one is sure to hear what one will not like.\u201d He advised,\nmoreover, \u201cTo threaten no one; for that is a womanly trick. To be more\nprompt to go to one\u2019s friends in adversity than in prosperity. To make\nbut a moderate display at one\u2019s marriage. Not to speak evil of the dead.\nTo honour old age.\u2014To keep a watch upon one\u2019s self.\u2014To prefer punishment\nto disgraceful gain; for the one is painful but once, but the other for\none\u2019s whole life.\u2014Not to laugh at a person in misfortune.\u2014If one is\nstrong to be also merciful, so that one\u2019s neighbours may respect one\nrather than fear one.\u2014To learn how to regulate one\u2019s own house well.\u2014Not\nto let one\u2019s tongue outrun one\u2019s sense.\u2014To restrain anger.\u2014Not to dislike\ndivination.\u2014Not to desire what is impossible.\u2014Not to make too much haste\non one\u2019s road.\u2014When speaking not to gesticulate with the hand; for that\nis like a madman.\u2014To obey the laws.\u2014To love quiet.\u201d\n\nAnd of all his songs this one was the most approved:\u2014\n\n Gold is best tested by a whetstone hard,\n Which gives a certain proof of purity;\n And gold itself acts as the test of men,\n By which we know the temper of their minds.\n\nIII. They say, too, that when he was old he said, that he was not\nconscious of having ever done an unjust action in his life; but that he\ndoubted about one thing. For that once when judging in a friend\u2019s cause\nhe had voted himself in accordance with the law, but had persuaded a\nfriend to vote for his acquittal, in order that so he might maintain the\nlaw, and yet save his friend.\n\nIV. But he was most especially celebrated among the Greeks for having\ndelivered an early opinion about Cythera, an island belonging to Laconia.\nFor having become acquainted with its nature, he said, \u201cI wish it had\nnever existed, or that, as it does exist, it were sunk at the bottom of\nthe sea.\u201d And his foresight was proved afterwards. For when Demaratus was\nbanished by the Laced\u00e6monians, he advised Xerxes to keep his ships at\nthat island: and Greece would have been subdued, if Xerxes had taken the\nadvice. And afterwards Nicias, having reduced the island at the time of\nthe Peloponnesian war, placed in it a garrison of Athenians, and did a\ngreat deal of harm to the Laced\u00e6monians.\n\nV. He was very brief in his speech. On which account Aristagoras, the\nMilesian, calls such conciseness, the Chilonean fashion; and says that\nit was adopted by Branchus, who built the temple among the Branchid\u00e6.\nChilo was an old man, about the fifty-second Olympiad, when \u00c6sop, the\nfable writer, flourished. And he died, as Hermippus says, at Pisa, after\nembracing his son, who had gained the victory in boxing at the Olympic\ngames. The cause of his death was excess of joy, and weakness caused\nby extreme old age. All the spectators who were present at the games\nattended his funeral, paying him the highest honours. And we have written\nthe following epigram on him:\u2014\n\n I thank you, brightest Pollux, that the son\n Of Chilo wears the wreath of victory;\n Nor need we grieve if at the glorious sight\n His father died. May such my last end be!\n\nAnd the following inscription is engraved on his statue:\u2014\n\n The warlike Sparta called this Chilo son,\n The wisest man of all the seven sages.\n\nOne of his sayings was, \u201cSuretyship, and then destruction.\u201d The following\nletter of his is also extant:\u2014\n\nCHILO TO PERIANDER.\n\nYou desire me to abandon the expedition against the emigrants, as you\nyourself will go forth. But I think that a sole governor is in a slippery\nposition at home; and I consider that tyrant a fortunate man who dies a\nnatural death in his own house.\n\n\nLIFE OF PITTACUS.\n\nI. Pittacus was a native of Mitylene, and son of Hyrradius. But Duris\nsays, that his father was a Thracian. He, in union with the brothers\nof Alc\u00e6us, put down Melanchrus the tyrant of Lesbos. And in the battle\nwhich took place between the Athenians and Mitylen\u00e6ans on the subject\nof the district of Achilis, he was the Mitylen\u00e6an general; the Athenian\ncommander being Phrynon, a Pancratiast, who had gained the victory at\nOlympia. Pittacus agreed to meet him in single combat, and having a\nnet under his shield, he entangled Phrynon without his being aware of\nit beforehand, and so, having killed him, he preserved the district in\ndispute to his countrymen. But Apollodorus, in his Chronicles, says, that\nsubsequently, the Athenians had a trial with the Mitylen\u00e6ans about the\ndistrict, and that the cause was submitted to Periander, who decided it\nin favour of the Athenians.\n\nII. In consequence of this victory the Mitylen\u00e6ans held Pittacus in the\ngreatest honour, and committed the supreme power into his hands. And\nhe held it for ten years, and then, when he had brought the city and\nconstitution into good order, he resigned the government. And he lived\nten years after that, and the Mitylen\u00e6ans assigned him an estate, which\nhe consecrated to the God, and to this day it is called the Pittacian\nland. But Sosicrates says that he cut off a small portion of it, saying\nthat half was more than the whole; and when Cr\u0153sus offered him some money\nhe would not accept it, as he said that he had already twice as much as\nhe wanted; for that he had succeeded to the inheritance of his brother,\nwho had died without children.\n\nIII. But Pamphila says, in the second book of her Commentaries, that he\nhad a son named Tyrrh\u00e6us, who was killed while sitting in a barber\u2019s\nshop, at Cyma, by a brazier, who threw an axe at him; and that the\nCym\u00e6ans sent the murderer to Pittacus, who when he had learnt what had\nbeen done, dismissed the man, saying, \u201cPardon is better than repentance.\u201d\nBut Heraclitus says that the true story is, that he had got Alc\u00e6us into\nhis power, and that he released him, saying, \u201cPardon is better than\npunishment.\u201d He was also a lawgiver; and he made a law that if a man\ncommitted a crime while drunk, he should have double punishment; in the\nhope of deterring men from getting drunk, as wine was very plentiful in\nthe island.\n\nIV. It was a saying of his that it was a hard thing to be good, and\nthis apophthegm is quoted by Simonides, who says, \u201cIt was a saying of\nPittacus, that it is a hard thing to be really a good man.\u201d Plato also\nmentions it in his Protagoras. Another of his sayings was, \u201cEven the\nGods cannot strive against necessity.\u201d Another was, \u201cPower shows the\nman.\u201d Being once asked what was best, he replied, \u201cTo do what one is\ndoing at the moment well.\u201d When Cr\u0153sus put the question to him, \u201cWhat is\nthe greatest power?\u201d \u201cThe power,\u201d he replied, \u201cof the variegated wood,\u201d\nmeaning the wooden tablets of the laws. He used to say too, that there\nwere some victories without bloodshed. He said once to a man of Phoc\u00e6a,\nwho was saying that we ought to seek out a virtuous man, \u201cBut if you seek\never so much you will not find one.\u201d Some people once asked him what\nthing was very grateful? and he replied, \u201cTime.\u201d\u2014What was uncertain?\n\u201cThe future.\u201d\u2014What was trusty? \u201cThe land.\u201d\u2014What was treacherous? \u201cThe\nsea.\u201d Another saying of his was, that it was the part of wise men, before\ndifficult circumstances arose, to provide for their not arising; but that\nit was the part of brave men to make the best of existing circumstances.\nHe used to say too, \u201cDo not say before hand what you are going to do;\nfor if you fail, you will be laughed at.\u201d \u201cDo not reproach a man with\nhis misfortunes, fearing lest Nemesis may overtake you.\u201d \u201cIf you have\nreceived a deposit, restore it.\u201d \u201cForbear to speak evil not only of your\nfriends, but also of your enemies.\u201d \u201cPractise piety, with temperance.\u201d\n\u201cCultivate truth, good faith, experience, cleverness, sociability, and\nindustry.\u201d\n\nV. He wrote also some songs, of which the following is the most\ncelebrated one:\u2014\n\n The wise will only face the wicked man,\n With bow in hand well bent,\n And quiver full of arrows\u2014\n For such a tongue as his says nothing true,\n Prompted by a wily heart\n To utter double speeches.\n\nHe also composed six hundred verses in elegiac metre; and he wrote a\ntreatise in prose, on Laws, addressed to his countrymen.\n\nVI. He flourished about the forty-second Olympiad; and he died when\nAristomenes was Archon, in the third year of the fifty-second Olympiad;\nhaving lived more than seventy years, being a very old man. And on his\ntomb is this inscription:\u2014\n\n Lesbos who bore him here, with tears doth bury\n Hyrradius\u2019 worthy son, wise Pittacus.\n\nAnother saying of his was, \u201cWatch your opportunity.\u201d\n\nVII. There was also another Pittacus, a lawgiver, as Phavorinus tells us\nin the first book of his Commentaries; and Demetrius says so too, in his\nEssay on Men and Things of the same name. And that other Pittacus was\ncalled Pittacus the less.\n\nVIII. But it is said that the wise Pittacus once, when a young man\nconsulted him on the subject of marriage, made him the following answer,\nwhich is thus given by Callimachus in his Epigrams.\n\n Hyrradius\u2019 prudent son, old Pittacus\n The pride of Mitylene, once was asked\n By an Atarnean stranger; \u201cTell me, sage,\n I have two marriages proposed to me;\n One maid my equal is in birth and riches;\n The other\u2019s far above me;\u2014which is best?\n Advise me now which shall I take to wife?\u201d\n Thus spoke the stranger; but the aged prince,\n Raising his old man\u2019s staff before his face,\n Said, \u201cThese will tell you all you want to know;\u201d\n And pointed to some boys, who with quick lashes\n Were driving whipping tops along the street.\n \u201cFollow their steps,\u201d said he; so he went near them\n And heard them say, \u201cLet each now mind his own.\u201d\u2014\n So when the stranger heard the boys speak thus,\n He pondered on their words, and laid aside\n Ambitious thoughts of an unequal marriage.\n As then he took to shame the poorer bride,\n So too do you, O reader, mind thy own.\n\nAnd it seems that he may have here spoken from experience, for his own\nwife was of more noble birth than himself, since she was the sister\nof Draco, the son of Penthilus; and she gave herself great airs, and\ntyrannized over him.\n\nIX. Alc\u00e6us calls Pittacus \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, because he was\nsplay-footed, and used to drag his feet in walking, he also called him\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, because he had scars on his feet which were called \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\nAnd \u03b3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03be, implying that he gave himself airs without reason. And \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\nand \u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, because he was fat. He also called him \u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, because\nhe had weak eyes, and \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, because he was lazy and dirty. He used\nto grind corn for the sake of exercise, as Clearchus, the philosopher,\nrelates.\n\nX. There is a letter of his extant, which runs thus:\u2014\n\nPITTACUS TO CR\u0152SUS.\n\nYou invite me to come to Lydia in order that I may see your riches; but\nI, even without seeing them, do not doubt that the son of Alyattes is the\nrichest of monarchs. But I should get no good by going to Sardis; for I\ndo not want gold myself, but what I have is sufficient for myself and my\ncompanions. Still, I will come, in order to become acquainted with you as\na hospitable man.\n\n\nLIFE OF BIAS.\n\nI. Bias was a citizen of Priene, and the son of Teutamus, and by Satyrus\nhe is put at the head of the seven wise men. Some writers affirm that he\nwas one of the richest men of the city; but others say that he was only\na settler. And Phanodicus says, that he ransomed some Messenian maidens\nwho had been taken prisoners, and educated them as his own daughters,\nand gave them dowries, and then sent them back to Messina to their\nfathers. And when, as has been mentioned before, the tripod was found\nnear Athens by some fishermen, the brazen tripod I mean, which bore the\ninscription\u2014\u201cFor the Wise;\u201d then Satyrus says that the damsels (but\nothers, such as Phanodicus, say that it was their father,) came into the\nassembly, and said that Bias was the wise man\u2014recounting what he had done\nto them: and so the tripod was sent to him. But Bias, when he saw it,\nsaid that it was Apollo who was \u201cthe Wise,\u201d and would not receive the\ntripod.\n\nII. But others say that he consecrated it at Thebes to Hercules, because\nhe himself was a descendant of the Thebans, who had sent a colony to\nPriene, as Phanodicus relates. It is said also that when Alyattes was\nbesieging Priene, Bias fattened up two mules, and drove them into his\ncamp; and that the king, seeing the condition that the mules were in, was\nastonished at their being able to spare food to keep the brute beasts so\nwell, and so he desired to make peace with them, and sent an ambassador\nto them. On this Bias, having made some heaps of sand, and put corn on\nthe top, showed them to the convoy; and Alyattes, hearing from him what\nhe had seen, made peace with the people of Priene; and then, when he sent\nto Bias, desiring him to come quickly to him, \u201cTell Alyattes, from me\u201d he\nreplied, \u201cto eat onions;\u201d\u2014which is the same as if he had said, \u201cgo and\nweep.\u201d\n\nIII. It is said that he was very energetic and eloquent when pleading\ncauses; but that he always reserved his talents for the right side. In\nreference to which Demodicus of Alerius uttered the following enigmatical\nsaying\u2014\u201cIf you are a judge, give a Prienian decision.\u201d And Hipponax says,\n\u201cMore excellent in his decisions than Bias of Priene.\u201d Now he died in\nthis manner:\u2014\n\nIV. Having pleaded a cause for some one when he was exceedingly old,\nafter he had finished speaking, he leaned back with his head on the\nbosom of his daughter\u2019s son; and after the advocate on the opposite side\nhad spoken, and the judges had given their decision in favour of Bias\u2019s\nclient, when the court broke up he was found dead on his grandson\u2019s\nbosom. And the city buried him in the greatest magnificence, and put over\nhim this inscription\u2014\n\n Beneath this stone lies Bias, who was born\n In the illustrious Prienian land,\n The glory of the whole Ionian race.\n\nAnd we ourselves have also written an epigram on him\u2014\n\n Here Bias lies, whom, when the hoary snow\n Had crowned his aged temples, Mercury\n Unpitying led to Pluto\u2019s darken\u2019d realms.\n He pleaded his friend\u2019s cause, and then reclin\u2019d\n In his child\u2019s arms, repos\u2019d in lasting sleep.\n\nV. He also wrote about two thousand verses on Ionia, to show in what\nmatter a man might best arrive at happiness; and of all his poetical\nsayings these have the greatest reputation:\u2014\n\n Seek to please all the citizens, even though\n Your house may be in an ungracious city.\n For such a course will favour win from all:\n But haughty manners oft produce destruction.\n\nAnd this one too:\u2014\n\n Great strength of body is the gift of nature;\n But to be able to advise whate\u2019er\n Is most expedient for one\u2019s country\u2019s good,\n Is the peculiar work of sense and wisdom.\n\nAnother is:\u2014\n\n Great riches come to many men by chance.\n\nHe used also to say that that man was unfortunate who could not support\nmisfortune; and that it is a disease of the mind to desire what was\nimpossible, and to have no regard for the misfortunes of others. Being\nasked what was difficult, he said\u2014\u201cTo bear a change of fortune for the\nworse with magnanimity.\u201d Once he was on a voyage with some impious men,\nand the vessel was overtaken by a storm; so they began to invoke the\nassistance of the Gods; on which he said, \u201cHold your tongues, lest they\nshould find out that you are in this ship.\u201d When he was asked by an\nimpious man what piety was, he made no reply; and when his questioner\ndemanded the reason of his silence, he said, \u201cI am silent because you are\nputting questions about things with which you have no concern.\u201d Being\nasked what was pleasant to men, he replied, \u201cHope.\u201d It was a saying of\nhis that it was more agreeable to decide between enemies than between\nfriends; for that of friends, one was sure to become an enemy to him;\nbut that of enemies, one was sure to become a friend. When the question\nwas put to him, what a man derived pleasure while he was doing, he said,\n\u201cWhile acquiring gain.\u201d He used to say, too, that men ought to calculate\nlife both as if they were fated to live a long and a short time: and that\nthey ought to love one another as if at a future time they would come to\nhate one another; for that most men were wicked. He used also to give\nthe following pieces of advice:\u2014\u201cChoose the course which you adopt with\ndeliberation; but when you have adopted it, then persevere in it with\nfirmness.\u2014Do not speak fast, for that shows folly.\u2014Love prudence.\u2014Speak\nof the Gods as they are.\u2014Do not praise an undeserving man because of\nhis riches.\u2014Accept of things, having procured them by persuasion,\nnot by force.\u2014Whatever good fortune befalls you, attribute it to the\ngods.\u2014Cherish wisdom as a means of travelling from youth to old age, for\nit is more lasting than any other possession.\u201d\n\nVI. Hipponax also mentions Bias, as has been said before; and Heraclitus\ntoo, a man who was not easily pleased, has praised him; saying, in Priene\nthere lived Bias the son of Teutamus, whose reputation is higher than\nthat of the others; and the Prienians consecrated a temple to him which\nis called the Teutamium. A saying of his was, \u201cMost men are wicked.\u201d\n\n\nLIFE OF CLEOBULUS.\n\nI. Cleobulus was a native of Lindus, and the son of Evagoras; but\naccording to Duris he was a Carian; others again trace his family back\nto Hercules. He is reported to have been eminent for personal strength\nand beauty, and to have studied philosophy in Egypt; he had a daughter\nnamed Cleobulina, who used to compose enigmas in hexameter verse, and she\nis mentioned by Cratinus in his play of the same name, except that the\ntitle is written in the plural number. They say also that he restored the\ntemple of Minerva which had been built by Danaus.\n\nII. Cleobulus composed songs and obscure sayings in verse to the number\nof three thousand lines, and some say that it was he who composed the\nepigram on Midas.\n\n I am a brazen maiden lying here\n Upon the tomb of Midas. And as long\n As water flows, as trees are green with leaves\n As the sun shines and eke the silver moon,\n As long as rivers flow, and billows roar,\n So long will I upon this much wept tomb,\n Tell passers by, \u201cMidas lies buried here.\u201d\n\nAnd as an evidence of this epigram being by him they quote a song of\nSimonides, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n What men possessed of sense\n Would ever praise the Lindian Cleobulus?\n Who could compare a statue made by man\n To everflowing streams,\n To blushing flowers of spring,\n To the sun\u2019s rays, to beams o\u2019 the golden morn,\n And to the ceaseless waves of mighty Ocean?\n All things are trifling when compared to God.\n While men beneath their hands can crush a stone;\n So that such sentiments can only come from fools.\n\nAnd the epigram cannot possibly be by Homer, for he lived many years, as\nit is said, before Midas.\n\nIII. There is also the following enigma quoted in the Commentaries of\nPamphila, as the work of Cleobulus:\u2014\n\n There was one father and he had twelve daughters,\n Each of his daughters had twice thirty children.\n But most unlike in figure and complexion;\n For some were white, and others black to view,\n And though immortal they all taste of death.\n\nAnd the solution is, \u201cthe year.\u201d\n\nIV. Of his apophthegms, the following are the most celebrated. Ignorance\nand talkativeness bear the chief sway among men. Opportunity will be the\nmost powerful. Cherish not a thought. Do not be fickle, or ungrateful.\nHe used to say too, that men ought to give their daughters in marriage\nwhile they were girls in age, but women in sense; as indicating by this\nthat girls ought to be well educated. Another of his sayings was, that\none ought to serve a friend that he may become a greater friend; and an\nenemy, to make him a friend. And that one ought to guard against giving\none\u2019s friends occasion to blame one, and one\u2019s enemies opportunity of\nplotting against one. Also, when a man goes out of his house, he should\nconsider what he is going to do: and when he comes home again he should\nconsider what he has done. He used also to advise men to keep their\nbodies in health by exercise.\u2014To be fond of hearing rather than of\ntalking.\u2014To be fond of learning rather than unwilling to learn.\u2014To speak\nwell of people.\u2014To seek virtue and eschew vice.\u2014To avoid injustice.\u2014To\ngive the best advice in one\u2019s power to one\u2019s country.\u2014To be superior to\npleasure.\u2014To do nothing by force.\u2014To instruct one\u2019s children.\u2014To be\nready for reconciliation after quarrels.\u2014Not to caress one\u2019s wife, nor to\nquarrel with her when strangers are present, for that to do the one is a\nsign of folly, and to do the latter is downright madness.\u2014Not to chastise\na servant while elated with drink, for so doing one will appear to be\ndrunk one\u2019s self.\u2014To marry from among one\u2019s equals, for if one takes a\nwife of a higher rank than one\u2019s self, one will have one\u2019s connexions\nfor one\u2019s masters.\u2014Not to laugh at those who are being reproved, for so\none will be detested by them.\u2014Be not haughty when prosperous.\u2014Be not\ndesponding when in difficulties.\u2014Learn to bear the changes of fortune\nwith magnanimity.\n\nV And he died at a great age, having lived seventy years, and this\ninscription was put over him:\u2014\n\n His country, Lindus, this fair sea-girt city\n Bewails wise Cleobulus here entombed.\n\nVI. One of his sayings was, \u201cModeration is the best thing.\u201d He also wrote\na letter to Solon in these terms:\u2014\n\nCLEOBULUS TO SOLON.\n\nYou have many friends, and a home everywhere, but yet I think that Lindus\nwill be the most agreeable habitation for Solon, since it enjoys a\ndemocratic government, and it is a maritime island, and whoever dwells in\nit has nothing to fear from Pisistratus, and you will have friends flock\nto you from all quarters.\n\n\nLIFE OF PERIANDER.\n\nI. Periander was a Corinthian, the son of Cypselus, of the family of\nthe Heraclid\u00e6. He married Lyside (whom he himself called Melissa), the\ndaughter of Procles the tyrant of Epidaurus, and of Eristhenea the\ndaughter of Aristocrates, and sister of Aristodemus, who governed nearly\nall Arcadia, as Heraclides Ponticus says in his Treatise on Dominion\nand had by her two sons Cypselus and Lycophron, the younger of whom was\nclever boy, but the elder was deficient in intellect. At a subsequent\nperiod he in a rage either kicked or threw his wife down stairs when\nshe was pregnant, and so killed her, being wrought upon by the false\naccusations of his concubines, whom he afterwards burnt alive. And the\nchild, whose name was Lycophron, he sent away to Corcyra because he\ngrieved for his mother.\n\nII. But afterwards, when he was now extremely old, he sent for him back\nagain, in order that he might succeed to the tyranny. But the Corcyreans,\nanticipating his intention, put him to death, at which he was greatly\nenraged, and sent their children to Corcyra to be made eunuchs of; and\nwhen the ship came near to Samos, the youths, having made supplications\nto Juno, were saved by the Samians. And he fell into despondency and\ndied, being eighty years old. Sosicrates says that he died forty-one\nyears before Cr\u0153sus, in the last year of the forty-eighth Olympiad.\nHerodotus, in the first book of his History, says that he was connected\nby ties of hospitality with Thrasybulus the tyrant of Miletus. And\nAristippus, in the first book of his Treatise on Ancient Luxury, tells\nthe following story of him; that his mother Cratea fell in love with\nhim, and introduced herself secretly into his bed; and he was delighted;\nbut when the truth was discovered he became very oppressive to all his\nsubjects, because he was grieved at the discovery. Ephorus relates that\nhe made a vow that, if he gained the victory at Olympia in the chariot\nrace, he would dedicate a golden statue to the God. Accordingly he\ngained the victory; but being in want of gold, and seeing the women at\nsome national festival beautifully adorned, he took away their golden\nornaments, and then sent the offering which he had vowed.\n\nIII. But some writers say that he was anxious that his tomb should not be\nknown, and that with that object he adopted the following contrivance. He\nordered two young men to go out by night, indicating a particular road by\nwhich they were to go, and to kill the first man they met, and bury him;\nafter them he sent out four other men who were to kill and bury them.\nAgain he sent out a still greater number against these four, with similar\ninstructions. And in this manner he put himself in the way of the first\npair, and was slain, and the Corinthians erected a cenotaph over him with\nthe following inscription:\u2014\n\n The sea-beat land of Corinth in her bosom,\n Doth here embrace her ruler Periander,\n Greatest of all men for his wealth and wisdom.\n\nWe ourselves have also written an epigram upon him:\u2014\n\n Grieve not when disappointed of a wish,\n But be content with what the Gods may give you\u2014\n For the great Periander died unhappy,\n At failing in an object he desired.\n\nIV. It was a saying of his that we ought not to do anything for the sake\nof money; for that we ought only to acquire such gains as are allowable.\nHe composed apophthegms in verse to the number of two thousand lines;\nand said that those who wished to wield absolute power in safety, should\nbe guarded by the good will of their countrymen, and not by arms. And\nonce being asked why he assumed tyrannical power, he replied, \u201cBecause,\nto abdicate it voluntarily, and to have it taken from one, are both\ndangerous.\u201d The following sayings also belong him:\u2014Tranquillity is\na good thing.\u2014Rashness is dangerous.\u2014Gain is disgraceful.\u2014Democracy\nis better than tyranny.\u2014Pleasures are transitory, but honour is\nimmortal.\u2014Be moderate when prosperous, but prudent when unfortunate.\u2014Be\nthe same to your friends when they are prosperous, and when they\nare unfortunate.\u2014Whatever you agree to do, observe.\u2014Do not divulge\nsecrets.\u2014Punish not only those who do wrong, but those who intend to do\nso.\n\nV. This prince was the first who had body-guards, and who changed a\nlegitimate power into a tyranny; and he would not allow any one who chose\nto live in his city, as Euphorus and Aristotle tell us.\n\nVI. And he flourished about the thirty-eighth Olympiad, and enjoyed\nabsolute power for forty years. But Sotion, and Heraclides, and\nPamphila, in the fifth book of her Commentaries, says that there were\ntwo Perianders; the one a tyrant, and the other a wise man, and a native\nof Ambracia. And Neanthes of Cyzicus makes the same assertion, adding,\nthat the two men were cousins to one another. And Aristotle says, that it\nwas the Corinthian Periander who was the wise one; but Plato contradicts\nhim. The saying\u2014\u201cPractice does everything,\u201d is his. He it was, also, who\nproposed to cut through the Isthmus.\n\nVII. The following letter of his is quoted:\u2014\n\nPERIANDER TO THE WISE MEN.\n\nI give great thanks to Apollo of Delphi that my letters are able to\ndetermine you all to meet together at Corinth; and I will receive you\nall, as you may be well assured, in a manner that becomes free citizens.\nI hear also that last year you met at Sardis, at the court of the King\nof Lydia. So now do not hesitate to come to me, who am the tyrant of\nCorinth; for the Corinthians will all be delighted to see you come to the\nhouse of Periander.\n\nVIII. There is this letter too:\u2014\n\nPERIANDER TO PROCLES.\n\nThe injury of my wife was unintended by me; and you have done wrong in\nalienating from me the mind of my child. I desire you, therefore, either\nto restore me to my place in his affections, or I will revenge myself on\nyou; for I have myself made atonement for the death of your daughter, by\nburning in her tomb the clothes of all the Corinthian women.[16]\n\nIX. Thrasybulus also wrote him a letter in the following terms:\u2014\n\nI have given no answer to your messenger; but having taken him into a\nfield, I struck with my walking-stick all the highest ears of corn, and\ncut off their tops, while he was walking with me. And he will report to\nyou, if you ask him, everything which he heard or saw while with me; and\ndo you act accordingly if you wish to preserve your power safely, taking\noff the most eminent of the citizens, whether he seems an enemy to you or\nnot, as even his companions are deservedly objects of suspicion to a man\npossessed of supreme power.\n\n\nLIFE OF ANACHARSIS, THE SCYTHIAN.\n\nI. Anacharsis the Scythian was the son of Gnurus, and the brother of\nCaduides the king of the Scythians; but his mother was a Grecian woman;\nowing to which circumstance he understood both languages.\n\nII. He wrote about the laws existing among the Scythians, and also about\nthose in force among the Greeks, urging men to adopt a temperate course\nof life; and he wrote also about war, his works being in verse, and\namounting to eight hundred lines. He gave occasion for a proverb, because\nhe used great freedom of speech, so that people called such freedom the\nScythian conversation.\n\nIII. But Sosicrates says that he came to Athens in the forty-seventh\nOlympiad, in the archonship of Eucrates. And Hermippus asserts that he\ncame to Solon\u2019s house, and ordered one of the servants to go and tell\nhis master that Anacharsis was come to visit him, and was desirous to\nsee him, and, if possible, to enter into relations of hospitality with\nhim. But when the servant had given the message, he was ordered by Solon\nto reply him that, \u201cMen generally limited such alliances to their own\ncountrymen.\u201d In reply to this Anacharsis entered the house, and told\nthe servant that now he was in Solon\u2019s country, and that it was quite\nconsistent for them to become connected with one another in this way. On\nthis, Solon admired the readiness of the man, and admitted him, and made\nhim one of his greatest friends.\n\nIV. But after some time, when he had returned to Scythia, and shown a\npurpose to abrogate the existing institutions of his country, being\nexceedingly earnest, in his fondness for Grecian customs, he was shot\nby his brother while he was out hunting, and so he died, saying, \u201cThat\nhe was saved on account of the sense and eloquence which he had brought\nfrom Greece, but slain in consequence of envy in his own family.\u201d\nSome, however, relate that he was slain while performing some Grecian\nsacrificatory rites. And we have written this epigram on him:\u2014\n\n When Anacharsis to his land returned,\n His mind was turn\u2019d, so that he wished to make\n His countrymen all live in Grecian fashion\u2014\n So, ere his words had well escaped his lips,\n A winged arrow bore him to the Gods.\n\nV. He said that a vine bore three bunches of grapes. The first the bunch\nof pleasure; the second, that of drunkenness; the third, that of disgust.\nHe also said that he marvelled that among the Greeks, those who were\nskilful in a thing contend together; but those who have no such skill act\nas judges of the contest. Being once asked how a person might be made not\nfond of drinking, he said, \u201cIf he always keeps in view the indecorous\nactions of drunken men.\u201d He used also to say, that he marvelled how the\nGreeks, who make laws against those who behave with insolence, honour\nAthlet\u00e6 because of their beating one another. When he had been informed\nthat the sides of a ship were four fingers thick, he said, \u201cThat those\nwho sailed in one were removed by just that distance from death.\u201d He used\nto say that oil was a provocative of madness, \u201cbecause Athlet\u00e6, when\nanointed in the oil, attacked one another with mad fury.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow is it,\u201d he used to say, \u201cthat those who forbid men to speak falsely,\ntell lies openly in their vintners\u2019 shops?\u201d It was a saying of his, that\nhe \u201cmarvelled why the Greeks, at the beginning of a banquet, drink out of\nsmall cups, but when they have drunk a good deal, then they turn to large\ngoblets.\u201d And this inscription is on his statues\u2014\u201cRestrain your tongues,\nyour appetites, and your passions.\u201d He was once asked if the flute was\nknown among the Scythians; and he said, \u201cNo, nor the vine either.\u201d At\nanother time, the question was put to him, which was the safest kind of\nvessel? and he said, \u201cThat which is brought into dock.\u201d He said, too,\nthat the strangest things that he had seen among the Greeks was, that\n\u201cThey left the smoke[17] in the mountains, and carried the wood down to\ntheir cities.\u201d Once, when he was asked, which were the more numerous, the\nliving or the dead? he said, \u201cUnder which head do you class those who are\nat sea.\u201d Being reproached by an Athenian for being a Scythian, he said,\n\u201cWell, my country is a disgrace to me, but you are a disgrace to your\ncountry.\u201d When he was asked what there was among men which was both good\nand bad, he replied, \u201cThe tongue.\u201d He used to say \u201cThat it was better\nto have one friend of great value, than many friends who were good for\nnothing.\u201d Another saying of his was, that \u201cThe forum was an established\nplace for men to cheat one another, and behave covetously.\u201d Being once\ninsulted by a young man at a drinking party, he said, \u201cO, young man, if\nnow that you are young you cannot bear wine, when you are old you will\nhave to bear water.\u201d\n\nVI. Of things which are of use in life, he is said to have been the\ninventor of the anchor, and of the potter\u2019s wheel.\n\nVII. The following letter of his is extant:\u2014\n\nANACHARSIS TO CR\u0152SUS\n\nO king of the Lydians, I am come to the country of the Greeks, in order\nto become acquainted with their customs and institutions; but I have\nno need of gold, and shall be quite contented if I return to Scythia a\nbetter man than I left it. However I will come to Sardis, as I think it\nvery desirable to become a friend of yours.\n\n\nLIFE OF MYSON.\n\nI. Myson, the son of Strymon, as Sosicrates states, quoting Hermippus as\nhis authority, a Chenean by birth, of some \u0152t\u00e6an or Laconian village,\nis reckoned one of the seven wise men, and they say that his father was\ntyrant of his country. It is said by some writers that, when Anacharsis\ninquired if any one was wiser than he, the priestess at Delphi gave the\nanswer which has been already quoted in the life of Thales in reference\nto Chilo:\u2014\n\n I say that Myson the \u0152t\u00e6an sage,\n The citizen of Chen, is wiser far\n In his deep mind than you.\n\nAnd that he, having taken a great deal of trouble, came to the village,\nand found him in the summer season fitting a handle to a plough, and he\naddressed him, \u201cO Myson, this is not now the season for the plough.\u201d\n\u201cIndeed,\u201d said he, \u201cit is a capital season for preparing one;\u201d but others\nsay, that the words of the oracle are the Etean sage, and they raise\nthe question, what the word Etean means. So Parmenides says, that it is\na borough of Laconia, of which Myson was a native; but Sosicrates, in\nhis Successions says, that he was an Etean on his father\u2019s side, and a\nChenean by his mother\u2019s. But Euthyphron, the son of Heraclides Ponticus,\nsays that he was a Cretan, for that Etea was a city of Crete.\n\nII. And Anaxilaus says that he was an Arcadian. Hipponax also mentions\nhim, saying, \u201cAnd Myson, whom Apollo stated to be the most prudent of\nall men.\u201d But Aristoxenus, in his Miscellanies, says that his habits were\nnot very different from those of Timon and Apemantus, for that he was\na misanthrope. And that accordingly he was one day found in Laced\u00e6mon\nlaughing by himself in a solitary place, and when some one came up to him\non a sudden and asked him why he laughed when he was by himself, he said,\n\u201cFor that very reason.\u201d Aristoxenus also says that he was not thought\nmuch of, because he was not a native of any city, but only of a village,\nand that too one of no great note; and according to him, it is on account\nof this obscurity of his that some people attribute his sayings and\ndoings to Pisistratus the tyrant, but he excepts Plato the philosopher,\nfor he mentions Myson in his Protagoras, placing him among the wise men\ninstead of Periander.\n\nIII. It used to be a common saying of his that men ought not to seek for\nthings in words, but for words in things; for that things are not made on\naccount of words, but that words are put together for the sake of things.\n\nIV. He died when he had lived ninety-seven years.\n\n\nLIFE OF EPIMENIDES.\n\nI. Epimenides, as Theopompus and many other writers tell us, was the son\nof a man named Ph\u00e6drus, but some call him the son of Dosiadas; and others\nof Agesarchus. He was a Cretan by birth, of the city of Gnossus; but\nbecause he let his hair grow long, he did not look like a Cretan.\n\nII. He once, when he was sent by his father into the fields to look for a\nsheep, turned out of the road at mid-day and lay down in a certain cave\nand fell asleep, and slept there fifty-seven years; and after that, when\nhe awoke, he went on looking for the sheep, thinking that he had been\ntaking a short nap; but as he could not find it he went on to the field\nand there he found everything changed, and the estate in another person\u2019s\npossession, and so he came back again to the city in great perplexity,\nand as he was going into his own house he met some people who asked him\nwho he was, until at last he found his younger brother who had now\nbecome an old man, and from him he learnt all the truth.\n\nIII. And when he was recognized he was considered by the Greeks as\na person especially beloved by the Gods, on which account when the\nAthenians were afflicted by a plague, and the priestess at Delphi\nenjoined them to purify their city, they sent a ship and Nicias the son\nof Niceratus to Crete, to invite Epimenides to Athens; and he, coming\nthere in the forty-sixth Olympiad, purified the city and eradicated\nthe plague for that time; he took some black sheep and some white ones\nand led them up to the Areopagus, and from thence he let them wherever\nthey chose, having ordered the attendants to follow them, and wherever\nany one of them lay down they were to sacrifice him to the God who was\nthe patron of the spot, and so the evil was stayed; and owing to this\none may even now find in the different boroughs of the Athenians altars\nwithout names, which are a sort of memorial of the propitiation of the\nGods that then took place. Some said that the cause of the plague was\nthe pollution contracted by the city in the matter of Cylon, and that\nEpimenides pointed out to the Athenians how to get rid of it, and that in\nconsequence they put to death two young men, Cratinus and Ctesibius, and\nthat thus the pestilence was put an end to.\n\nIII. And the Athenians passed a vote to give him a talent and a ship to\nconvey him back to Crete, but he would not accept the money, but made a\ntreaty of friendship and alliance between the Gnossians and Athenians.\n\nIV. And not long after he had returned home he died, as Phlegon relates\nin his book on long-lived people, after he had lived a hundred and\nfifty-seven years; but as the Cretans report he had lived two hundred and\nninety-nine; but as Xenophones the Colophonian, states that he had heard\nit reported, he was a hundred and fifty-four years old when he died.\n\nV. He wrote a poem of five thousand verses on the Generation and Theogony\nof the Curetes and Corybantes, and another poem of six thousand five\nhundred verses on the building of the Argo and the expedition of Jason to\nColchis.\n\nVI. He also wrote a treatise in prose on the Sacrifices in Crete, and\nthe Cretan Constitution, and on Minos and Rhadamanthus, occupying four\nthousand lines.\n\nVI. Likewise he built at Athens the temple which is there dedicated to\nthe venerable goddesses, as Lobon the Augur says in his book on Poets;\nand he is said to have been the first person who purified houses and\nlands, and who built temples.\n\nVII. There are some people who assert that he did not sleep for the\nlength of time that has been mentioned above, but that he was absent\nfrom his country for a considerable period, occupying himself with the\nanatomisation and examination of roots.\n\nVIII. A letter of his is quoted, addressed to Solon the lawgiver, in\nwhich he discusses the constitution which Minos gave the Cretans. But\nDemetrius the Magnesian, in his treatise on Poets and Prose writers of\nthe same name as one another, attempts to prove that the letter is a\nmodern one, and is not written in the Cretan but in the Attic dialect,\nand the new Attic too.\n\nIX. But I have also discovered another letter of his which runs thus:\u2014\n\nEPIMENIDES TO SOLON.\n\nBe of good cheer, my friend; for if Pisistratus had imposed his laws on\nthe Athenians, they being habituated to slavery and not accustomed to\ngood laws previously, he would have maintained his dominion for ever,\nsucceeding easily in enslaving his fellow countrymen; but as it is, he\nis lording it over men who are no cowards, but who remember the precepts\nof Solon and are indignant at their bonds, and who will not endure the\nsupremacy of a tyrant. But if Pisistratus does possess the city to-day,\nstill I have no expectation that the supreme power will ever descend to\nhis children. For it is impossible that men who have lived in freedom and\nin the enjoyment of most excellent laws should be slaves permanently; but\nas for yourself, do not you go wandering about at random, but come and\nvisit me, for here there is no supreme ruler to be formidable to you; but\nif while you are wandering about any of the friends of Pisistratus should\nfall in with you, I fear you might suffer some misfortune.\n\nHe then wrote thus:\u2014\n\nX. But Demetrius says that some writers report that he used to receive\nfood from the nymphs and keep it in a bullock\u2019s hoof; and that eating it\nin small quantities he never required any evacuations, and was never\nseen eating. And Tim\u00e6us mentions him in his second book.\n\nXI. Some authors say also that the Cretans sacrifice to him as a god, for\nthey say that he was the wisest of men: and accordingly, that when he\nsaw the port of Munychia,[18] at Athens, he said that the Athenians did\nnot know how many evils that place would bring upon them: since, if they\ndid, they would tear it to pieces with their teeth; and he said this a\nlong time before the event to which he alluded. It is said also, that he\nat first called himself \u00c6acus; and that he foretold to the Laced\u00e6monians\nthe defeat which they should suffer from the Arcadians; and that he\npretended that he had lived several times. But Theopompus, in his Strange\nStories, says that when he was building the temple of the Nymphs, a voice\nburst forth from heaven;\u2014\u201cOh! Epimenides, build this temple, not for the\nNymphs but for Jupiter.\u201d He also foretold to the Cretans the defeat of\nthe Laced\u00e6monians by the Arcadians, as has been said before. And, indeed,\nthey were beaten at Orchomenos.\n\nXII. He pretended also, that he grew old rapidly, in the same number\nof days as he had been years asleep; at least, so Theopompus says. But\nMysonianus, in his Coincidences, says, that the Cretans call him one\nof the Curetes. And the Laced\u00e6monians preserve his body among them, in\nobedience to some oracle, as Sosibius the Laced\u00e6monian says.\n\nXIII. There were also two other Epimenides, one the genealogist; the\nother, the man who wrote a history of Rhodes in the Doric dialect.\n\n\nLIFE OF PHERECYDES.\n\nI. Pherecydes was a Syrian, the son of Babys, and, as Alexander says, in\nhis Successions, he had been a pupil of Pittacus.\n\nII. Theopompus says that he was the first person who ever wrote among\nthe Greeks on the subject of Natural Philosophy and the Gods. And there\nare many marvellous stories told of him. For it is said that he was\nwalking along the sea-shore at Samos, and that seeing a ship sailing\nby with a fair wind, he said that it would soon sink; and presently it\nsank before their eyes. At another time he was drinking some water which\nhad been drawn up out of a well, and he foretold that within three days\nthere would be an earthquake; and there was one. And as he was going\nup to Olympia, and had arrived at Messene, he advised his entertainer,\nPerilaus, to migrate from the city with all his family, but that Perilaus\nwould not be guided by him; and afterwards Messene was taken.\n\nIII. And he is said to have told the Laced\u00e6monians to honour neither gold\nnor silver, as Theopompus says in his Marvels; and it is reported that\nHercules laid this injunction on him in a dream, and that the same night\nhe appeared also to the kings of Sparta, and enjoined them to be guided\nby Pherecydes; but some attribute these stories to Pythagoras.\n\nIV. And Hermippus relates that when there was a war between the Ephesians\nand Magnesians, he, wishing the Ephesians to conquer, asked some one, who\nwas passing by, from whence he came? and when he said, \u201cFrom Ephesus,\u201d\n\u201cDrag me now,\u201d said he, \u201cby the legs, and place me in the territory\nof the Magnesians, and tell your fellow countrymen to bury me there\nafter they have got the victory;\u201d and that he went and reported that\nPherecydes had given him this order. And so they went forth the next day\nand defeated the Magnesians; and as Pherecydes was dead, they buried him\nthere, and paid him very splendid honours.\n\nV. But some writers say that he went to Delphi, and threw himself down\nfrom the Corycian hill; Aristoxenus, in his History of Pythagoras and\nhis Friends, says that Pherecydes fell sick and died, and was buried by\nPythagoras in Delos; But others say that he died of the lousy disease;\nand when Pythagoras came to see him, and asked him how he was, he put\nhis finger through the door, and said, \u201cYou may see by my skin.\u201d And\nfrom this circumstance that expression passed into a proverb among the\nphilosophers, when affairs are going on badly; and those who apply it to\naffairs that are going on well, make a blunder. He used to say, also,\nthat the Gods call their table \u03b8\u03c5\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2.\n\nVI. But Andron, the Ephesian, says that there were two men of the name of\nPherecydes, both Syrians: one an astronomer and the other a writer on God\nand the Divine Nature; and that this last was the son of Babys, who was\nalso the master of Pythagoras. But Eratosthenes asserts that there was\nbut one, who was a Syrian; and that the other Pherecydes was an Athenian,\na genealogist; and the work of the Syrian Pherecydes is preserved, and it\nbegins thus:\u2014\u201cJupiter, and Time, and Chthon existed externally.\u201d And the\nname of Cthonia became Tellus, after Jupiter gave it to her as a reward.\nA sun-dial is also preserved, in the island of Syra, of his making.\n\nVII. But Duris, in the second book of his Boundaries, says that this\nepigram was written upon him:\u2014\n\n The limit of all wisdom is in me;\n And would be, were it larger. But report\n To my Pythagoras that he\u2019s the first\n Of all the men that tread the Grecian soil;\n I shall not speak a falsehood, saying this.\n\nAnd Ion, the Chian, says of him:\u2014\n\n Adorned with valour while alive, and modesty,\n Now that he\u2019s dead he still exists in peace;\n For, like the wise Pythagoras, he studied\n The manners and the minds of many nations.\n\nAnd I myself have composed an epigram on him in the Pherecratean metre:\u2014\n\n The story is reported,\n That noble Pherecydes\n Whom Syros calls her own,\n Was eaten up by lice;\n And so he bade his friends,\n Convey his corpse away\n To the Magnesian land,\n That he might victory give\n To holy Ephesus.\n For well the God had said,\n (Though he alone did know\n Th\u2019 oracular prediction),\n That this was fate\u2019s decree.\n So in that land he lies.\n This then is surely true,\n That those who\u2019re really wise\n Are useful while alive,\n And e\u2019en when breath has left them.\n\nVIII. And he flourished about the fifty-ninth Olympiad. There is a letter\nof his extant in the following terms:\u2014\n\nPHERECYDES TO THALES.\n\nMay you die happily when fate overtakes you. Disease has seized upon\nme at the same time that I received your letter. I am all over lice,\nand suffering likewise under a low fever. Accordingly, I have charged\nmy servants to convey this book of mine to you, after they have buried\nme. And do you, if you think fit, after consulting with the other wise\nmen, publish it; but if you do not approve of doing so, then keep it\nunpublished, for I am not entirely pleased with it myself. The subject is\nnot one about which there is any certain knowledge, nor do I undertake\nto say that I have arrived at the truth; but I have advanced arguments,\nfrom which any one who occupies himself with speculations on the divine\nnature, may make a selection; and as to other points, he must exercise\nhis intellect, for I speak obscurely throughout. I, myself, as I am\nafflicted more severely by this disease every day, no longer admit any\nphysicians, or any of my friends. But when they stand at the door, and\nask me how I am, I put out my finger to them through the opening of the\ndoor, and show them how I am eaten up with the evil; and I desired them\nto come to-morrow to the funeral of Pherecydes.\n\nThese, then, are they who were called wise men; to which list some\nwriters add the name of Pisistratus. But we must also speak of the\nphilosophers. And we will begin first with the Ionic philosophy, the\nfounder of which school was Thales, who was the master of Anaximander.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II.\n\n\nLIFE OF ANAXIMANDER.\n\nI. Anaximander, the son of Praxiadas, was a citizen of Miletus.\n\nII. He used to assert that the principle and primary element of all\nthings was the Infinity, giving no exact definition as to whether he\nmeant air or water, or anything else. And he said that the parts were\nsusceptible of change, but that the whole was unchangeable; and that the\nearth lay in the middle, being placed there as a sort of centre, of a\nspherical shape. The moon, he said, had a borrowed light, and borrowed it\nfrom the sun; and the sun he affirmed to be not less than the earth, and\nthe purest possible fire.\n\nIII. He also was the first discoverer of the gnomon; and he placed some\nin Laced\u00e6mon on the sun-dials there, as Phavorinus says in his Universal\nHistory, and they showed the solstices and the equinoxes; he also made\nclocks. He was the first person, too, who drew a map of the earth and\nsea, and he also made a globe; and he published a concise statement of\nwhatever opinions he embraced or entertained; and this treatise was met\nwith by Apollodorus, the Athenian.\n\nIV. And Apollodorus, in his Chronicles, states, that in the second year\nof the fifty-eighth Olympiad, he was sixty-four years old. And soon after\nhe died, having flourished much about the same time as Polycrates, the\ntyrant, of Samos. They say that when he sang, the children laughed; and\nthat he, hearing of this, said, \u201cWe must then sing better for the sake of\nthe children.\u201d\n\nV. There was also another Anaximander, a historian; and he too was a\nMilesian, and wrote in the Ionic dialect.\n\n\nLIFE OF ANAXIMENES.\n\nI. Anaximenes, the son of Eurystratus, a Milesian, was a pupil of\nAnaximander; but some say that he was also a pupil of Parmenides. He\nsaid that the principles of everything were the air, and the Infinite;\nand that the stars moved not under the earth, but around the earth. He\nwrote in the pure unmixed Ionian dialect. And he lived, according to the\nstatements of Apollodorus, in the sixty-third Olympiad, and died about\nthe time of the taking of Sardis.\n\nII. There were also two other persons of the name of Anaximenes, both\ncitizens of Lampsacus; one an orator and the other a historian, who was\nthe son of the sister of the orator, and who wrote an account of the\nexploits of Alexander.\n\nIII. And this philosopher wrote the following letters:\u2014\n\nANAXIMENES TO PYTHAGORAS.\n\nThales, the son of Euxamias, has died in his old age, by an unfortunate\naccident. In the evening, as he was accustomed to do, he went forth out\nof the vestibule of his house with his maid-servant, to observe the\nstars: and (for he had forgotten the existence of the place) while he\nwas looking up towards the skies, he fell down a precipitous place. So\nnow, the astronomer of Miletus has met with this end. But we who were his\npupils cherish the recollection of the man, and so do our children and\nour own pupils: and we will lecture on his principles. At all events, the\nbeginning of all wisdom ought to be attributed to Thales.\n\nIV. And again he writes:\u2014\n\nANAXIMENES TO PYTHAGORAS.\n\nYou are more prudent than we, in that you have migrated from Samos to\nCrotona, and live there in peace. For the descendants of \u00c6acus commit\nunheard-of crimes, and tyrants never cease to oppress the Milesians. The\nking of the Medes too is formidable to us: unless, indeed, we choose to\nbecome tributary to him. But the Ionians are on the point of engaging\nin war with the Medes in the cause of universal freedom. For if we\nremain quiet there is no longer any hope of safety for us. How then can\nAnaximenes apply his mind to the contemplation of the skies, while he is\nin perpetual fear of death or slavery? But you are beloved by the people\nof Crotona, and by all the rest of the Italians; and pupils flock to you,\neven from Sicily.\n\n\nLIFE OF ANAXAGORAS.\n\nI. Anaxagoras, the son of Hegesibulus, or Eubulus, was a citizen of\nClazomen\u00e6. He was a pupil of Anaximenes, and was the first philosopher\nwho attributed mind to matter, beginning his treatise on the subject\nin the following manner (and the whole treatise is written in a most\nbeautiful and magnificent style): \u201cAll things were mixed up together;\nthen Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order.\u201d On which account\nhe himself got the same name of Mind. And Timon speaks thus of him in his\nSilli:\u2014\n\n They say too that wise Anaxagoras\n Deserves immortal fame; they call him Mind,\n Because, as he doth teach, Mind came in season,\n Arranging all which was confus\u2019d before.\n\nII. He was eminent for his noble birth and for his riches, and still more\nso for his magnanimity, inasmuch as he gave up all his patrimony to his\nrelations; and being blamed by them for his neglect of his estate, \u201cWhy,\nthen,\u201d said he, \u201cdo not you take care of it?\u201d And at last he abandoned it\nentirely, and devoted himself to the contemplation of subjects of natural\nphilosophy, disregarding politics. So that once when some said to him,\n\u201cYou have no affection for your country,\u201d \u201cBe silent,\u201d said he, \u201cfor I\nhave the greatest affection for my country,\u201d pointing up to heaven.\n\nIII. It is said, that at the time of the passage of the Hellespont\nby Xerxes, he was twenty years old, and that he lived to the age of\nseventy-two. But Apollodorus, in his Chronicles says that he flourished\nin the seventieth Olympiad, and that he died in the first year of the\nseventy-eighth. And he began to study philosophy at Athens, in the\narchonship of Callias, being twenty years of age, as Demetrius Phalereus\ntells us in his Catalogue of the Archons, and they say that he remained\nat Athens thirty years.\n\nIV. He asserted that the sun was a mass of burning iron, greater than\nPeloponnesus; (that some attribute this doctrine to Tantalus), and that\nthe moon contained houses, and also, hills and ravines: and that the\nprimary elements of everything were similarities of parts; for as we say\nthat gold consists of a quantity of grains combined together, so too is\nthe universe formed of a number of small bodies of similar parts. He\nfurther taught that Mind was the principle of motion: and that of bodies\nthe heavy ones, such as the earth, occupied the lower situations; and the\nlight ones, such as fire, occupied the higher places, and that the middle\nspaces were assigned to water and air. And thus that the sea rested\nupon the earth, which was broad, the moisture being all evaporated by\nthe sun. And he said that the stars originally moved about in irregular\nconfusion, so that at first the pole star, which is continually visible,\nalways appeared in the zenith, but that afterwards it acquired a certain\ndeclination. And that the milky way was a reflection of the light of\nthe sun when the stars did not appear. The comets he considered to be a\nconcourse of planets emitting rays: and the shooting stars he thought\nwere sparks as it were leaping from the firmament. The winds he thought\nwere caused by the rarification of the atmosphere, which was produced by\nthe sun. Thunder, he said, was produced by the collision of the clouds;\nand lightning by the rubbing together of the clouds. Earthquakes, he\nsaid, were produced by the return of the air into the earth. All animals\nhe considered were originally generated out of moisture, and heat,\nand earthy particles: and subsequently from one another. And males he\nconsidered were derived from those on the right hand, and females from\nthose on the left.\n\nV. They say, also, that he predicted a fall of the stones which fell near\n\u00c6gospotami, and which he said would fall from the sun: on which account\nEuripides, who was a disciple of his, said in his Phaethon that the sun\nwas a golden clod of earth. He went once to Olympia wrapped in a leathern\ncloak as if it were going to rain; and it did rain. And they say that he\nonce replied to a man who asked him whether the mountains at Lampsacus\nwould ever become sea, \u201cYes, if time lasts long enough.\u201d\n\nVI. Being once asked for what end he had been born, he said, \u201cFor the\ncontemplation of the sun, and moon, and heaven.\u201d A man once said to him,\n\u201cYou have lost the Athenians;\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d said he, \u201cthey have lost me.\u201d When\nhe beheld the tomb of Mausolus, he said, \u201cA costly tomb is an image of a\npetrified estate.\u201d And he comforted a man who was grieving because he was\ndying in a foreign land, by telling him, \u201cThe descent to hell is the same\nfrom every place.\u201d\n\nVII. He appears to have been the first person (according to the account\ngiven by Phavorinus in his Universal History), who said that the Poem\nof Homer was composed in praise of virtue and justice: and Metrodorus, of\nLampsacus, who was a friend of his, adopted this opinion, and advocated\nit energetically, and Metrodorus was the first who seriously studied the\nnatural philosophy developed in the writings of the great poet.\n\nVIII. Anaxagoras was also the first man who ever wrote a work in\nprose; and Silenus, in the first book of his Histories, says, that in\nthe archonship of Lysanias a large stone fell from heaven; and that\nin reference to this event Anaxagoras said, that the whole heaven was\ncomposed of stones, and that by its rapid revolutions they were all held\ntogether; and when those revolutions get slower, they fall down.\n\nIX. Of his trial there are different accounts given. For Sotion, in\nhis Succession of the Philosophers, says, that he was persecuted for\nimpiety by Cleon, because he said that the sun was a fiery ball of iron.\nAnd though Pericles, who had been his pupil, defended him, he was,\nnevertheless, fined five talents and banished. But Satyrus, in his Lives,\nsays that it was Thucydides by whom he was impeached, as Thucydides was\nof the opposite party to Pericles; and that he was prosecuted not only\nfor impiety, but also for Medism; and that he was condemned to death\nin his absence. And when news was brought him of two misfortunes\u2014his\ncondemnation, and the death of his children; concerning the condemnation\nhe said, \u201cNature has long since condemned both them and me.\u201d But about\nhis children, he said, \u201cI knew that I had become the father of mortals.\u201d\nSome, however, attribute this saying to Solon, and others to Xenophon.\nAnd Demetrius Phalereus, in his treatise on Old Age, says that Anaxagoras\nburied them with his own hands. But Hermippus, in his Lives, says that he\nwas thrown into prison for the purpose of being put to death: but that\nPericles came forward and inquired if any one brought any accusation\nagainst him respecting his course of life. And as no one alleged anything\nagainst him: \u201cI then,\u201d said he, \u201cam his disciple: do not you then be led\naway by calumnies to put this man to death; but be guided by me, and\nrelease him.\u201d And he was released. But, as he was indignant at the insult\nwhich had been offered to him, he left the city.\n\nBut Hieronymus, in the second book of his Miscellaneous Commentaries,\nsays that Pericles produced him before the court, tottering and emaciated\nby disease, so that he was released rather out of pity, than by any\ndeliberate decision on the merits of his case. And thus much may be said\nabout his trial. Some people have fancied that he was very hostile to\nDemocritus, because he did not succeed in getting admission to him for\nthe purposes of conversation.\n\nX. And at last, having gone to Lampsacus, he died in that city. And it is\nsaid, that when the governors of the city asked him what he would like\nto have done for him, he replied, \u201cThat they would allow the children to\nplay every year during the month in which he died.\u201d And this custom is\nkept up even now. And when he was dead, the citizens of Lampsacus buried\nhim with great honours, and wrote this epitaph on him:\u2014\n\n Here Anaxagoras lies, who reached of truth\n The farthest bounds in heavenly speculations.\n\nWe ourselves also have written an epigram on him:\u2014\n\n Wise Anaxagoras did call the sun\n A mass of glowing iron; and for this\n Death was to be his fate. But Pericles\n Then saved his friend; but afterwards he died\n A victim of a weak philosophy.\n\nXI. There were also three other people of the name of Anaxagoras; none of\nwhom combined all kinds of knowledge; But one was an orator and a pupil\nof Isocrates; another was a statuary, who is mentioned by Antigonus;\nanother is a grammarian, a pupil of Zenodotus.\n\n\nLIFE OF ARCHELAUS.\n\nI. Archelaus was a citizen of either Athens or Miletus, and his father\u2019s\nname was Apollodorus; but, as some say, Mydon. He was a pupil of\nAnaxagoras, and the master of Socrates.\n\nII. He was the first person who imported the study of natural philosophy\nfrom Ionia to Athens, and he was called the Natural Philosopher, because\nnatural philosophy terminated with him, as Socrates introduced ethical\nphilosophy. And it seems probable that Archelaus too meddled in some\ndegree with moral philosophy; for in his philosophical speculations he\ndiscussed laws and what was honourable and just. And Socrates borrowed\nfrom him; and because he enlarged his principles, he was thought to be\nthe inventor of them.\n\nIII. He used to say that there were two primary causes of generation,\nheat and cold; and that all animals were generated out of mud: and that\nwhat are accounted just and disgraceful are not so by nature, but only by\nlaw. And his reasoning proceeds in this way. He says, that water being\nmelted by heat, when it is submitted to the action of fire, by which it\nis solidified, becomes earth; and when it is liquefied, becomes air.\nAnd, therefore, the earth is surrounded by air and influenced by it, and\nso is the air by the revolutions of fire. And he says that animals are\ngenerated out of hot earth, which sends up a thick mud something like\nmilk for their food. So too he says that it produced men.\n\nAnd he was the first person who said that sound is produced by the\npercussion of the air; and that the sea is filtered in the hollows of\nthe earth in its passage, and so is condensed; and that the sun is the\ngreatest of the stars, and that the universe is boundless.\n\nIV. But there were three other people of the name of Archelaus: one,\na geographer, who described the countries traversed by Alexander; the\nsecond, a man who wrote a poem on objects which have two natures; and the\nthird, an orator, who wrote a book containing the precepts of his art.\n\n\nLIFE OF SOCRATES.\n\nI. Socrates was the son of Sophroniscus, a statuary, and of Ph\u00e6narete, a\nmidwife; as Plato records in his The\u00e6tetus, he was a citizen of Athens, of\nthe borough of Alopece.\n\nII. Some people believed that he assisted Euripides in his poems; in\nreference to which idea, Mnesimachus speaks as follows:\u2014\n\n The Phrygians are a new play of Euripides,\n But Socrates has laid the main foundation.[19]\n\nAnd again he says:\u2014\n\n Euripides: patched up by Socrates.\n\nAnd Callias, in his Captives, says:\u2014\n\n _A._ Are you so proud, giving yourself such airs?\n\n _B._ And well I may, for Socrates is the cause.\n\nAnd Aristophanes says, in his Clouds:\u2014\n\n This is Euripides, who doth compose\n Those argumentative wise tragedies.\n\nIII. But, having been a pupil of Anaxagoras, as some people say, but of\nDamon as the other story goes, related by Alexander in his Successions,\nafter the condemnation of Anaxagoras, he became a disciple of Archelaus,\nthe natural philosopher. And, indeed, Aristoxenus says that he was very\nintimate with him.\n\nIV. But Duris says that he was a slave, and employed in carving stones.\nAnd some say that the Graces in the Acropolis are his work; and they are\nclothed figures. And that it is in reference to this that Timon says, in\nhis Silli:\u2014\n\n From them proceeded the stone polisher,\n The reasoning legislator, the enchanter\n Of all the Greeks, making them subtle arguers,\n A cunning pedant, a shrewd Attic quibbler.\n\nV. For he was very clever in all rhetorical exercises, as Idomeneus also\nassures us. But the thirty tyrants forbade him to give lessons in the art\nof speaking and arguing, as Xenophon tells us. And Aristophanes turns\nhim into ridicule in his Comedies, as making the worse appear the better\nreason. For he was the first man, as Phavorinus says in his Universal\nHistory, who, in conjunction with his disciple \u00c6schines, taught men how\nto become orators. And Idomeneus makes the same assertion in his essay\non the Socratic School. He, likewise, was the first person who conversed\nabout human life; and was also the first philosopher who was condemned\nto death and executed. And Aristoxenus, the son of Spintharas, says that\nhe lent money in usury; and that he collected the interest and principal\ntogether, and then, when he had got the interest, he lent it out again.\nAnd Demetrius, of Byzantium, says that it was Criton who made him leave\nhis workshop and instruct men, out of the admiration which he conceived\nfor his abilities.\n\nVI. He then, perceiving that natural philosophy had no immediate bearing\non our interests, began to enter upon moral speculations, both in his\nworkshop and in the market-place. And he said that the objects of his\nsearch were\u2014\n\n Whatever good or harm can man befall\n In his own house.\n\nAnd very often, while arguing and discussing points that arose, he was\ntreated with great violence and beaten, and pulled about, and laughed\nat and ridiculed by the multitude. But he bore all this with great\nequanimity. So that once, when he had been kicked and buffeted about, and\nhad borne it all patiently, and some one expressed his surprise, he said,\n\u201cSuppose an ass had kicked me, would you have had me bring an action\nagainst him?\u201d And this is the account of Demetrius.\n\nVII. But he had no need of travelling (though most philosophers did\ntravel), except when he was bound to serve in the army. But all the rest\nof his life he remained in the same place, and in an argumentative spirit\nhe used to dispute with all who would converse with him, not with the\npurpose of taking away their opinions from them, so much as of learning\nthe truth, as far as he could do so, himself. And they say that Euripides\ngave him a small work of Heraclitus to read, and asked him afterwards\nwhat he thought of it, and he replied, \u201cWhat I have understood is good;\nand so, I think, what I have not understood is; only the book requires\na Delian diver to get at the meaning of it.\u201d He paid great attention\nalso to the training of the body, and was always in excellent condition\nhimself. Accordingly, he joined in the expedition to Amphipolis, and\nhe it was who took up and saved Xenophon in the battle of Delium, when\nhe had fallen from his horse; for when all the Athenians had fled, he\nretreated quietly, turning round slowly, and watching to repel any one\nwho attacked him. He also joined in the expedition to Potid\u00e6a, which was\nundertaken by sea; for it was impossible to get there by land, as the war\nimpeded the communication. And they say that on this occasion he remained\nthe whole night in one place; and that though he had deserved the prize\nof pre-eminent valour, he yielded it to Alcibiades, to whom Aristippus,\nin the fourth book of his treatise on the Luxury of the Ancients, says\nthat he was greatly attached. But Ion, of Chios, says, that while he was\na very young man he left Athens, and went to Samos with Archelaus. And\nAristotle says, that he went to Delphi; and Phavorinus also, in the first\nbook of his Commentaries, says that he went to the Isthmus.\n\nVIII. He was a man of great firmness of mind, and very much attached to\nthe democracy, as was plain from his not submitting to Critias, when he\nordered him to bring Leon of Salamis, a very rich man, before the thirty,\nfor the purpose of being murdered. And he alone voted for the acquittal\nof the ten generals;[20] and when it was in his power to escape out of\nprison he would not do it; and he reproved those who bewailed his fate,\nand even while in prison, he delivered those beautiful discourses which\nwe still possess.\n\nIX. He was a contented and venerable man. And once, as Pamphila says, in\nthe seventh book of her Commentaries, when Alcibiades offered him a large\npiece of ground to build a house upon, he said, \u201cBut if I wanted shoes,\nand you had given me a piece of leather to make myself shoes, I should\nbe laughed at if I took it.\u201d And often, when he beheld the multitude of\nthings which were being sold, he would say to himself, \u201cHow many things\nare there which I do not want.\u201d And he was continually repeating these\niambics:\u2014\n\n For silver plate and purple useful are\n For actors on the stage, but not for men.\n\nAnd he showed his scorn of Archelaus the Macedonian, and Scopas the\nCranonian, and Eurylochus of Larissa, when he refused to accept their\nmoney, and to go and visit them. And he was so regular in his way of\nliving, that it happened more than once when there was a plague at\nAthens, that he was the only person who did not catch it.\n\nX. Aristotle says, that he had two wives. The first was Xanthippe, by\nwhom he had a son named Lamprocles; the second was Myrto, the daughter\nof Aristides the Just; and he took her without any dowry, and by her he\nhad two sons, Sophroniscus and Menexenus. But some say that Myrto was\nhis first wife. And some, among whom are Satyrus, and Hieronymus, of\nRhodes, say that he had them both at the same time. For they say that the\nAthenians, on account of the scarcity of men, passed a vote, with the\nview of increasing the population, that a man might marry one citizen,\nand might also have children by another who should be legitimate; on\nwhich account Socrates did so.\n\nXI. And he was a man able to look down upon any who mocked him. And he\nprided himself upon the simplicity of his way of life; and never exacted\nany pay from his pupils. And he used to say, that the man who ate with\nthe greatest appetite, had the least need of delicacies; and that he who\ndrank with the greatest appetite, was the least inclined to look for a\ndraught which is not at hand; and that those who want fewest things are\nnearest to the Gods. And thus much, indeed, one may learn from the comic\npoets; who, without perceiving it, praise him in the very matters for\nwhich they ridicule him. Aristophanes speaks thus:\u2014\n\n Prudent man, who thus with justice long for mighty wisdom,\n Happiness will be your lot in Athens, and all Greece too;\n For you\u2019ve a noble memory, and plenty of invention,\n And patience dwells within your mind, and you are never tired,\n Whether you\u2019re standing still or walking; and you care not for cold,\n Nor do you long for breakfast time, nor e\u2019er give in to hunger;\n But wine and gluttony you shun, and all such kind of follies.\n\nAnd Ameipsias introduces him on the stage in a cloak, and speaks thus of\nhim:\u2014\n\n O Socrates, among few men the best,\n And among many vainest; here at last\n You come to us courageously\u2014but where,\n Where did you get that cloak? so strange a garment,\n Some leather cutter must have given you\n By way of joke: and yet this worthy man,\n Though ne\u2019er so hungry, never flatters any one.\n\nAristophanes too, exposes his contemptuous and arrogant disposition,\nspeaking thus:\u2014\n\n You strut along the streets, and look around you proudly,\n And barefoot many ills endure, and hold your head above us.\n\nAnd yet, sometimes he adapted himself to the occasion and dressed\nhandsomely. As, for instance, in the banquet of Plato, where he is\nrepresented as going to find Agathon.\n\nXII. He was a man of great ability, both in exhorting men to, and\ndissuading them from, any course; as, for instance having discoursed\nwith The\u00e6tetus on the subject of knowledge, he sent him away almost\ninspired, as Plato says. And when Euthyphron had commenced a prosecution\nagainst his father for having killed a foreigner, he conversed with him\non the subject of piety, and turned him from his purpose: and by his\nexhortations he made Lysis a most moral man. For he was very ingenious\nat deriving arguments from existing circumstances. And so he mollified\nhis son Lamprocles when he was very angry with his mother, as Xenophon\nmentions somewhere in his works; and he wrought upon Glaucon, the\nbrother of Plato, who was desirous to meddle with affairs of state, and\ninduced him to abandon his purpose, because of his want of experience in\nsuch matters, as Xenophon relates. And, on the contrary, he persuaded\nCharmidas to devote himself to politics, because he was a man very well\ncalculated for such business. He also inspired Iphicrates, the general,\nwith courage, by showing him the gamecocks of Midias the barber, pluming\nthemselves against those of Callias; and Glauconides said, that the state\nought to keep him carefully, as if he were a pheasant or a peacock. He\nused also to say, that it was a strange thing that every one could easily\ntell what property he had, but was not able to name all his friends, or\neven to tell their number; so careless were men on that subject. Once\nwhen he saw Euclid exceedingly anxious about some dialectic arguments, he\nsaid to him, \u201cO Euclid, you will acquire a power of managing sophists,\nbut not of governing men.\u201d For he thought that subtle hair-splitting on\nthose subjects was quite useless; as Plato also records in the Euthydemus.\n\nXIII. And when Charmidas offered him some slaves, with the view to his\nmaking a profit of them, he would not have them; and, as some people say,\nhe paid no regard to the beauty of Alcibiades.\n\nXIV. He used to praise leisure as the most valuable of possessions,\nas Xenophon tells us in his Banquet. And it was a saying of his that\nthere was one only good, namely, knowledge; and one only evil, namely,\nignorance; that riches and high birth had nothing estimable in them, but\nthat, on the contrary, they were wholly evil. Accordingly, when some one\ntold him that the mother of Antisthenes was a Thracian woman, \u201cDid you\nsuppose,\u201d said he, \u201cthat so noble a man must be born of two Athenians?\u201d\nAnd when Ph\u00e6do was reduced to a state of slavery, he ordered Crito to\nransom him, and taught him, and made him a philosopher.\n\nXV. And, moreover, he used to learn to play on the lyre when he had time,\nsaying, that it was not absurd to learn anything that one did not know;\nand further, he used frequently to dance, thinking such an exercise good\nfor the health of the body, as Xenophon relates in his Banquet.\n\nXVI. He used also to say that the d\u00e6mon foretold the future to him;[21]\nand that to begin well was not a trifling thing, but yet not far from\na trifling thing; and that he knew nothing, except the fact of his\nignorance. Another saying of his was, that those who bought things out of\nseason, at an extravagant price, expected never to live till the proper\nseason for them. Once, when he was asked what was the virtue of a young\nman, he said, \u201cTo avoid excess in everything.\u201d And he used to say, that\nit was necessary to learn geometry only so far as might enable a man to\nmeasure land for the purposes of buying and selling. And when Euripides,\nin his Auge, had spoken thus of virtue:\u2014\n\n \u2019Tis best to leave these subjects undisturbed;\n\nhe rose up and left the theatre, saying that it was an absurdity to\nthink it right to seek for a slave if one could not find him, but to\nlet virtue be altogether disregarded. The question was once put to him\nby a man whether he would advise him to marry or not? And he replied,\n\u201cWhichever you do, you will repent it.\u201d He often said, that he wondered\nat those who made stone statues, when he saw how careful they were that\nthe stone should be like the man it was intended to represent, but how\ncareless they were of themselves, as to guarding against being like the\nstone. He used also to recommend young men to be constantly looking in\nthe glass, in order that, if they were handsome, they might be worthy\nof their beauty; and if they were ugly, they might conceal their\nunsightly appearance by their accomplishments. He once invited some rich\nmen to dinner, and when Xanthippe was ashamed of their insufficient\nappointments, he said, \u201cBe of good cheer; for if our guests are sensible\nmen, they will bear with us; and if they are not, we need not care about\nthem.\u201d He used to say, \u201cThat other men lived to eat, but that he ate\nto live.\u201d Another saying of his was, \u201cThat to have a regard for the\nworthless multitude, was like the case of a man who refused to take one\npiece of money of four drachmas as if it were bad, and then took a heap\nof such coins and admitted them to be good.\u201d When \u00c6schines said, \u201cI am a\npoor man, and have nothing else, but I give you myself;\u201d \u201cDo you not,\u201d he\nreplied, \u201cperceive that you are giving me what is of the greatest value?\u201d\nHe said to some one, who was expressing indignation at being overlooked\nwhen the thirty had seized on the supreme power, \u201cDo you, then, repent of\nnot being a tyrant too?\u201d A man said to him, \u201cThe Athenians have condemned\nyou to death.\u201d \u201cAnd nature,\u201d he replied, \u201chas condemned them.\u201d But some\nattribute this answer to Anaxagoras. When his wife said to him, \u201cYou\ndie undeservedly.\u201d \u201cWould you, then,\u201d he rejoined, \u201chave had me deserve\ndeath?\u201d He thought once that some one appeared to him in a dream, and\nsaid:\u2014\n\n On the third day you\u2019ll come to lovely Phthia.\n\nAnd so he said to \u00c6schines, \u201cIn three days I shall die.\u201d And when he was\nabout to drink the hemlock, Apollodorus presented him with a handsome\nrobe, that he might expire in it; and he said, \u201cWhy was my own dress good\nenough to live in, and not good enough to die in?\u201d When a person said to\nhim, \u201cSuch an one speaks ill of you;\u201d \u201cTo be sure,\u201d said he, \u201cfor he has\nnever learnt to speak well.\u201d When Antisthenes turned the ragged side of\nhis cloak to the light, he said, \u201cI see your silly vanity through the\nholes in your cloak.\u201d When some one said to him, \u201cDoes not that man abuse\nyou?\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d said he, \u201cfor that does not apply to me.\u201d It was a saying of\nhis, too, \u201cThat it is a good thing for a man to offer himself cheerfully\nto the attacks of the comic writers; for then, if they say anything worth\nhearing, one will be able to mend; and if they do not, then all they say\nis unimportant.\u201d\n\nXVII. He said once to Xanthippe, who first abused him and then threw\nwater at him, \u201cDid I not say that Xanthippe was thundering now, and\nwould soon rain?\u201d When Alcibiades said to him, \u201cThe abusive temper of\nXanthippe is intolerable;\u201d \u201cBut I,\u201d he rejoined, \u201cam used to it, just\nas I should be if I were always hearing the noise of a pulley; and you\nyourself endure to hear geese cackling.\u201d To which Alcibiades answered,\n\u201cYes, but they bring me eggs and goslings.\u201d \u201cWell,\u201d rejoined Socrates,\n\u201cand Xanthippe brings me children.\u201d Once, she attacked him in the\nmarket-place, and tore his cloak off; his friends advised him to keep her\noff with his hands; \u201cYes, by Jove,\u201d said he, \u201cthat while we are boxing\nyou may all cry out, \u2018Well done, Socrates, well done, Xanthippe.\u2019\u201d And\nhe used to say, that one ought to live with a restive woman, just as\nhorsemen manage violent-tempered horses; \u201cand as they,\u201d said he, \u201cwhen\nthey have once mastered them, are easily able to manage all others; so I,\nafter managing Xanthippe, can easily live with any one else whatever.\u201d\n\nXVIII. And it was in consequence of such sayings and actions as these,\nthat the priestess at Delphi was witness in his favour, when she gave\nCh\u00e6rephon this answer, which is so universally known:\u2014\n\n Socrates of all mortals is the wisest.\n\nIn consequence of which answer, he incurred great envy; and he brought\nenvy also on himself, by convicting men who gave themselves airs of\nfolly and ignorance, as undoubtedly he did to Anytus; and as is shown in\nPlato\u2019s Meno. For he, not being able to bear Socrates\u2019 jesting, first\nof all set Aristophanes to attack him, and then persuaded Meletus to\ninstitute a prosecution against him, on the ground of impiety and of\ncorrupting the youth of the city. Accordingly Meletus did institute\nthe prosecution; and Polyeuctus pronounced the sentence, as Phavorinus\nrecords in his Universal History. And Polycrates, the sophist, wrote the\nspeech which was delivered, as Hermippus says, not Anytus, as others say.\nAnd Lycon, the demagogue, prepared everything necessary to support the\nimpeachment; but Antisthenes in his Successions of the Philosophers, and\nPlato in his Apology, say that these men brought the accusation:\u2014Anytus,\nand Lycon, and Meletus; Anytus, acting against him on behalf of the\nmagistrates, and because of his political principles; Lycon, on behalf\nof the orators; and Meletus on behalf of the poets, all of whom Socrates\nused to pull to pieces. But Phavorinus, in the first book of his\nCommentaries, says, that the speech of Polycrates against Socrates is\nnot the genuine one; for in it there is mention made of the walls having\nbeen restored by Conon, which took place six years after the death of\nSocrates; and certainly this is true.\n\nXIX. But the sworn informations, on which the trial proceeded, were\ndrawn up in this fashion; for they are preserved to this day, says\nPhavorinus, in the temple of Cybele:\u2014\u201cMeletus, the son of Meletus, of\nPithus, impeaches Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, of Alopece: Socrates\nis guilty, inasmuch as he does not believe in the Gods whom the city\nworships, but introduces other strange deities; he is also guilty,\ninasmuch as he corrupts the young men, and the punishment he has incurred\nis death.\u201d\n\nXX. But the philosopher, after Lysias had prepared a defence for him,\nread it through, and said\u2014\u201cIt is a very fine speech, Lysias, but is not\nsuitable for me; for it was manifestly the speech of a lawyer, rather\nthan of a philosopher.\u201d And when Lysias replied, \u201cHow is it possible,\nthat if it is a good speech, it should not be suitable to you?\u201d he said,\n\u201cJust as fine clothes and handsome shoes would not be suitable to me.\u201d\nAnd when the trial was proceeding, Justus, of Tiberias, in his Garland,\nsays that Plato ascended the tribune and said, \u201cI, men of Athens, being\nthe youngest of all those who have mounted the tribune \u2026\u201d and that he\nwas interrupted by the judges, who cried out \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, that is to say,\n\u2018Come down.\u2019\n\nXXI. So when he had been condemned by two hundred and eighty-one votes,\nbeing six more than were given in his favour, and when the judges were\nmaking an estimate of what punishment or fine should be inflicted on him,\nhe said that he ought to be fined five and twenty drachmas; but Eubulides\nsays that he admitted that he deserved a fine of one hundred. And when\nthe judges raised an outcry at this proposition, he said, \u201cMy real\nopinion is, that as a return for what has been done by me, I deserve a\nmaintenance in the Prytaneum for the rest of my life.\u201d So they condemned\nhim to death, by eighty votes more than they had originally found him\nguilty. And he was put into prison, and a few days afterwards he drank\nthe hemlock, having held many admirable conversations in the meantime,\nwhich Plato has recorded in the Ph\u00e6do.\n\nXXII. He also, according to some accounts, composed a p\u00e6an which begins\u2014\n\n Hail Apollo, King of Delos,\n Hail Diana, Leto\u2019s child.\n\nBut Dionysidorus says that this p\u00e6an is not his. He also composed a\nfable, in the style of \u00c6sop, not very artistically, and it begins\u2014\n\n \u00c6sop one day did this sage counsel give\n To the Corinthian magistrates: not to trust\n The cause of virtue to the people\u2019s judgement.\n\nXXIII. So he died; but the Athenians immediately repented[22] of their\naction, so that they closed all the pal\u00e6str\u00e6 and gymnasia; and they\nbanished his accusers, and condemned Meletus to death; but they honoured\nSocrates with a brazen statue, which they erected in the place where the\nsacred vessels are kept; and it was the work of Lysippus. But Anytus had\nalready left Athens; and the people of Heraclea banished him from that\ncity the day of his arrival. But Socrates was not the only person who\nmet with this treatment at the hands of the Athenians, but many other\nmen received the same: for, as Heraclides says, they fined Homer fifty\ndrachmas as a madman, and they said that Tyrt\u00e6us was out of his wits.\nBut they honoured Astydamas, before \u00c6schylus, with a brazen statue. And\nEuripides reproaches them for their conduct in his Palamedes, saying\u2014\n\n Ye have slain, ye have slain,\n O Greeks, the all-wise nightingale,\n The favourite of the Muses, guiltless all.\n\nAnd enough has been said on this head.\n\nBut Philochorus says that Euripides died before Socrates; and he was\nborn, as Apollodorus in his Chronicles asserts, in the archonship of\nApsephion, in the fourth year of the seventy-seventh Olympiad, on the\nsixth day of the month Thargelion, when the Athenians purify their city,\nand when the citizens of Delos say that Diana was born. And he died in\nthe first year of the ninety-fifth Olympiad, being seventy years of age.\nAnd this is the calculation of Demetrius Phalereus, for some say that he\nwas but sixty years old when he died.\n\nXXIV. Both he and Euripides were pupils of Anaxagoras; and Euripides was\nborn in the first year of the seventy-fifth Olympiad, in the archonship\nof Calliades. But Socrates appears to me to have also discussed\noccasionally subjects of natural philosophy, since he very often disputes\nabout prudence and foresight, as Xenophon tells us; although he at the\nsame time asserts that all his conversations were about moral philosophy.\nAnd Plato, in his Apology, mentions the principles of Anaxagoras and\nother natural philosophers, which Socrates denies; and he is in reality\nexpressing his own sentiments about them, though he attributes them all\nto Socrates. And Aristotle tells us that a certain one of the Magi came\nfrom Syria to Athens, and blamed Socrates for many parts of his conduct,\nand also foretold that he would come to a violent death. And we ourselves\nhave written this epigram on him\u2014\n\n Drink now, O Socrates, in the realms of Jove,\n For truly did the God pronounce you wise,\n And he who said so is himself all wisdom:\n You drank the poison which your country gave,\n But they drank wisdom from your godlike voice.\n\nXXV. He had, as Aristotle tells us in the third book of his Poetics,\na contest with a man of the name of Antiolochus of Lemnos, and with\nAntipho, an interpreter of prodigies, as Pythagoras had with Cylon\nof Crotona; and Homer while alive with Sagaris, and after his death\nwith Xenophanes the Colophonian; and Hesiod, too, in his lifetime with\nCercops, and after his death with the same Xenophanes; and Pindar with\nAmphimenes of Cos; and Thales with Pherecydes; and Bias with Salarus of\nPriene; and Pittacus with Antimenides; and Alc\u00e6us and Anaxagoras with\nSosibius; and Simonides with Timocreon.\n\nXXVI. Of those who succeeded him, and who are called the Socratic school,\nthe chiefs were Plato, Xenophon, and Antisthenes: and of the ten, as they\nare often called, the four most eminent were \u00c6schines, Ph\u00e6do, Euclides,\nand Aristippus. But we must first speak of Xenophon, and after him of\nAntisthenes among the Cynics. Then of the Socratic school, and so about\nPlato, since he is the chief of the ten sects, and the founder of the\nfirst Academy. And the regular series of them shall proceed in this\nmanner.\n\nXXVII. There was also another Socrates, a historian, who wrote a\ndescription of Argos; and another, a peripatetic philosopher, a native of\nBithynia; and another a writer of epigrams; and another a native of Cos,\nwho wrote invocations to the Gods.\n\n\nLIFE OF XENOPHON.\n\nI. Xenophon, the son of Gryllus, a citizen of Athens, was of the borough\nof Erchia; and he was a man of great modesty, and as handsome as can be\nimagined.\n\nII. They say that Socrates met him in a narrow lane, and put his stick\nacross it, and prevented him from passing by, asking him where all kinds\nof necessary things were sold. And when he had answered him, he asked him\nagain where men were made good and virtuous. And as he did not know, he\nsaid, \u201cFollow me, then, and learn.\u201d And from this time forth, Xenophon\nbecame a follower of Socrates.\n\nIII. And he was the first person who took down conversations as they\noccurred, and published them among men, calling them memorabilia. He was\nalso the first man who wrote a history of philosophers.\n\nIV. And Aristippus, in the fourth book of his treatise on Ancient Luxury,\nsays that he loved Clinias; and that he said to him, \u201cNow I look upon\nClinias with more pleasure than upon all the other beautiful things which\nare to be seen among men; and I would rather be blind as to all the rest\nof the world, than as to Clinias. And I am annoyed even with night and\nwith sleep, because then I do not see him; but I am very grateful to the\nsun and to daylight, because they show Clinias to me.\u201d\n\nV. He became a friend of Cyrus in this manner. He had an acquaintance, by\nname Proxenus, a B\u0153otian by birth, a pupil of Gorgias of Leontini, and a\nfriend of Cyrus. He being in Sardis, staying at the court of Cyrus, wrote\na letter to Athens to Xenophon, inviting him to come and be a friend of\nCyrus. And Xenophon showed the letter to Socrates, and asked his advice.\nAnd Socrates bade him go to Delphi, and ask counsel of the God. And\nXenophon did so, and went to the God; but the question he put was, not\nwhether it was good for him to go to Cyrus or not, but how he should go;\nfor which Socrates blamed him, but still advised him to go. Accordingly\nhe went to Cyrus, and became no less dear to him than Proxenus. And all\nthe circumstances of the expedition and the retreat, he himself has\nsufficiently related to us.\n\nVI. But he was at enmity with Menon the Pharsalian, who was the commander\nof the foreign troops at the time of the expedition; and amongst other\nreproaches, he says that he was much addicted to the worst kind of\ndebauchery. And he reproaches a man of the name of Apollonides with\nhaving his ears bored.\n\nVII. But after the expedition, and the disasters which took place in\nPontus, and the violations of the truce by Seuthes, the king of the\nOdrys\u00e6, he came into Asia to Agesilaus, the king of Laced\u00e6mon, bringing\nwith him the soldiers of Cyrus, to serve for pay; and he became a very\ngreat friend of Agesilaus. And about the same time he was condemned to\nbanishment by the Athenians, on the charge of being a favourer of the\nLaced\u00e6monians. And being in Ephesus, and having a sum of money in gold,\nhe gave half of it to Megabyzus, the priest of Diana, to keep for him\ntill his return; and if he never returned, then he was to expend it upon\na statue, and dedicate that to the Goddess; and with the other half he\nsent offerings to Delphi. From thence he went with Agesilaus into Greece,\nas Agesilaus was summoned to take part in the war against the Thebans.\nAnd the Laced\u00e6monians made him a friend of their city.\n\nVIII. After this he left Agesilaus and went to Scillus, which is a strong\nplace in the district of Elis, at no great distance from the city. And a\nwoman followed him, whose name was Philesia, as Demetrius the Magnesian\nrelates; and his sons, Gryllus and Diodorus, as Dinarchus states in the\naction against Xenophon;[23] and they were also called Dioscuri. And\nwhen Megabyzus came into the country, on the occasion of some public\nassembly, he took back the money and bought a piece of ground, and\nconsecrated it to the Goddess; and a river named Selinus, which is the\nsame name as that of the river at Ephesus, flows through the land. And\nthere he continued hunting, and entertaining his friends, and writing\nhistories. But Dinarchus says that the Laced\u00e6monians gave him a house\nand land. They say also that Philopides, the Spartan, sent him there, as\na present some slaves, who had been taken prisoners of war, natives of\nDardanus, and that he located them as he pleased. And that the Eleans,\nhaving made an expedition against Scillus, took the place, as the\nLaced\u00e6monians dawdled in coming to his assistance.\n\nIX. But then his sons escaped privily to Lepreum, with a few servants;\nand Xenophon himself fled to Elis before the place fell; and from thence\nhe went to Lepreum to his children, and from thence he escaped in safety\nto Corinth, and settled in that city.\n\nX. In the meantime, as the Athenians had passed a vote to go to the\nassistance of the Laced\u00e6monians, he sent his sons to Athens, to join in\nthe expedition in aid of the Laced\u00e6monians; for they had been educated\nin Sparta, as Diocles relates in his Lives of the Philosophers. Diodorus\nreturned safe back again, without having at all distinguished himself\nin the battle. And he had a son who bore the same name as his brother\nGryllus. But Gryllus, serving in the cavalry, (and the battle took place\nat Mantinea,) fought very gallantly, and was slain, as Ephorus tells us,\nin his twenty-fifth book; Cephisodorus being the Captain of the cavalry,\nand Hegesides the commander-in-chief. Epaminondas also fell in this\nbattle. And after the battle, they say that Xenophon offered sacrifice,\nwearing a crown on his head; but when the news of the death of his son\narrived, he took off the crown; but after that, hearing that he had\nfallen gloriously, he put the crown on again. And some say that he did\nnot even shed a tear, but said, \u201cI knew that I was the father of a mortal\nman.\u201d And Aristotle says, that innumerable writers wrote panegyrics and\nepitaphs upon Gryllus, partly out of a wish to gratify his father. And\nHermippus, in his Treatise on Theophrastus, says that Isocrates also\ncomposed a panegyric on Gryllus. But Timon ridicules him in these words:\u2014\n\n A silly couplet, or e\u2019en triplet of speeches,\n Or longer series still, just such as Xenophon\n Might write, or Meagre \u00c6schines.\n\nSuch, then, was the life of Xenophon.\n\nXI. And he flourished about the fourth year of the ninety-fourth\nOlympiad; and he took part in the expedition of Cyrus, in the archonship\nof Xen\u00e6netus, the year before the death of Socrates. And he died, as\nStesiclides the Athenian states in his List of Archons and Conquerors\nat Olympia, in the first year of the hundred and fifth Olympiad, in the\narchonship of Callidemides; in which year, Philip the son of Amyntas\nbegan to reign over the Macedonians. And he died at Corinth, as Demetrius\nthe Magnesian says, being of a very advanced age.\n\nXII. And he was a man of great distinction in all points, and very fond\nof horses and of dogs, and a great tactician, as is manifest from his\nwritings. And he was a pious man, fond of sacrificing to the Gods, and a\ngreat authority as to what was due to them, and a very ardent admirer and\nimitator of Socrates.\n\nXIII. He also wrote near forty books; though different critics divide\nthem differently. He wrote an account of the expedition of Cyrus, to each\nbook of which work he prefixed a summary, though he gave none of the\nwhole history. He also wrote the Cyrop\u00e6dia, and a history of Greece, and\nMemorabilia of Socrates, and a treatise called the Banquet, and an essay\non \u0152conomy, and one on Horsemanship, and one on Breaking Dogs, and one on\nManaging Horses, and a Defence of Socrates, and a Treatise on Revenues,\nand one called Hiero, or the Tyrant, and one called Agesilaus; one on\nthe Constitution of the Athenians and Laced\u00e6monians, which, however,\nDemetrius the Magnesian says is not the work of Xenophon. It is said,\nalso, that he secretly got possession of the books of Thucydides, which\nwere previously unknown, and himself published them.\n\nXIV. He was also called the Attic Muse, because of the sweetness of\nhis diction, in respect of which he and Plato felt a spirit of rivalry\ntowards one another, as we shall relate further in our life of Plato. And\nwe ourselves have composed an epigram on him, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n Not only up to Babylon for Cyrus\n Did Xenophon go, but now he\u2019s mounted up\n The path which leads to Jove\u2019s eternal realms\u2014\n For he, recounting the great deeds of Greece,\n Displays his noble genius, and he shows\n The depth of wisdom of his master Socrates.\n\nAnd another which ends thus:\u2014\n\n O Xenophon, if th\u2019 ungrateful countrymen\n Of Cranon and Cecrops, banished you,\n Jealous of Cyrus\u2019 favour which he show\u2019d you,\n Still hospitable Corinth, with glad heart,\n Received you, and you lived there happily,\n And so resolved to stay in that fair city.\n\nXV. But I have found it stated in some places that he flourished about\nthe eighty-ninth Olympiad, at the same time as the rest of the disciples\nof Socrates. And Ister says, that he was banished by a decree of Eubulus,\nand that he was recalled by another decree proposed by the same person.\n\nXVI. But there were seven people of the name of Xenophon. First of\nall, this philosopher of ours; secondly, an Athenian, a brother of\nPythostratus, who wrote the poem called the Theseid, and who wrote\nother works too, especially the lives of Epaminondas and Pelopidas; the\nthird was a physician of Cos; the fourth, a man who wrote a history of\nAlcibiades; the fifth, was a writer who composed a book full of fabulous\nprodigies; the sixth, a citizen of Paros, a sculptor; the seventh, a poet\nof the Old Comedy.\n\n\nLIFE OF \u00c6SCHINES.\n\nI. \u00c6schines was the son of Charinus, the sausage-maker, but, as some\nwriters say, of Lysanias; he was a citizen of Athens, of an industrious\ndisposition from his boyhood upwards, on which account he never quitted\nSocrates.\n\nII. And this induced Socrates to say, the only one who knows how to pay\nus proper respect is the son of the sausage-seller. Idomeneus asserts,\nthat it was he who, in the prison, tried to persuade Socrates to make\nhis escape, and not Crito. But that Plato, as he was rather inclined to\nfavour Aristippus, attributed his advice to Crito.\n\nIII. And \u00c6schines was calumniated on more than one occasion; and\nespecially by Menedemus of Eretria, who states that he appropriated many\ndialogues of Socrates as his own, having procured them from Xanthippe.\nAnd those of them which are called \u201cheadless,\u201d are exceedingly slovenly\nperformances, showing nothing of the energy of Socrates. And Pisistratus,\nof Ephesus, used to say, that they were not the work of \u00c6schines. There\nare seven of them, and most of them are stated by Pers\u00e6us to be the work\nof Pasiphon, of Eretria, and to have been inserted by him among the works\nof \u00c6schines. And he plagiarised from the Little Cyrus, and the Lesser\nHercules, of Antisthenes, and from the Alcibiades, and from the Dialogues\nof the other philosophers. The Dialogues then of \u00c6schines, which profess\nto give an idea of the system of Socrates are, as I have said, seven in\nnumber. First of all, the Miltiades, which is rather weak; the Callias,\nthe Axiochus, the Aspasia, the Alcibiades, the Telauges, and the Rhino.\nAnd they say that he, being in want, went to Sicily, to Dionysius, and\nwas looked down upon by Plato, but supported by Aristippus, and that he\ngave Dionysius some of his dialogues, and received presents for them.\n\nIV. After that he came to Athens, and there he did not venture to\npractise the trade of a sophist, as Plato and Aristippus were in high\nreputation there. But he gave lectures for money, and wrote speeches\nto be delivered in the courts of law for persons under prosecution. On\nwhich account, Timon said of him, \u201cThe speeches of \u00c6schines which do\nnot convince any one.\u201d And they say that when he was in great straights\nthrough poverty, Socrates advised him to borrow of himself, by deducting\nsome part of his expenditure in his food.\n\nV. And even Aristippus suspected the genuineness of some of his\nDialogues; accordingly, they say that when he was reciting some of them\nat Megara, he ridiculed him, and said to him, \u201cOh! you thief; where did\nyou get that?\u201d\n\nVI. And Polycritus, of Menda, in the first book of his History of\nDionysius, says that he lived with the tyrant till he was deposed, and\ntill the return of Dion to Syracuse; and he says that Carcinus, the\ntragedian, was also with him. And here is extant a letter of \u00c6schines\naddressed to Dionysius.\n\nVII. But he was a man well versed in rhetorical art, as is plain from\nthe defence of his father Ph\u00e6ax, the general; and from the works which\nhe wrote in especial imitation of Gorgias of Leontini. And Lysias wrote\nan oration against him entitling it, On Sycophancy; from all which\ncircumstances it is plain that he was a skilful orator. And one man is\nspoken of as his especial friend, Aristotle, who was surnamed The Table.\n\nVIII. Now Pan\u00e6tius thinks that the Dialogues of the following disciples\nof the Socratic school are all genuine,\u2014Plato, Xenophon, Antisthenes, and\n\u00c6schines; but he doubts about those which go under the names of Ph\u00e6don,\nand Euclides; and he utterly repudiates all the others.\n\nIX. And there were eight men of the name of \u00c6schines. The first, this\nphilosopher of ours; the second was a man who wrote a treatise on\nOratorical Art; the third was the orator who spoke against Demosthenes;\nthe fourth was an Arcadian, a disciple of Isocrates; the fifth was a\ncitizen of Mitylene, whom they used to call the Scourge of the Orators;\nthe sixth was a Neapolitan, a philosopher of the Academy, a disciple\nand favourite of Melanthius, of Rhode; the seventh was a Milesian, a\npolitical writer; the eighth was a statuary.\n\n\nLIFE OF ARISTIPPUS.\n\nI. Aristippus was by birth a Cyrenean, but he came to Athens, as \u00c6schines\nsays, having been attracted thither by the fame of Socrates.\n\nII. He, having professed himself a Sophist, as Phanias, of Eresus, the\nPeripatetic, informs us, was the first of the pupils of Socrates who\nexacted money from his pupils, and who sent money to his master. And once\nhe sent him twenty drachmas, but had them sent back again, as Socrates\nsaid that his d\u00e6mon would not allow him to accept them; for, in fact, he\nwas indignant at having them offered to him. And Xenophon used to hate\nhim; on which account he wrote his book against pleasure as an attack\nupon Aristippus, and assigned the main argument to Socrates. Theodorus\nalso, in his Treatise on Sects, has attacked him severely, and so has\nPlato in his book on the Soul, as we have mentioned in another place.\n\nIII. But he was a man very quick at adapting himself to every kind of\nplace, and time, and person,[24] and he easily supported every change of\nfortune. For which reason he was in greater favour with Dionysius than\nany of the others, as he always made the best of existing circumstances.\nFor he enjoyed what was before him pleasantly, and he did not toil to\nprocure himself the enjoyment of what was not present. On which account\nDiogenes used to call him the king\u2019s dog. And Timon used to snarl at him\nas too luxurious, speaking somewhat in this fashion:\n\n Like the effeminate mind of Aristippus,\n Who, as he said, by touch could judge of falsehood.\n\nThey say that he once ordered a partridge to be bought for him at the\nprice of fifty drachmas; and when some one blamed him, \u201cAnd would not\nyou,\u201d said he, \u201chave bought it if it had cost an obol?\u201d And when he said\nhe would, \u201cWell,\u201d replied Aristippus, \u201cfifty drachmas are no more to\nme.\u201d Dionysius once bade him select which he pleased of three beautiful\ncourtesans; and he carried off all three, saying that even Paris did not\nget any good by preferring one beauty to the rest. However, they say,\nthat when he had carried them as far as the vestibule, he dismissed them;\nso easily inclined was he to select or to disregard things. On which\naccount Strato, or, as others will have it, Plato, said to him, \u201cYou are\nthe only man to whom it is given to wear both a whole cloak and rags.\u201d\nOnce when Dionysius spit at him, he put up with it; and when some one\nfound fault with him, he said, \u201cMen endure being wetted by the sea in\norder to catch a tench, and shall not I endure to be sprinkled with wine\nto catch a sturgeon?\u201d\n\nIV. Once Diogenes, who was washing vegetables, ridiculed him as he passed\nby, and said, \u201cIf you had learnt to eat these vegetables, you would not\nhave been a slave in the palace of a tyrant.\u201d But Aristippus replied,\n\u201cAnd you, if you had known how to behave among men, would not have been\nwashing vegetables.\u201d Being asked once what advantage he had derived from\nphilosophy, he said, \u201cThe power of associating confidently with every\nbody.\u201d When he was reproached for living extravagantly, he replied, \u201cIf\nextravagance had been a fault, it would not have had a place in the\nfestivals of the Gods.\u201d At another time he was asked what advantage\nphilosophers had over other men; and he replied, \u201cIf all the laws should\nbe abrogated, we should still live in the same manner as we do now.\u201d Once\nwhen Dionysius asked him why the philosophers haunt the doors of the\nrich, but the rich do not frequent those of the philosophers, he said,\n\u201cBecause the first know what they want, but the second do not.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he was reproached by Plato for living in an expensive\nway; and he replied, \u201cDoes not Dionysius seem to you to be a good man?\u201d\nAnd as he said that he did; \u201cAnd yet,\u201d said he, \u201che lives in a more\nexpensive manner than I do, so that there is no impossibility in a\nperson\u2019s living both expensively and well at the same time.\u201d He was asked\nonce in what educated men are superior to uneducated men; and answered,\n\u201cJust as broken horses are superior to those that are unbroken.\u201d On\nanother occasion he was going into the house of a courtesan, and when one\nof the young men who were with him blushed, he said, \u201cIt is not the going\ninto such a house that is bad, but the not being able to go out.\u201d Once\na man proposed a riddle to him, and said, \u201cSolve it.\u201d \u201cWhy, you silly\nfellow,\u201d said Aristippus, \u201cdo you wish me to loose what gives us trouble,\neven while it is in bonds?\u201d A saying of his was, \u201cthat it was better to\nbe a beggar than an ignorant person; for that a beggar only wants money,\nbut an ignorant person wants humanity.\u201d Once when he was abused, he was\ngoing away, and as his adversary pursued him and said, \u201cWhy are you going\naway?\u201d \u201cBecause,\u201d said he, \u201cyou have a license for speaking ill; but\nI have another for declining to hear ill.\u201d When some one said that he\nalways saw the philosophers at the doors of the rich men, he said, \u201cAnd\nthe physicians also are always seen at the doors of their patients; but\nstill no one would choose for this reason to be an invalid rather than a\nphysician.\u201d\n\nOnce it happened, that when he was sailing to Corinth, he was overtaken\nby a violent storm; and when somebody said, \u201cWe common individuals are\nnot afraid, but you philosophers are behaving like cowards;\u201d he said,\n\u201cVery likely, for we have not both of us the same kind of souls at\nstake.\u201d Seeing a man who prided himself on the variety of his learning\nand accomplishments, he said, \u201cThose who eat most, and who take the most\nexercise, are not in better health than they who eat just as much as is\ngood for them; and in the same way it is not those who know a great many\nthings, but they who know what is useful who are valuable men.\u201d An orator\nhad pleaded a cause for him and gained it, and asked him afterwards,\n\u201cNow, what good did you ever get from Socrates?\u201d \u201cThis good,\u201d said he,\n\u201cthat all that you have said in my behalf is true.\u201d He gave admirable\nadvice to his daughter Arete, teaching her to despise superfluity. And\nbeing asked by some one in what respect his son would be better if he\nreceived a careful education, he replied, \u201cIf he gets no other good, at\nall events, when he is at the theatre, he will not be one stone sitting\nupon another.\u201d Once when some one brought his son to introduce to him, he\ndemanded five hundred drachmas; and when the father said, \u201cWhy, for such\na price as that I can buy a slave.\u201d \u201cBuy him then,\u201d he replied, \u201cand you\nwill have a pair.\u201d\n\nIt was a saying of his that he took money from his acquaintances not in\norder to use it himself, but to make them aware in what they ought to\nspend their money. On one occasion, being reproached for having employed\na hired advocate in a cause that he had depending: \u201cWhy not,\u201d said he;\n\u201cwhen I have a dinner, I hire a cook.\u201d Once he was compelled by Dionysius\nto repeat some philosophical sentiment; \u201cIt is an absurdity,\u201d said he,\n\u201cfor you to learn of me how to speak, and yet to teach me when I ought\nto speak:\u201d and as Dionysius was offended at this, he placed him at the\nlowest end of the table; on which Aristippus said, \u201cYou wish to make\nthis place more respectable.\u201d A man was one day boasting of his skill\nas a diver; \u201cAre you not ashamed,\u201d said Aristippus, \u201cto pride yourself\non your performance of the duty of a dolphin?\u201d On one occasion he was\nasked in what respect a wise man is superior to one who is not wise; and\nhis answer was, \u201cSend them both naked among strangers, and you will find\nout.\u201d A man was boasting of being able to drink a great deal without\nbeing drunk; and he said, \u201cA mule can do the very same thing.\u201d When a\nman reproached him for living with a mistress, he said, \u201cDoes it make\nany difference whether one takes a house in which many others have lived\nbefore one, or one where no one has ever lived?\u201d and his reprover said,\n\u201cNo.\u201d \u201cWell does it make any difference whether one sails in a ship which\nten thousand people have sailed before one, or whether one sails in\none in which no one has ever embarked?\u201d \u201cBy no means,\u201d said the other.\n\u201cJust in the same way,\u201d said he, \u201cit makes no difference whether one\nlives with a woman with whom numbers have lived, or with one with whom\nno one has lived.\u201d When a person once blamed him for taking money from\nhis pupils, after having been himself a pupil of Socrates: \u201cTo be sure\nI do,\u201d he replied, \u201cfor Socrates too, when some friends sent their corn\nand wine, accepted a little, and sent the rest back; for he had the chief\nmen of the Athenians for his purveyors. But I have only Eutychides, whom\nI have bought with money.\u201d And he used to live with Lais the courtesan,\nas Sotion tells us in the Second Book of his Successions. Accordingly,\nwhen some one reproached him on her account, he made answer, \u201cI possess\nher, but I am not possessed by her; since the best thing is to possess\npleasures without being their slave, not to be devoid of pleasures.\u201d When\nsome one blamed him for the expense he was at about his food, he said,\n\u201cWould you not have bought those things yourself if they had cost three\nobols?\u201d And when the other admitted that he would, \u201cThen,\u201d said he, \u201cit\nis not that I am fond of pleasure, but that you are fond of money.\u201d On\none occasion, when Simus, the steward of Dionysius, was showing him a\nmagnificent house, paved with marble (but Simus was a Phrygian, and a\ngreat toper), he hawked up a quantity of saliva and spit in his face;\nand when Simus was indignant at this, he said, \u201cI could not find a more\nsuitable place to spit in.\u201d\n\nCharondas, or as some say, Ph\u00e6don, asked him once, \u201cWho are the people\nwho use perfumes?\u201d \u201cI do,\u201d said he, \u201cwretched man that I am, and the\nking of the Persians is still more wretched than I; but, recollect, that\nas no animal is the worse for having a pleasant scent, so neither is a\nman; but plague take those wretches who abuse our beautiful unguents.\u201d\nOn another occasion, he was asked how Socrates died; and he made answer,\n\u201cAs I should wish to die myself.\u201d When Polyxenus, the Sophist, came to\nhis house and beheld his women, and the costly preparation that was made\nfor dinner, and then blamed him for all this luxury, Aristippus after a\nwhile said, \u201cCan you stay with me to day?\u201d and when Polyxenus consented,\n\u201cWhy then,\u201d said he, \u201cdid you blame me? it seems that you blame not the\nluxury, but the expense of it.\u201d When his servant was once carrying some\nmoney along the road, and was oppressed by the weight of it (as Bion\nrelates in his Dissertations), he said to him, \u201cDrop what is beyond your\nstrength, and only carry what you can.\u201d Once he was at sea, and seeing\na pirate vessel at a distance, he began to count his money; and then he\nlet it drop into the sea, as if unintentionally, and began to bewail his\nloss; but others say that he said besides, that it was better for the\nmoney to be lost for the sake of Aristippus, than Aristippus for the\nsake of his money. On one occasion, when Dionysius asked him why he had\ncome, he said, to give others a share of what he had, and to receive a\nshare of what he had not; but some report that his answer was, \u201cWhen I\nwanted wisdom, I went to Socrates; but now that I want money, I have come\nto you.\u201d He found fault with men, because when they are at sales, they\nexamine the articles offered very carefully, but yet they approve of\nmen\u2019s lives without any examination. Though some attribute this speech\nto Diogenes. They say that once at a banquet, Dionysius desired all the\nguests to dance in purple garments; but Plato refused, saying:\u2014\n\n \u201cI could not wear a woman\u2019s robe, when I\n Was born a man, and of a manly race.\u201d\n\nBut Aristippus took the garment, and when he was about to dance, he said\nvery wittily:\u2014\n\n \u201cShe who is chaste, will not corrupted be\n By Bacchanalian revels.\u201d\n\nHe was once asking a favour of Dionysius for a friend, and when he could\nnot prevail, he fell at his feet; and when some one reproached him for\nsuch conduct, he said, \u201cIt is not I who am to blame, but Dionysius who\nhas his ears in his feet.\u201d When he was staying in Asia, and was taken\nprisoner by Artaphernes the Satrap, some one said to him, \u201cAre you still\ncheerful and sanguine?\u201d \u201cWhen, you silly fellow,\u201d he replied, \u201ccan I have\nmore reason to be cheerful than now when I am on the point of conversing\nwith Artaphernes?\u201d It used to be a saying of his, that those who had\nenjoyed the encyclic course of education, but who had omitted philosophy,\nwere like the suitors of Penelope; for that they gained over Melantho\nand Polydora and the other maid-servants, and found it easier to do that\nthan to marry the mistress. And Ariston said in like manner, that Ulysses\nwhen he had gone to the shades below, saw and conversed with nearly all\nthe dead in those regions, but could not get a sight of the Queen herself.\n\nOn another occasion, Aristippus being asked what were the most necessary\nthings for well-born boys to learn, said, \u201cThose things which they will\nput in practice when they become men.\u201d And when some one reproached him\nfor having come from Socrates to Dionysius, his reply was, \u201cI went to\nSocrates because I wanted instruction (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03c2), and I have come to\nDionysius because I want diversion (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2).\u201d As he had made money by\nhaving pupils, Socrates once said to him, \u201cWhere did you get so much?\u201d\nand he answered, \u201cWhere you got a little.\u201d When his mistress said to him,\n\u201cI am in the family way by you,\u201d he said, \u201cYou can no more tell that,\nthan you could tell, after you had gone through a thicket, which thorn\nhad scratched you.\u201d And when some one blamed him for repudiating his son,\nas if he were not really his, he said, \u201cI know that phlegm, and I know\nthat lice, proceed from us, but still we cast them away as useless.\u201d\nOne day, when he had received some money from Dionysius, and Plato had\nreceived a book, he said to a man who jeered him, \u201cThe fact is, money is\nwhat I want, and books what Plato wants.\u201d When he was asked what it was\nfor which he was reproached by Dionysius, \u201cThe same thing,\u201d said he, \u201cfor\nwhich others reproach me.\u201d One day he asked Dionysius for some money, who\nsaid, \u201cBut you told me that a wise man would never be in want;\u201d \u201cGive\nme some,\u201d Aristippus rejoined, \u201cand then we will discuss that point;\u201d\nDionysius gave him some, \u201cNow then,\u201d said he, \u201cyou see that I do not want\nmoney.\u201d When Dionysius said to him;\u2014\n\n \u201cFor he who does frequent a tyrant\u2019s court,[25]\n Becomes his slave, though free when first he came:\u201d\n\nHe took him up, and replied:\u2014\n\n \u201cThat man is but a slave who comes as free.\u201d\n\nThis story is told by Diocles, in his book on the Lives of the\nPhilosophers; but others attribute the rejoinder to Plato. He once\nquarrelled with \u00c6schines, and presently afterwards said to him, \u201cShall we\nnot make it up of our own accord, and cease this folly; but will you wait\ntill some blockhead reconciles us over our cups?\u201d \u201cWith all my heart,\u201d\nsaid \u00c6schines. \u201cRecollect, then,\u201d said Aristippus, \u201cthat I, who am older\nthan you, have made the first advances.\u201d And \u00c6schines answered, \u201cYou say\nwell, by Juno, since you are far better than I; for I began the quarrel,\nbut you begin the friendship.\u201d And these are the anecdotes which are told\nof him.\n\nV. Now there were four people of the name of Aristippus; one, the man\nof whom we are now speaking; the second, the man who wrote the history\nof Arcadia; the third was one who, because he had been brought up by\nhis mother, had the name of \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 given to him; and he was the\ngrandson of the former, being his daughter\u2019s son; the fourth was a\nphilosopher of the New Academy.\n\nVI. There are three books extant, written by the Cyrenaic philosopher,\nwhich are, a history of Africa, and which were sent by him to Dionysius;\nand there is another book containing twenty-five dialogues, some written\nin the Attic, and some in the Doric dialect. And these are the titles of\nthe Dialogues\u2014Artabazus; to the Shipwrecked Sailors; to the Exiles; to\na Beggar; to Lais; to Porus; to Lais about her Looking-glass; Mercury;\nthe Dream; to the President of the Feast; Philomelus; to his Domestics;\nto those who reproached him for possessing old wine and mistresses; to\nthose who reproached him for spending much money on his eating; a Letter\nto Arete his daughter; a letter to a man who was training himself for\nthe Olympic games; a book of Questions; another book of Questions; a\nDissertation addressed to Dionysius; an Essay on a Statue; an Essay on\nthe daughter of Dionysius; a book addressed to one who thought himself\nneglected; another to one who attempted to give him advice. Some say,\nalso, that he wrote six books of dissertations; but others, the chief\nof whom is Sosicrates of Rhodes, affirm that he never wrote a single\nthing. According to the assertions of Sotion in his second book; and\nof Pan\u00e6tius, on the contrary, he composed the following books,\u2014one\nconcerning Education; one concerning Virtue; one called An Exhortation;\nArtabazus; the Shipwrecked Men; the Exiles; six books of Dissertations;\nthree books of Apophthegms; an essay addressed to Lais; one to Porus;\none to Socrates; one on Fortune. And he used to define the chief good as\na gentle motion tending to sensation.\n\nVII. But since we have written his life, let us now speak of the\nCyrenaics who came after him; some of whom called themselves Hegesiaci,\nsome Annicerei, others Theodorei. And let us also enumerate the disciples\nof Ph\u00e6do, the chief of whom were the Eretrians. Now the pupils of\nAristippus were his own daughter Arete, and \u00c6thiops of Ptolemais, and\nAntipater of Cyrene. Arete had for her pupil the Aristippus who was\nsurnamed \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, whose disciple was Theodorus the atheist, but\nwho was afterwards called \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2. Antipater had for a pupil Epitimedes of\nCyrene, who was the master of Par\u00e6bates, who was the master of Hegesias,\nwho was surnamed \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (persuading to die), and of Anniceris who\nransomed Plato.\n\nVIII. These men then who continued in the school of Aristippus, and\nwere called Cyrenaics, adopted the following opinions.\u2014They said that\nthere were two emotions of the mind, pleasure and pain; that the one,\nnamely pleasure, was a moderate emotion; the other, namely pain, a rough\none. And that no one pleasure was different from or more pleasant than\nanother; and that pleasure was praised by all animals, but pain avoided.\nThey said also that pleasure belonged to the body, and constituted\nits chief good, as Pan\u00e6tius also tells us in his book on Sects; but\nthe pleasure which they call the chief good, is not that pleasure as\na state, which consists in the absence of all pain, and is a sort of\nundisturbedness, which is what Epicurus admits as such; for the Cyrenaics\nthink that there is a distinction between the chief good and a life of\nhappiness, for that the chief good is a particular pleasure, but that\nhappiness is a state consisting of a number of particular pleasures,\namong which, both those which are past, and those which are future, are\nboth enumerated. And they consider that particular pleasure is desirable\nfor its own sake; but that happiness is desirable not for its own sake,\nbut for that of the particular pleasure. And that the proof that pleasure\nis the chief good is that we are from our childhood attracted to it\nwithout any deliberate choice of our own; and that when we have obtained\nit, we do not seek anything further, and also that there is nothing which\nwe avoid so much as we do its opposite, which is pain. And they assert,\ntoo, that pleasure is a good, even if it arises from the most unbecoming\ncauses, as Hippobotus tells us in his Treatise on Sects; for even if an\naction be ever so absurd, still the pleasure which arises out of it is\ndesirable, and a good.\n\nMoreover, the banishment of pain, as it is called by Epicurus, appears to\nthe Cyrenaics not to be pleasure; for neither is the absence of pleasure\npain, for both pleasure and pain consist in motion; and neither the\nabsence of pleasure nor the absence of pain are motion. In fact, absence\nof pain is a condition like that of a person asleep. They say also that\nit is possible that some persons may not desire pleasure, owing to some\nperversity of mind; and that all the pleasures and pains of the mind, do\nnot all originate in pleasures and pains of the body, for that pleasure\noften arises from the mere fact of the prosperity of one\u2019s country, or\nfrom one\u2019s own; but they deny that pleasure is caused by either the\nrecollection or the anticipation of good fortune\u2014though Epicurus asserted\nthat it was\u2014for the motion of the mind is put an end to by time. They\nsay, too, that pleasure is not caused by simple seeing or hearing.\nAccordingly we listen with pleasure to those who give a representation\nof lamentations; but we are pained when we see men lamenting in reality.\nAnd they called the absence of pleasure and of pain intermediate states;\nand asserted that corporeal pleasures were superior to mental ones, and\ncorporeal sufferings worse than mental ones. And they argued that it was\non this principle that offenders were punished with bodily pain; for they\nthought that to suffer pain was hard, but that to be pleased was more in\nharmony with the nature of man, on which account also they took more care\nof the body than of the mind.\n\nAnd although pleasure is desirable for its own sake, still they admit\nthat some of the efficient causes of it are often troublesome, and as\nsuch opposite to pleasure; so that they think that an assemblage of\nall the pleasures which produce happiness, is the most difficult thing\nconceivable. But they admit that every wise man does not live pleasantly,\nand that every bad man does not live unpleasantly, but that it is only a\ngeneral rule admitting of some exceptions. And they think it sufficient\nif a person enjoys a happy time in consequence of one pleasure which\nbefalls him. They say that prudence is a good, but is not desirable for\nits own sake, but for the sake of those things which result from it. That\na friend is desirable for the sake of the use which we can make of him;\nfor that the parts of the body also are loved while they are united to\nthe body; and that some of the virtues may exist even in the foolish.\nThey consider that bodily exercise contributes to the comprehension of\nvirtue; and that the wise man will feel neither envy, nor love, nor\nsuperstition; for that these things originate in a fallacious opinion.\nThey admit, at the same time, that he is liable to grief and fear,\nfor that these are natural emotions. They said also that wealth is an\nefficient cause of pleasure, but that it is not desirable for its own\nsake. That the sensations are things which can be comprehended; but they\nlimited this assertion to the sensations themselves, and did not extend\nit to the causes which produce them. They left out all investigation of\nthe subjects of natural philosophy because of the evident impossibility\nof comprehending them; but they applied themselves to the study of logic,\nbecause of its utility.\n\nMeleager, in the second book of his Treatise on Opinions and Clitomachus\nin the first book of his Essay on Sects says, that they thought natural\nphilosophy and dialectics useless for that the man who had learnt to\nunderstand the question of good and evil could speak with propriety,\nand was free from superstition, and escaped the fear of death,\nwithout either. They also taught that there was nothing naturally and\nintrinsically just, or honourable, or disgraceful; but that things were\nconsidered so because of law and fashion. The good man will do nothing\nout of the way, because of the punishments which are imposed on, and the\ndiscredit which is attached to, such actions: and that the good man is a\nwise man. They admit, too, that there is such a thing as improvement in\nphilosophy, and in other good studies. And they say that one man feels\ngrief more than another; and that the sensations are not always to be\ntrusted as faithful guides.\n\nIX. But the philosophers who were called Hegesiaci, adopted the same\nchief goods, pleasure and pain; and they denied that there was any\nsuch thing as gratitude, or friendship, or beneficence, because we do\nnot choose any of those things for their own sake, but on account of\nthe use of which they are, and on account of these other things which\ncannot subsist without them. But they teach that complete happiness\ncannot possibly exist; for that the body is full of many sensations, and\nthat the mind sympathizes with the body, and is troubled when that is\ntroubled, and also that fortune prevents many things which we cherished\nin anticipation; so that for all these reasons, perfect happiness\neludes our grasp. Moreover, that both life and death are desirable.\nThey also say that there is nothing naturally pleasant or unpleasant,\nbut that owing to want, or rarity, or satiety, some men are pleased and\nsome vexed; and that wealth and poverty have no influence at all on\npleasure, for that rich men are not affected by pleasure in a different\nmanner from poor men. In the same way they say that slavery and freedom\nare things indifferent, if measured by the standard of pleasure, and\nnobility and baseness of birth, and glory and infamy. They add that,\nfor the foolish man it is expedient to live, but to the wise man it\nis a matter of indifference; and that the wise man will do everything\nfor his own sake; for that he will not consider any one else of equal\nimportance with himself; and he will see that if he were to obtain ever\nsuch great advantages from any one else, they would not be equal to what\nhe could himself bestow. They excluded the sensations, inasmuch as they\nhad no certain knowledge about them; but they recommended the doing of\neverything which appeared consistent with reason.\n\nThey asserted also that errors ought to meet with pardon; for that a man\ndid not err intentionally, but because he was influenced by some external\ncircumstance; and that one ought not to hate a person who has erred, but\nonly to teach him better. They likewise said that the wise man would not\nbe so much absorbed in the pursuit of what is good, as in the attempt to\navoid what is bad, considering the chief good to be living free from all\ntrouble and pain; and that this end was attained best by those who looked\nupon the efficient causes of pleasure as indifferent.\n\nX. The Annicereans, in many respects, agreed with these last; but they\nadmitted the existence in life of friendship and gratitude and respect\nfor one\u2019s parents, and the principle of endeavouring to serve one\u2019s\ncountry. On which principle, even if the wise man should meet with some\nannoyance, he would be no less happy\u2014even though he should have but few\nactual pleasures. They thought that the happiness of a friend was not to\nbe desired by us for its own sake; for that in fact such happiness was\nnot capable of being felt by the person\u2019s neighbour; and that reason\nis not sufficient to give one confidence, and to authorise one to look\ndown upon the opinions of the multitude; but that one must learn a\ndeference for the sentiments of others by custom, because the opposite\nbad disposition being bred up with infirm and early age. They also taught\nthat one ought not to like friends solely on account of the advantage\nthat we may derive from them, and not discard them when these hopes or\nadvantages fail; but that we ought rather to cultivate them on account of\none\u2019s natural feelings of benevolence, in compliance with which we ought\nalso to encounter trouble for their sakes, so that though they consider\npleasure the chief good, and the deprivation of it an evil, still they\nthink that a man ought voluntarily to submit to this deprivation out of\nhis regard for his friend.\n\nXI. The Theodoreans, as they are called, derived their name from the\nTheodorus who has been already mentioned, and adopted all his doctrines.\n\nXII. Now Theodorus utterly discarded all previous opinions about the\nGods: and we have met with a book of his which is entitled, On Gods,\nwhich is not to be despised; and it is from that that they say that\nEpicurus derived the principal portions of his sentiments. But Theodorus\nhad been a pupil of Anniceris, and of Dionysius the Dialectician, as\nAntisthenes tells us in his Successions of Philosophers.\n\nXIII. He considered joy and grief as the chief goods: and that the former\nresulted from knowledge, and the latter from ignorance. And he called\nprudence and justice goods: the contrary qualities evils, and pleasure\nand pain something intermediate. He discarded friendship from his system,\nbecause it could not exist either in foolish men or in wise men. For\nthat, in the case of the former, friendship was at an end the moment\nthat the advantage to be derived from it was out of sight. And that wise\nmen were sufficient for themselves, and so had no need of friends. He\nused also to say that it was reasonable for a good man not to expose\nhimself to danger for the sake of his country, for that he ought not to\ndiscard his own prudence for the sake of benefiting those who had none.\nAnd he said that a wise man\u2019s country was the World. He allowed that\na wise man might steal, and commit adultery and sacrilege, at proper\nseasons: for that none of these actions were disgraceful by nature, if\none only put out of sight the common opinion about them, which owes its\nexistence to the consent of fools. And he said that the wise man would\nindulge his passions openly, without any regard to circumstances: on\nwhich principle he used to ask the following questions: \u201cIs a woman\nwho is well instructed in literature of use just in proportion to the\namount of her literary knowledge?\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d said the person questioned.\n\u201cAnd is a boy, and is a youth, useful in proportion to his acquaintance\nwith literature?\u201d \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cIs not then, also, a beautiful woman useful\nin proportion as she is beautiful; and a boy and a youth useful in\nproportion to their beauty?\u201d \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cWell, then, a handsome boy and\na handsome youth must be useful exactly in proportion as they are\nhandsome?\u201d \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cNow the use of beauty is, to be embraced.\u201d And when\nthis was granted he pressed the argument thus:\u2014If then a man embraces a\nwoman just as it is useful that he should, he does not do wrong; nor,\nagain, will he be doing wrong in employing beauty for the purposes for\nwhich it is useful. And with such questions as these he appeared to\nconvince his hearers.\n\nXIV. But he appears to have got the name of \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 from Stilpo one day\nasking him, \u201cAre you, Theodorus, what you say you are?\u201d And when he said\nhe was, \u201cAnd you said that you are \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2,\u201d continued his questioner; he\nadmitted that also. \u201cThen,\u201d continued the other, \u201cyou are \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2.\u201d And as\nhe willingly received the title, the other laughed and said, \u201cBut you,\nwretched man, according to this principle, you would also admit that you\nwere a raven, or a hundred other things.\u201d One day Theodorus sat down by\nEuryclides the hierophant, and said to him, \u201cTell me now, Euryclides, who\nare they who behave impiously with respect to the mysteries?\u201d And when\nEuryclides answered, \u201cThose who divulge them to the uninitiated;\u201d \u201cThen,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cyou also are impious, for you divulge them to those who are not\ninitiated.\u201d\n\nXV. And indeed he was very near being brought before the Areopagus if\nDemetrius of Phalereus had not saved him. But Amphicrates in his Essay on\nIllustrious Men, says that he was condemned to drink hemlock.\n\nXVI. While he was staying at the court of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus,\nhe was sent once by him to Lysimachus as an ambassador. And as he was\ntalking very freely, Lysimachus said to him, \u201cTell me, Theodorus, have\nnot you been banished from Athens?\u201d And he replied, \u201cyou have been\nrightly informed; for the city of the Athenians could not bear me, just\nas Semele could not bear Bacchus; and so we were both cast out.\u201d And when\nLysimachus said again, \u201cTake care that you do not come to me again;\u201d \u201cI\nnever will,\u201d he replied, \u201cunless Ptolemy sends me.\u201d And as Mythras, the\nsteward of Lysimachus was present, and said, \u201cYou appear to me to be\nthe only person who ignores both Gods and Sovereigns;\u201d \u201cHow,\u201d rejoined\nTheodorus, \u201ccan you say that I ignore the Gods, when I look upon you as\ntheir enemy?\u201d\n\nXVII. They say also that on one occasion he came to Corinth, bringing\nwith him a great many disciples; and that Metrocles the Cynic, who was\nwashing leeks, said to him, \u201cYou, who are a Sophist, would not have\nwanted so many pupils, if you had washed vegetables.\u201d And Theodorus,\ntaking him up, replied, \u201cAnd if you had known how to associate with men,\nyou would not have cared about those vegetables.\u201d But this rejoinder, as\nI have said already, is attributed both to Diogenes and Aristippus.\n\nXVIII. Such was Theodorus, and such were his circumstances and opinions.\nBut at last he went away to Cyrene, and lived there with Megas, being\ntreated by him with the greatest distinction. And when he was first\ndriven away from Cyrene, he is reported to have said very pleasantly,\n\u201cYou do wrong, O men of Cyrene, driving me from Africa to Greece.\u201d\n\nXIX. But there were twenty different people of the name of Theodorus. The\nfirst was a Samian, the son of Rh\u0153cus; he it was who advised the putting\nof coals under the foundations of the temple of Diana at Ephesus; for as\nthe ground was very swampy, he said that the coals, having got rid of\ntheir ligneous qualities, would retain their solidity in a way that could\nnot be impaired by water. The second was a Cyrenean, a geometrician,\nand had Plato for one of his pupils. The third was the philosopher whom\nwe have been describing. The fourth was an author who wrote a very\nremarkable treatise on the art of exercising the voice. The fifth was a\nman who wrote a treatise on Musical Composers, beginning with Terpander.\nThe sixth was a Stoic. The seventh was the historian of Rome. The eighth\nwas a Syracusan, who wrote an Essay on Tactics. The ninth was a citizen\nof Byzantium, who was a political orator. The tenth was another orator,\nwho is mentioned by Aristotle in his Epitome of the Orators. The eleventh\nwas a Theban, a statuary. The twelfth was a painter, who is mentioned by\nPolemo. The thirteenth was also a painter, who is spoken of by Menodotus.\nThe fourteenth was an Ephesian, a painter, mentioned by Theophanes in his\nEssay on Painting. The fifteenth was an epigrammatic poet. The sixteenth\nwrote an essay on Poets. The seventeenth was a physician, a pupil of\nAthen\u00e6us. The eighteenth was a Chian, a Stoic philosopher. The nineteenth\nwas a citizen of Miletus, another Stoic. The twentieth was a tragic poet.\n\n\nLIFE OF PH\u00c6DO.\n\nI. Ph\u00e6do the Elean, one of the Eupatrid\u00e6, was taken prisoner at the\ntime of the subjugation of his country, and was compelled to submit to\nthe vilest treatment. But while he was standing in the street, shutting\nthe door, he met with Socrates, who desired Alcibiades, or as some say,\nCrito, to ransom him. And after that time he studied philosophy as became\na free man. But Hieronymus, in his essay on suspending one\u2019s judgment,\ncalls him a slave.\n\nII. And he wrote dialogues, of which we have genuine copies; by\nname\u2014Zopyrus, Simon, and Nicias (but the genuineness of this one is\ndisputed); Medius, which some people attribute to \u00c6schines, and others\nto Poly\u00e6nus; Antimachus, or the Elders (this too is a disputed one); the\nScythian discourses, and these, too, some attribute to \u00c6schines.\n\nIII. But his successor was Plistanus of Elis; and the next in succession\nto him were Menedemus of Eretria, and Asclepiades of Phlius, who came\nover from Stilpo. And down to the age of these last, they were called\nthe Eliac school; but after the time of Menedemus, they were called the\nEretrians. And we will speak of Menedemus hereafter, because he was the\nfounder of a new sect.\n\n\nLIFE OF EUCLIDES.\n\nI. Euclides was a native of Megara on the Isthmus, or of Gela,\naccording to some writers, whose statement is mentioned by Alexander\nin his Successions. He devoted himself to the study of the writings\nof Parmenides; and his successors were called the philosophers of the\nMegaric school; after that they were called the Contentious school, and\nstill later, the Dialecticians, which name was first given to them by\nDionysius the Carthaginian; because they carried on their investigations\nby question and answer. Hermodorus says that after the death of Socrates,\nPlato and the other philosophers came to Euclides, because they feared\nthe cruelty of the tyrants.\n\nII. He used to teach that the chief good is unity; but that it is known\nby several names; for at one time people call it prudence; at another\ntime God; at another time intellect, and so on. But everything which was\ncontrary to good, he discarded, denying its existence. And the proofs\nwhich he used to bring forward to support his arguments, were not those\nwhich proceed on assumptions, but on conclusions. He also rejected all\nthat sort of reasoning which proceeds on comparison, saying that it\nmust be founded either on things which are like, or on things which are\nunlike. If on things which are like, then it is better to reason about\nthe things themselves, than about those which resemble them; and if on\nthings which are unlike, then the comparison is quite useless. And on\nthis account Timon uses the following language concerning him, where he\nalso attacks all the other philosophers of the Socratic school:\u2014\n\n But I do care for none of all these triflers,\n Nor for any one else; not for your Ph\u00e6don,\n Whoever he may be; not for the quarrelsome\n Euclides, who bit all the Megareans\n With love of fierce contention.\n\nIII. He wrote six dialogues\u2014the Lamprias, the \u00c6schines, the Ph\u0153nix, the\nCrito, the Alcibiades, and the Amatory dialogue.\n\nIV. Next in succession to Euclides, came Eubulides of Miletus, who handed\ndown a great many arguments in dialectics; such as the Lying one; the\nConcealed one; the Electra; the Veiled one; the Sorites; the Horned\none; the Bald one.[26] And one of the Comic poets speaks of him in the\nfollowing terms:\u2014\n\n Eubulides, that most contentious sophist,\n Asking his horned quibbles, and perplexing\n The natives with his false arrogant speeches,\n Has gone with all the fluency of Demosthenes.\n\nFor it seems that Demosthenes had been his pupil, and that being at first\nunable to pronounce the R, he got rid of that defect. Eubulides had a\nquarrel with Aristotle, and was constantly attacking him.\n\nV. Among the different people who succeeded Eubulides, was Alexinus of\nElis, a man very fond of argument, on which account he was nicknamed\n\u1f18\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.[27] He had an especial quarrel with Zeno; and Hermippus\nrelates of him that he went from Elis to Olympia, and studied philosophy\nthere; and that when his pupils asked him why he lived there, he said\nthat he wished to establish a school which should be called the Olympic\nschool; but that his pupils being in distress, through want of means of\nsupport, and finding the situation unhealthy for them, left him; and that\nafter that Alexinus lived by himself, with only one servant. And after\nthat, when swimming in the Alpheus, he was pricked by a reed, and the\ninjury proved fatal, and he died. And we have written an epigram on him\nwhich runs thus:\u2014\n\n Then the report, alas! was true,\n That an unhappy man,\n While swimming tore his foot against a nail\n For the illustrious sage,\n Good Alexinus, swimming in the Alpheus,\n Died from a hostile reed.\n\nAnd he wrote not only against Zeno, but he composed other works also,\nespecially one against Ephorus the historian.\n\nVI. One of the school of Eubulides was Euphantus of Olynthus, who wrote\na history of the events of his own time; he also composed several\ntragedies, for which he got great distinction at the festivals. And he\nwas the preceptor of Antigonus, the king to whom he dedicated a treatise\non Monarchy, which had an exceedingly high reputation. And at last he\ndied of old age.\n\nVII. There are also other pupils of Eubulides, among whom is Apollonius\nCronus, who was the preceptor of Diodorus of Iasos, the son of Aminias;\nand he too was surnamed Cronus, and is thus mentioned by Callimachus in\nhis epigrams:\u2014\n\n Momus himself did carve upon the walls,\n Cronus is wise.\n\nAnd he was a dialectician, and, as some believe, he was the first\nperson who invented the Concealed argument, and the Horned one. When\nhe was staying at the court of Ptolemy Soter, he had several dialectic\nquestions put to him by Stilpo; and as he was not able to solve them at\nthe moment, he was reproached by the king with many hard words, and among\nother things, he was nicknamed Cronus, out of derision. So he left the\nbanquet, and wrote an essay on the question of Stilpo, and then died of\ndespondency. And we have written the following epigram on him:\u2014\n\n O Diodorus Cronus, what sad fate\n Buried you in despair?\n So that you hastened to the shades below,\n Perplexed by Stilpo\u2019s quibbles\u2014\n You would deserve your name of Cronus[28] better,\n If C and r were gone.\n\nVIII. One of the successors of Euclides was Icthyas, the son of Metellus,\na man of great eminence, to whom Diogenes the Cynic addressed a dialogue.\nAnd Clinomachus of Thurii, who was the first person who ever wrote about\naxioms and categorems, and things of that kind. And Stilpo the Megarian,\na most illustrious philosopher, whom we must now speak of.\n\n\nLIFE OF STILPO.\n\nI. Stilpo, a native of Megara in Greece, was a pupil of some of Euclides\u2019\nschool. But some say that he was a pupil of Euclides himself. And also of\nThrasymachus, the Corinthian, who was a friend of Icthyas, as Heraclides\ninforms us.\n\nII. And he was so much superior to all his fellows in command of words\nand in acuteness, that it may almost be said that all Greece fixed\nits eyes upon him, and joined the Megaric school. And concerning him\nPhilippus of Megara speaks thus, word for word:\u2014\u201cFor he carried off from\nTheophrastus, Metrodorus the speculative philosopher, and Timagoras of\nGela; and Aristotle the Cyrenaic, he robbed of Clitarchus and Simias;\nand from the dialecticians\u2019 school also he won men over, carrying off\nP\u00e6oneius from Aristides, and Diphilus of the Bosphorus from Euphantus,\nand also Myrmex of the Venetes, who had both come to him to argue against\nhim, but they became converts and his disciples.\u201d And besides these\nmen, he attracted to his school Phrasidemus the Peripatetic, a natural\nphilosopher of great ability; and Alcimus the rhetorician, the most\neminent orator in all Greece at that time; and he won over Crates, and\ngreat numbers of others, and among them Zeno the Ph\u0153nician.\n\nIII. And he was very fond of the study of politics. And he was married.\nBut he lived also with a courtesan, named Nicarete, as Onetor tells us\nsomewhere. And he had a licentious daughter, who was married to a friend\nof his named Simias, a citizen of Syracuse. And as she would not live in\nan orderly manner, some one told Stilpo that she was a disgrace to him.\nBut he said, \u201cShe is not more a disgrace to me than I am an honour to\nher.\u201d\n\nIV. Ptolemy Soter, it is said, received him with great honour; and when\nhe had made himself master of Megara, he gave him money, and invited\nhim to sail with him to Egypt. But he accepted only a moderate sum of\nmoney, and declined the journey proposed to him, but went over to \u00c6gina,\nuntil Ptolemy had sailed. Also when Demetrius, the son of Antigonus\nhad taken Megara, he ordered Stilpo\u2019s house to be saved, and took care\nthat everything that had been plundered from him should be restored to\nhim. But when he wished Stilpo to give him in a list of all that he had\nlost, he said that he had lost nothing of his own; for that no one had\ntaken from him his learning, and that he still had his eloquence and his\nknowledge. And he conversed with Demetrius on the subject of doing good\nto men with such power, that he became a zealous hearer of his.\n\nV. They say that he once put such a question as this to a man, about the\nMinerva of Phidias:\u2014\u201cIs Minerva the Goddess the daughter of Jupiter?\u201d\nAnd when the other said, \u201cYes;\u201d \u201cBut this,\u201d said he, \u201cis not the child\nof Jupiter, but of Phidias.\u201d And when he agreed that it was so\u2014\u201cThis\nthen,\u201d he continued, \u201cis not a God.\u201d And when he was brought before the\nAreopagus for this speech, he did not deny it, but maintained that he\nhad spoken correctly; for that she was not a God (\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2) but a Goddess\n(\u03b8\u03b5\u1f70); for that Gods were of the male sex only.[29] However the judges\nof the Areopagus ordered him to leave the city; and on this occasion,\nTheodorus, who was nicknamed \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, said in derision, \u201cWhence did Stilpo\nlearn this? and how could he tell whether she was a God or a Goddess?\u201d\nBut Theodorus was in truth a most impudent fellow. But Stilpo was a most\nwitty and elegant-minded man. Accordingly when Crates asked him if the\nGods delighted in adoration and prayer; they say that he answered, \u201cDo\nnot ask these questions, you foolish man, in the road, but in private.\u201d\nAnd they say too that Bion, when he was asked whether there were any\nGods, answered in the same spirit:\u2014\n\n \u201cWill you not first, O! miserable old man,\n Remove the multitude?\u201d\n\nVI. But Stilpo was a man of simple character, and free from all trick and\nhumbug, and universally affable. Accordingly, when Crates the Cynic once\nrefused to answer a question that he had put to him, and only insulted\nhis questioner\u2014\u201cI knew,\u201d said Stilpo, \u201cthat he would say anything rather\nthan what he ought.\u201d And once he put a question to him, and offered him\na fig at the same time; so he took the fig and ate it, on which Crates\nsaid, \u201cO Hercules, I have lost my fig.\u201d \u201cNot only that,\u201d he replied,\n\u201cbut you have lost your question too, of which the fig was the pledge.\u201d\nAt another time, he saw Crates shivering in the winter, and said to him,\n\u201cCrates, you seem to me to want a new dress,\u201d meaning, both a new mind\nand a new garment; and Crates, feeling ashamed, answered him in the\nfollowing parody:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere[30] Stilpo too, through the Megarian bounds,\n Pours out deep groans, where Typhon\u2019s voice resounds,\n And there he oft doth argue, while a school\n Of eager pupils owns his subtle rule,\n And virtue\u2019s name with eager chase pursues.\u201d\n\nAnd it is said that at Athens he attracted all the citizens to such a\ndegree, that they used to run from their workshops to look at him; and\nwhen some one said to him, \u201cWhy, Stilpo, they wonder at you as if you\nwere a wild beast,\u201d he replied, \u201cNot so; but as a real genuine man.\u201d\n\nVII. And he was a very clever arguer; and rejected the theory of species.\nAnd he used to say that a person who spoke of man in general, was\nspeaking of nobody; for that he was not speaking of this individual,\nnor of that one; for speaking in general, how can he speak more of this\nperson than of that person? therefore he is not speaking of this person\nat all. Another of his illustrations was, \u201cThat which is shown to me,\nis not a vegetable; for a vegetable existed ten thousand years ago,\ntherefore this is not a vegetable.\u201d And they say that once when he was\nconversing with Crates, he interrupted the discourse to go off and buy\nsome fish; and as Crates tried to drag him back, and said, \u201cYou are\nleaving the argument;\u201d \u201cNot at all,\u201d he replied, \u201cI keep the argument,\nbut I am leaving you; for the argument remains, but the fish will be sold\nto some one else.\u201d\n\nVIII. There are nine dialogues of his extant, written in a frigid style:\nThe Moschus; the Aristippus or Callias; the Ptolemy; the Ch\u0153recrates;\nthe Metrocles; the Anaximenes; the Epigenes; the one entitled To my\nDaughter, and the Aristotle.\n\nIX. Heraclides affirms that Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, had\nbeen one of his pupils.\n\nX. Hermippus says that he died at a great age, after drinking some wine,\nin order to die more rapidly. And we have written this epigram upon him:\u2014\n\n Stranger, old age at first, and then disease,\n A hateful pair, did lay wise Stilpo low.\n The pride of Megara: he found good wine\n The best of drivers for his mournful coach,\n And drinking it, he drove on to the end.\n\nAnd he was ridiculed by Sophilus the comic poet, in his play called\nMarriages:\u2014\n\n The dregs of Stilpo make the whole discourse of this Charinus.\n\n\nLIFE OF CRITO.\n\nI. Crito was an Athenian. He looked upon Socrates with the greatest\naffection; and paid such great attention to him, that he took care that\nhe should never be in want of anything.\n\nII. His sons also were all constant pupils of Socrates, and their names\nwere Critobulus, Hermogenes, Epigenes, and Ctesippus.\n\nIII. Crito wrote seventeen dialogues, which were all published in one\nvolume; and I subjoin their titles:\u2014That men are not made good by\nTeaching; on Superfluity; what is Suitable, or the Statesman; on the\nHonourable; on doing ill; on Good Government; on Law; on the Divine\nBeing; on Arts; on Society; Protagoras, or the Statesman; on Letters;\non Political Science; on the Honourable; on Learning; on Knowledge; on\nScience; on what Knowledge is.\n\n\nLIFE OF SIMON.\n\nI. Simon was an Athenian, a leather-cutter. He, whenever Socrates came\ninto his workshop and conversed, used to make memorandums of all his\nsayings that he recollected.\n\nII. And from this circumstance, people have called his dialogues leathern\nones. But he has written thirty-three which, however, are all combined\nin one volume:\u2014On the Gods; on the Good; on the Honourable; what the\nHonourable is; the first Dialogue on Justice; the second Dialogue on\nJustice; on Virtue, showing that it is not to be taught; the first\nDialogue on Courage; the second; the third; on Laws; on the Art of\nGuiding the People; on Honour; on Poetry; on Good Health; on Love; on\nPhilosophy; on Knowledge; on Music; on Poetry; on what the Honourable is;\non Teaching; on Conversation; on Judgment; on the Existent; on Number; on\nDiligence; on Activity; on Covetousness; on Insolence; on the Honourable;\nSome also add to these dialogues; on taking Counsel; on Reason or\nSuitableness; on doing Harm.\n\nIII. He is, as some people say, the first writer who reduced the\nconversations of Socrates into the form of dialogues. And when Pericles\noffered to provide for him, and invited him to come to him, he said that\nhe would not sell his freedom of speech.\n\nIV. There was also another Simon, who wrote a treatise on Oratorical Art.\nAnd another, who was a physician in the time of Seleucus Nicanor. And\nanother, who was a statuary.\n\n\nLIFE OF GLAUCO.\n\nGlauco was an Athenian; and there are nine dialogues of his extant,\nwhich are all contained in one volume. The Phidylus; the Euripides; the\nAmyntichias; the Euthias; the Lysithides; the Aristophanes; the Cephalus;\nthe Anaxiphemus; the Menexenus. There are thirty-two others which go\nunder his name, but they are spurious.\n\n\nLIFE OF SIMIAS.\n\nSimias was a Theban; and there are twenty-three dialogues of his extant,\ncontained in one single volume. On Wisdom; on Ratiocination; on Music; on\nVerses; on Fortitude; on Philosophy; on Truth; on Letters; on Teaching;\non Art; on Government; on what is Becoming; on what is Eligible, and what\nProper to be Avoided; on A Friend; on Knowledge; on the Soul; on Living\nWell; on what is Possible; on Money; on Life; on what the Honourable is;\non Industry; and on Love.\n\n\nLIFE OF CEBES.\n\nCebes was a Theban, and there are three dialogues of his extant. The\nTablet; the Seventh; and the Phrynichus.\n\n\nLIFE OF MENEDEMUS.\n\nI. This Menedemus was one of those who belonged to the school of Ph\u00e6do;\nand he was one of those who are called Theopropid\u00e6, being the son of\nClisthenes, a man of noble family, but a poor man and a builder. And\nsome say that he was a tent-maker, and that Menedemus himself learned\nboth trades. On which account, when he on one occasion brought forward\na motion for some decree, a man of the name of Alexinius attacked him,\nsaying that a wise man had no need to draw a tent nor a decree.\n\nII. But when Menedemus was sent by the Eretrians to Megara, as one of\nthe garrison, he deserted the rest, and went to the Academy to Plato;\nand being charmed by him, he abandoned the army altogether. And when\nAsclepiades, the Phliasian, drew him over to him, he went and lived\nin Megara, near Stilpo, and they both became his disciples. And from\nthence they sailed to Elis, where they joined Anchipylus and Moschus,\nwho belonged to Ph\u00e6do\u2019s school. And up to this time, as I have already\nmentioned in my account of Ph\u00e6do, they were called Eleans; and they were\nalso called Eretrians, from the native country of Menedemus, of whom I am\nnow speaking.\n\nIII. Now Menedemus appears to have been a very severe and rigid man, on\nwhich account Crates, parodying a description, speaks of him thus:\u2014\n\n And Asclepiades the sage of Phlius,\n And the Eretrian bull.\n\nAnd Timon mentions him thus:\u2014\n\n Rise up, you frowning, bristling, frothy sage.\n\nAnd he was a man of such excessive rigour of principle, that when\nEurylochus, of Cassandrea, had been invited by Antigonus, to come to him\nin company with Cleippides, a youth of Cyzicus, he refused to go, for\nhe was afraid lest Menedemus should hear of it; for he was very severe\nin his reproofs, and very free spoken. Accordingly, when a young man\nbehaved with boldness towards him, he did not say a word, but took a bit\nof stick and drew on the floor an insulting picture; until the young\nman, perceiving the insult that was meant in the presence of numbers\nof people, went away. And when Hierocles, the governor of the Pir\u00e6us,\nattacked him in the temple of Amphiaraus, and said a great deal about\nthe taking of Eretria, he made no other reply beyond asking him what\nAntigonus\u2019s object was in treating him as he did.\n\nOn another occasion, he said to a profligate man who was giving himself\nairs, \u201cDo not you know that the cabbage is not the only plant that has\na pleasant juice, but that radishes have it also?\u201d And once, hearing a\nyoung man talk very loudly, he said, \u201cSee whom you have behind you.\u201d\nWhen Antigonus consulted him whether he should go to a certain revel,\nhe made no answer beyond desiring those who brought him the message, to\ntell him that he was the son of a king. When a stupid fellow once said\nsomething at random to him, he asked him whether he had a farm; and when\nhe said that he had, and a large stock of cattle, he said, \u201cGo then and\nlook after them; lest, if you neglect them, you lose them, and that\nelegant rusticity of yours with them.\u201d He was once asked whether a good\nman should marry, and his reply was, \u201cDo I seem to you to be a good man,\nor not?\u201d and when the other said he did; \u201cWell,\u201d said he, \u201cand I am\nmarried.\u201d On one occasion a person said that there were a great many good\nthings, so he asked him how many; and whether he thought that there were\nmore than a hundred. And as he could not bear the extravagance of one man\nwho used frequently to invite him to dinner, once when he was invited\nhe did not say a single word, but admonished him of his extravagance in\nsilence, by eating nothing but olives.\n\nIV. On account then of the great freedom of speech in which he indulged,\nhe was very near while in Cyprus, at the court of Nicocreon, being\nin great danger with his friend Asclepiades. For when the king was\ncelebrating a festival at the beginning of the month, and had invited\nthem as he did all the other philosophers; Menedemus said, \u201cIf the\nassemblage of such men as are met here to-day is good, a festival like\nthis ought to be celebrated every day: but if it is not good, even once\nis too often.\u201d And as the tyrant made answer to this speech, \u201cthat he\nkept this festival in order to have leisure in it to listen to the\nphilosophers,\u201d he behaved with even more austerity than usual, arguing,\neven while the feast was going on, that it was right on every occasion\nto listen to philosophers; and he went on in this way till, if a\nflute-player had not interrupted their discussion, they would have been\nput to death. In reference to which, when they were overtaken by a storm\nin a ship, they say that Asclepiades said, \u201cthat the fine playing of a\nflute-player had saved them, but the freedom of speech of Menedemus had\nruined them.\u201d\n\nV. But he was, they say, inclined to depart a good deal from the usual\nhabits and discipline of a school, so that he never regarded any order,\nnor were the seats arranged around properly, but every one listened\nto him while lecturing, standing up or sitting down, just as he might\nchance to be at the moment, Menedemus himself setting the example of this\nirregular conduct.\n\nVI. But in other respects, it is said that he was a nervous man, and very\nfond of glory; so that, as previously he and Asclepiades had been fellow\njourneymen of a builder, when Asclepiades was naked on the roof carrying\nmortar, Menedemus would stand in front of him to screen him when he saw\nany one coming.\n\nVII. When he applied himself to politics he was so nervous that once,\nwhen setting down the incense, he actually missed the incense burner. And\non one occasion, when Crates was standing by him, and reproaching him for\nmeddling with politics, he ordered some men to put him in prison. But he,\neven then, continued not the less to watch him as he passed, and to stand\non tiptoe and call him Agamemnon and Hegesipolis.\n\nVIII. He was also in some degree superstitious. Accordingly, once, when\nhe was at an inn with Asclepiades, and had unintentionally eaten some\nmeat that had been thrown away, when he was told of it he became sick,\nand turned pale, until Asclepiades rebuked him, telling him that it was\nnot the meat itself which disturbed him, but only the idea that he had\nadopted. But in other respects he was a high minded man, with notions\nsuch as became a gentleman.\n\nIX. As to his habit of body, even when he was an old man he retained\nall the firmness and vigour of an athlete, with firm flesh, and a ruddy\ncomplexion, and very stout and fresh looking. In stature he was of\nmoderate size; as is plain from the statue of him which is at Eretria,\nin the Old Stadium. For he is there represented seated almost naked,\nundoubtedly for the purpose of displaying the greater part of his body.\n\nX. He was very hospitable and fond of entertaining his friends; and\nbecause Eretria was unhealthy, he used to have a great many parties,\nparticularly of poets and musicians. And he was very fond of Aratus and\nLycophon the tragic poet, and Antagoras of Rhodes. And above all he\napplied himself to the study of Homer; and next to him to that of the\nLyric poets; then to Sophocles, and also to Ach\u00e6us, to whom he assigned\nthe second place as a writer of satiric dramas, giving \u00c6schylus the\nfirst. And it is from Ach\u00e6us that he quoted these verses against the\npoliticians of the opposite party:\u2014\n\n A speedy runner once was overtaken\n By weaker men than he. An eagle too,\n Was beaten by a tortoise in a race.\n\nAnd these lines are out of the satiric play of Ach\u00e6us, called Omphale;\nso that they are mistaken who say that he had never read anything but\nthe Medea of Euripides, which is found, they add, in the collection of\nNeophron, the Sicyonian.\n\nXI. Of masters of philosophy, he used to despise Plato and Xenocrates,\nand Par\u00e6bates of Cyrene; and admired no one but Stilpo. And once, being\nquestioned about him, he said nothing more of him than that he was a\ngentleman.\n\nXII. Menedemus was not easy to be understood, and in his conversation\nhe was hard to argue against; he spoke on every subject, and had a\ngreat deal of invention and readiness. But he was very disputatious, as\nAntisthenes says in his Successions; and he used to put questions of\nthis sort, \u201cIs one thing different from another thing?\u201d \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cAnd is\nbenefiting a person something different from the good?\u201d \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cThen\nthe good is not benefiting a person.\u201d And he, as it is said, discarded\nall negative axioms, using none but affirmative ones; and of these he\nonly approved of the simple ones, and rejected all that were not simple;\nsaying that they were intricate and perplexing. But Heraclides says that\nin his doctrines he was a thorough disciple of Plato, and that he scorned\ndialectics; so that once when Alexinus asked him whether he had left off\nbeating his father, he said, \u201cI have not beaten him, and I have not left\noff;\u201d and when he said further that he ought to put an end to the doubt\nby answering explicitly yes or no, \u201cIt would be absurd,\u201d he rejoined, \u201cto\ncomply with your conditions, when I can stop you at the entrance.\u201d\n\nWhen Bion was attacking the soothsayers with great perseverance, he\nsaid that he was killing the dead over again. And once, when he heard\nsome one assert that the greatest good was to succeed in everything\nthat one desires; he said, \u201cIt is a much greater good to desire what\nis proper.\u201d But Antigonus of Carystus, tells us that he never wrote or\ncomposed any work, and never maintained any principle tenaciously. But\nin cross-questioning he was so contentious as to get quite black in the\nface before he went away. But though he was so violent in his discourse,\nhe was wonderfully gentle in his actions. Accordingly, though he used\nto mock and ridicule Alexinus very severely, still he conferred great\nbenefits on him, conducting his wife from Delphi to Chalcis for him, as\nshe was alarmed about the danger of robbers and banditti in the road.\n\nXIII. And he was a very warm friend, as is plain from his attachment\nto Asclepiades; which was hardly inferior to the friendship of Pylades\nand Orestes. But Asclepiades was the elder of the two, so that it was\nsaid that he was the poet, and Menedemus the actor. And they say that on\none occasion, Archipolis bequeathed them three thousand pieces of money\nbetween them, they had such a vigorous contest as to which should take\nthe smaller share, that neither of them would receive any of it.\n\nXIV. It is said that they were both married; and that Asclepiades\nwas married to the mother, and Menedemus to the daughter; and when\nAsclepiades\u2019s wife died, he took the wife of Menedemus; and Menedemus,\nwhen he became the chief man of the state, married another who was rich;\nand as they still maintained one house in common, Menedemus entrusted\nthe whole management of it to his former wife. Asclepiades died first at\nEretria, being of a great age; having lived with Menedemus with great\neconomy, though they had ample means. So that, when on one occasion,\nafter the death of Asclepiades, a friend of his came to a banquet, and\nwhen the slaves refused him admittance, Menedemus ordered them to admit\nhim, saying that Asclepiades opened the door for him, even now that\nhe was under the earth. And the men who chiefly supported them were\nHipponicus the Macedonian, and Agetor the Lamian. And Agetor gave each of\nthem thirty min\u00e6, and Hipponicus gave Menedemus two thousand drachmas to\nportion his daughters with; and he had three, as Heraclides tells us, the\nchildren of his wife, who was a native of Oropus.\n\nXV. And he used to give banquets in this fashion:\u2014First of all, he would\nsit at dinner, with two or three friends, till late in the day; and then\nhe would invite in any one who came to see him, even if they had already\ndined; and if any one came too soon, they would walk up and down, and ask\nthose who came out of the house what there was on the table, and what\no\u2019clock it was; and then, if there were only vegetables or salt fish,\nthey would depart; but if they heard it was meat, they would go in. And\nduring the summer, mats of rushes were laid upon the couches, and in\nwinter soft cushions; and each guest was expected to bring a pillow for\nhimself. And the cup that was carried round did not hold more than a\ncotyla. And the second course consisted of lupins or beans, and sometimes\nfruits, such as pears, pomegranates, pulse, and sometimes, by Jove, dried\nfigs. And all these circumstances are detailed by Lycophron, in his\nsatiric dramas, which he inscribed with the name of Menedemus, making\nhis play a panegyric on the philosopher. And the following are some of\nthe lines:\u2014\n\n After a temperate feast, a small-sized cup\n Is handed round with moderation due;\n And conversation wise makes the dessert.\n\nXVI. At first, now, he was not thought much of, being called cynic and\ntrifler by the Eretrians; but subsequently, he was so much admired by\nhis countrymen, that they entrusted him with the chief government of the\nstate. And he was sent on embassies to Ptolemy and Lysimachus, and was\ngreatly honoured everywhere. He was sent as envoy to Demetrius; and, as\nthe city used to pay him two hundred talents a year, he persuaded him to\nremit fifty. And having been falsely accused to him, as having betrayed\nthe city to Ptolemy, he defended himself from the charge, in a letter\nwhich begins thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cMenedemus to king Demetrius.\u2014Health. I hear that information has been\nlaid before you concerning us.\u201d \u2026 And the tradition is, that a man of the\nname of \u00c6schylus, who was one of the opposite party in the state, was in\nthe habit of making these false charges. It is well known too that he was\nsent on a most important embassy to Demetrius, on the subject of Oropus,\nas Euphantus relates in his History.\n\nXVII. Antigonus was greatly attached to him, and professed himself his\npupil; and when he defeated the barbarians, near Lysimachia, Menedemus\ndrew up a decree for him, in simple terms, free from all flattery, which\nbegins thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe generals and councillors have determined, since king Antigonus has\ndefeated the barbarians in battle, and has returned to his own kingdom,\nand since he has succeeded in all his measures according to his wishes,\nit has seemed good to the council and to the people.\u201d \u2026 And from these\ncircumstances, and because of his friendship for him, as shown in other\nmatters, he was suspected of betraying the city to him; and being\nimpeached by Aristodemus, he left the city, and returned to Oropus, and\nthere took up his abode in the temple of Amphiaraus; and as some golden\ngoblets which were there were lost, he was ordered to depart by a general\nvote of the B\u0153otians. Leaving Oropus, and being in a state of great\ndespondency, he entered his country secretly; and taking with him his\nwife and daughters, he went to the court of Antigonus, and there died of\na broken heart.\n\nBut Heraclides gives an entirely different account of him; saying, that\nwhile he was the chief councillor of the Eretrians, he more than once\npreserved the liberties of the city from those who would have brought\nin Demetrius the tyrant; so that he never could have betrayed the city\nto Antigonus, and the accusation must have been false; and that he went\nto the court of Antigonus, and endeavoured to effect the deliverance\nof his country; and as he could make no impression on him, he fell\ninto despondency, and starved himself for seven days, and so he died.\nAnd Antigonus of Carystus gives a similar account: and Pers\u00e6us was the\nonly man with whom he had an implacable quarrel; for he thought that\nwhen Antigonus himself was willing to re-establish the democracy among\nthe Eretrians for his sake, Pers\u00e6us prevented him. And on this account\nMenedemus once attacked him at a banquet, saying many other things, and\namong them, \u201cHe may, indeed, be a philosopher, but he is the worst man\nthat lives or that ever will live.\u201d\n\nXVIII. And he died, according to Heraclides, at the age of seventy-four.\nAnd we have written the following epigram on him:\u2014\n\n I\u2019ve heard your fate, O Menedemus, that of your own accord,\n You starved yourself for seven days and died;\n Acting like an Eretrian, but not much like a man,\n For spiritless despair appears your guide.\n\nThese men then were the disciples of Socrates, and their successors;\nbut we must now proceed to Plato, who founded the Academy; and to his\nsuccessors, or at least to all those of them who enjoyed any reputation.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III.\n\n\nLIFE OF PLATO.\n\nI. Plato was the son of Ariston and Perictione or Potone, and a citizen\nof Athens; and his mother traced her family back to Solon; for Solon\nhad a brother named Dropidas, who had a son named Critias, who was\nthe father of Call\u00e6schrus, who was the father of that Critias who was\none of the thirty tyrants, and also of Glaucon, who was the father of\nCharmides and Perictione. And she became the mother of Plato by her\nhusband Ariston, Plato being the sixth in descent from Solon. And Solon\ntraced his pedigree up to Neleus and Neptune. They say too that on the\nfather\u2019s side, he was descended from Codrus, the son of Melanthus, and\nthey too are said by Thrasylus to derive their origin from Neptune. And\nSpeusippus, in his book which is entitled the Funeral Banquet of Plato,\nand Clearchus in his Panegyric on Plato, and Anaxilides in the second\nbook of his History of Philosophers, say that the report at Athens was\nthat Perictione was very beautiful, and that Ariston endeavoured to\nviolate her and did not succeed; and that he, after he had desisted from\nhis violence saw a vision of Apollo in a dream, in consequence of which\nhe abstained from approaching his wife till after her confinement.\n\nII. And Plato was born, as Apollodorus says in his Chronicles, in the\neighty-eighth Olympiad, on the seventh day of the month Thargelion, on\nwhich day the people of Delos say that Apollo also was born. And he died,\nas Hermippus says, at a marriage feast, in the first year of the hundred\nand eighth Olympiad, having lived eighty-one years. But Neanthes says\nthat he was eighty-four years of age at his death. He is then younger\nthan Isocrates by six years; for Isocrates was born in the archonship of\nLysimachus, and Plato in that of Aminias, in which year Pericles died.\n\nIII. And he was of the borough of Colytus, as Antileon tells us in\nhis second book on Dates. And he was born, according to some writers,\nin \u00c6gina, in the house of Phidiades the son of Thales, as Phavorinus\naffirms in his Universal History, as his father had been sent thither\nwith several others as a settler, and returned again to Athens when the\nsettlers were driven out by the Laced\u00e6monians, who came to the assistance\nof the \u00c6ginetans. And he served the office of choregus at Athens, when\nDion was at the expense of the spectacle exhibited, as Theodorus relates\nin the eighth book of his Philosophical Conversations.\n\nIV. And he had brothers, whose names were Adimantus and Glaucon, and a\nsister called Potone, who was the mother of Speusippus.\n\nV. And he was taught learning in the school of Dionysius, whom he\nmentions in his Rival Lovers. And he learnt gymnastic exercises under\nthe wrestler Ariston of Argos. And it was by him that he had the name\nof Plato given to him instead of his original name, on account of his\nrobust figure, as he had previously been called Aristocles, after the\nname of his grandfather, as Alexander informs us in his Successions. But\nsome say that he derived this name from the breadth (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) of his\neloquence, or else because he was very wide (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u1f7a\u03c2) across the forehead,\nas Neanthes affirms. There are some also, among whom is Dic\u00e6archus in the\nfirst volume on Lives, who say that he wrestled at the Isthmian games.\n\nVI. It is also said that he applied himself to the study of painting, and\nthat he wrote poems, dithyrambics at first, and afterwards lyric poems\nand tragedies.\n\nVII. But he had a very weak voice, they say; and the same fact is stated\nby Timotheus the Athenian, in his book on Lives. And it is said that\nSocrates in a dream saw a cygnet on his knees, who immediately put forth\nfeathers, and flew up on high, uttering a sweet note, and that the next\nday Plato came to him, and that he pronounced him the bird which he had\nseen.\n\nVIII. And he used to philosophize at first in the Academy, and afterwards\nin the garden near Colonus, as Alexander tells us in his Successions,\nquoting the testimony of Heraclitus; and subsequently, though he was\nabout to contend for the prize in tragedy in the theatre of Bacchus,\nafter he had heard the discourse of Socrates, he learnt his poems,\nsaying:\u2014\n\n Vulcan, come here; for Plato wants your aid.\n\nAnd from henceforth, as they say, being now twenty years old, he became a\npupil of Socrates. And when he was gone, he attached himself to Cratylus,\nthe disciple of Heraclitus, and to Hermogenes, who had adopted the\nprinciples of Parmenides. Afterwards, when he was eight and twenty years\nof age, as Hermodorus tells us, he withdrew to Megara to Euclid, with\ncertain others of the pupils of Socrates; and subsequently, he went to\nCyrene to Theodorus the mathematician; and from thence he proceeded to\nItaly to the Pythagoreans, Philolaus and Eurytus, and from thence he went\nto Eurytus to the priests there; and having fallen sick at that place, he\nwas cured by the priests by the application of sea water, in reference to\nwhich he said:\u2014\n\n The sea doth wash away all human evils.\n\nAnd he said too, that, according to Homer, all the Egyptians were\nphysicians. Plato had also formed the idea of making the acquaintance of\nthe Magi; but he abandoned it on account of the wars in Asia.\n\nIX. And when he returned to Athens, he settled in the Academy, and that\nis a suburban place of exercise planted like a grove, so named from an\nancient hero named Hecademus, as Eupolis tells us in his Discharged\nSoldiers.\n\n In the well-shaded walks, protected well\n By Godlike Academus.\n\nAnd Timon, with reference to Plato, says:\u2014\n\n A man did lead them on, a strong stout man,\n A honeyed speaker, sweet as melody\n Of tuneful grasshopper, who, seated high\n On Hecademus\u2019 tree, unwearied sings.\n\nFor the word academy was formerly spelt with E. Now our philosopher\nwas a friend of Isocrates; and Praxiphanes composed an account of a\nconversation which took place between them, on the subject of poets, when\nIsocrates was staying with Plato in the country.\n\nX. And Aristoxenus says that he was three times engaged in military\nexpeditions; once against Tanagra; the second time against Corinth,\nand the third time at Delium; and that in the battle of Delium he\nobtained the prize of pre-eminent valour. He combined the principles of\nthe schools of Heraclitus, and Pythagoras and Socrates; for he used\nto philosophize on those things which are the subjects of sensation,\naccording to the system of Heraclitus; on those with which intellect is\nconversant, according to that of Pythagoras; and on politics according to\nthat of Socrates.\n\nXI. And some people, (of whom Satyrus is one,) say that he sent a\ncommission to Sicily to Dion, to buy him three books of Pythagoras from\nPhilolaus for a hundred min\u00e6; for they say that he was in very easy\ncircumstances, having received from Dionysius more than eighty talents,\nas Onetor also asserts in his treatise which is entitled, Whether a wise\nMan ought to acquire Gains.\n\nXII. And he was much assisted by Epicharmus the comic poet, a great part\nof whose works he transcribed, as Alcimus says in his essays addressed\nto Amyntas, of which there are four. And in the first of them he speaks\nas follows:\u2014\u201cAnd Plato appears to utter a great many of the sentiments\nof Epicharmus. Let us just examine. Plato says that that is an object\nof sensation, which is never stationary either as to its quality or its\nquantity, but which is always flowing and changing; as, for instance,\nif one take from any objects all number, then one cannot affirm that\nthey are either equal, or of any particular things, or of what quality\nor quantity they are. And these things are of such a kind that they\nare always being produced, but that they never have any invariable\nsubstances.\u201d\n\nBut that is a subject for intellect from which nothing is taken, and\nto which nothing is added. And this is the nature of things eternal,\nwhich is always similar and the same. And, indeed, Epicharmus speaks\nintelligibly on the subject of what is perceived by the senses and by the\nintellect:\u2014\n\n _A._ But the great Gods were always present, nor\n Did they at any moment cease to be;\n And their peculiar likeness at all times\n Do they retain, by the same principles.\n\n _B._ Yet chaos is asserted to have been\n The first existent Deity.\n\n _A._ How can that be?\n For \u2019tis impossible that we should find\n Any first principle arise from anything.\n\n _B._ Is there then no first principle at all?\n\n _A._ Nor second either in the things we speak of;\n But thus it is\u2014if to an even number,\n Or e\u2019en an odd one, if you so prefer it,\n You add a unit, or if you deduct one,\n Say will the number still remain the same?\n\n _B._ Certainly not.\n\n _A._ So, if you take a measure\n A cubit long, and add another cubit,\n Or cut a portion off, the measure then\n No longer is the same?\n\n _B._ Of course it is not.\n\n _A._ Now turn your eyes and thoughts upon mankind\u2014\n We see one grows, another perishes\n So that they all exist perpetually\n In a condition of transition. That\n Whose nature changes must be different\n At each successive moment, from the thing\n It was before. So also, you and I\n Are different people now from what we were\n But yesterday; and then, again, to-morrow\n We shall be different from what we\u2019re now;\n So that, by the same rule, we\u2019re always different.\n\nAnd Alcimus speaks as follows:\u2014\u201cThe wise men say that the soul perceives\nsome things by means of the body, as for instance, when it hears and\nsees; but that it also perceives something by its own power, without\navailing itself at all of the assistance of the body.\u201d On which account\nexistent things are divisible into objects of sensation and objects of\nunderstanding. On account of which Plato used to say, that those who\nwished to become acquainted with the principles of everything, ought\nfirst of all to divide the ideas as he calls them, separately, such as\nsimilarity, and unity, and multitude, and magnitude, and stationariness,\nand motion. And secondly, that they ought to form a notion of the\nhonourable and the good, and the just, and things of that sort, by\nthemselves, apart from other considerations. And thirdly, that they\nought to ascertain the character of such ideas as are relative to one\nanother, such as knowledge, or magnitude, or authority; considering that\nthe things which come under our notice from partaking of their nature,\nhave the same names that they have. I mean that one calls that just which\npartakes of the just; and that beautiful which partakes of the beautiful.\nAnd each of these primary species is eternal, and is to be understood\nby the intellect, and is not subject to the influence of external\ncircumstances. On which account he says, that ideas exist in nature as\nmodels; and that all other things are like them, and, as it were, copies\nof them. Accordingly Epicharmus speaks thus about the good, and about the\nideas.\n\n _A._ Tell me, is flute-playing now a thing at all?\n\n _B._ Of course it is.\n\n _A._ Is man then flute-playing?\n\n _B._ No, nothing of the sort.\n\n _A._ Well, let us see\u2014\n What is a flute-player? what think you now\n Of him\u2014is he a man, or is he not?\n\n _B._ Of course he is a man.\n\n _A._ Think you not then\n The case is just the same about the good.\n That the good is something by itself, intrinsic\n And he who\u2019s learnt, does at once become\n Himself a good man? just as he who\u2019s learnt\n Flute-playing is a flute-player; or dancing,\n A dancer; weaving, a weaver. And in short,\n Whoever learns an art, does not become\n The art itself, but just an artist in it.\n\nPlato, in his theory of Ideas, says, \u201cThat since there is such a thing\nas memory, the ideas are in existent things, because memory is only\nconversant about what is stable and enduring; and that no other thing\nis durable except ideas, for in what way,\u201d he continues, \u201ccould animals\nbe preserved, if they had no ideas to guide them, and if, in addition\nto them, they had not an intellect given to them by nature?\u201d But as it\nis they recollect similitudes, and also their food, so as to know what\nkind of food is fit for them; which they learn because the notion of\nsimilarity is implanted naturally in every animal; owing to which notion\nthey recognize those of the same species as themselves. What is it then\nthat Epicharmus says?\n\n Eum\u00e6us\u2019 wisdom?\u2014not a scanty gift\n Appropriated to one single being;\n But every animal that breathes and lives,\n Has mind and intellect.\u2014So if you will\n Survey the facts attentively, you\u2019ll find,\n E\u2019en in the common poultry yard, the hen\n Brings not her offspring forth at first alive,\n But sits upon her eggs, and by her warmth,\n Cherishes them into life. And all this wisdom\n She does derive from nature\u2019s gift alone,\n For nature is her only guide and teacher.\n\nAnd in a subsequent passage he says:\u2014\n\n There is no wonder in my teaching this,\n That citizens please citizens, and seem\n To one another to be beautiful:\n And so one dog seems to another dog\n The fairest object in the world; and so\n One ox seems to another, ass to ass,\n And swine to swine.\n\nAnd these and similar speculations are examined and compared by Alcimus\nthrough four books, where he shows how much assistance Plato has derived\nfrom Epicharmus. And that Epicharmus himself was not indisposed to\nappreciate his own wisdom, one may learn from these lines, in which he\npredicts that there will arise some one to imitate him:\u2014\n\n But as I think, I surely foresee this,\n That these my words will be preserved hereafter\n In many people\u2019s recollection. And\n Another man will come, who\u2019ll strip my reasons\n Of their poetic dress, and, clothing them\n In other garments and with purple broidery\n Will show them off; and being invincible,\n Will make all rivals bow the knee to him.\n\nXIII. Plato also appears to have brought the books of Sophron, the\nfarce-writer,[31] to Athens, which were previously neglected; and to have\navailed himself of them in his Speculations on Morals: and a copy of them\nwas found under his head.\n\nXIV. And Plato made three voyages to Sicily, first of all for the purpose\nof seeing the island and the craters of volcanoes, when Dionysius, the\nson of Hermocrates, being the tyrant of Sicily, pressed him earnestly\nto come and see him; and he, conversing about tyranny, and saying that\nthat is not the best government which is advantageous for one individual\nalone, unless that individual is pre-eminent in virtue, had a quarrel\nwith Dionysius, who got angry, and said, \u201cYour words are those of an old\ndotard.\u201d And Plato replied, \u201cAnd your language is that of a tyrant.\u201d And\non this the tyrant became very indignant, and at first was inclined to\nput him to death; but afterwards, being appeased by Dion and Aristomenes,\nhe forebore to do that, but gave him to Pollis, the Laced\u00e6monian, who\nhappened to have come to him on an embassy just at that time, to sell\nas a slave. And he took him to \u00c6gina and sold him; and Charmander, the\nson of Charmandrides, instituted a capital prosecution against him, in\naccordance with the law which was in force, in the island of \u00c6gina,\nthat the first Athenian who landed on the island should be put to death\nwithout a trial; and he himself was the person who had originally\nproposed that law, as Phavorinus says, in his Universal History. But when\nsome one said, though he said it only in joke, that it was a philosopher\nwho had landed, the people released him. But some say that he was brought\ninto the assembly and watched; and that he did not say a word, but stood\nprepared to submit to whatever might befall him; and that they determined\nnot to put him to death, but to sell him after the fashion of prisoners\nof war. And it happened by chance that Anniceris, the Cyrenean, was\npresent, who ransomed him for twenty min\u00e6, or, as others say, for thirty,\nand sent him to Athens, to his companions, and they immediately sent\nAnniceris his money: but he refused to receive it, saying that they were\nnot the only people in the world who were entitled to have a regard for\nPlato. Some writers again say, that it was Dion who sent the money, and\nthat he did not refuse it, but bought him the garden in the Academy. And\nwith respect to Pollis it is said that he was defeated by Chabrias, and\nthat he was afterwards drowned in Helice, in consequence of the anger of\nthe deity at his treatment of this philosopher. And this is the story\ntold by Phavorinus in the first book of his Commentaries. Dionysius,\nhowever, did not remain quiet; but when he had heard what had happened he\nwrote to Plato not to speak ill of him, and he wrote back in reply that\nhe had not leisure enough to think at all of Dionysius.\n\nXV. But he went a second time to Sicily to the younger Dionysius,\nand asked him for some land and for some men whom he might make live\naccording to his own theory of a constitution. And Dionysius promised\nto give him some, but never did it. And some say that he was in danger\nhimself, having been suspected of exciting Dion and Theotas to attempt\nthe deliverance of the island; but that Archytas, the Pythagorean, wrote\na letter to Dionysius, and begged Plato off and sent him back safe to\nAthens. And the letter is as follows:\u2014\n\nARCHYTAS TO DIONYSIUS, GREETING.\n\n\u201cAll of us who are the friends of Plato, have sent to you Lamiscus\nand Photidas, to claim of you this philosopher in accordance with the\nagreement which you made with us. And it is right that you should\nrecollect the eagerness which you had to see him, when you pressed us\nall to secure Plato\u2019s visit to you, promising to provide for him, and\nto treat him hospitably in every respect, and to ensure his safety both\nwhile he remained with you, and when he departed. Remember this too that\nyou were very delighted indeed at his arrival, and that you expressed\ngreat pleasure at the time, such as you never did on any other occasion.\nAnd if any unpleasantness has arisen between you, you ought to behave\nwith humanity, and restore the man unhurt; for by so doing you will act\njustly, and do us a favour.\u201d\n\nXVI. The third time that he went to Sicily was for the purpose of\nreconciling Dion to Dionysius. And as he could not succeed he returned\nback to his own country, having lost his labour.\n\nXVII. And in his own country he did not meddle with state affairs,\nalthough he was a politician as far as his writings went. And the\nreason was, that the people were accustomed to a form of government\nand constitution different from what he approved of. And Pamphile, in\nthe twenty-fifth book of his Commentaries, says that the Arcadians\nand Thebans, when they were founding a great city, appointed him its\nlawgiver; but that he, when he had ascertained that they would not\nconsent to an equality of rights, refused to go thither.\n\nXVIII. It is said also, that he defended Chabrias the general, when he\nwas impeached in a capital charge; when no one else of the citizens would\nundertake the task: and as he was going up towards the Acropolis with\nhis client, Crobylus the sycophant met him and said, \u201cAre you come to\nplead for another, not knowing that the hemlock of Socrates is waiting\nalso for you?\u201d But he replied, \u201cAnd also, when I fought for my country I\nencountered dangers: and now too I encounter them in the cause of justice\nand for the defence of a friend.\u201d\n\nXIX. He was the first author who wrote treatises in the form of\ndialogues, as Phavorinus tells us in the eighth book of his Universal\nHistory. And he was also the first person who introduced the analytical\nmethod of investigation, which he taught to Leodamus of Thasos. He\nwas also the first person in philosophy who spoke of antipodes, and\nelements, and dialectics, and actions (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), and oblong numbers,\nand plane surfaces, and the providence of God. He was likewise the first\nof the philosophers who contradicted the assertion of Lysias, the son\nof Cephalus, setting it out word for word in his Ph\u00e6drus. And he was\nalso the first person who examined the subject of grammatical knowledge\nscientifically. And as he argued against almost every one who had lived\nbefore his time, it is often asked why he has never mentioned Democritus.\n\nXX. Neanthes of Cyzicus says, that when he came to the Olympic games\nall the Greeks who were present turned to look at him: and that it was\non that occasion that he held a conversation with Dion, who was on\nthe point of attacking Dionysius. Moreover, in the first book of the\nCommentaries of Phavorinus, it is related that Mithridates, the Persian,\nerected a statue of Plato in the Academy, and put on it this inscription,\n\u201cMithridates, the son of Rhodobates, a Persian, consecrated an image of\nPlato to the Muses, which was made by Silanion.\u201d\n\nXXI. And Heraclides says, that even while a young man, he was so modest\nand well regulated, that he was never once seen to laugh excessively.\n\nXXII. But though he was of such a grave character himself, he was\nnevertheless ridiculed by the comic poets. Accordingly, Theopompus, in\nhis Pleasure-seeker, says:\u2014\n\n For one thing is no longer only one,\n But two things now are scarcely one; as says\n The solemn Plato.\n\nAnd Anaxandrides in his Theseus, says:\u2014\n\n When he ate olives like our worthy Plato.\n\nAnd Timon speaks of him in this way, punning on his name:\u2014\n\n As Plato placed strange platitudes on paper.[32]\n\nAlexis says in his Meropis:\u2014\n\n You\u2019ve come in time: since I\u2019ve been doubting long,\n And walking up and down some time, like Plato;\n And yet have hit upon no crafty plan,\n But only tir\u2019d my legs.\n\nAnd in his Ancylion, he says:\u2014\n\n You speak of what you do not understand,\n Running about like Plato: hoping thus,\n To learn the nature of saltpetre and onions.\n\nAmphis says in his Amphicrates:\u2014\n\n _A._ But what the good is, which you hope to get\n By means of her, my master, I no more\n Can form a notion of, than of the good\n Of Plato.\n\n _B._ Listen now.\n\nAnd in his Dexidemides he speaks thus:\u2014\n\n O Plato! how your learning is confined\n To gloomy looks, and wrinkling up your brows,\n Like any cockle.\n\nCratinas in his Pseudypobolim\u00e6us, says:\u2014\n\n You clearly are a man, endued with sense,\n And so, as Plato says, I do not know;\n But I suspect.\n\nAlexis, in his Olympiodorus speaks thus:\u2014\n\n My mortal body became dry and withered:\n But my immortal part rose to the sky.\n Is not this Plato\u2019s doctrine?\n\nAnd in his Parasite he says:\u2014\n\n Or to converse alone, like Plato.\n\nAnaxilas also laughs at him in his Botrylion, and Circe, and his Rich\nWomen.\n\nXXIII. And Aristippus, in the fourth book of his treatise upon Ancient\nLuxury, says that he was much attached to a youth of the name of Aster,\nwho used to study astronomy with him; and also to Dion, whom we have\nalready mentioned. And some say that he was also attached to Ph\u00e6drus,\nand that the following epigrams which he wrote upon them are evidences of\nthe love he felt for them:\u2014\n\n My Aster, you\u2019re gazing on the stars (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2),\n Would that I were the heavens, that so I might\n Gaze in return with many eyes on thee.\n\nAnother of his epigrams is:\u2014\n\n Aster, you while among the living shone,\n The morning star. But now that you are dead,\n You beam like Hesperus in the shades below.\n\nAnd he wrote thus on Dion:\u2014\n\n Once, at their birth, the fates did destine tears\n To be the lot of all the Trojan women.\n And Hecuba, their Queen\u2014to you, O Dion,\n As the deserved reward for glorious deeds,\n They gave extensive and illustrious hopes.\n And now you lie beneath your native soil;\n Honoured by all your countrymen, O Dion,\n And loved by me with ardent, lasting love.\n\nAnd they say that this epigram is inscribed upon his tomb at Syracuse.\nThey say, also, that he was in love with Alexis, and with Ph\u00e6drus, as I\nhave already mentioned, and that he wrote an epigram on them both, which\nruns thus:\u2014\n\n Now when Alexis is no longer aught,\n Say only how beloved, how fair he was,\n And every one does turn his eyes at once.\n Why, my mind, do you show the dogs a bone?\n You\u2019re but preparing trouble for yourself:\n Have we not also lost the lovely Ph\u00e6drus!\n\nThere is also a tradition that he had a mistress named Archianassa, on\nwhom he wrote the following lines:\u2014\n\n I have a mistress fair from Colophon,\n Archianassa, on whose very wrinkles\n Sits genial love: hard must have been the fate,\n Of him who met her earliest blaze of beauty,\n Surely he must have been completely scorched.\n\nHe also wrote this epigram on Agathon:\u2014\n\n While kissing Agathon, my soul did rise,\n And hover\u2019d o\u2019er my lips; wishing perchance,\n O\u2019er anxious that it was, to migrate to him.\n\nAnother of his epigrams is:\u2014\n\n I throw this apple to you. And if you\n Love me who love you so, receive it gladly,\n And let me taste your lovely virgin charms.\n Or if that may not be, still take the fruit,\n And in your bosom cherish it, and learn\n How fleeting is all gracefulness and beauty.\n\nAnd another:\u2014\n\n I am an apple, and am thrown to you,\n By one who loves you: but consent, Xanthippe;\n For you and I shall both with time decay.\n\nThey also attribute to him the following epigram on the Eretrians who had\nbeen surprised in an ambuscade:\u2014\n\n We were Eretrians, of Eub\u0153an race?\n And now we lie near Susa, here entomb\u2019d,\n Far from my native land.\n\nAnd this one also:\u2014\n\n Thus Venus to the muses spoke:\n Damsels submit to Venus\u2019 yoke,\n Or dread my Cupid\u2019s arms.\n Those threats, the Virgins nine replied,\n May weigh with Mars, but we deride\n Love\u2019s wrongs, or darts, or charms.\n\nAnother is:\u2014\n\n A certain person found some gold,\n Carried it off, and in its stead\n Left a strong halter neatly roll\u2019d.\n The owner found his treasure fled;\n And powerless to endure his fortune\u2019s wreck,\n Fitted the halter to his hapless neck.\n\nXXIV. But Molon, who had a great dislike to Plato, says \u201cThere is not\nso much to wonder at in Dionysius being at Corinth, as in Plato\u2019s being\nin Sicily.\u201d Xenophon, too, does not appear to have been very friendlily\ndisposed towards him: and accordingly they have, as if in rivalry of\none another, both written books with the same title, the Banquet, the\nDefence of Socrates, Moral Reminiscences. Then, too, the one wrote the\nCyrop\u00e6dia and the other a book on Politics; and Plato in his Laws says,\nthat the Cyrop\u00e6dia is a mere romance, for that Cyrus was not such a\nperson as he is described in that book. And though they both speak so\nmuch of Socrates, neither of them ever mentions the other, except that\nXenophon once speaks of Plato in the third book of his Reminiscences. It\nis said also, that Antisthenes, being about to recite something that he\nhad written, invited him to be present; and that Plato having asked what\nhe was going to recite, he said it was an essay on the impropriety of\ncontradicting. \u201cHow then,\u201d said Plato, \u201ccan you write on this subject?\u201d\nand then he showed him that he was arguing in a circle. But Antisthenes\nwas annoyed, and composed a dialogue against Plato, which he entitled\nSathon; after which they were always enemies to one another; and they say\nthat Socrates having heard Plato read the Lysis, said, \u201cO Hercules! what\na number of lies the young man has told about me.\u201d For he had set down a\ngreat many things as sayings of Socrates which he never said.\n\nPlato also was a great enemy of Aristippus; accordingly, he speaks ill\nof him in his book on the Soul, and says that he was not with Socrates\nwhen he died, though he was in \u00c6gina, at no great distance. He also had\na great rivalry with \u00c6schines, for that he had been held in great esteem\nby Dionysius, and afterwards came to want, and was despised by Plato, but\nsupported by Aristippus. And Idomeneus says, that the speech which Plato\nattributes to Crito in the prison, when he counselled Socrates to make\nhis escape, was really delivered by \u00c6schines, but that Plato attributed\nit to Crito because of his dislike to the other. And Plato never makes\nthe slightest mention of him in any of his books, except in the treatise\non the Soul, and the Defence of Socrates.\n\nXXV. Aristotle says, that the treatises of Plato are something between\npoems and prose; and Phavorinus says, when Plato read his treatise on\nthe Soul, Aristotle was the only person who sat it out, and that all the\nrest rose up and went away. And some say that Philip the Opuntian copied\nout the whole of his books upon Laws, which were written on waxen tablets\nonly. Some people also attribute the Epinomis to him. Euphorion and\nPan\u00e6tius have stated that the beginning of the treatise on the Republic\nwas often altered and re-written; and that very treatise, Aristoxenus\naffirms, was found almost entire in the Contradictions of Protagoras;\nand that the first book he wrote at all was the Ph\u00e6drus; and indeed\nthat composition has a good many indications of a young composer. But\nDic\u00e6archus blames the whole style of that work as vulgar.\n\nXXVI. A story is told, that Plato, having seen a man playing at dice,\nreproached him for it, and that he said he was playing for a trifle; \u201cBut\nthe habit,\u201d rejoined Plato, \u201cis not a trifle.\u201d On one occasion he was\nasked whether there would be any monument of him, as of his predecessors\nin philosophy? and he answered, \u201cA man must first make a name, and the\nmonument will follow.\u201d Once, when Xenocrates came into his house, he\ndesired him to scourge one of his slaves for him, for that he himself\ncould not do it because he was in a passion; and that at another time\nhe said to one of his slaves, \u201cI should beat you if I were not in a\npassion.\u201d Having got on horseback he dismounted again immediately, saying\nthat he was afraid that he should be infected with horse-pride. He used\nto advise people who got drunk to look in the glass, and then they would\nabandon their unseemly habit; and he said that it was never decorous to\ndrink to the degree of drunkenness, except at the festivals of the God\nwho had given men wine. He also disapproved of much sleeping: accordingly\nin his Laws he says, \u201cNo one while sleeping is good for anything.\u201d\nAnother saying of his was, \u201cThat the pleasantest of all things to hear\nwas the truth;\u201d but others report this saying thus, \u201cThat the sweetest of\nall things was to speak truth.\u201d And of truth he speaks thus in his Laws,\n\u201cTruth, my friend, is a beautiful and a durable thing; but it is not easy\nto persuade men of this fact.\u201d\n\nXXVII. He used also to wish to leave a memorial of himself behind, either\nin the hearts of his friends, or in his books.\n\nXXVIII. He also used to travel a good deal as some authors inform us.\n\nXXIX. And he died in the manner we have already mentioned, in the\nthirteenth year of the reign of Philip of Macedon, as Phavorinus mentions\nin the third book of his Commentaries; and Theopompus relates that Philip\non one occasion reproached him. But Myronianus, in his Resemblances, says\nthat Philo mentions some proverbs that were in circulation about Plato\u2019s\nlice; implying that he had died of that disease.\n\nXXX. He was buried in the Academy, where he spent the greater part of\nhis time in the practice of philosophy, from which his was called the\nAcademic school; and his funeral was attended by all the pupils of that\nsect. And he made his will in the following terms:\u2014\u201cPlato left these\nthings, and has bequeathed them as follows.\u2014The farm in the district of\nthe Heph\u00e6stiades, bounded on the north by the road from the temple of\nthe Cephisiades, and on the south by the temple of Hercules, which is\nin the district of the Heph\u00e6stiades; and on the east by the estate of\nArchestratus the Phrearrian, and on the west by the farm of Philip the\nChollidian, shall be incapable of being sold or alienated, but shall\nbelong to my son Adimantus as far as possible. And so likewise shall my\nfarm in the district of the Eiresides, which I bought of Callimachus,\nwhich is bounded on the north by the property of Eurymedon the\nMyrrhinusian, on the south by that of Demostratus of Xypeta, on the east\nby that of Eurymedon the Myrrhinusian, and on the west by the Cephisus;\u2014I\nalso leave him three min\u00e6 of silver, a silver goblet weighing a hundred\nand sixty-five drachms, a cup weighing forty-five drachms, a golden ring,\nand a golden ear-ring, weighing together four drachms and three obols.\nEuclides the stone-cutter owes me three min\u00e6. I leave Diana her liberty.\nMy slaves Tychon, Bictas, Apolloniades, and Dionysius, I bequeath to\nmy son; and I also give him all my furniture, of which Demetrius has\na catalogue. I owe no one anything. My executors shall be Sosthenes,\nSpeusippus, Demetrius, Hegias, Eurymedon, Callimachus, and Thrasippus.\u201d\nThis was his will. And on his tomb the following epigrams were inscribed.\nFirst of all:\u2014\n\n Here, first of all men for pure justice famed,\n And moral virtue, Aristocles lies;\n And if there e\u2019er has lived one truly wise,\n This man was wiser still; too great for envy.\n\nA second is:\u2014\n\n Here in her bosom does the tender earth\n Embrace great Plato\u2019s corpse.\u2014His soul aloft\n Has ta\u2019en its place among the immortal Gods.\n Ariston\u2019s glorious son\u2014whom all good men,\n Though in far countries, held in love and honour,\n Remembering his pure and god-like life.\n\nThere is another which is more modern:\u2014\n\n _A._ Eagle, why fly you o\u2019er this holy tomb?\n Or are you on your way, with lofty wing,\n To some bright starry domicile of the Gods?\n\n _B._ I am the image of the soul of Plato,\n And to Olympus now am borne on high;\n His body lies in his own native Attica.\n\nWe ourselves also have written one epigram on him, which is as follows:\u2014\n\n If fav\u2019ring Ph\u0153bus had not Plato given\n To Grecian lands, how would the learned God\n Have e\u2019er instructed mortal minds in learning?\n But he did send him, that as \u00c6sculapius\n His son\u2019s the best physician of the body,\n So Plato should be of the immortal soul.\n\nAnd others, alluding to his death:\u2014\n\n Ph\u0153bus, to bless mankind, became the father\n Of \u00c6sculapius, and of god-like Plato;\n _That_ one to heal the body, _this_ the mind.\n Now, from a marriage feast he\u2019s gone to heaven,\n To realize the happy city there,\n Which he has planned fit for the realms of Jove.\n\nThese then are the epigrams on him.\n\nXXXI. His disciples were, Speusippus the Athenian, Zenocrates of\nChalcedon, Aristotle the Stagirite, Philip of Opus, Histi\u00e6us of\nPerinthus, Dion of Syracuse, Amyclus of Heraclea, Erastus and Coriscus of\nSceptos, Timolaus of Cyzicus, Eudon of Lampsacus, Pithon and Heraclides\nof \u00c6mus, Hippothales and Callippus, Athenians, Demetrius of Amphipolis,\nHeraclides of Pontus, and numbers of others, among whom there were also\ntwo women, Lasthenea of Mantinea, and Axiothea of Phlius, who used even\nto wear man\u2019s clothes, as we are told by Dic\u00e6archus. Some say that\nTheophrastus also was a pupil of his; and Cham\u00e6lion says that Hyperides\nthe orator, and Lycurgus, were so likewise. Polemo also asserts that\nDemosthenes was. Sabinus adds Mnesistratus of Thasos to the number,\nquoting authority for the statement in the fourth book of his Meditative\nMatter; and it is not improbable.\n\nXXXII. But as you, O lady, are rightly very much attached to Plato, and\nas you are very fond of hunting out in every quarter all the doctrines\nof the philosopher with great eagerness, I have thought it necessary\nto subjoin an account of the general character of his lectures, and of\nthe arrangement of his dialogues, and of the method of his inductive\nargument; going back to their elements and first principles as far as\nI could, so that the collection of anecdotes concerning his life which\nI have been able to make, may not be curtailed by the omission of any\nstatement as to his doctrines. For it would be like sending owls to\nAthens, as the proverb is, if I were to descend to particular details.\n\nThey say now, that Zeno, the Eleatic, was the first person who composed\nessays in the form of dialogue. But Aristotle, in the first book of his\ntreatise on Poets, says that Alexamenus, a native of Styra, or Teos,\ndid so before him, as Phavorinus also says in his Commentaries. But it\nseems to me that Plato gave this kind of writing the last polish, and\nthat he has therefore, a just right to the first honour, not only as\nthe improver, but also as inventor of that kind of writing. Now, the\ndialogue is a discourse carried on by way of question and answer, on\nsome one of the subjects with which philosophy is conversant, or with\nwhich statesmanship is concerned, with a becoming attention to the\ncharacters of the persons who are introduced as speakers, and with a\ncareful selection of language governed by the same consideration. And\ndialectics is the art of conversing, by means of which we either overturn\nor establish the proposition contended for, by means of the questions and\nanswers which are put in the mouths of the parties conversing. Now, of\nthe Platonic discourse there are two characteristics discernible on the\nvery surface; one fitted for guiding, the other for investigating.\n\nThe first of these has two subordinate species, one speculative, the\nother practical; and of these two again, the speculative is divided into\nthe natural and the logical, and the practical into the ethical and the\npolitical. Again, the kind fitted for investigating has also two primary\ndivisions with their separate characteristics, one object of which is\nsimply practice, the other being also disputatious: and the first of\nthese two is again subdivided into two; one of which may be compared\nto the art of the midwife, and the other is as it were tentative;\nthe disputatious one is also divided into the demonstrative and the\ndistinctive.\n\nBut we are not unaware that some writers distinguish the various\ndialogues in a different manner from what we do. For they say that\nsome of them are dramatic, and others narrative, and others of a mixed\nnature. But they, in this division, are classifying the dialogues in a\ntheatrical rather than in a philosophical manner. Some of the dialogues\nalso refer to subjects of natural philosophy, such as the Tim\u00e6us. Of the\nlogical class, there are the Politics, the Cratylus, the Parmenides, and\nthe Sophist. Of the ethical kind there is the defence of Socrates, the\nCrito, the Ph\u00e6do, the Ph\u00e6drus, the Banquet, the Menexenus, the Clitophon,\nthe Epistles, the Philebus, the Hipparchus, and the Rival Lovers. Of\nthe political class there is the Republic, the Laws, the Minos, the\nEpinomis, and the Atlanticus. Of the midwife description we have the\ntwo Alcibiades\u2019s, the Theages, the Lysis, the Laches. Of the tentative\nkind, there is the Euthyphro, the Meno, the Ion, the Charmides, and the\nThe\u00e6tetus. Of the demonstrative description, we have the Protagoras,\nand of the distinctive class the Euthydemus, the two Hippias\u2019s, and the\nGorgias. And this is enough to say about the dialogues as to what they\nare, and what their different kinds are.\n\nXXXIII. But since there is also a great division of opinion respecting\nthem, from some people asserting that in them Plato dogmatizes in a\npositive manner, while others deny this, we had better also touch upon\nthis part of the question. Now, dogmatizing is laying down dogmas, just\nas legislating is making laws. But the word dogma is used in two senses;\nto mean both that which we think, and opinion itself. Now of these,\nthat which we think is the proposition, and opinion is the conception\nby which we entertain it in our minds. Plato then explains the opinions\nwhich he entertains himself, and refutes false ones; and about doubtful\nmatters he suspends his judgment. His opinions of matters as they appear\nto him he puts into the mouth of four persons, Socrates, Tim\u00e6us, an\nAthenian poet, and an Eleatic stranger. But the strangers are not, as\nsome people have supposed, Plato and Parmenides, but certain nameless\nimaginary characters. Since Plato asserts as undeniable axioms all the\nopinions which he puts into the mouth of Socrates or Tim\u00e6us. But when\nhe is refuting false propositions, he introduces such characters as\nThrasymachus, and Callicles, and Polus, and Gorgias, and Protagoras,\nHippias too, and Euthydemus, and men of that stamp. But when he is\ndemonstrating anything, then he chiefly uses the inductive form of\nargument, and that too not of one kind only, but of two. For induction is\nan argument, which by means of some admitted truths establishes naturally\nother truths which resemble them. But there are two kinds of induction;\nthe one proceeding from contraries, the other from consequents. Now,\nthe one which proceeds from contraries, is one in which from the answer\ngiven, whatever that answer may be, the contrary of the principle\nindicated in the question must follow. As for instance. My father is\neither a different person from your father, or he is the same person.\nIf now your father is a different person from my father, then as he is\na different person from a father, he cannot be a father. If, on the\nother hand, he is the same person as my father, then, since he is the\nsame person as my father, he must be my father. And again, if man be not\nan animal, he must be either a stone or a piece of wood; but he is not\na stone or a piece of wood, for he is a living animal, and capable of\nindependent motion. Therefore, he is an animal. But, if he is an animal,\nand a dog or an ox is likewise an animal, then man must be an animal, and\na dog, and an ox.\u2014This then is the method of induction in contradiction\nand contention, which Plato was accustomed to employ, not for the purpose\nof establishing principles of his own, but with the object of refuting\nthe arguments of others.\n\nNow, the inductive kind of argument drawn from consequents is of a\ntwofold character. The one proving a particular opinion by an admitted\nfact of an equally particular nature; or else going from particulars to\ngenerals. And the first of these two divisions is the oratorical one,\nthe second the dialectic one. As for instance, in the former kind the\nquestion is whether this person has committed a murder; the proof is that\nhe was found at the time covered with blood. But this is the oratorical\nmethod of employing the induction; since oratory is conversant about\nparticulars, and does not concern itself about generals. For its object\nis not to ascertain abstract justice, but only particular justice.\nThe other is the dialectic kind, the general proposition having been\nestablished by particular ones. As for instance, the question is whether\nthe soul is immortal, and whether the living consist of those who have\nonce been dead; and this proposition Plato establishes in his book on\nthe Soul, by a certain general proposition, that contraries arise out\nof contraries; and this identical general proposition is established by\ncertain particular ones. As, for instance, that sleep follows on waking,\nand waking from sleeping, and the greater from the less, and reversely\nthe less from the greater. And this kind of induction he used to employ\nfor the establishment of his own opinions.\n\nXXXIV. Anciently, in tragedy, it was only the chorus who did the whole\nwork of the play; but subsequently, Thespis introduced one actor for the\nsake of giving the chorus some rest, and \u00c6schylus added a second, and\nSophocles a third, and so they made tragedy complete. So in the same\nmanner, philosophical discourse was originally uniform, concerning itself\nsolely about natural philosophy; then Socrates added to it a second\ncharacter, the ethical: and Plato a third, the dialectic: and so he\nbrought philosophy to perfection.\n\nXXXV. But Thrasybulus says that he published his dialogues as the\ndramatic poets published their tetralogies. For, they contended with\nfour plays, (and at four festivals, the Dionysiac, the Len\u00e6an, the\nPanathen\u00e6an, and the Chytri), one of which was a satiric drama, and\nthe whole four plays were called a tetralogy. Now, people say, the\nwhole of his genuine dialogues amount to fifty-six; the treatise on the\nRepublic being divided into ten books, (which Phavorinus, in the second\nbook of his Universal History, says may be found almost entire in the\nContradictions of Protagoras), and that on Laws into twelve. And there\nare nine tetralogies, if we consider the Republic as occupying the place\nof one book, and the Laws of another. He arranges, therefore, the first\ntetralogy of these dialogues which have a common subject, wishing to show\nwhat sort of life that of the philosopher may have been. And he uses two\ntitles for each separate book, taking one from the name of the principal\nspeaker, and the other from the subject.\n\nThis tetralogy then, which is the first, is commenced by the Euthyphron,\nor what is Holy; and that dialogue is a tentative one. The second is the\nDefence of Socrates, a moral one. The third is the Criton, or What is to\nbe done, a moral one. The fourth is the Ph\u00e6do, or the Dialogue on the\nSoul, a moral one.\n\nThe second tetralogy is that of which the first piece is the Cratylus, or\nthe correctness of names, a logical one. The The\u00e6tetus, or Knowledge, a\ntentative one. The Sophist, or a dialogue on the Existent, a logical one.\nThe Statesman, or a dialogue of Monarchy, a logical one.\n\nThe first dialogue in the third tetralogy is the Parmenides, or a\ndialogue of Ideas, a logical one. The second is the Philebus, or on\nPleasure, a moral one. The Banquet, or on the Good, a moral one. The\nPh\u00e6drus, or on Love, a moral one.\n\nThe fourth tetralogy opens with the Alcibiades, or a treatise on the\nNature of Man, a midwife-like work. The second Alcibiades, or on Prayer,\na piece of the same character. The Hipparchus, or on the Love of Gain, a\nmoral one. The Rival Lovers, or a treatise on Philosophy, a moral one.\n\nThe first dialogue in the fifth is the Theages, or another treatise on\nPhilosophy, another midwife-like work. The Charmides, or on Temperance,\na tentative essay. The Laches, or on Manly Courage, midwife-like. The\nLysis, or a dissertation on Friendship, also midwife-like.\n\nThe sixth tetralogy commences with the Euthydemus, or the Disputatious\nMan, a distinctive dialogue. Then comes the Protagoras, or the Sophists,\na demonstrative one. The Gorgias, or a dissertation on Rhetoric, another\ndistinctive one. And the Meno, or on Virtue, a tentative dialogue.\n\nThe seventh begins with the two Hippias\u2019s. The first being a dissertation\non the Beautiful, the second one on Falsehood, both distinctive. The\nthird is the Ion, or a dissertation on the Iliad, a tentative one. The\nfourth is the Menexenus, or the Funeral Oration, a moral one.\n\nThe first dialogue in the eighth is the Clitophon, or the Exhortation,\na moral piece. Then comes the Republic, or the treatise on Justice, a\npolitical one. The Tim\u00e6us, or a dissertation on Nature, a dialogue on\nNatural Philosophy. And the Critias, or Atlanticus, a moral one.\n\nThe ninth begins with the Minos, or a treatise on Law, a political work.\nThe Laws, or a dissertation on Legislation, another political work. The\nEpinomis, or the Nocturnal Conversation, or the Philosopher, a third\npolitical one.\n\nXXXVI. And this last tetralogy is completed by thirteen epistles, all\nmoral; to which is prefixed as a motto, \u03b5\u1f56 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, just as Epicurus\ninscribed on his \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and Cleon on his \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. They are, one\nletter to Aristodemus, two to Archytas, four to Dionysius, one to\nHermeias, Erastus, and Coriscus, one to Leodamas, one to Dion, one to\nPerdiccas, and two to the friends of Dion.\n\nXXXVII. And this is the way in which some people divide his works. But\nothers, among whom is Aristophanes, the grammarian, arrange his dialogues\nin trilogies; and they make the first to consist of the Republic, the\nTim\u00e6us and the Critias.\n\nThe second of the Sophist, the Statesman, the Cratylus.\n\nThe third of the Laws, the Minos, the Epinomis.\n\nThe fourth of the The\u00e6tetus, the Euthyphro, the Defence of Socrates.\n\nThe fifth of the Crito, the Ph\u00e6do, the Epistles.\n\nAnd the rest they arrange singly and independently, without any regular\norder. And some authors, as has been said already, place the Republic at\nthe head of his works: others begin with the Greater Alcibiades: others\nwith the Theages; some with the Euthyphro, others with the Clitophon;\nsome with the Tim\u00e6us, some with the Ph\u00e6drus, others again with the\nThe\u00e6tetus. Many make the Defence of Socrates the first piece.\n\nThere are some dialogues attributed to him which are confessedly\nspurious. The Midon, or the Horse-breeder; the Eryxias, or Erasistratus;\nthe Alcyon; the Acephali, or Sisyphi; the Axiochus; the Ph\u00e6acians; the\nDemodorus; the Chelidon; the Seventh; the Epimenides. Of which the Alcyon\nis believed to be the work of a man named Leon; as Phavorinus tells us in\nthe seventh book of his Commentaries.\n\nXXXVIII. But he employs a great variety of terms in order to render his\nphilosophical system unintelligible to the ignorant. In his phraseology\nhe considers wisdom as the knowledge of things which can be understood\nby the intellect, and which have a real existence: which has the Gods\nfor its object, and the soul as unconnected with the body. He also, with\na peculiarity of expression, calls wisdom also philosophy, which he\nexplains as a desire for divine wisdom. But wisdom and experience are\nalso used by him in their common acceptation; as, for instance, when he\ncalls an artisan wise (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2). He also uses the same words in different\nsenses at different times. Accordingly he uses \u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 in the sense of\n\u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, _simple_, in which meaning also the word occurs in Euripides, in\nthe Licymonius, where the poet speaks of Hercules in the following terms:\u2014\n\n Mean looking (\u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), rude, virtuous in great affairs,\n Measuring all wisdom by its last results,\n A hero unrefined in speech.\n\nBut Plato uses the word sometimes even for what is beautiful; and\nsometimes for small and insignificant; and very often he uses different\nwords to express the same idea. Accordingly, besides the word \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 for\na class, he uses also \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, and \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74, and\n\u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Sometimes he uses opposite expressions for the same thing;\naccordingly, he says that it is an object of sensation that exists, while\nat other times he says it is that which does not exist; speaking of it\nas existing because of its origin, and as non-existent with reference to\nits continual changes. Then again, he defines his \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 as something which\nis neither moving nor stationary, at one time calling the same thing, at\nanother time one thing, at a third time many things. And he is in the\nhabit of doing this in many instances.\n\nAnd the explanation of his arguments is three-fold. For first of all, it\nis necessary to explain what each thing that is said is; secondly, on\nwhat account it is said, whether because of its bearing on the principal\npoint, or figuratively, and whether it is said for the purpose of\nestablishing an opinion of his own, or of refuting the arguments brought\nforward by the other party to the conversation; and thirdly, whether it\nhas been said truly.\n\nXXXIX. But since there are some particular marks put in his books, we\nmust also say something about them. \u00d7 indicates peculiar expressions and\nfigures of speech, and generally any peculiarities of Plato\u2019s style. When\ndoubled it points to the doctrines and peculiar opinions of Plato; \u203b\nwhen dotted all round, points to some select bits of beautiful writing.\nWhen doubled and dotted it indicates corrections of some passages. A\ndotted obelus indicates hasty disapprovals. An inverted sigma dotted\nall round points out passages which may be taken in a double sense, and\ntranspositions of words. The Ceraunium[33] indicates a connection of\nphilosophical ideas. An asterisk points out an agreement in doctrine. And\nan obelus marks the rejection of the expression or of the passage. These\nthen are the marginal marks which occur, and the writings of which Plato\nwas the author:\u2014which, as Antigonus the Carystian says, in his treatise\non Zeno, when they had been but lately published, brought in some gain to\nthe possessors, if any one else was desirous of reading them.\n\nXL. These now were his chief opinions. He affirmed that the soul was\nimmortal and clothed in many bodies successively, and that its first\nprinciple was number, and that the first principle of the body was\ngeometry. And he defined it as an abstract idea of spirit diffused in\nevery direction. He said also, that it was self-moving and threefold. For\nthat that part of it which was capable of reasoning was situated in the\nhead, that that portion which was affected by passion was seated around\nthe heart, and that which was appetitive was placed around the navel and\nthe liver. And that it is placed in the middle of the body, and embraces\nit at the same time in all its parts, and that it consists of elements;\nand that when it is divided according to harmonic intervals it forms\ntwo connected circles; of which the inner circle is divided into six\nportions, and makes in all seven circles; and that this is placed on the\nleft hand of the diameter, and situated in the interior. But the other\nis on the right hand of the same line; on which account, and because it\nis one only, it is the superior of the two. For the other is divided\ninternally; and this too, is the circle of that which is always the same;\nthe other, the circle of that which is changeable and different. And the\none he says is the motion of the soul, but the other is the motion of the\nuniverse and of the planets.\n\nOn the other side, the division of the circles from the centre to the\nextremities, being harmoniously appropriated to the essence of the soul,\nthe one knows existing things and establishes harmony between them,\nbecause it is itself composed of harmonious elements. The circle of what\nis changeable, engenders opinion by its regular movements; but the circle\nof that which is always the same produces knowledge.\n\nXLI. Plato lays down two primary causes or principles of all things, God\nand matter, which he also calls mind, and the cause. And he defines\nmatter as something without shape and without limitation, and says that\nfrom it all concretions arise. He affirms also that as it was moving\nabout at random, it was brought by God into one settled place, as God\nthought order better than disorder; and that this nature is divided into\nfour elements, fire, water, air, and earth, of which the world itself and\neverything in it was made. But he says that the earth is the only thing\nthat is unchangeable, as he considers the cause to be the difference of\nthe figures of which it is composed; for he says that the figures of the\nothers are homogeneous; for that they are all composed equally of scalene\ntriangles. The figure of the earth, however, is peculiar to itself;\nfor the element of fire is a pyramid; of air, an octagon; of water, an\neicosagon; and of the earth, a cube; owing to which these things cannot\nbe changed into earth, nor earth into them. He teaches also that these\nelements are not separated so as to occupy each a peculiar and distinct\nplace; for the spherical motion collects and compresses all the small\nthings towards the centre, and the small things separate the great ones,\non which account the species, as they change, do also change their\npositions.\n\nMoreover he asserts that the world is one, and has been produced,\nsince it has been made by God, in such a manner as to be an object\nof sensation. And he considers it endowed with life, because that\nwhich is so endowed, is superior to that which is not, and it must be\nthe production of the most excellent producer. It is also one, and\nillimitable; because the model after which it was made was one; and it\nis spherical, because its creator was of that form; for it also contains\nall other animals, and God who made it comprises all forms. And it is\nsmooth, and has no instruments whatever all round it, because it has no\nneed of any. But the whole world remains imperishable, because it cannot\nbe resolved into God; and God is the cause of universal production,\nbecause it is the nature of the good to be productive of good; and the\nbest is the cause of the production of the heaven; for the best of all\nproductions can have no other cause than the best of all intelligible\nexistences. And since God is of that character, and since heaven\nresembles the best, inasmuch as it is at least the most beautiful of all\nthings, it cannot be like anything else that is produced, except God.\n\nHe also teaches that the world consists of fire, water, air, and earth;\nof fire, in order that it may be visible; of earth, in order that it may\nbe firm; of water and air, that it may not be destitute of proportion;\nfor two middle terms are indispensable to keep the solid bodies in due\nproportion to one another, and to realize the unity of the whole. In\nshort, the world is formed of all the elements together, in order that it\nmay be perfect and imperishable.\n\nAgain, time is the image of eternity; eternity subsists for ever; but the\nmotion of the heaven is time; for day, and night, and the months, and all\nsuch divisions, are parts of time, on which account there could be no\nsuch thing as time apart from the nature of the world; for time existed\ncontemporaneously and simultaneously with the world. And it was with\nreference to time that the sun, and the moon, and the planets were made;\nand it was in order that the number of the seasons might be manifest, and\nthat the animals might partake of number, that God kindled the light of\nthe sun; and that the moon was above the circle of the earth, and that\nthe sun was next to it, and in the still higher circles were the planets.\nAnd that the universe was animated, because it was altogether bound up\nin animated motion, and that the race of all other animals was produced\nin order that the world might be made perfect, and resembling an animal\nsuch as could be comprehended by intellect. Since then God had life, the\nheaven also must have life; and the Gods are to a great extent composed\nof fire. And there are three other races of animals, those which fly in\nthe air; those which live in the water; those which walk in the earth.\nThe oldest of all the deities in heaven is the Earth; she was formed in\norder to be the dispenser of night and day; and as she is placed in the\ncentre, she is constantly in motion around the centre.\n\nAnd since there are two efficient causes, some things must, he says,\nbe affirmed to exist in consequence of intellect, and some from some\nnecessary cause. Now necessary causes are the air, fire, earth, and\nwater, these not being real elements, but rather receptacles; and\nthey too are formed of triangles in combination, and are resolvable\ninto triangles; and their elements are the scalene triangle and the\nisosceles. These two before mentioned elements are the principles and\ncauses of things, of which the models are God and matter, which last must\nnecessarily be destitute of form, as is the case of other receptacles.\nAnd that the cause of these things was a necessary cause, which,\nreceiving the ideas, produced the substances, and was moved by the\ndissimilarity of its own power, and again by its motion compelled those\nthings which were moved by it to move other things in their turn.\n\nBut all these things were formerly moved without any reason or order;\nbut after they began to form the world by their combination, they then\nreceived symmetry and regularity from God, according to the principles\napplicable to them; for the efficient causes, even before the creation\nof the heaven, were two in number. There was also a third, namely\nproduction; but these were not very evident, but rather traces than\nactual things, and quite devoid of regularity. But after the world was\nmade, then they too assumed a regular form and arrangement; but the\nheaven was made of all existing bodies. And Plato considers that God is\nincorporeal just as the soul is, and that it is owing to that that he is\nnot affected by any destruction or external circumstances. And ideas, as\nwe have said before, he defines as certain causes and principles, owing\nto which it is that such and such things are by nature what they are.\n\nXLII. On the subject of good and evil, these were his sentiments: that\nthe end was to become like God; and that virtue was sufficient of herself\nfor happiness, but nevertheless required the advantages of the body as\ninstruments to work with; such as health, strength, the integrity of\nthe senses, and things of that kind; and also external advantages, such\nas riches, and noble birth, and glory. Still that the wise man would be\nnot the less happy, even if destitute of these auxiliary circumstances;\nfor he would enjoy the constitution of his country, and would marry, and\nwould not transgress the established laws, and that he would legislate\nfor his country, as well as he could under existing circumstances,\nunless he saw affairs in an unmanageable condition, in consequence of\nthe excessive factiousness of the people. He thinks too that the Gods\nsuperintend all the affairs of men, and that there are such beings\nas d\u00e6mons. And he was the first person who defined the notion of the\nhonourable, as that which borders on the praiseworthy, and the logical,\nand the useful, and the becoming, and the expedient, all which things are\ncombined with that which is suitable to, and in accordance with, nature.\n\nXLIII. He also discussed in his dialogues the correctness of terms, so\nthat he was the first person who reduced the science of giving correct\nanswers, and putting correct questions to a system, which he himself used\nto satiety.\n\nXLIV. In his dialogues he used to speak of justice as a kind of law of\nGod, as being of influence sufficient to excite men to act justly, in\norder to avoid suffering punishment as malefactors after death. Owing\nto which he appeared to some people rather fond of mythical stories,\nas he mingled stories of this kind with his writings, in order by the\nuncertainty of all the circumstances that affect men after their death,\nto induce them to abstain from evil actions. And these were his opinions.\n\nXLV. He used too, says Aristotle, to divide things in this manner:\u2014Of\ngood, some have their place in the mind, some in the body, and some are\nwholly external. As, for instance, justice, and prudence, and manly\ncourage, and temperance, and qualities of that sort exist in the soul.\nBeauty, and a good constitution, and health, and strength exist in the\nbody. But friends, and the prosperity of one\u2019s country, and wealth, are\nexternal goods. There are then three species of goods, some in the soul,\nsome in the body, and some external to either.\n\nXLVI. There are also three species of friendship. For one kind is\nnatural, another that which arises from companionship; and the third\nis that which is produced by ties of hospitality. We call that natural\nfriendship which parents feel towards their offspring, and relations\ntowards one another; and this is partaken of by other animals besides\nmen. We call that the friendship of companionship which arises from a\nhabit of association, and which has no reference to ties of blood, such\nas the friendship of Pylades for Orestes. That which arises from ties\nof hospitality is one which owes its origin to agreements, and which is\ncarried on by means of letters between strangers. There is, therefore,\nnatural friendship, and friendship between companions, and between\nstrangers. Some also add a fourth kind, namely, the friendship of love.\n\nXLVII. Of political constitutions there are five species. There is one\nkind which is democratical, a second which is aristocratical, a third is\noligarchical, a fourth monarchical, and the fifth is tyrannical. Now,\nthe democratical form of constitution exists in those cities in which\nthe multitude has the chief power, and elects magistrates, and passes\nlaws at its own pleasure. But an aristocracy is that form in which\nneither the rich, nor the poor, nor the most illustrious men of the\ncity rule, but the most nobly born have the chief sway. And oligarchy is\nthat constitution in which the magistracies are distributed according\nto some sort of rating: for the rich are fewer in number than the poor.\nThe monarchical constitution is either dependent on law or on family.\nThat in Carthage depends on law; that in Lac\u00e6demon and Macedonia on\nfamily; for they select their sovereign out of some particular family.\nBut a tyranny is that kind of government in which the people are either\ncajoled or constrained into being governed by a single individual. Forms\nof government then, are divided into democracy, aristocracy, oligarchy,\nmonarchy, and tyranny.\n\nXLVIII. Again, of justice there are three species. For there is one kind\nwhich is conversant with the gods; a second which has reference to men;\nand a third, which concerns the dead. For they who sacrifice according to\nthe laws, and who pay due respect to the temples, are manifestly pious\nto the gods. And those who repay what has been lent to them, and restore\nwhat has been deposited with them, act justly as to men. And those who\npay due respect to the tombs, clearly are pious towards the dead. There\nis, therefore, one justice towards the Gods, a second towards men, and a\nthird towards the dead.\n\nXLIX. In the same way, there are also three species of knowledge. There\nis one kind which is practical, a second which is productive, a third\nwhich is theoretical. For the science of building houses or ships, is\nproduction. For one can see the work which is produced by it. Political\nscience, and the science of playing the flute, or the harp, or such\nthings as that, is practical; for one cannot see any visible result which\nhas been produced by them, and yet they are doing something. For one man\nplays the flute or plays the harp, and another occupies himself with\nstate affairs. Again, geometrical, and harmonic, and astronomical science\nare all theoretical, for they do nothing, and produce nothing. But the\ngeometrician theorizes as to what relation lines bear to one another; and\nthe harmonist speculates about sounds, and the astronomer about stars and\nabout the world. Accordingly, of sciences some are theoretical, others\nproductive, and a third species is practical.\n\nL. Of medical science there are five species: one, pharmaceutical; a\nsecond, manual; a third, conversant about the regulation of the manner\nof life, and the diet; a fourth, the business of which is to detect\ndiseases; and the fifth is remedial. The pharmaceutical relieves\ninfirmities by means of medicines; the manual heals men by cutting and\ncauterizing; the one which attends to the diet, gets rid of diseases\nby altering and regulating the diet; the fourth produces its effects\nby a thorough comprehension of the nature of the disease; and the last\nrelieves men from suffering by bringing prompt assistance at the moment.\nMedical science, then, is divided into the pharmaceutical, the manual,\nthe dietetic, the diagnostic, and the remedial.\n\nLI. Of law there are two divisions. For there is a written and an\nunwritten law. The one by which we regulate our constitutions in our\ncities, is the written law; that which arises from custom, is the\nunwritten law. As, for instance, for a man to come naked into the market\nplace, or to wear woman\u2019s clothes, are actions which are not prohibited\nby any law, and yet we never do them because they are forbidden by the\nunwritten law. Law, therefore, is divided into the written and the\nunwritten law.\n\nLII. Discourse is divided into five heads; one of which heads is that\nwhich statesmen employ when they speak in the public assemblies; and\nthis is called political. Another division is that which orators use in\ntheir written harangues, and bring forward for the sake of display in\npanegyrics or reproaches, or impeachments. And such a description of\ndiscourse as this is the rhetorical. A third class is that which private\nindividuals use when conversing with one another. This is called private\ndiscourse. Another kind is that which is employed when men converse\nby means of putting short questions and giving brief answers to those\nwho question them. This is called the dialectic kind of discourse.\nThe fifth division is that which artists adopt when conversing on\ntheir own particular art, and this is called professional discourse.\nThus discourse, then, is divided into political, rhetorical, private,\ndialectic, and professional.\n\nLIII. Music again is divided into three species. For there is the music\nof the mouth alone, such as song; secondly, there is the music which is\nperformed by the hands and mouth together, such as singing to the harp;\nthirdly, there is that which is executed by the hands alone, such as harp\nplaying. Music, therefore, is divided into music of the mouth, music of\nthe mouth and hands, and music of the hands.\n\nLIV. Nobleness of birth is divided into four species; the first is when\none\u2019s ancestors are noble, and valiant, and just; in which case they\nsay that their posterity are nobly born. The second kind is when one\u2019s\nancestors have been princes and rulers of nations, and their posterity\nalso we call noble. Another kind is when one\u2019s ancestors have been\ndistinguished for personal renown, such, for instance, as is gained by\ngeneralship or by victory at the games. For their offspring also we\naddress as nobly born. And the last kind is when a man is himself noble\nin his spirit, and magnanimous. For that man also we call noble, and this\nis the last kind of nobility. There is, therefore, nobility arising from\nvirtuous ancestors, from royal ancestors, from illustrious ancestors, and\nfrom one\u2019s own excellent qualities.\n\nLV. Beauty also is divided into three kinds. For there is one kind\nwhich is praiseworthy, as that of a beautiful face. Another which is\nuseful, as an instrument or a house, and things of that kind which are\nbeautiful, with reference to our use of them. There is also a beauty with\nreference to laws, and habits, and things of that kind, which is likewise\nbeautiful, because of its utility. So that beauty again is looked at in\nthree ways, with reference to its praise, its utility, and to our use of\nit.\n\nLVI. The soul is divided into three parts; for one part of it is capable\nof reason, another is influenced by appetite, the third part is liable to\npassion. Of these the reasoning part is the cause of deliberating, and\nreasoning, and understanding, and everything of that kind. The appetite\npart is that portion of the soul which is the cause of desiring to eat,\nand to embrace and things of that kind. The passionate part is the cause\nof men feeling confidence and delight, and grief and anger. The soul\ntherefore is divided into the reasoning part, the appetitive part, and\nthe passionate part.\n\nLVII. Of perfect virtue there are four species. One is prudence, one is\njustice, the third is manly gallantry, and the fourth is temperance.\nOf these, prudence is the cause of a man acting rightly in affairs;\njustice is the cause of his acting justly in partnerships and bargains;\nmanly gallantry is the cause of a man\u2019s not being alarmed amid dangers\nand formidable circumstances, but standing firm; and temperance is the\ncause of his subduing his appetites, and being enslaved by no pleasure,\nbut living decorously. So that virtue is divided into prudence, justice,\nmanly gallantry, and temperance.\n\nLVIII. Rule is divided into five parts. One is rule according to law;\nanother is rule according to nature; a third kind is rule according to\ncustom; a fourth division is rule with reference to family; the fifth is\nrule by force. Now when the rulers in cities are elected by the citizens,\nthen they rule according to law; those who rule according to nature are\nthe males, not only among men, but also among all other animals; for\neverywhere we shall find it as a general rule that the male rules the\nfemale; the rule of him who rules according to custom is such as this,\nwhen schoolmasters rule their pupils, and teachers their disciples. Rule\naccording to family is that which prevails in places like Laced\u00e6mon,\nwhere hereditary sovereigns reign. For the kingdom there belongs to a\ncertain family; and in Macedonia they rule on the same principle. For\nthere, too, the kingdom depends on family. But those who rule by force,\nonly cajoling the citizens, rule in spite of them; and such a sway is\ncalled rule by force. So that there is rule by law, and by nature, and by\ncustom, and by family, and by force.\n\nLIX. Of rhetoric he speaks of six species. For when orators exhort the\npeople to make war upon or to form alliances against any one, this\nspecies of oratory is called exhortation. When they persuade the people\nnot to make war, or to form alliances, but to keep quiet, this kind of\nrhetoric is called dissuasion. The third species of rhetoric, is when any\none says that he has been injured by some one else, and impeaches that\nperson as guilty of many crimes; for this species is called accusation.\nThe fourth kind of rhetoric is called defence, when a man shows that he\nhas done no wrong, and that he is not guilty of anything out of the way.\nSuch a kind of speech they call a defence. The fifth species of rhetoric,\nis when any one speaks well of another, and shows him to be virtuous and\nhonourable; and this kind is called encomium. The sixth species, is when\nany one shows that another person is worthless; and this kind is called\nblame. So that rhetoric is divided into encomium and blame, exhortation\nand dissuasion, accusation and defence.\n\nSpeaking correctly is divided under four heads. One, the saying what is\nright; one, the saying as much as is right; thirdly, the saying it to the\nproper people; and fourthly, the saying it at the proper time. Now as to\nthe saying what is right, that is the saying what will be advantageous\nboth to the speaker and to the hearer. The saying as much as is right, is\nsaying neither more nor less than what is sufficient. The saying it to\nthe proper people, is supposing one is speaking to one\u2019s elders who are\nmistaken in any point, the using expressions proper to be addressed to\nthose older than one\u2019s self; or, on the other hand, if one is addressing\nthose younger, then the using language such as is suitable to young\npeople. The saying it at the proper time, is speaking neither too soon\nnor too late; for if one does, one will err and speak improperly.\n\nLX. Beneficence is divided under four heads. For it may be exerted\neither in money, or by personal exertion, or by knowledge, or by words.\nIn money when any one assists those who are in want, so as to put them\nat ease with respect to money. And men benefit one another by personal\nexertion when they come upon those who are being beaten and assist them.\nAgain, those who instruct, or heal, or who teach any good thing, benefit\nothers by their knowledge; and when one person comes down to the court\nof justice as an advocate for another, and delivers some speech full of\nsense and good feeling in his behalf, that man assists his friend by\nwords. So that there is one beneficence which is displayed in money,\nanother in personal exertion, a third by means of knowledge, and the\nfourth kind by words.\n\nLXI. Again, Plato divides the end of all affairs into four species. An\naffair has one end in accordance with law, when a decree is passed, and\nwhen the law establishes it; it has an end in accordance with nature,\nwhen it is such a thing as a day, or a year, or the seasons. It has an\nend according to art, when it is architecture for instance, for a man\nbuilds a house; or when it is ship-building, for it makes a ship. And\naffairs also come to an end by chance, when they turn out differently\nfrom what any one expected. So that an end of an affair is regulated\neither by law, or by nature, or by art, or by chance.\n\nLXII. Power again is divided into four species. There is one power which\nwe possess by our ability to reason and form conceptions by means of our\nintellect. There is another power which we owe to the body, such as the\npower of walking, or giving, or taking, and such like. There is a third\nwhich we possess through the multitude of soldiers or riches, on which\naccount a king is said to have great power. And the fourth division of\npower consists in the being well or ill treated, and treating others well\nor ill; as, for instance, we may be sick, or we may be taught, or we may\nbe in vigorous health, and many more cases of that sort. So that one kind\nof power dwells in the intellect, another in the body, another in an army\nand riches, and another in our capacity as agents or patients.\n\nLXIII. Of philanthropy there are three sorts. One which is displayed\nin addressing people, when some persons address every one whom they\nmeet, and give them their right hand, and greet them heartily; another\nspecies is when one is disposed to assist every one who is unfortunate.\nThe last kind is that sort of philanthropy which makes men pleasant\nboon companions. So that there is one kind of philanthropy displayed in\naddressing people, another in benefiting them, and a third in feasting\nand making merry with them.\n\nLXIV. Happiness is divided into five parts. For one part of it is wisdom\nin counsel; another is a healthy condition of the sensations and general\nhealth of body; a third is good fortune in one\u2019s affairs; a fourth kind\nis good reputation among men; a fifth is abundance of riches and of all\nthose things which are useful in life. Now wisdom in counsel arises from\ngood instruction, and from a person\u2019s having experience of many things.\nA healthy condition of the sensations depends on the limbs of the body;\nas, for instance, when one sees with one\u2019s eyes, and hears with one\u2019s\nears, and smells with one\u2019s nose, and feels with one\u2019s body, just what\none ought to see, and hear, and smell, and feel. Such a condition as\nthis is a healthy condition. And good fortune is when a man does rightly\nand successfully what a good and energetic man ought to do. And good\nreputation is when a man is well spoken of. And abundance of riches is\nwhen a man has such a sufficiency of everything which relates to the uses\nof life, that he is able to benefit his friends, and to discharge all\npublic obligations in a splendid and liberal manner. And the man who has\nall these different parts of happiness, is a perfectly happy man. So\nthat happiness is made up of wisdom in counsel, a good condition of the\nsensations and health of body, good fortune, good reputation, and riches.\n\nLXV. The arts are divided into three kinds. The first, the second, and\nthe third. The first are those of working mines and cutting wood, for\nthese are preparatory arts. The second are such as working metals and\ncarpentry, for they are alterative arts. For working in metals makes arms\nout of iron; and carpentry makes flutes and lyres out of wood. The third\nis the art which makes use of instruments; such as horsemanship, which\nuses bridles; the military art, which uses arms; music, which uses flutes\nand lyres. So that there are three species of art; one of which is the\nfirst, another the second, and another the third.\n\nLXVI. Good is divided into four kinds. One of which we mean when we speak\nof a man endowed with private virtue, as good; another kind is that which\nwe indicate, when we call virtue and justice, good. A third kind is that\nwhich we attribute to suitable food, and exercise, and medicine. The\nfourth good, is that which we mean, when we speak of good flute playing,\ngood acting, and things of that sort. There are therefore four kinds of\ngood. One the having virtue; another, virtue itself; a third, useful food\nand exercise; and fourthly, we call skill in flute playing and acting,\ngood.\n\nLXVII. Of things existing, some are bad, some good, and some neither\none thing nor the other. Of these, we call those things bad, which\nare invariably capable of doing injury, such as intemperance, folly,\ninjustice, and things of that sort. And the opposites to these qualities\nare good. But those things, which may at times be beneficial, and at\ntimes injurious, such as walking, sitting down, and eating; or which have\nabsolutely no power in any case to benefit or injure any one; these are\nneither bad nor good. Of things existing then, there are some bad, and\nsome good, and some of a neutral character, neither bad nor good.\n\nLXVIII. A good state of affairs with reference to the laws, is divided\nunder three heads. One when the laws are good, for that is a good state\nof affairs; so too is it, when the citizens abide by the existing laws;\nand the third case is, when although there are no positive laws,\nstill men are good citizens in deference to custom and to established\ninstitutions; and this is also called a good state of affairs. So that\nof these three heads, one depends on the laws being good, another on\nobedience to existing laws, and the third on men yielding to good customs\nand institutions.\n\nSo again, lawlessness is divided into three heads. One of which is,\nwhen the laws are bad, both as concerns strangers, and the citizens;\nanother, when the citizens do not obey the laws that are established; and\nthe third is when there is actually no law at all. So that one kind of\nlawlessness arises from bad laws, another from disobedience to existing\nlaws, and the third from the absence of laws.\n\nLXIX. Contraries are of three sorts; for instance, we say that good\nis contrary to evil, as justice to injustice, wisdom to folly, and so\non. Again, some evils are contrary to others, as extravagance is to\nstinginess, and the being tortured with justice to the being tortured\nwith injustice. And such evils as these are the contraries of other\nevils. Again, the heavy is contrary to the light, the swift to the slow,\nthe black to the white; so that some things which are of a neutral\ncharacter, neither good nor evil, are contrary to other things of a\nneutral character. Of contraries then, there are some which are so, as\nwhat is good is contrary to what is evil; others, as one evil is contrary\nto another; and others again, as neutral things are contrary to other\nthings of a neutral character.\n\nLXX. Of good things there are three kinds; for there are some which can\nbe possessed; others, which can be shared; others, which one realizes\nin one\u2019s self. Those which can be possessed, are those which it is\npossible for a person to have, such as justice, or good health; those\ncan be shared, which it is not possible for a person to have entirely\nto himself, but which he may participate in; as for instance, a person\ncannot be the sole possessor of abstract good, but he may participate in\nit. Those again a person realizes in himself, when they are such, that\nhe cannot possess them himself, or share them with others, and yet they\nought to exist; as for instance, it is good to be virtuous and just, but\nyet a man does not possess the being virtuous, or participate in it;\nbut the being virtuous and just ought to exist in him. Of good things,\ntherefore, there are those which are possessed, those which are shared,\nand those which ought to exist in a man.\n\nLXXI. In the same manner, good counsel is divisible into three kinds.\nFor there is one kind which is derived from past time, another from the\nfuture, another from the present. That which is derived from past time is\nmade up of instances, as for instance what the Laced\u00e6monians suffered by\ntrusting to such and such people. That which relates to the present, is\nwhen what is wanted, is to show that the fortifications are weak, the men\ncowardly, or the provisions scanty. That which concerns the future, is\nwhen the speaker urges that no injury ought to be offered to ambassadors,\nin order that Greece may not get an evil reputation; and supports his\nargument by instances. So that good counsel has reference, firstly to\nwhat is past, secondly to what is present, and thirdly to the future.\n\nLXXII. Voice is divided into two parts, one of which is animated, and the\nother inanimate. That is animated, which proceeds from living animals,\nwhile sounds and echoes are inanimate. Again, animated voice may be\ndivided into that which can be indicated by letters, and that which\ncannot; that which can be so indicated being the voice of men, and that\nwhich cannot being the voice of animals; so that one kind of voice is\nanimated, the other inanimate.\n\nLXXIII. Of existing things, some are divisible and some indivisible.\nAgain, those which are divisible, consist either of similar or of\ndissimilar parts. Those which are indivisible are such as have no\nseparate parts, and are not formed by any combination, such as unity,\na point, or a sound. But those are divisible which are formed by some\ncombination; as, for instance, syllables, and symphonies, and animals,\nand water, and gold. These too consist of similar parts, which are made\nup of particles resembling one another, and of which the whole does\nnot differ from any part, except in number. As for instance, water and\ngold, and everything which is fusible, and so on. And these consist of\ndissimilar parts, which are made up of various things not resembling one\nanother; as for instance, a house, and things of that sort; so that of\nexisting things, some are divisible and others indivisible. And of those\nwhich are divisible, some consist of similar and others of dissimilar\nparts.\n\nLXXIV. Again, of existing things, some are spoken of as having an\nindependent, and some only a relative existence. Those which are spoken\nof as having an independent existence, are those which require nothing\nelse to be added to them, when we are explaining their nature; as man, a\nhorse, and the other animals; for these have no need of any additional\nexplanation. But those things are said to have a relative existence which\ndo require some additional explanation. As for instance, that which is\ngreater than something else, or less, or swifter, or more beautiful,\nand so on. For that which is greater, is greater than something which\nis less; and that which is swifter, is swifter than something else. So\nthat, of existing things, some are spoken of as independently, and other\nrelatively. And thus he divided them at first, according to Aristotle.\n\nLXXV. There was also another man of the name of Plato, a philosopher of\nRhodes, a disciple of Pan\u00e6tius, as Seleucus, the grammarian says in the\nfirst book of his treatise on Philosophy; and another was a Peripatetic,\na pupil of Aristotle; and there was a third, a pupil of Praxiphanes; and\nthere was besides all these, the poet of the Old Comedy.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV.\n\n\nLIFE OF SPEUSIPPUS.\n\nI. The long account which I have given of Plato was compiled to the best\nof my power, and in it I collected with great zeal and industry all that\nwas reported of the man.\n\nII. And he was succeeded by Speusippus, the son of Eurymedon, and a\ncitizen of Athens, of the Myrrhinusian burgh, and he was the son of\nPlato\u2019s sister Potone.\n\nIII. He presided over his school for eight years, beginning to do so in\nthe hundred and eighth olympiad. And he set up images of the Graces in\nthe temple of the Muses, which had been built in the Academy by Plato.\n\nIV. And he always adhered to the doctrines which had been adopted by\nPlato, though he was not of the same disposition as he. For he was a\npassionate man, and a slave to pleasure. Accordingly, they say that\nhe once in a rage threw a puppy into a well; and that for the sake of\namusement, he went all the way to Macedonia to the marriage of Cassander.\n\nV. The female pupils of Plato, Lasthenea of Mantinea, and Axiothea\nof Phlius, are said to have become disciples of Speusippus also. And\nDionysius, writing to him in a petulant manner, says, \u201cAnd one may learn\nphilosophy too from your female disciple from Arcadia; moreover, Plato\nused to take his pupils without exacting any fee from them; but you\ncollect tribute from yours, whether willing or unwilling.\u201d\n\nVI. He was the first man, as Diodorus relates in the first book of his\nCommentaries, who investigated in his school what was common to the\nseveral sciences; and who endeavoured, as far as possible, to maintain\ntheir connection with each other. He was also the first who published\nthose things which Isocrates called secrets, as C\u00e6neus tells us. And the\nfirst too who found out how to make light baskets of bundles of twigs.\n\nVII. But he became afflicted with paralysis, and sent to Xenocrates\ninviting him to come to him, and to become his successor in his school.\n\nVIII. And they say that once, when he was being borne in a carriage into\nthe Academy, he met Diogenes, and said, \u201cHail;\u201d and Diogenes replied, \u201cI\nwill not say hail to you, who, though in such a state as you are, endure\nto live.\u201d\n\nIX. And at last in despair he put an end to his life, being a man of a\ngreat age. And we have written this epigram on him:\u2014\n\n Had I not known Speusippus thus had died,\n No one would have persuaded me that he\n Was e\u2019er akin to Plato; who would never\n Have died desponding for so slight a grief.\n\nBut Plutarch, in his Life of Lysander, and again in his Life of Sylla,\nsays that he was kept in a state of constant inflammation by lice. For\nhe was of a weak habit of body, as Timotheus relates in his treatise on\nLives.\n\nX. Speusippus said to a rich man who was in love with an ugly woman,\n\u201cWhat do you want with her? I will find you a much prettier woman for ten\ntalents.\u201d\n\nXI. He left behind him a great number of commentaries, and many\ndialogues; among which was one on Aristippus; one on Riches; one on\nPleasure; one on Justice; one on Philosophy; one on Friendship; one\non the Gods; one called the Philosopher; one addressed to Cephalus;\none called Cephalus; one called Clinomachus, or Lysias; one called\nthe Citizen; one on the Soul; one addressed to Gryllus; one called\nAristippus; one called the Test of Art. There were also Commentaries by\nway of dialogues; one on Art; and ten about those things which are alike\nin their treatment. There are also books of divisions and arguments\ndirected to similar things; Essays on the Genera and Species of Examples;\nan Essay addressed to Amartyrus; a Panegyric on Plato; Letters to Dion,\nand Dionysius, and Philip; an Essay on Legislation. There is also, the\nMathematician; the Mandrobulus; the Lysias; Definitions; and a series of\nCommentaries. There are in all, forty-three thousand four hundred and\nseventy-five lines.\n\nSimonides dedicated to him the Histories, in which he had related the\nactions of Dion and Bion. And in the second book of his Commentaries,\nPhavorinus states that Aristotle purchased his books for three talents.\n\nXII. There was also another person of the name of Speusippus, a physician\nof the school of Herophilus,[34] a native of Alexandria.\n\n\nLIFE OF XENOCRATES.\n\nI. Xenocrates was the son of Agathenor, and a native of Chalcedon. From\nhis early youth he was a pupil of Plato, and also accompanied him in his\nvoyages to Sicily.\n\nII. He was by nature of a lazy disposition, so that they say that Plato\nsaid once, when comparing him to Aristotle,\u2014\u201cThe one requires the spur,\nand the other the bridle.\u201d And on another occasion, he said, \u201cWhat a\nhorse and what an ass am I dressing opposite to one another!\u201d\n\nIII. In other respects Xenocrates was always of a solemn and grave\ncharacter, so that Plato was continually saying to him,\u2014\u201cXenocrates,\nsacrifice to the Graces.\u201d And he spent the greater part of his time in\nthe Academy, and whenever he was about to go into the city, they say\nall the turbulent and quarrelsome rabble in the city used to make way\nfor him to pass by. And once, Phryne the courtesan wished to try him\nand pretending that she was pursued by some people, she fled and took\nrefuge in his house; and he admitted her indeed, because of what was\ndue to humanity; and as there was but one bed in the room, he, at her\nentreaty, allowed her to share it with him; but at last, in spite of\nall her entreaties, she got up and went away, without having been able\nto succeed in her purpose; and told those who asked her, that she had\nquitted a statue and not a man. But some say that the real story is, that\nhis pupils put Lais into his bed, and that he was so continent, that he\nsubmitted to some severe operations of excision and cautery.\n\nIV. And he was a very trustworthy man; so that, though it was not lawful\nfor men to give evidence except on oath, the Athenians made an exception\nin his favour alone.\n\nV. He was also a man of the most contented disposition; accordingly\nthey say that when Alexander sent him a large sum of money, he took\nthree thousand Attic drachmas, and sent back the rest, saying, that\nAlexander wanted most, as he had the greatest number of mouths to feed.\nAnd when some was sent him by Antipater, he would not accept any of it,\nas Myronianus tells us in his Similitudes. And once, when he gained a\ngolden crown, in a contest as to who could drink most, which was offered\nin the yearly festival of the Choes by Dionysius, he went out and placed\nthe crown at the feet of the statue of Mercury, which was at the gate,\nwhere he was also accustomed to deposit his garlands of flowers. It is\nsaid also, that he was once sent with some colleagues as an ambassador to\nPhilip; and that they were won over by gifts, and went to his banquets\nand conversed with Philip; but that he would do none of these things,\nnor could Philip propitiate him by these means; on which account, when\nthe other ambassadors arrived in Athens, they said that Xenocrates had\ngone with them to no purpose; and the people were ready to punish him;\nbut when they had learnt from him that they had now more need than ever\nto look to the welfare of their city, for that Philip had already bribed\nall their counsellors, but that he had been unable to win him over by any\nmeans, then they say that the people honoured him with redoubled honour.\nThey add also, that Philip said afterwards, that Xenocrates was the only\none of those who had come to him who was incorruptible. And when he went\nas ambassador to Antipater on the subject of the Athenian captives at the\ntime of the Samian war, and was invited by him to a banquet, he addressed\nhim in the following lines:\u2014\n\n I answer, Goddess human, is thy breast\n By justice sway\u2019d, by tender pity prest?\n Ill fits it me, whose friends are sunk to beasts,\n To quaff thy bowls, or riot in thy feasts:\n Me would\u2019st thou please, for them thy cares employ,\n And them to me restore, and me to joy?[35]\n\nAnd Antipater, admiring the appropriateness of the quotation, immediately\nreleased them.\n\nVI. On one occasion, when a sparrow was pursued by a hawk, and flew into\nhis bosom, he caressed it, and let it go again, saying that we ought\nnot to betray a suppliant. And being ridiculed by Bion, he said that he\nwould not answer him, for that tragedy, when ridiculed by comedy, did\nnot condescend to make a reply. To one who had never learnt music, or\ngeometry, or astronomy, but who wished to become his disciple, he said,\n\u201cBe gone, for you have not yet the handles of philosophy.\u201d But some say\nthat he said, \u201cBe gone, for I do not card wool here.\u201d And when Dionysius\nsaid to Plato that some one would cut off his head, he, being present,\nshowed his own, and said, \u201cNot before they have cut off mine.\u201d\n\nVII. They say too that once, when Antipater had come to Athens and\nsaluted him, he would not make him any reply before he had finished\nquietly the discourse which he was delivering.\n\nVIII. Being exceedingly devoid of every kind of pride, he often used to\nmeditate with himself several times a day; and always allotted one hour\nof each day, it is said, to silence.\n\nIX. And he left behind him a great number of writings, and books of\nrecommendation, and verses, which are these,\u2014six books on Natural\nPhilosophy; six on Wisdom; one on Riches, the Arcadian; one volume on\nthe Indefinite; one on a Child; one on Temperance; one on the Useful;\none on the Free; one on Death; one on the Voluntary; two on Friendship;\none on Courtesy; two on Contraries; two on Happiness; one on Writing;\none on Memory; one on Falsehood; the Callicles one; two on Prudence; one\non \u0152conomy; one on Temperance; one on the Power of Law; one on Political\nConstitutions; one on Piety; one to show that Virtue may be transmitted;\none about the Existent; one on Fate; one on the Passions; one on Lives;\none on Unanimity; two on Pupils; one on Justice; two on Virtue; one on\nSpecies; two on Pleasure; one on Life; one on Manly Courage; one on The\nOne; one on Ideas; one on Art; two on the Gods; two on the Soul; one on\nKnowledge; one on the Statesman; one on Science; one on Philosophy; one\non the School of Parmenides; one the Archedemus, or an essay on Justice;\none on the Good; eight of those things which concern the Intellect;\nten essays in solution of the difficulties which occur respecting\nOrations; six books on the study of Natural Philosophy; the Principal,\none; one treatise on Genus and Species; one on the doctrines of the\nPythagoreans; two books of Solutions; seven of Divisions; several volumes\nof Propositions; several also about the method of conducting Discussions.\nBesides all this, there are one set of fifteen volumes, and another of\nsixteen, on the subject of those studies which relate to Speaking; nine\nmore which treat of Ratiocination; six books on Mathematics; two more\nbooks on subjects connected with the Intellect; five books on Geometry;\none book of Reminiscences; one of Contraries; one on Arithmetic; one on\nthe Contemplation of Numbers; one on Intervals; six on Astronomy; four of\nelementary suggestions to Alexander, on the subject of Royal Power; one\naddressed to Arybas; one addressed to Heph\u00e6stion; two on Geometry; seven\nbooks of Verses.\n\nX. But the Athenians, though he was such a great man, once sold him,\nbecause he was unable to pay the tax to which the metics were liable.\nAnd Demetrius Phalereus purchased him, and so assisted both parties,\nXenocrates by giving him his freedom, and the Athenians in respect of the\ntax upon metics. This circumstance is mentioned by Myronianus of Amastra,\nin the first book of his chapters of Historical Coincidences.\n\nXI. He succeeded Speusippus, and presided over the school for twenty-five\nyears, beginning at the archonship of Lysimachides, in the second year of\nthe hundred and tenth olympiad.\n\nXII. And he died in consequence of stumbling by night against a dish,\nbeing more than eighty-two years of age. And in one of our epigrams we\nspeak thus of him:\u2014\n\n He struck against a brazen pot,\n And cut his forehead deep,\n And crying cruel is my lot,\n In death he fell asleep.\n So thus Xenocrates did fall,\n The universal friend of all.\n\nXIII. And there were five other people of the name of Xenocrates. One was\nan ancient tactician, a fellow citizen, and very near relation of the\nphilosopher of whom we have been speaking; and there is extant an oration\nof his which is scribed, On Arsinoe, and which was written on the death\nof Arsinoe. A third was a philosopher who wrote some very indifferent\nelegiac poetry; and that is not strange, for when poets take to writing\nin prose, they succeed pretty well; but when prose writers try their hand\nat poetry, they fail; from which it is plain, that the one is a gift of\nnature, and the other a work of art. The fourth was a statuary; the fifth\na writer of songs, as we are told by Aristoxenus.\n\n\nLIFE OF POLEMO.\n\nI. Polemo was the son of Philostratus, an Athenian, of the burgh of \u0152a.\nAnd when he was young, he was so very intemperate and profligate, that\nhe used always to carry money about with him, to procure the instant\ngratification of his passions; and he used also to hide money in the\nnarrow alleys, for this purpose. And once there was found in the Academy\na piece of three obols, hidden against one of the columns, which he had\nput there for some purpose like that which I have indicated; and on one\noccasion he arranged beforehand with some young men, and rushed, adorned\nwith a garland, and drunk, into the school of Xenocrates. But he took no\nnotice of him, and continued his discourse as he had begun it, and it was\nin praise of temperance; and the young man, hearing it, was gradually\ncharmed, and became so industrious, that he surpassed all the rest of the\ndisciples, and himself became the successor of Xenocrates, in his school\nbeginning in the hundred and sixteenth olympiad.\n\nII. And Antigonus, of Carystus, says in his Lives, that his father had\nbeen the chief man of the city, and had kept chariots for the Olympic\ngames.\n\nIII. He also asserts that Polemo was prosecuted by his wife, on the\ncharge of ill-treatment, because he indulged in illicit pleasures, and\ndespised her.\n\nIV. But that when he began to devote himself to philosophy, he adopted\nsuch a rigorous system of morals, that he for the future always continued\nthe same in appearance, and never even changed his voice, on which\naccount Crantor was charmed by him. Accordingly, on one occasion, when a\ndog was mad and had bitten his leg, he was the only person who did not\nturn pale; and once, when there was a great confusion in the city, he,\nhaving heard the cause, remained where he was without fleeing. In the\ntheatres too he was quite immoveable; accordingly, when Nicostratus the\npoet, who was surnamed Clyt\u00e6mnestra, was once reading something to him\nand Crates, the latter was excited to sympathy, he behaved as though he\nheard nothing. And altogether, he was such as Melanthius, the painter,\ndescribes in his treatise on Painting; for he says that some kind of\nobstinacy and harshness ought to exist in works of art as in morals.\n\nAnd Polemo used to say that a man ought to exercise himself in action,\nand not in dialectic speculations, as if one had drunk in and dwelt\nupon a harmonious kind of system of art, so as to be admired for one\u2019s\nshrewdness, in putting questions; but to be inconsistent with one\u2019s self\nin character. He was, then, a well-bred and high-spirited man, avoiding\nwhat Aristophanes says of Euripides, speeches of vinegar and assaf\u0153tida,\nsuch as he says himself:\u2014\n\n Are base delights compared with better things?\n\nV. And he did not use to lecture on the propositions before him while\nsitting down; but he would walk about, it is said, and so discuss them.\nAnd he was much honoured in the city because of his noble sentiments;\nand after he had been walking about, he would rest in his garden; and\nhis pupils erected little cabins near it, and dwelt near his school and\ncorridor.\n\nVI. And as it seems, Polemo imitated Xenocrates in everything; and\nAristippus, in the fourth book of his treatise on Ancient Luxury, says\nthat Xenocrates loved him; at all events, Polemo used to be always\nspeaking of him, and praising his guileless nature, and his rigorous\nvirtues, and his chaste severity, like that of a Doric building.\n\nVII. He was also very fond of Sophocles, and especially of those passages\nwhere, according to one of the comic poets, he seemed to have had a\nMolossian hound for his colleague in composing his poems; and when there\nwas, to use the expression of Phrynichus:\u2014\n\n No sweet or washy liquor, but purest Pramnian wine.\n\nAnd he used to say that Homer was an epic Sophocles, and Sophocles a\ntragic Homer.\n\nVIII. And he died when he was very old, of decline, having left behind\nhim a great number of writings. And there is this epigram of ours upon\nhim:\u2014\n\n Do you not hear, we\u2019ve buried Polemo,\n Whom sickness, worst affliction of mankind\n Attacked, and bore off to the shades below;\n Yet Polemo lies not here, but Polemo\u2019s body\n And that he did himself place here on earth,\n Prepared in soul to mount up to the skies.\n\n\nLIFE OF CRATES.\n\nI. Crates was the son of Antigenes, and of the Thriasian burgh, and\na pupil and attached friend of Polemo. He was also his successor as\npresident of his school.\n\nII. And they benefited one another so much, that not only did they\ndelight while alive in the same pursuits, but almost to their latest\nbreath did they resemble one another, and even after they were both dead\nthey shared the same tomb. In reference to which circumstance Antagoras\nhas written an epigram on the pair, in which he expresses himself thus:\u2014\n\n Stranger, who passest by, relate that here\n The God-like Crates lies, and Polemo;\n Two men of kindred nobleness of mind;\n Out of whose holy mouths pure wisdom flowed,\n And they with upright lives did well display,\n The strength of all their principles and teaching.\n\nAnd they say too that it was in reference to this that Arcesilaus, when\nhe came over to them from Theophrastus, said that they were some gods,\nor else a remnant of the golden race; for they were not very fond of\ncourting the people, but had a disposition in accordance with the saying\nof Dionysodorus the flute player, who is reported to have said, with\ngreat exultation and pride, that no one had ever heard his music in a\ntrireme or at a fountain as they had heard Ismenius.\n\nIII. Antigonus relates that he used to be a messmate of Crantor, and that\nthese philosophers and Arcesilaus lived together; and that Arcesilaus\nlived in Crantor\u2019s house, but that Polemo and Crates lived in the house\nof one of the citizens, named Lysicles; and he says that Crates was,\nas I have already mentioned, greatly attached to Polemo, and so was\nArcesilaus to Crantor.\n\nIV. But when Crates died, as Apollodorus relates in the third book of\nhis Chronicles, he left behind him compositions, some on philosophical\nsubjects and some on comedy, and some which were speeches addressed to\nassemblies of the people, or delivered on the occasion of embassies.\n\nV. He also left behind him some eminent disciples, among whom were\nArcesilaus, about whom we shall speak presently, for he too was a\npupil of his, and Bion of the Borysthenes, who was afterwards called a\nTheodorean, from the sect which he espoused, and we shall speak of him\nimmediately after Arcesilaus.\n\nVI. But there were ten people of the name of Crates. The first was a\npoet of the old comedy; the second was an orator of Tralles, a pupil of\nIsocrates; the third was an engineer who served under Alexander; the\nfourth a Cynic, whom we shall mention hereafter; the fifth a Peripatetic\nphilosopher; the sixth the Academic philosopher, of whom we are speaking;\nthe seventh a grammarian of Malos; the eighth a writer in geometry; the\nninth an epigrammatic poet; the tenth was an Academic philosopher, a\nnative of Tarsus.\n\n\nLIFE OF CRANTOR.\n\nI. Crantor, a native of Soli, being admired very greatly in his own\ncountry, came to Athens and became a pupil of Xenocrates at the same time\nwith Polemo.\n\nII. And he left behind him memorials, in the shape of writings, to the\nnumber of 30,000 lines, some of which, however, are by some writers\nattributed to Arcesilaus.\n\nIII. They say of him that when he was asked what it was that he was so\ncharmed with in Polemo, he replied, \u201cThat he had never heard him speak in\ntoo high or too low a key.\u201d\n\nIV. When he was ill he retired to the temple of \u00c6sculapius, and there\nwalked about, and people came to him from all quarters, thinking that he\nhad gone thither, not on account of any disease, but because he wished\nto establish a school there.\n\nV. And among those who came to him was Arcesilaus, wishing to be\nrecommended by him to Polemo, although he was much attached to him, as we\nshall mention in the life of Arcesilaus. But when he got well he became a\npupil of Polemo, and was excessively admired on that account. It is said,\nalso, that he left his property to Arcesilaus, to the amount of twelve\ntalents; and that, being asked by him where he would like to be buried,\nhe said:\u2014\n\n It is a happy fate to lie entombed\n In the recesses of a well-lov\u2019d land.\n\nVI. It is said also that he wrote poems, and that he sealed them up in\nthe temple of Minerva, in his own country; and The\u00e6tetus the poet wrote\nthus about him:\u2014\n\n Crantor pleased men; but greater pleasure still\n He to the Muses gave, ere he aged grew.\n Earth, tenderly embrace the holy man,\n And let him lie in quiet undisturb\u2019d.\n\nAnd of all writers, Crantor admired Homer and Euripides most; saying that\nthe hardest thing possible was to write tragically and in a manner to\nexcite sympathy, without departing from nature; and he used to quote this\nline out of the Bellerophon:\u2014\n\n Alas! why should I say alas! for we\n Have only borne the usual fate of man.\n\nThe following verses of Antagoras the poet are also attributed to\nCrantor; the subject is love, and they run thus:\u2014\n\n My mind is much perplexed; for what, O Love,\n Dare I pronounce your origin? May I\n Call you chiefest of the immortal Gods,\n Of all the children whom dark Erebus\n And Royal Night bore on the billowy waves\n Of widest Ocean? Or shall I bid you hail,\n As son of proudest Venus? or of Earth?\n Or of the untamed winds? so fierce you rove,\n Bringing mankind sad cares, yet not unmixed\n With happy good, so two-fold is your nature.\n\nAnd he was very ingenious at devising new words and expressions;\naccordingly, he said that one tragedian had an unhewn (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) voice,\nall over bark; and he said that the verses of a certain poet were full\nof moths; and that the propositions of Theophrastus had been written on\nan oyster shell. But the work of his which is most admired is his book on\nMourning.\n\nVII. And he died before Polemo and Crates, having been attacked by the\ndropsy; and we have written this epigram on him:\u2014\n\n The worst of sicknesses has overwhelmed you,\n O Crantor, and you thus did quit the earth,\n Descending to the dark abyss of Hell.\n Now you are happy there; but all the while\n The sad Academy, and your native land\n Of Soli mourn, bereaved of your eloquence.\n\n\nLIFE OF ARCESILAUS.\n\nI. Arcesilaus was the son of Seuthes or Scythes, as Apollodorus states in\nthe third book of his Chronicles, and a native of Pitane in \u00c6olia.\n\nII. He was the original founder of the Middle Academy, and the first man\nwho professed to suspend the declaration of his judgment, because of the\ncontrarieties of the reasons alleged on either side. He was likewise the\nfirst who attempted to argue on both sides of a question, and who also\nmade the method of discussion, which had been handed down by Plato, by\nmeans of question and answer, more contentious than before.\n\nIII. He met with Crantor in the following manner. He was one of four\nbrothers, two by the same father and two by the same mother. Of those\nwho were by the same mother the eldest was Pylades, and of those by the\nsame father the eldest was M\u0153reas, who was his guardian; and at first he\nwas a pupil of Autolycus the mathematician, who happened to be a fellow\ncitizen of his before he went to Athens; and with Autolycus he travelled\nas far as Sardis. After that he became a pupil of Xanthus the musician,\nand after that attended the lectures of Theophrastus, and subsequently\ncame over to the Academy to Crantor. For M\u0153reas his brother, whom I have\nmentioned before, urged him to apply himself to rhetoric; but he himself\nhad a preference for philosophy, and when he became much attached to him\nCrantor asked him, quoting a line out of the Andromeda of Euripides:\u2014\n\n O virgin, if I save you, will you thank me?\n\nAnd he replied by quoting the next line to it:\u2014\n\n O take me to you, stranger, as your slave,\n Or wife, or what you please.\n\nAnd ever after that they became very intimate, so that they say\nTheophrastus was much annoyed, and said, \u201cThat a most ingenious and\nwell-disposed young man had deserted his school.\u201d\n\nIV. For he was not only very impressive in his discourse, and displayed\na great deal of learning in it, but he also tried his hand at poetry,\nand there is extant an epigram which is attributed to him, addressed to\nAttalus, which is as follows:\u2014\n\n Pergamus is not famed for arms alone,\n But often hears its praise resound\n For its fine horses, at the holy Pisa.\n Yet, if a mortal may declare,\n Its fate as hidden in the breast of Jove,\n It will be famous for its woes.\n\nThere is another addressed to Menodorus the son of Eudamus, who was\nattached to one of his fellow pupils:\u2014\n\n Phrygia is a distant land, and so\n Is sacred Thyatira, and Cadanade,\n Your country Menodorus. But from all,\n As the unvaried song of bards relates,\n An equal road does lie to Acheron,\n That dark unmentioned river; so you lie\n Here far from home; and here Eudamus raises\n This tomb above your bones, for he did love you,\n Though you were poor, with an undying love.\n\nBut he admired Homer above all poets, and always used to read a portion\nof his works before going to sleep; and in the morning he would say that\nhe was going to the object of his love, when he was going to read him.\nHe said, too, that Pindar was a wonderful man for filling the voice, and\npouring forth an abundant variety of words and expressions. He also,\nwhen he was a young man, wrote a criticism on Ion.\n\nV. And he was a pupil likewise of Hipponicus, the geometrican whom\nhe used to ridicule on other points as being lazy and gaping; but he\nadmitted that in his own profession he was clear sighted enough, and said\nthat geometry had flown into his mouth while he was yawning. And when he\nwent out of his mind, he took him to his own house, and took care of him\ntill he recovered his senses.\n\nVI. And when Crates died, he succeeded him in the presidency of his\nschools, a man of the name of Socrates willingly yielding to him.\n\nVII. And as he suspended his judgment on every point, he never, as it is\nsaid, wrote one single book. But others say that he was once detected\ncorrecting some passages in a work of his; and some assert that he\npublished it, while others deny it, and affirm that he threw it into the\nfire.\n\nVIII. He seems to have been a great admirer of Plato, and he possessed\nall his writings. He also, according to some authorities, had a very high\nopinion of Pyrrho.\n\nIX. He also studied dialectics, and the discussions of the Eretrian\nschool; on which account Ariston said of him:\u2014\n\n First Plato comes, and Pyrrho last,\n And in the middle Diodorus.\n\nAnd Timon speaks thus of him:\u2014\n\n For having on this side the heavy load\n Of Menedemus plac\u2019d beneath his breast,\n He\u2019ll to stout Pyrrho run, or Diodorus.\n\nAnd presently afterwards he represents him as saying:\u2014\n\n I\u2019ll swim to Pyrrho, or that crooked sophist\n Called Diodorus.\n\nX. He was exceedingly fond of employing axioms, very concise in his\ndiction, and when speaking he laid an emphasis on each separate word.\n\nXI. He was also very fond of attacking others, and very free spoken, on\nwhich account Timon in another passage speaks of him thus:\u2014\n\n You\u2019ll not escape all notice while you thus\n Attack the young man with your biting sarcasm.\n\nOnce, when a young man was arguing against him with more boldness than\nusual, he said, \u201cWill no one stop his mouth with the knout?\u201d[36] And to\na man who lay under the general imputation of low debauchery, and who\nargued with him that one thing was not greater than another, he asked\nhim whether a cup holding two pints was not larger than one which held\nonly one. There was a certain Chian named Hemon, exceedingly ugly, but\nwho fancied himself good looking, and always went about in fine clothes;\nthis man asked him one day, \u201cIf he thought that a wise man could feel\nattachment to him;\u201d \u201cWhy should he not,\u201d said he, \u201cwhen they love even\nthose who are less handsome than you, and not so well-dressed either?\u201d\nand when the man, though one of the vilest characters possible, said to\nArcesilaus as if he were addressing a very rigid man:\u2014\n\n O, noble man, may I a question put,\n Or must I hold my tongue?\n\nArcesilaus replied:\u2014\n\n O wretched woman, why do you thus roughen\n Your voice, not speaking in your usual manner?\n\nAnd once, when he was plagued by a chattering fellow of low extraction,\nhe said:\u2014\n\n The sons of slaves are always talking vilely.[37]\n\nAnother time, when a talkative man was giving utterance to a great\ndeal of nonsense, he said, that \u201cHe had not had a nurse who was severe\nenough.\u201d And to some people he never gave any answer at all. On one\noccasion a usurer, who made pretence to some learning, said in his\nhearing that he did not know something or other, on which he rejoined:\u2014\n\n For often times the passing winds do fill\n The female bird, except when big with young.[38]\n\nAnd the lines come out of the \u0152nomaus of Sophocles. He once reminded a\ncertain dialectician, a pupil of Alexinus, who was unable to explain\ncorrectly some saying of his master, of what had been done by Philoxenus\nto some brick-makers. For when they were singing some of his songs very\nbadly he came upon them, and trampled their bricks under foot, saying,\n\u201cAs you spoil my works so will I spoil yours.\u201d\n\nXII. And he used to be very indignant with those who neglected proper\nopportunities of applying themselves to learning; and he had a peculiar\nhabit, while conversing, of using the expression, \u201cI think,\u201d and \u201cSo and\nso,\u201d naming the person, \u201cwill not agree to this.\u201d And this was imitated\nby several of his pupils, who copied also his style of expression and\neverything about him. He was a man very ready at inventing new words, and\nvery quick at meeting objections, and at bringing round the conversation\nto the subject before him, and at adapting it to every occasion, and he\nwas the most convincing speaker that could be found, on which account\nnumbers of people flocked to his school, in spite of being somewhat\nalarmed at his severity, which however they bore with complacency, for\nhe was a very kind man, and one who inspired his hearers with abundant\nhope, and in his manner of life he was very affable and liberal, always\nready to do any one a service without any parade, and shrinking from\nany expression of gratitude on the part of those whom he had obliged.\nAccordingly once, when he had gone to visit Ctesibius who was ill, seeing\nhim in great distress from want, he secretly slipped his purse under his\npillow; and when Ctesibius found it, \u201cThis,\u201d said he, \u201cis the amusement\nof Arcesilaus.\u201d And at another time he sent him a thousand drachmas.\nHe it was also who introduced Archias the Arcadian to Eumenes, and who\nprocured him many favours from him.\n\nXIII. And being a very liberal man and utterly regardless of money, he\nmade the most splendid display of silver plate, and in his exhibition\nof gold plate he vied with that of Archecrates and Callicrates; and he\nwas constantly assisting and contributing to the wants of others with\nmoney; and once, when some one had borrowed from him some articles of\nsilver plate to help him entertain his friends, and did not offer to\nreturn them, he never asked for them back or reclaimed them; but some say\nthat he lent them with the purpose that they should be kept, and that\nwhen the man returned them, he made him a present of them as he was a\npoor man. He had also property in Pitana, the revenues from which were\ntransmitted to him by his brother Pylades.\n\nXIV. Moreover, Eumenes, the son of Philet\u00e6rus, supplied him with many\nthings, on which account he was the only king to whom he addressed any of\nhis discourses. And when many philosophers paid court to Antigonus and\nwent out to meet him when he arrived, he himself kept quiet, not wishing\nto make his acquaintance. But he was a great friend of Hierocles, the\ngovernor of the harbours of Munychia and the Pir\u00e6us; and at festivals he\nalways paid him a visit. And when he constantly endeavoured to persuade\nhim to pay his respects to Antigonus, he would not; but though he\naccompanied him as far as his gates, he turned back himself. And after\nthe sea-fight of Antigonus, when many people went to him and wrote him\nletters to comfort him for his defeat, he neither went nor wrote; but\nstill in the service of his country, he went to Demetrias as ambassador\nto Antigonus, and succeeded in the object of his mission.\n\nXV. And he spent all his time in the Academy, and avoided meddling with\npublic affairs, but at times he would spend some days in the Pir\u00e6us of\nAthens, discoursing on philosophical subjects, from his friendship for\nHierocles, which conduct of his gave rise to unfavourable reports being\nraised against him by some people.\n\nXVI. Being a man of very expensive habits, for he was in this respect a\nsort of second Aristippus, he often went to dine with his friends. He\nalso lived openly with Theodote and Phil\u00e6te, two courtesans of Elis;\nand to those who reproached him for this conduct, he used to quote the\nopinions of Aristippus. He was also very fond of the society of young\nmen, and of a very affectionate disposition, on which account Aristo, the\nChian, a Stoic philosopher, used to accuse him of being a corrupter of\nthe youth of the city, and a profligate man. He is said also to have been\ngreatly attached to Demetrius, who sailed to Cyrene, and to Cleochares of\nMyrlea, of whom he said to his messmates, that he wished to open the door\nto him, but that he prevented him.\n\nXVII. Demochares the son of Laches, and Pythocles the son of Bugelus,\nwere also among his friends, and he said that he humoured them in all\ntheir wishes because of his great patience. And, on this account, those\npeople to whom I have before alluded, used to attack him and ridicule him\nas a popularity hunter and vain-glorious man. And they set upon him very\nviolently at an entertainment given by Hieronymus, the Peripatetic, when\nhe invited his friends on the birthday of Alcyoneus, the son of Antigonus,\non which occasion Antigonus sent him a large sum of money to promote the\nconviviality. On this occasion, as he avoided all discussion during the\ncontinuance of the banquet, when Aridelus proposed to him a question\nwhich required some deliberation, and entreated him to discourse upon it,\nit is said that he replied, \u201cBut this is more especially the business of\nphilosophy, to know the proper time for everything.\u201d With reference to\nthe charge that was brought against him of being a popularity hunter,\nTimon speaks, among other matters, mentioning it in the following manner:\u2014\n\n He spoke and glided quick among the crowd,\n They gazed on him as finches who behold\n An owl among them. You then please the people!\n Alas, poor fool, \u2019tis no great matter that;\n Why give yourself such airs for such a trifle?\n\nXVIII. However, in all other respects he was so free from vanity, that\nhe used to advise his pupils to become the disciples of other men; and\nonce, when a young man from Chios was not satisfied with his school, but\npreferred that of Hieronymus, whom I have mentioned before, he himself\ntook him and introduced him to that philosopher, recommending him to\npreserve his regularity of conduct. And there is a very witty saying of\nhis recorded. For when some one asked him once, why people left other\nschools to go to the Epicureans, but no one left the Epicureans to join\nother sects, he replied, \u201cPeople sometimes make eunuchs of men, but no\none can ever make a man out of an eunuch.\u201d\n\nXIX. At last, when he was near his end, he left all his property to his\nbrother Pylades, because he, without the knowledge of M\u00e6reas, had taken\nhim to Chios and had brought him from thence to Athens. He never married\na wife, and never had any children. He made three copies of his will, and\ndeposited one in Eretria with Amphicritus, and one at Athens with some\nof his friends, and the third he sent to his own home to Thaumasias, one\nof his relations, entreating him to keep it. And he also wrote him the\nfollowing letter:\u2014\n\nARCESILAUS TO THAUMASIAS.\n\n\u201cI have given Diogenes a copy of my will to convey to you. For, because\nI am frequently unwell and have got very infirm, I have thought it\nright to make a will, that, if anything should happen to me I might not\ndepart with the feelings of having done you any injury, who have been\nso constantly affectionate to me. And as you have been at all times the\nmost faithful to me of all my friends, I entreat you to preserve this\nfor me out of regard for my old age and your regard for me. Take care\nthen to behave justly towards me, remembering how much I entrust to your\nintegrity, so that I may appear to have managed my affairs well, as far\nas depends on you; and there is another copy of this will at Athens, in\nthe care of some of my friends, and another at Eretria, in the hands of\nAmphicritus.\u201d\n\nXX. He died, as Hermippus relates, after having drunk an excessive\nquantity of wine, and then became delirious, when he was seventy-five\nyears old; and he was more beloved by the Athenians than any one else had\never been. And we have written the following epigram on him:\u2014\n\n O wise Arcesilaus, why didst thou drink\n So vast a quantity of unmixed wine,\n As to lose all your senses, and then die?\n I pity you not so much for your death,\n As for the insult that you thus did offer\n The Muses, by your sad excess in wine.\n\nXXI. There were also three other persons of the name of Arcesilaus; one a\npoet of the old Comedy; another an elegiac poet; the third a sculptor, on\nwhom Simonides wrote the following epigram:\u2014\n\n This is a statue of chaste Dian\u2019s self\n The price two hundred Parian drachmas fine,\n Stamp\u2019d with the image of the wanton goat.\n It is the work of wise Arcesilaus,\n The son of Aristodicus: a man,\n Whose hands Minerva guided in his art.\n\nThe philosopher of whom we have been speaking flourished, as Apollodorus\ntells us in his Chronicles, about the hundred and twentieth olympiad.\n\n\nLIFE OF BION.\n\nI. Bion was a native of the country around the Borysthenes; but as to who\nhis parents were, and to what circumstances it was owing that he applied\nhimself to the study of philosophy, we know no more than what he himself\ntold Antigonus. For when Antigonus asked him:\u2014\n\n What art thou, say! from whence, from whom you came,\n Who are your parents? tell thy race, thy name;[39]\n\nHe, knowing that he had been misrepresented to the king, said to him, \u201cMy\nfather was a freedman, who used to wipe his mouth with his sleeve,\u201d (by\nwhich he meant that he used to sell salt fish). \u201cAs to his race, he was\na native of the district of the Borysthenes; having no countenance, but\nonly a brand in his face, a token of the bitter cruelty of his master.\nMy mother was such a woman as a man of that condition might marry, taken\nout of a brothel. Then, my father being in arrears to the tax-gatherers,\nwas sold with all his family, and with me among them; and as I was young\nand good looking, a certain orator purchased me, and when he died he left\nme everything. And I, having burnt all his books, and torn up all his\npapers, came to Athens and applied myself to the study of Philosophy:\u2014\n\n Such was my father, and from him I came,\n The honoured author of my birth and name.[40]\n\nThis is all that I can tell you of myself: so that Pers\u00e6us and Philonides\nmay give up telling these stories about me: and you may judge of me on my\nown merits.\u201d\n\nII. And Bion was truly a man of great versatility, and a very subtle\nphilosopher, and a man who gave all who chose great opportunities of\npractising philosophy. In some respects he was of a gentle disposition,\nand very much inclined to indulge in vanity.\n\nIII. And he left behind him many memorials of himself in the way of\nwritings, and also many apophthegms full of useful sentiments. As for\ninstance, once when he was reproved for having failed to charm a young\nman, he replied, \u201cYou cannot possibly draw up cheese with a hook before\nit has got hard.\u201d On another occasion he was asked who was the most\nmiserable of men, and replied, \u201cHe who has set his heart on the greatest\nprosperity.\u201d When he was asked whether it was advisable to marry (for\nthis answer also is attributed to him), he replied, \u201cIf you marry an ugly\nwoman you will have a punishment (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74), and if a handsome woman you\nwill have one who is common\u201d (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae). He called old age a port to shelter\none from misfortune; and accordingly, he said that every one fled to it.\nHe said that glory was the mother of years; that beauty was a good which\nconcerned others rather than one\u2019s self; that riches were the sinews of\nbusiness. To a man who had squandered his estate he said, \u201cThe earth\nswallowed up Amphiaraus, but you have swallowed up the earth.\u201d Another\nsaying of his was that it was a great evil not to be able to bear evil.\nAnd he condemned those who burnt the dead as though they felt nothing,\nand then mocked them as though they did feel. And he was always saying\nthat it was better to put one\u2019s own beauty at the disposal of another,\nthan to covet the beauty of others; for that one who did so was injuring\nboth his body and his soul. And he used to blame Socrates saying, that if\nhe derived no advantage from Alcibiades he was foolish, and if he never\nderived any advantage from him he then deserved no credit. He used to say\nthat the way to the shades below was easy; and accordingly, that people\nwent there with their eyes shut. He used to blame Alcibiades, saying that\nwhile he was a boy he seduced husbands from their wives, and when he had\nbecome a young man he seduced the wives from their husbands. While most\nof the Athenians at Rhodes practised rhetoric, he himself used to give\nlectures on philosophical subjects; and to one who blamed him for this he\nsaid, \u201cI have bought wheat, and I sell barley.\u201d\n\nIt was a saying of his that the inhabitants of the shades below would be\nmore punished if they carried water in buckets that were whole, than in\nsuch as were bored. To a chattering fellow who was soliciting him for\naid, he said, \u201cI will do what is sufficient for you, if you will send\ndeputies to me, and forbear to come yourself.\u201d Once when he was at sea\nin the company of some wicked men, he fell into the hands of pirates;\nand when the rest said, \u201cWe are undone, if we are known.\u201d \u201cBut I,\u201d said\nhe, \u201cam undone if we are not known.\u201d He used to say that self-conceit\nwas the enemy of progress. Of a rich man who was mean and niggardly, he\nsaid, \u201cThat man does not possess his estate, but his estate possesses\nhim.\u201d He used to say that stingy men took care of their property as if\nit was their own, but derived no advantage from it as if it belonged to\nother people. Another of his sayings was, that young men ought to display\ncourage, but that old men ought to be distinguished for prudence. And\nthat prudence was as much superior to the other virtues as sight was\nto the other senses. And that it was not right to speak of old age, at\nwhich every one is desirous to arrive. To an envious man who was looking\ngloomy, he said, \u201cI know not whether it is because some misfortune has\nhappened to you, or some good fortune to someone else.\u201d One thing that he\nused to say was, that a mean extraction was a bad companion to freedom of\nspeech. For:\u2014\n\n It does enslave a man, however bold\n His speech may be.[41]\n\nAnd another was that we ought to keep our friends, whatever sort of\npeople they may be, so that we may not seem to have been intimate with\nwicked men, or to have abandoned good men.\n\nIV. Very early in his career he abandoned the school of the Academy, and\nat the same time became a disciple of Crates. Then he passed over to the\nsect of the Cynics, taking their coarse cloak and wallet. For what else\ncould ever have changed his nature into one of such apathy? After that he\nadopted the Theodorean principles, having become a disciple of Theodorus\nthe Atheist, who was used to employ every kind of reasoning in support\nof his system of philosophy. After leaving him, he became a pupil of\nTheophrastus, the Peripatetic.\n\nV. He was very fond of theatrical entertainments, and very skilful in\ndistracting his hearers by exciting a laugh, giving things disparaging\nnames. And because he used to avail himself of every species of\nreasoning, they relate that Eratosthenes said that Bion was the first\nperson who had clothed philosophy in a flowery robe.\n\nVI. He was also very ingenious in parodying passages, and adapting\nthem to circumstances as they arose. As for instance, I may cite the\nfollowing:\u2014\n\n Tender Archytas, born of tuneful lyre,\n Whom thoughts of happy vanity inspire;\n Most skilled of mortals in appeasing ire.[42]\n\nAnd he jested on every part of music and geometry.\n\nVII. He was a man of very expensive habits, and on this account he used\nto go from city to city, and at times he would contrive the most amazing\ndevices.\n\nVIII. Accordingly, in Rhodes, he persuaded the sailors to put on the\nhabiliments of philosophical students and follow him about; and then he\nmade himself conspicuous by entering the gymnasium with this train of\nfollowers.\n\nIX. He was accustomed also to adopt young men as his sons, in order to\nderive assistance from them in his pleasures, and to be protected by\ntheir affection for him. But he was a very selfish man, and very fond of\nquoting the saying, \u201cThe property of friends is common;\u201d owing to which\nit is that no one is spoken of as a disciple of his, though so many\nmen attended his school. And he made some very shameless; accordingly,\nBetion, one of his intimate acquaintances, is reported to have said once\nto Menedemus, \u201cSo Menedemus constantly spends the evening with Bion, and\nI see no harm in it.\u201d He used also to talk with great impiety to those\nwho conversed with him, having derived his opinions on this subject from\nTheodorus.\n\nX. And when at a later period he became afflicted with disease, as the\npeople of Chalcis said, for he died there, he was persuaded to wear\namulets and charms, and to show his repentance for the insults that he\nhad offered to the Gods. But he suffered fearfully for want of proper\npeople to attend him, until Antigonus sent him two servants. And he\nfollowed him in a litter, as Phavorinus relates in his Universal History.\nAnd the circumstances of his death we have ourselves spoken of in the\nfollowing lines:\u2014\n\n We hear that Bion the Borysthenite,\n Whom the ferocious Scythian land brought forth,\n Used to deny that there were Gods at all.\n Now, if he\u2019d persevered in this opinion,\n One would have said he speaks just as he thinks;\n Though certainly his thoughts are quite mistaken.\n But when a lengthened sickness overtook him,\n And he began to fear lest he should die;\n This man who heretofore denied the Gods,\n And would not even look upon a temple,\n And mocked all those who e\u2019er approached the Gods\n With prayer or sacrifice; who ne\u2019er, not even\n For his own hearth, and home, and household table,\n Regaled the Gods with savoury fat and incense,\n Who never once said, \u201cI have sinned, but spare me.\u201d\n Then did this atheist shrink, and give his neck\n To an old woman to hang charms upon,\n And bound his arms with magic amulets,\n With laurel branches blocked his doors and windows,\n Ready to do and venture anything\n Rather than die. Fool that he was, who thought\n To win the Gods to come into existence,\n Whenever he might think he wanted them.\n So wise too late, when now mere dust and ashes,\n He put his hand forth, Hail, great Pluto, Hail!\n\nXI. There were ten people of the name of Bion. First of all, the one\nwho flourished at the same time with Pherecydes of Syros, and who has\nleft two books behind him, which are still extant; he was a native\nof Proconnesus. The second was a Syracusan, the author of a system of\nrhetoric. The third was the man of whom we have been speaking. The fourth\nwas a pupil of Democritus, and a mathematician, a native of Abdera,\nwho wrote in both the Attic and Ionic dialect. He was the person who\nfirst asserted that there were countries where there was night for six\nmonths, and day for six months. The fifth was a native of Soli; who\nwrote a history of \u00c6thiopia. The sixth was a rhetorician, who has left\nbehind him nine books, inscribed with the names of the Muses, which are\nstill extant. The eighth was a Milesian statuary, who is mentioned by\nPolemo. The ninth was a tragic poet of the number of those who are called\nTarsicans. The tenth was a statuary, a native of Clazomen\u00e6 or Chios, who\nis mentioned by Hipponax.\n\n\nLIFE OF LACYDES.\n\nI. Lacydes, the son of Alexander, was a native of Cyrene. He it is who\nwas the founder of the New Academy, having succeeded Arcesilaus; and he\nwas a man of great gravity of character and demeanour, and one who had\nmany imitators.\n\nII. He was industrious from his very childhood, and poor, but very\npleasing and sociable in his manners.\n\nIII. They say that he had a pleasant way of managing his house-keeping\naffairs. For when he had taken anything out of his store-chest, he\nwould seal it up again, and throw in his seal through the hole, so\nthat it should be impossible for anything of what he had laid up there\nto be stolen from him, or carried off. But his servants learning this\ncontrivance of his, broke the seal, and carried off as much as they\npleased, and then they put the ring back through the hole in the same\nmanner as before; and though they did this repeatedly, they were never\ndetected.\n\nIV. Lacydes now used to hold his school in the Academy in the garden\nwhich had been laid out by Attalus the king, and it was called the\nLacydeum, after him. And he was the only man, who, while alive, resigned\nhis school to a successor; but he resigned this to Telicles and Evander,\nof Phocis; and Hegesinus, of Pergamus, succeeded Evander; and he himself\nwas in his turn succeeded by Carneades.\n\nV. There is a witty saying, which is attributed to Lacydes. For they say\nthat when Attalus sent for him, he answered that statues ought to be seen\nat a distance. On another occasion, as it is reported, he was studying\ngeometry very late in life, and some said to him, \u201cIs it then a time for\nyou to be learning now?\u201d \u201cIf it is not,\u201d he replied, \u201cwhen will it be?\u201d\n\nVI. And he died in the fourth year of the hundred and thirty-fourth\nOlympiad, when he had presided over his school twenty-six years. And his\ndeath was caused by paralysis, which was brought on by drinking. And we\nourselves have jested upon him in the following language.\n\n \u2019Tis an odd story that I heard of you\u2014\n Lacydes, that you went with hasty steps,\n Spurred on by Bacchus, to the shades below.\n How then, if this be true, can it be said,\n That Bacchus e\u2019er trips up his votaries\u2019 feet\n \u2019Tis a _mistake his being_ named Ly\u00e6us.[43]\n\n\nLIFE OF CARNEADES.\n\nI. Carneades was the son of Epicomus, or Philocomus, as Alexander states\nin his Successions; and a native of Cyrene.\n\nII. He read all the books of the Stoics with great care, and especially\nthose of Chrysippus; and then he wrote replies to them, but did it at the\nsame time with such modesty that he used to say, \u201cIf Chrysippus had not\nlived, I should never have existed.\u201d\n\nIII. He was a man of as great industry as ever existed; not, however,\nvery much devoted to the investigation of subjects of natural philosophy,\nbut more fond of the discussion of ethical topics, on which account he\nused to let his hair and his nails grow, from his entire devotion of\nall his time to philosophical discussion. And he was so eminent as a\nphilosopher, that the orators would quit their own schools and come and\nlisten to his lectures.\n\nIV. He was also a man of a very powerful voice, so that the president of\nthe Gymnasium sent to him once, to desire he would not shout so loudly.\nAnd he replied, \u201cGive me then, measure for my voice.\u201d And the gymnasiarch\nagain rejoined with great wit, for he said, \u201cYou have a measure in your\npupils.\u201d\n\nV. He was a very vehement speaker, and one difficult to contend with in\nthe investigation of a point. And he used to decline all invitations to\nentertainments, for the reasons I have already mentioned.\n\nVI. On one occasion, when Mentor, the Bithynian, one of his pupils, came\nto him to attend his school, observing that he was trying to seduce his\nmistress (as Phavorinus relates in his Universal History), while he was\nin the middle of his lecture, he made the following parody in allusion to\nhim:\u2014\n\n A weak old man comes hither, like in voice,\n And gait, and figure, to the prudent Mentor\n I order him to be expelled this school.\n\nAnd Mentor rising up, replied:\u2014\n\n Thus did they speak, and straight the others rose.\n\nVII. He appears to have been beset with fears of death; as he was\ncontinually saying, \u201cNature, who has put this frame together, will also\ndissolve it.\u201d And learning that Antipater had died after having taken\npoison, he felt a desire to imitate the boldness of his departure, and\nsaid, \u201cGive me some too.\u201d And when they asked \u201cWhat?\u201d \u201cSome mead,\u201d said\nhe. And it is said that an eclipse of the moon happened when he died,\nthe most beautiful of all the stars, next to the sun, indicating (as any\none might say) its sympathy with the philosopher. And Apollodorus, in\nhis Chronicles, says that he died in the fourth year of the hundred and\nsixty-second olympiad, being eighty-five years old.\n\nVIII. There are some letters extant addressed by him to Ariarathes, the\nking of the Cappadocians. All the other writings which are attributed to\nhim were written by his disciples, for he himself left nothing behind\nhim. And I have written on him the following lines in loga\u0153dical\nArchebulian metre.\n\n Why now, O Muse, do you wish me Carneades to confute?\n He was an ignoramus, as he did not understand\n Why he should stand in fear of death: so once, when he\u2019d a cough,\n The worst of all diseases that affect the human frame,\n He cared not for a remedy; but when the news did reach him,\n That brave Antipater had ta\u2019en some poison, and so died,\n \u201cGive me, said he, some stuff to drink.\u201d \u201cSome what?\u201d\u2014\u201cSome luscious\n mead.\u201d\n Moreover, he\u2019d this saying at all times upon his lips:\n \u201cNature did make me, and she does together keep me still;\n But soon the time will come when she will pull me all to pieces.\u201d\n But still at last he yielded up the ghost: though long ago\n He might have died, and so escaped the evils that befell him.\n\nIX. It is said that at night he was not aware when lights were brought\nin; and that once he ordered his servant to light the candles, and when\nhe had brought them in and told him, \u201cI have brought them;\u201d \u201cWell then,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cread by the light of them.\u201d\n\nX. He had a great many other disciples; but the most eminent of them was\nClitomachus, whom we must mention presently.\n\nXI. There was also another man of the name of Carneades, a very\nindifferent elegiac poet.\n\n\nLIFE OF CLITOMACHUS.\n\nI. Clitomachus was a Carthaginian. He was called Asdrubal, and used to\nlecture on philosophy in his own country in his native language.\n\nII. But when he came to Athens, at the age of forty years, he became\na pupil of Carneades; and, as he was pleased with his industry, he\ncaused him to be instructed in literature, and himself educated the\nman carefully. And he carried his diligence to such a degree, that he\ncomposed more than four hundred books.\n\nIII. And he succeeded Carneades in his schools; and he illustrated his\nprinciples a great deal by his writings; as he himself had studied the\ndoctrines of their sects, the Academic, the Peripatetic, and the Stoic.\nTimon attacks the whole school of Academics, as a body, in these lines:\u2014\n\n Nor the unprofitable chattering\n Of all the Academics.\n\nBut now that we have gone through the philosophers of Plato\u2019s school, let\nus go to the Peripatetics, who also derived their doctrines from Plato;\nand the founder of their sect was Aristotle.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK V.\n\n\nLIFE OF ARISTOTLE.\n\nI. Aristotle was the son of Nicomachus and Ph\u00e6stias, a citizen of\nStagira; and Nicomachus was descended from Nicomachus, the son of\nMachaon, the son of \u00c6sculapius, as Hermippus tells us in his treatise on\nAristotle; and he lived with Amyntas, the king of the Macedonians, as\nboth a physician and a friend.\n\nII. He was the most eminent of all the pupils of Plato; he had a lisping\nvoice, as is asserted by Timotheus the Athenian, in his work on Lives.\nHe had also very thin legs, they say, and small eyes; but he used to\nindulge in very conspicuous dress, and rings, and used to dress his hair\ncarefully.\n\nIII. He had also a son named Nicomachus, by Herpyllis his concubine, as\nwe are told by Timotheus.\n\nIV. He seceded from Plato while he was still alive; so that they tell\na story that he said, \u201cAristotle has kicked us off just as chickens do\ntheir mother after they have been hatched.\u201d But Hermippus says in his\nLives, that while he was absent on an embassy to Philip, on behalf of the\nAthenians, Xenocrates became the president of the school in the Academy;\nand that when he returned and saw the school under the presidency of some\none else, he selected a promenade in the Lyceum, in which he used to walk\nup and down with his disciples, discussing subjects of philosophy till\nthe time for anointing themselves came; on which account he was called\na Peripatetic.[44] But others say that he got this name because once\nwhen Alexander was walking about after recovering from a sickness, he\naccompanied him and kept conversing with him. But when his pupils became\nnumerous, he then gave them seats, saying:\u2014\n\n It would be shame for me to hold my peace,\n And for Isocrates to keep on talking.\n\nAnd he used to accustom his disciples to discuss any question which might\nbe proposed, training them just as an orator might.\n\nV. After that he went to Hermias the Eunuch, the tyrant of Atarneus, who,\nas it is said, allowed him all kinds of liberties; and some say that he\nformed a matrimonial connection with him, giving him either his daughter\nor his niece in marriage, as is recorded by Demetrius of Magnesia, in his\nessay on Poets and Prose-writers of the same name. And the same authority\nsays that Hermias had been the slave of Eubulus, and a Bithynian by\ndescent, and that he slew his master. But Aristippus, in the first book\nof his treatise on Ancient Luxury, says that Aristotle was enamoured\nof the concubine of Hermias, and that, as Hermias gave his consent, he\nmarried her; and was so overjoyed that he sacrificed to her, as the\nAthenians do to the Eleusinian Ceres. And he wrote a hymn to Hermias,\nwhich is given at length below.\n\nVI. After that he lived in Macedonia, at the court of Philip, and was\nentrusted by him with his son Alexander as a pupil; and he entreated him\nto restore his native city which had been destroyed by Philip, and had\nhis request granted; and he also made laws for the citizens. And also he\nused to make laws in his schools, doing this in imitation of Xenocrates,\nso that he appointed a president every ten days. And when he thought that\nhe had spent time enough with Alexander, he departed for Athens, having\nrecommended to him his relation Callisthenes, a native of Olynthus;\nbut as he spoke too freely to the king, and would not take Aristotle\u2019s\nadvice, he reproached him and said:\u2014\n\n Alas! my child, in life\u2019s primeval bloom,\n Such hasty words will bring thee to thy doom.[45]\n\nAnd his prophecy was fulfilled, for as he was believed by Hermolaus to\nhave been privy to the plot against Alexander, he was shut up in an iron\ncage, covered with lice, and untended; and at last he was given to a\nlion, and so died.\n\nVII. Aristotle then having come to Athens, and having presided over\nhis school there for thirteen years, retired secretly to Chalcis,\nas Eurymedon, the hierophant had impeached him on an indictment for\nimpiety, though Phavorinus, in his Universal History, says that his\nprosecutor was Demophilus, on the ground of having written the hymn to\nthe beforementioned Hermias, and also the following epigram which was\nengraven on his statue at Delphi:\u2014\n\n The tyrant of the Persian archer race,\n Broke through the laws of God to slay this man\n Not by the manly spear in open fight,\n But by the treachery of a faithless friend.\n\nAnd after that he died of taking a draught of aconite, as Eumelus says\nin the fifth book of his Histories, at the age of seventy years. And\nthe same author says that he was thirty years old when he first became\nacquainted with Plato. But this is a mistake of his, for he did only live\nin reality sixty-three years, and he was seventeen years old when he\nfirst attached himself to Plato. And the hymn in honour of Hermias is as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n O Virtue, won by earnest strife,\n And holding out the noblest prize\n That ever gilded earthly life,\n Or drew it on to seek the skies;\n For thee what son of Greece would\n Deem it an enviable lot,\n To live the life, to die the death,\n That fears no weary hour, shrinks from no fiery breath?\n\n Such fruit hast thou of heavenly bloom,\n A lure more rich than golden heap,\n More tempting than the joys of home,\n More bland than spell of soft-eyed sleep.\n For thee Alcides, son of Jove,\n And the twin boys of Leda strove,\n With patient toil and sinewy might,\n Thy glorious prize to grasp, to reach thy lofty height.\n\n Achilles, Ajax, for thy love\n Descended to the realms of night;\n Atarneus\u2019 King thy vision drove,\n To quit for aye the glad sun-light,\n Therefore, to memory\u2019s daughters dear,\n His deathless name, his pure career,\n Live shrined in song, and link\u2019d with awe,\n The awe of Xenian Jove, and faithful friendship\u2019s law.[46]\n\nThere is also an epigram of ours upon him, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n Eurymedon, the faithful minister\n Of the mysterious Eleusinian Queen,\n Was once about t\u2019 impeach the Stagirite\n Of impious guilt. But he escaped his hands\n By mighty draught of friendly aconite,\n And thus defeated all his wicked arts.\n\nPhavorinus, in his Universal History, says that Aristotle was the first\nperson who ever composed a speech to be delivered in his own defence in a\ncourt of justice, and that he did so on the occasion of this prosecution,\nand said that at Athens:\u2014\n\n Pears upon pear-trees grow; on fig-trees, figs.\n\nApollodorus, in his Chronicles, says that he was born in the first year\nof the ninety-ninth olympiad, and that he attached himself to Plato, and\nremained with him for twenty years, having been seventeen years of age\nwhen he originally joined him. And he went to Mitylene in the archonship\nof Eubulus, in the fourth year of the hundred and eighth olympiad. But as\nPlato had died in the first year of this same olympiad, in the archonship\nof Theophilus, he departed for the court of Hermias, and remained there\nthree years. And in the archonship of Pythodotus he went to the court\nof Philip, in the second year of the hundred and ninth olympiad, when\nAlexander was fifteen years old; and he came to Athens in the second year\nof the hundred and eleventh olympiad, and presided over his school in\nthe Lyceum for thirteen years; after that he departed to Chalcis, in the\nthird year of the hundred and fourteenth olympiad, and died, at about the\nage of sixty-three years, of disease, the same year that Demosthenes died\nin Calauria, in the archonship of Philocles.\n\nVIII. It is said also that he was offended with the king, because of the\nresult of the conspiracy of Callisthenes against Alexander; and that the\nking, for the sake of annoying him, promoted Anaximenes to honour, and\nsent presents to Xenocrates. And Theocritus, of Chios, wrote an epigram\nupon him to ridicule him, in the following terms, as it is quoted by\nAmbryon in his account of Theocritus:\u2014\n\n The empty-headed Aristotle rais\u2019d\n This empty tomb to Hermias the Eunuch,\n The ancient slave of the ill-us\u2019d Eubulus.\n [Who, for his monstrous appetite, preferred\n The Bosphorus to Academia\u2019s groves.]\n\nAnd Timon attacked him too, saying of him:\u2014\n\n Nor the sad chattering of the empty Aristotle.\n\nSuch was the life of the philosopher.\n\nIX. We have also met with his will, which is couched in the following\nterms:\u2014\u201cMay things turn out well; but if any thing happens to him, in\nthat case Aristotle has made the following disposition of his affairs.\nThat Antipater shall be the general and universal executor. And\nuntil Nicanor marries my daughter, I appoint Aristomedes, Timarchus,\nHipparchus, Dioteles, and Theophrastus, if he will consent and accept\nthe charge, to be the guardians of my children and of Herpyllis, and\nthe trustees of all the property I leave behind me; and I desire them,\nwhen my daughter is old enough, to give her in marriage to Nicanor; but\nif any thing should happen to the girl, which may God forbid, either\nbefore or after she is married, but before she has any children, then\nI will that Nicanor shall have the absolute disposal of my son, and of\nall other things, in the full confidence that he will arrange them in a\nmanner worthy of me and of himself. Let him also be the guardian of my\ndaughter and son Nicomachus, to act as he pleases with respect to them,\nas if he were their father or brother. But if anything should happen to\nNicanor, which may God forbid, either before he receives my daughter in\nmarriage, or after he is married to her, or before he has any children\nby her, then any arrangements which he may make by will shall stand.\nBut, if Theophrastus, in this case, should choose to take my daughter in\nmarriage, then he is to stand exactly in the same position as Nicanor.\nAnd if not, then I will, that my trustees, consulting with Antipater\nconcerning both the boy and girl, shall arrange everything respecting\nthem as they shall think fit; and that my trustees and Nicanor,\nremembering both me and Herpyllis, and how well she has behaved to me,\nshall take care, if she be inclined to take a husband, that one be found\nfor her who shall not be unworthy of us; and shall give her, in addition\nto all that has been already given her, a talent of silver, and three\nmaidservants if she please to accept them, and the handmaid whom she has\nnow, and the boy Pyrrh\u00e6us. And if she likes to dwell at Chalcis, she\nshall have the house which joins the garden; but if she likes to dwell in\nStagira, then she shall have my father\u2019s house. And whichever of these\nhouses she elects to take, I will that my executors do furnish it with\nall necessary furniture, in such manner as shall seem to them and to\nHerpyllis to be sufficient. And let Nicanor be the guardian of the child\nMyrmex, so that he shall be conducted to his friends in a manner worthy\nof us, with all his property which I received. I also will that Ambracis\nshall have her liberty, and that there shall be given to her when her\ndaughter is married, five hundred drachmas, and the handmaid whom she now\nhas. And I will that there be given to Thales, besides the handmaiden\nwhom she now has, who was bought for her, a thousand drachmas and another\nhandmaid. And to Timon, in addition to the money that has been given to\nhim before for another boy, an additional slave, or a sum of money which\nshall be equivalent. I also will that Tychon shall have his liberty when\nhis daughter is married, and Philon, and Olympius, and his son. Moreover,\nof those boys who wait upon me, I will that none shall be sold, but\nmy executors may use them, and when they are grown up then they shall\nemancipate them if they deserve it. I desire too, that my executors will\ntake under their care the statues which it has been entrusted to Gryllion\nto make, that when they are made they may be erected in their proper\nplaces; and so too shall the statues of Nicanor, and of Proxenus, which I\nwas intending to give him a commission for, and also that of the mother\nof Nicanor. I wish them also to erect in its proper place the statue\nof Arimnestus which is already made, that it may be a memorial of her,\nsince she has died childless. I wish them also to dedicate a statue of my\nmother to Ceres at Nemea, or wherever else they think fit. And wherever\nthey bury me, there I desire that they shall also place the bones of\nPythias, having taken them up from the place where they now lie, as she\nherself enjoined. And I desire that Nicanor, as he has been preserved,\nwill perform the vow which I made on his behalf, and dedicate some\nfigures of animals in stone, four cubits high, to Jupiter the saviour,\nand Minerva the saviour, in Stagira.\u201d\n\nThese are the provisions of his will.\n\nX. And it is said that a great many dishes were found in his house;\nand that Lycon stated that he used to bathe in a bath of warm oil, and\nafterwards to sell the oil. But some say that he used to place a leather\nbag of warm oil on his stomach. And whenever he went to bed, he used to\ntake a brazen ball in his hand, having arranged a brazen dish below it;\nso that, when the ball fell into the dish, he might be awakened by the\nnoise.\n\nXI. The following admirable apophthegms are attributed to him.\n\nHe was once asked, what those who tell lies gain by it; \u201cThey gain this,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cthat when they speak truth they are not believed.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he was blamed for giving alms to a worthless man, and he\nreplied, \u201cI did not pity the man, but his condition.\u201d\n\nHe was accustomed continually to say to his friends and pupils wherever\nhe happened to be, \u201cThat sight receives the light from the air which\nsurrounds it, and in like manner the soul receives the light from the\nscience.\u201d\n\nVery often, when he was inveighing against the Athenians, he would say\nthat they had invented both wheat and laws, but that they used only the\nwheat and neglected the laws.\n\nIt was a saying of his that the roots of education were bitter, but the\nfruit sweet.\n\nOnce he was asked what grew old most speedily, and he replied,\n\u201cGratitude.\u201d\n\nOn another occasion the question was put to him, what hope is? and his\nanswer was, \u201cThe dream of a waking man.\u201d\n\nDiogenes once offered him a dry fig, and as he conjectured that if he did\nnot take it the cynic had a witticism ready prepared, he accepted it, and\nthen said that Diogenes had lost his joke and his fig too; and another\ntime when he took one from him as he offered it, he held it up as a child\ndoes, and said, \u201cO great Diogenes;\u201d and then he gave it to him back again.\n\nHe used to say that there were three things necessary to education;\nnatural qualifications, instruction, and practice.\n\nHaving heard that he was abused by some one, he said, \u201cHe may beat me\ntoo, if he likes, in my absence.\u201d\n\nHe used to say that beauty is the best of all recommendations, but others\nsay that it was Diogenes who gave this description of it; and that\nAristotle called beauty, \u201cThe gift of a fair appearance,\u201d that Socrates\ncalled it \u201cA short-lived tyranny;\u201d Plato, \u201cThe privilege of nature;\u201d\nTheophrastus, \u201cA silent deceit;\u201d Theocritus, \u201cAn ivory mischief;\u201d\nCarneades, \u201cA sovereignty which stood in need of no guards.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he was asked how much educated men were superior to those\nuneducated; \u201cAs much,\u201d said he, \u201cas the living are to the dead.\u201d\n\nIt was a saying of his that education was an ornament in prosperity, and\na refuge in adversity. And that those parents who gave their children a\ngood education deserved more honour than those who merely beget them: for\nthat the latter only enabled their children to live, but the former gave\nthem the power of living well.\n\nWhen a man boasted in his presence that he was a native of an illustrious\ncity, he said, \u201cThat is not what one ought to look at, but whether one is\nworthy of a great city.\u201d\n\nHe was once asked what a friend is; and his answer was, \u201cOne soul abiding\nin two bodies.\u201d\n\nIt was a saying of his that some men were as stingy as if they expected\nto live for ever, and some as extravagant as if they expected to die\nimmediately.\n\nWhen he was asked why people like to spend a great deal of their time\nwith handsome people, \u201cThat,\u201d said he, \u201cis a question fit for a blind man\nto ask.\u201d\n\nThe question was once put to him, what he had gained by philosophy; and\nthe answer he made was this, \u201cThat I do without being commanded, what\nothers do from fear of the laws.\u201d\n\nHe was once asked what his disciples ought to do to get on; and he\nreplied, \u201cPress on upon those who are in front of them, and not wait for\nthose who are behind to catch them.\u201d\n\nA chattering fellow, who had been abusing him, said to him, \u201cHave not I\nbeen jeering you properly?\u201d \u201cNot that I know of,\u201d said he, \u201cfor I have\nnot been listening to you.\u201d\n\nA man on one occasion reproached him for having given a contribution to\none who was not a good man (for the story which I have mentioned before\nis also quoted in this way), and his answer was, \u201cI gave not to the man,\nbut to humanity.\u201d\n\nThe question was once put to him, how we ought to behave to our friends;\nand the answer he gave was, \u201cAs we should wish our friends to behave to\nus.\u201d\n\nHe used to define justice as \u201cA virtue of the soul distributive of what\neach person deserved.\u201d\n\nAnother of his sayings was, that education was the best viaticum for old\nage.\n\nPhavorinus, in the second book of his Commentaries, says that he was\nconstantly repeating, \u201cThe man who has friends has no friend.\u201d And this\nsentiment is to be found also in the seventh book of the Ethics.\n\nThese apophthegms then are attributed to him.\n\nXII. He also wrote a great number of works; and I have thought it worth\nwhile to give a list of them, on account of the eminence of their author\nin every branch of philosophy. Four books on Justice; three books on\nPoets; three books on Philosophy; two books of The Statesman; one on\nRhetoric, called also the Gryllus; the Nerinthus, one; the Sophist, one;\nthe Menexenus, one; the Erotic, one; the Banquet, one; on Riches, one;\nthe Exhortation, one; on the Soul, one; on Prayer, one; on Nobility of\nBirth, one; on Pleasure, one; the Alexander, or an Essay on Colonists,\none; on Sovereignty, one; on Education, one; on the Good, three; three\nbooks on things in the Laws of Plato; two on Political Constitutions;\non Economy, one; on Friendship, one; on Suffering, or having Suffered,\none; on Sciences, one; on Discussions, two; Solutions of Disputed\nPoints, two; Sophistical Divisions, four; on Contraries, one; on Species\nand Genera, one; on Property, one; Epicheirematic, or Argumentative\nCommentaries, three; Propositions relating to Virtue, three; Objections,\none; one book on things which are spoken of in various ways, or a\nPreliminary Essay; one on the Passion of Anger; five on Ethics; three\non Elements; one on Science; one on Beginning; seventeen on Divisions;\non Divisible Things, one; two books of Questions and Answers; two on\nMotion; one book of Propositions; four of Contentious Propositions; one\nof Syllogisms; eight of the First Analytics; two of the second greater\nAnalytics; one on Problems; eight on Method; one on the Better; one on\nthe Idea; Definitions serving as a preamble to the Topics, seven; two\nbooks more of Syllogisms; one of Syllogisms and Definitions; one on\nwhat is Eligible, and on what is Suitable; the Preface to the Topics,\none; Topics relating to the Definitions, two; one on the Passions; one\non Divisions; one on Mathematics; thirteen books of Definitions; two\nof Epicheiremata, or Arguments; one on Pleasure; one of Propositions;\non the Voluntary, one; on the Honourable, one; of Epicheirematic or\nArgumentative Propositions, twenty-five books; of Amatory Propositions,\nfour; of Propositions relating to Friendship, two; of Propositions\nrelating to the Soul, one; on Politics, two; Political Lectures, such as\nthat of Theophrastus, eight; on Just Actions, two; two books entitled, A\nCollection of Arts; two on the Art of Rhetoric; one on Art; two on other\nArt; one on Method; one, the Introduction to the Art of Theodectes; two\nbooks, being a treatise on the Art of Poetry; one book of Rhetorical\nEnthymemes on Magnitude; one of Divisions of Enthymemes; on Style,\ntwo; on Advice, one; on Collection, two; on Nature, three; on Natural\nPhilosophy, one; on the Philosophy of Archytas, three; on the Philosophy\nof Speusippus and Xenocrates, one; on things taken from the doctrines of\nTim\u00e6us and the school of Archytas, one; on Doctrines of Melissus, one;\non Doctrines of Alcm\u00e6on, one; on the Pythagoreans, one; on the Precepts\nof Gorgias, one; on the Precepts of Xenophanes, one; on the Precepts of\nZeno, one; on the Pythagoreans, one; on Animals, nine; on Anatomy, eight;\none book, a Selection of Anatomical Questions; one on Compound Animals;\none on Mythological Animals; one on Impotence; one on Plants; one on\nPhysiognomy; two on Medicine; one on the Unit; one on Signs of Storms;\none on Astronomy; one on Optics; one on Motion; one on Music; one on\nMemory; six on Doubts connected with Homer; one on Poetry; thirty-eight\nof Natural Philosophy in reference to the First Elements; two of Problems\nResolved; two of Encyclica, or General Knowledge; one on Mechanics; two\nconsisting of Problems derived from the writings of Democritus; one on\nStone; one book of Comparisons; twelve books of Miscellanies; fourteen\nbooks of things explained according to their Genus; one on Rights; one\nbook, the Conquerors at the Olympic Games; one, the Conquerors at the\nPythian Games in the Art of Music; one, the Pythian; one, a List of the\nVictors in the Pythian Games; one, the Victories gained at the Olympic\nGames; one on Tragedies; one, a List of Plays; one book of Proverbs; one\non the Laws of Recommendations; four books of Laws; one of Categories;\none on Interpretation; a book containing an account of the Constitutions\nof a hundred and fifty-eight cities, and also some individual democratic,\noligarchic, aristocratic, and tyrannical Constitutions; Letters to\nPhilip; Letters of the Selymbrians; four Letters to Alexander; nine\nto Antipater; one to Mentor; one to Ariston; one to Olympias; one to\nHeph\u00e6stion; one to Themistagoras; one to Philoxenus; one to Democritus;\none book of Poems beginning:\u2014\n\n Hail! holy, sacred, distant-shooting God.\n\nA book of Elegies which begins:\u2014\n\n Daughter of all-accomplish\u2019d mother.\n\nThe whole consisting of four hundred and forty-five thousand two hundred\nand seventy lines.\n\nXIII. These then are the books which were written by him. And in them\nhe expresses the following opinions:\u2014that there is in philosophy a\ntwo-fold division; one practical, and the other theoretical. Again, the\npractical is divided into ethical and political, under which last head\nare comprised considerations affecting not only the state, but also the\nmanagement, of a single house. The theoretical part, too, is subdivided\ninto physics and logic; the latter forming not a single division,\nturning on one special point, but being rather an instrument for every\nart brought to a high degree of accuracy. And he has laid down two\nseparate objects as what it is conversant about, the persuasive and the\ntrue. And he has used two means with reference to each end; dialectics\nand rhetoric, with reference to persuasion; analytical examination and\nphilosophy, with reference to truth; omitting nothing which can bear\nupon discovery, or judgment, or use. Accordingly, with reference to\ndiscovery, he has furnished us with topics and works on method, which\nform a complete armoury of propositions, from which it is easy to provide\none\u2019s self with an abundance of probable arguments for every kind of\nquestion. And with reference to judgment, he has given us the former and\nposterior analytics; and by means of the former analytics, we may arrive\nat a critical examination of principles; by means of the posterior, we\nmay examine the conclusions which are deduced from them. With reference\nto the use or application of his rules, he has given us works on\ndiscussion, on question, on disputation, on sophistical refutation, on\nsyllogism, and on things of that sort.\n\nHe has also furnished us with a double criterion of truth. One, on the\nperception of those effects, which are according to imagination; the\nother, the intelligence of those things which are ethical, and which\nconcern politics, and economy, and laws. The chief good he has defined\nto be the exercise of virtue in a perfect life. He used also to say,\nthat happiness was a thing made up of three kinds of goods. First of\nall, the goods of the soul, which he also calls the principal goods in\nrespect of their power; secondly, the goods of the body, such as health,\nstrength, beauty, and things of that sort; thirdly, external goods, such\nas wealth, nobility of birth, glory, and things like those. And he taught\nthat virtue was not sufficient of itself to confer happiness; for that\nit had need besides of the goods of the body, and of the external goods,\nfor that a wise man would be miserable if he were surrounded by distress,\nand poverty, and circumstances of that kind. But, on the other hand, he\nsaid, that vice was sufficient of itself to cause unhappiness, even if\nthe goods of the body and the external goods were present in the greatest\npossible degree. He also asserted that the virtues did not reciprocally\nfollow one another, for that it was possible for a prudent, and just,\nand impartial man, to be incontinent and intemperate; and he said, that\nthe wise man was not destitute of passions, but endowed with moderate\npassions.\n\nHe also used to define friendship as an equality of mutual benevolence.\nAnd he divided it into the friendship of kindred, and of love, and of\nthose connected by ties of hospitality. And he said, that love was\ndivided into sensual and philosophical love. And that the wise man would\nfeel the influence of love, and would occupy himself in affairs of state,\nand would marry a wife, and would live with a king. And as there were\nthree kinds of life, the speculative, the practical, and the voluptuous,\nhe preferred the speculative. He also considered the acquisition of\ngeneral knowledge serviceable to the acquisition of virtue. As a natural\nphilosopher, he was the most ingenious man that ever lived in tracing\neffects back to their causes, so that he could explain the principles of\nthe most trifling circumstances; on which account he wrote a great many\nbooks of commentaries on physical questions.\n\nHe used to teach that God was incorporeal, as Plato also asserted, and\nthat his providence extends over all the heavenly bodies; also, that he\nis incapable of motion. And that he governs all things upon earth with\nreference to their sympathy with the heavenly bodies. Another of his\ndoctrines was, that besides the four elements there is one other, making\nthe fifth, of which all the heavenly bodies are composed; and that this\none possesses a motion peculiar to itself, for it is a circular one.\nThat the soul is incorporeal, being the first \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1; for it is\nthe \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 of a physical and organic body, having an existence in\nconsequence of a capacity for existence. And this is, according to him,\nof a twofold nature. By the word \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, he means something which\nhas an incorporeal species, either in capacity, as a figure of Mercury\nin wax, which has a capacity for assuming any shape; or a statue in\nbrass; and so the perfection of the Mercury or of the statue is called\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, with reference to its habit. But when he speaks of the\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1[47] of a natural body, he does so because, of bodies some are\nwrought by the hands, as for instance, those which are made by artists,\nfor instance, a tower, or a ship; and some exist by nature, as the bodies\nof plants and animals. He has also used the term with reference to an\norganic body, that is to say, with reference to something that is made,\nas the faculty of sight for seeing, or the faculty of hearing for the\npurpose of hearing. The capacity of having life must exist in the thing\nitself. But the capacity is twofold, either in habit or in operation. In\noperation, as a man, when awake, is said to have a soul; in habit, as the\nsame is said of a man when asleep. That, therefore, he may come under his\ndefinition, he has added the word capacity.\n\nHe has also given other definitions on a great many subjects, which it\nwould be tedious to enumerate here. For he was in every thing a man of\nthe greatest industry and ingenuity, as is plain from all his works which\nI have lately given a list of; which are in number nearly four hundred,\nthe genuineness of which is undoubted. There are, also, a great many\nother works attributed to him, and a number of apophthegms which he never\ncommitted to paper.\n\nXIV. There were eight persons of the name of Aristotle. First of all, the\nphilosopher of whom we have been speaking; the second was an Athenian\nstatesman, some of whose forensic orations, of great elegance, are\nstill extant; the third was a man who wrote a treatise on the Iliad;\nthe fourth, a Siciliot orator, who wrote a reply to the Panegyric of\nIsocrates; the fifth was the man who was surnamed Myth, a friend of\n\u00c6schines, the pupil of Socrates; the sixth was a Cyrenean, who wrote a\ntreatise on Poetry; the seventh was a schoolmaster, who is mentioned by\nAristoxenus in his Life of Plato; the eighth, was an obscure grammarian,\nto whom a treatise on Pleonasm is attributed.\n\nXV. And the Stagirite had many friends, the most eminent of whom was\nTheophrastus, whom we must proceed to speak of.\n\n\nLIFE OF THEOPHRASTUS.\n\nI. Theophrastus was a native of Eresus, the son of Melantas, a fuller,\nas we are told by Athenodorus in the eighth book of his Philosophical\nConversations.\n\nII. He was originally a pupil of Leucippus, his fellow citizen, in his\nown country; and subsequently, after having attended the lectures of\nPlato, he went over to Aristotle. And when he withdrew to Chalcis, he\nsucceeded him as president of his school, in the hundred and fourteenth\nolympiad.\n\nIII. It is also said that a slave of his, by name Pomphylus, was a\nphilosopher, as we are told by Myronianus of Amastra, in the first book\nof Similar Historical Chapters.\n\nIV. Theophrastus was a man of great acuteness and industry, and, as\nPamphila asserts in the thirty-second book of her Commentaries, he was\nthe tutor of Menander, the comic poet. He was also a most benevolent man,\nand very affable.\n\nV. Accordingly Cassander received him as a friend; and Ptolemy sent to\ninvite him to his court. And he was thought so very highly of at Athens,\nthat when Agonides ventured to impeach him on a charge of impiety, he\nwas very nearly fined for his hardihood. And there thronged to his school\na crowd of disciples to the number of two thousand. In his letter to\nPhanias, the Peripatetic, among other subjects he speaks of the court\nof justice in the following terms: \u201cIt is not only out of the question\nto find an assembly (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2), but it is not easy to find even a\ncompany (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) such as one would like; but yet recitations produce\ncorrections of the judgment. And my age does not allow me to put off\neverything and to feel indifference on such a subject.\u201d In this letter he\nspeaks of himself as one who devotes his whole leisure to learning.\n\nAnd though he was of this disposition, he nevertheless went away for a\nshort time, both he and all the rest of the philosophers, in consequence\nof Sophocles, the son of Amphiclides, having brought forward and carried\na law that no one of the philosophers should preside over a school unless\nthe council and the people had passed a resolution to sanction their\ndoing so; if they did, death was to be the penalty. But they returned\nagain the next year, when Philion had impeached Sophocles for illegal\nconduct; when the Athenians abrogated his law, and fined Sophocles five\ntalents, and voted that the philosophers should have leave to return,\nthat Theophrastus might return and preside over his school as before.\n\nVI. His name had originally been Tyrtamus, but Aristotle changed it to\nTheophrastus, from the divine character of his eloquence.[48]\n\nVII. He is said also to have been very much attached to Aristotle\u2019s son,\nNicomachus, although he was his master; at least, this is stated by\nAristippus in the fourth book of his treatise on the Ancient Luxury.\n\nVIII. It is also related that Aristotle used the same expression about\nhim and Callisthenes, which Plato, as I have previously mentioned,\nemployed about Xenocrates and Aristotle himself. For he is reported to\nhave said, since Theophrastus was a man of extraordinary acuteness,\nwho could both comprehend and explain everything, and as the other was\nsomewhat slow in his natural character, that Theophrastus required a\nbridle, and Callisthenes a spur.\n\nIX. It is said, too, that he had a garden of his own after the death of\nAristotle, by the assistance of Demetrius Phalereus, who was an intimate\nfriend of his.\n\nX. The following very practical apophthegms of his are quoted. He used\nto say that it was better to trust to a horse without a bridle than to a\ndiscourse without arrangement. And once, when a man preserved a strict\nsilence during the whole of a banquet, he said to him, \u201cIf you are an\nignorant man, you are acting wisely; but if you have had any education,\nyou are behaving like a fool.\u201d And a very favourite expression of his\nwas, that time was the most valuable thing that a man could spend.\n\nXI. He died when he was of a great age, having lived eighty-five years,\nwhen he had only rested from his labours a short time. And we have\ncomposed the following epigram on him:\u2014\n\n The proverb then is not completely false,\n That wisdom\u2019s bow unbent is quickly broken;\n While Theophrastus laboured, he kept sound,\n When he relaxed, he lost his strength and died.\n\nThey say that on one occasion, when dying, he was asked by his disciples\nwhether he had any charge to give them; and he replied, that he had none\nbut that they should \u201cremember that life holds out many pleasing deceits\nto us by the vanity of glory; for that when we are beginning to live,\nthen we are dying. There is, therefore, nothing more profitless than\nambition. But may you all be fortunate, and either abandon philosophy\n(for it is a great labour), or else cling to it diligently, for then the\ncredit of it is great; but the vanities of life exceed the advantage of\nit. However, it is not requisite for me now to advise you what you should\ndo; but do you yourselves consider what line of conduct to adopt.\u201d And\nwhen he had said this, as report goes, he expired. And the Athenians\naccompanied him to the grave, on foot, with the whole population of the\ncity, as it is related, honouring the man greatly.\n\nXII. But Phavorinus says, that when he was very old he used to go about\nin a litter; and that Hermippus states this, quoting Arcesilaus, the\nPitan\u00e6an, and the account which he sent to Lacydes of Cyrene.\n\nXIII. He also left behind him a very great number of works, of which I\nhave thought it proper to give a list on account of their being full of\nevery sort of excellence. They are as follows:\u2014\n\nThree books of the First Analytics; seven of the Second Analytics; one\nbook of the Analysis of Syllogisms; one book, an Epitome of Analytics;\ntwo books, Topics for referring things to First Principles; one book,\nan Examination of Speculative Questions about Discussions; one on\nSensations; one addressed to Anaxagoras; one on the Doctrines of\nAnaxagoras; one on the Doctrines of Anaximenes; one on the Doctrines of\nArchelaus; one on Salt, Nitre, and Alum; two on Petrifactions; one on\nIndivisible Lines; two on Hearing; one on Words; one on the Differences\nbetween Virtues; one on Kingly Power; one on the Education of a King;\nthree on Lives; one on Old Age; one on the Astronomical System of\nDemocritus; one on Meteorology; one on Images or Phantoms; one on\nJuices, Complexions, and Flesh; one on the Description of the World; one\non Men; one, a Collection of the Sayings of Diogenes; three books of\nDefinitions; one treatise on Love; another treatise on Love; one book\non Happiness; two books on Species; on Epilepsy, one; on Enthusiasm,\none; on Empedocles, one; eighteen books of Epicheiremes; three books of\nObjections; one book on the Voluntary; two books, being an Abridgment of\nPlato\u2019s Polity; one on the Difference of the Voices of Similar Animals;\none on Sudden Appearances; one on Animals which Bite or Sting; one on\nsuch Animals as are said to be Jealous; one on those which live on Dry\nLand; one on those which Change their Colour; one on those which live\nin Holes; seven on Animals in General; one on Pleasure according to\nthe Definition of Aristotle; seventy-four books of Propositions; one\ntreatise on Hot and Cold; one essay on Giddiness and Vertigo and Sudden\nDimness of Sight; one on Perspiration; one on Affirmation and Denial; the\nCallisthenes, or an essay on Mourning, one; on Labours, one; on Motion,\nthree; on Stones, one; on Pestilences, one; on Fainting Fits, one; the\nMegaric Philosopher, one; on Melancholy, one; on Mines, two; on Honey,\none; a collection of the Doctrines of Metrodorus, one; two books on\nthose Philosophers who have treated of Meteorology; on Drunkenness, one;\ntwenty-four books of Laws, in alphabetical order; ten books, being an\nAbridgment of Laws; one on Definitions; one on Smells; one on Wine and\nOil; eighteen books of Primary Propositions; three books on Lawgivers;\nsix books of Political Disquisitions; a treatise on Politicals, with\nreference to occasions as they arise, four books; four books of Political\nCustoms; on the best Constitution, one; five books of a Collection of\nProblems; on Proverbs, one; on Concretion and Liquefaction, one; on\nFire, two; on Spirits, one; on Paralysis, one; on Suffocation, one;\non Aberration of Intellect, one; on the Passions, one; on Signs, one;\ntwo books of Sophisms; one on the Solution of Syllogisms; two books of\nTopics; two on Punishment; one on Hair; one on Tyranny; three on Water;\none on Sleep and Dreams; three on Friendship; two on Liberality; three\non Nature; eighteen on Questions of Natural Philosophy; two books,\nbeing an Abridgment of Natural Philosophy; eight more books on Natural\nPhilosophy; one treatise addressed to Natural Philosophers; two books\non the History of Plants; eight books on the Causes of Plants; five on\nJuices; one on Mistaken Pleasures; one, Investigation of a proposition\nconcerning the Soul; one on Unskilfully Adduced Proofs; one on Simple\nDoubts; one on Harmonics; one on Virtue; one entitled Occasions or\nContradictions; one on Denial; one on Opinion; one on the Ridiculous;\ntwo called Soirees; two books of Divisions; one on Differences; one on\nActs of Injustice; one on Calumny; one on Praise; one on Skill; three\nbooks of Epistles; one on Self-produced Animals; one on Selection; one\nentitled the Praises of the Gods; one on Festivals; one on Good Fortune;\none on Enthymemes; one on Inventions; one on Moral Schools; one book of\nMoral Characters; one treatise on Tumult; one on History; one on the\nJudgment Concerning Syllogisms; one on Flattery; one on the Sea; one\nessay, addressed to Cassander, Concerning Kingly Power; one on Comedy;\none on Meteors; one on Style; one book called a Collection of Sayings;\none book of Solutions; three books on Music; one on Metres; the Megades,\none; on Laws, one; on Violations of Law, one; a collection of the Sayings\nand Doctrines of Xenocrates, one; one book of Conversations; on an Oath,\none; one of Oratorical Precepts; one on Riches; one on Poetry; one being\na collection of Political, Ethical, Physical, and amatory Problems; one\nbook of Proverbs; one book, being a Collection of General Problems; one\non Problems in Natural Philosophy; one on Example; one on Proposition\nand Exposition; a second treatise on Poetry; one on the Wise Men; one\non Counsel; one on Solecisms; one on Rhetorical Art, a collection of\nsixty-one figures of Oratorical Art; one book on Hypocrisy; six books of\na Commentary of Aristotle or Theophrastus; sixteen books of Opinions on\nNatural Philosophy; one book, being an Abridgment of Opinions on Natural\nPhilosophy; one on Gratitude; one called Moral Characters; one on Truth\nand Falsehood; six on the History of Divine Things; three on the Gods;\nfour on the History of Geometry; six books, being an Abridgment of the\nwork of Aristotle on Animals; two books of Epicheiremes; three books of\nPropositions; two on Kingly Power; one on Causes; one on Democritus;\none on Calumny; one on Generation; one on the Intellect and Moral\nCharacter of Animals; two on Motion; four on Sight; two on Definitions;\none on being given in Marriage; one on the Greater and the Less; one on\nMusic; one on Divine Happiness; one addressed to the Philosophers of\nthe Academy; one Exhortatory Treatise; one discussing how a City may be\nbest Governed; one called Commentaries; one on the Crater of Mount Etna\nin Sicily; one on Admitted Facts; one on Problems in Natural History;\none, What are the Different Manners of Acquiring Knowledge; three on\nTelling Lies; one book, which is a preface to the Topics; one addressed\nto \u00c6schylus; six books of a History of Astronomy; one book of the History\nof Arithmetic relating to Increasing Numbers; one called the Acicharus;\none on Judicial Discourses; one on Calumny; one volume of Letters to\nAstycreon, Phanias, and Nicanor; one book on Piety; one called the Evias;\none on Circumstances; one volume entitled Familiar Conversations; one on\nthe Education of Children; another on the same subject, discussed in a\ndifferent manner; one on Education, called also, a treatise on Virtue, or\non Temperance; one book of Exhortations; one on Numbers; one consisting\nof Definitions referring to the Enunciation of Syllogisms; one on Heaven;\ntwo on Politics; two on Nature, on Fruits, and on Animals. And these\nworks contain in all two hundred and thirty-two thousand nine hundred and\neight lines.\n\nThese, then, are the books which Theophrastus composed.\n\nXIV. I have also found his will, which is drawn up in the following\nterms:\u2014\n\nMay things turn out well, but if anything should happen to me, I make the\nfollowing disposition of my property. I give everything that I have in my\nhouse to Melantes and Pancreon, the sons of Leon. And those things which\nhave been given to me by Hipparchus, I wish to be disposed of in the\nfollowing manner:\u2014First of all, I wish everything about the Museum[49]\nand the statue of the goddesses to be made perfect, and to be adorned in\na still more beautiful manner than at present, wherein there is room for\nimprovement. Then I desire the statue of Aristotle to be placed in the\ntemple, and all the other offerings which were in the temple before. Then\nI desire the colonnade which used to be near the Museum to be rebuilt in\na manner not inferior to the previous one. I also enjoin my executors\nto put up the tablets on which the maps of the earth are drawn, in the\nlower colonnade, and to take care that an altar is finished in such a\nmanner that nothing may be wanting to its perfectness or its beauty. I\nalso direct a statue of Nicomachus, of equal size, to be erected at the\nsame time; and the price for making the statue has been already paid to\nPraxiteles; and he is to contribute what is wanting for the expense.\nAnd I desire that it shall be placed wherever it shall seem best to\nthose who have the charge of providing for the execution of the other\ninjunctions contained in this will. And these are my orders respecting\nthe temple and the offerings. The estate which I have at Stagira, I\ngive to Callinus, and all my books I bequeath to Neleus. My garden, and\nmy promenade, and my houses which join the garden, I give all of them\nto any of the friends whose names I set down below, who choose to hold\na school in them and to devote themselves to the study of philosophy,\nsince it is not possible for any one to be always travelling, but I give\nthem on condition that they are not to alienate them, and that no one is\nto claim them as his own private property; but they are to use them in\ncommon as if they were sacred ground, sharing them with one another in\na kindred and friendly spirit, as is reasonable and just. And those who\nare to have this joint property in them are Hipparchus, Neleus, Strato,\nCallinus, Demotimus, Demaratus, Callisthenes, Melantes, Pancreon, and\nNicippus. And Aristotle, the son of Metrodorus and Pythias, shall also be\nentitled to a share in this property, if he like to join these men in the\nstudy of philosophy. And I beg the older men to pay great attention to\nhis education that he may be led on to philosophy as much as possible. I\nalso desire my executors to bury me in whatever part of the garden shall\nappear most suitable, incurring no superfluous expense about my funeral\nor monument. And, as has been said before, after the proper honours have\nbeen paid to me, and after provision has been made for the execution\nof my will as far as relates to the temple, and the monument, and the\ngarden, and the promenade, then I enjoin that Pamphylus, who dwells in\nthe garden, shall keep it and everything else in the condition as it has\nbeen in hitherto. And those who are in possession of these things are to\ntake care of his interests. I further bequeath to Pamphylus and Threptes,\nwho have been some time emancipated, and who have been of great service\nto me, besides all that they have previously received from me, and all\nthat they may have earned for themselves, and all that I have provided\nfor being given them by Hipparchus, two thousand drachmas, and I enjoin\nthat they should have them in firm and secure possession, as I have\noften said to them, and to Melantes and Pancreon, and they have agreed\nto provide for this my will taking effect. I also give them the little\nhandmaid Somatale; and of my slaves, I ratify the emancipation of Molon,\nand Cimon, and Parmenon which I have already given them. And I hereby\ngive their liberty to Manes and Callias, who have remained four years in\nthe garden, and have worked in it, and have conducted themselves in an\nunimpeachable manner. And I direct that my executors shall give Pamphylus\nas much of my household furniture as may seem to them to be proper, and\nshall sell the rest. And I give Carion to Demotimus, and Donax to Neleus.\nI order Eubius to be sold, and I request Hipparchus to give Callinus\nthree thousand drachmas. And if I had not seen the great service that\nHipparchus has been to me in former times, and the embarrassed state of\nhis affairs at present, I should have associated Melantes and Pancreon\nwith him in these gifts. But as I see that it would not be easy for them\nto arrange to manage the property together, I have thought it likely to\nbe more advantageous for them to receive a fixed sum from Hipparchus.\nTherefore, let Hipparchus pay to Melantes and to Pancreon a talent\na-piece; and let him also pay to my executors the money necessary for\nthe expenses which I have here set down in my will, as it shall require\nto be expended. And when he has done this, then I will that he shall be\ndischarged of all debts due from him to me or to my estate. And if any\nprofit shall accrue to him in Chalcis, from property belonging to me,\nit shall be all his own. My executors, for all the duties provided for\nin this will, shall be Hipparchus, Neleus, Strato, Callinus, Demotimus,\nCallisthenes, and Ctesarchus. And this my will is copied out, and all\nthe copies are sealed with the seal-ring of me, Theophrastus; one copy\nis in the hands of Hegesias the son of Hipparchus; the witnesses thereto\nare Callippus of Pallene, Philomelus of Euonymus, Lysander of Hybas, and\nPhilion of Alopece. Another copy is deposited with Olympiodorus, and the\nwitnesses are the same. A third copy is under the care of Adimantus, and\nit was conveyed to him by Androsthenes, his son. The witnesses to that\ncopy are Arimnestus the son of Cleobulus, Lysistratus of Thasos, the\nson of Phidon; Strato of Lampsacus, the son of Arcesilaus; Thesippus of\nCerami, the son of Thesippus; Dioscorides of the banks of the Cephisus,\nthe son of Dionysius.\u2014This was his will.\n\nXV. Some writers have stated that Erasistratus, the physician, was a\npupil of his; and it is very likely.\n\n\nLIFE OF STRATO.\n\nI. Theophrastus was succeeded in the presidency of his school by Strato\nof Lampsacus, the son of Arcesilaus, of whom he had made mention in his\nwill.\n\nII. He was a man of great eminence, surnamed the Natural Philosopher,\nfrom his surpassing all men in the diligence with which he applied\nhimself to the investigation of matters of that nature.\n\nIII. He was also the preceptor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and received from\nhim, as it is said, eighty talents; and he began to preside over the\nschool, as Apollodorus tells us in his Chronicles, in the hundred and\ntwenty-third olympiad, and continued in that post for eighteen years.\n\nIV. There are extant three books of his on Kingly Power; three on\nJustice; three on the Gods; three on Beginnings; and one on each of the\nsubjects of Happiness, Philosophy, Manly Courage, the Vacuum, Heaven,\nSpirit, Human Nature, the Generation of Animals, Mixtures, Sleep, Dreams,\nSight, Perception, Pleasure, Colours, Diseases, Judgments, Powers,\nMetallic Works, Hunger, and Dimness of Sight, Lightness and Heaviness,\nEnthusiasm, Pain, Nourishment and Growth, Animals whose Existence is\nDoubted, Fabulous Animals, Causes, a Solution of Doubts, a preface to\nTopics; there are, also, treatises on Contingencies, on the Definition,\non the More and Less, on Injustice, on Former and Later, on the Prior\nGenus, on Property, on the Future. There are, also, two books called the\nExamination of Inventions; the Genuineness of the Commentaries attributed\nto him, is doubted. There is a volume of Epistles, which begins thus:\n\u201cStrato wishes Arsinoe prosperity.\u201d\n\nV. They say that he became so thin and weak, that he died without\nits being perceived. And there is an epigram of ours upon him in the\nfollowing terms:\u2014\n\n The man was thin, believe me, from the use\n Of frequent unguents; Strato was his name,\n A citizen of Lampsacus; he struggled long\n With fell disease, and died at last unnoticed.\n\nVI. There were eight people of the name of Strato. The first was a pupil\nof Isocrates; the second was the man of whom we have been speaking; the\nthird was a physician, a pupil of Erasistratus, or, as some assert, a\nfoster-child of his; the fourth was an historian, who wrote a history of\nthe Achievements of Philip and Perses in their wars against the Romans.\u2026\nThe sixth was an epigrammatic poet; the seventh was an ancient physician,\nas Aristotle tells us; the eighth was a Peripatetic philosopher, who\nlived in Alexandria.\n\nVII. But the will, too, of this natural philosopher is extant, and it\nis couched in the following language:\u2014\u201cIf anything happens to me, I\nmake this disposition of my property. I leave all my property in my\nhouse to Lampyrion and Arcesilaus; and with the money which I have at\nAthens, in the first place, let my executors provide for my funeral and\nfor all other customary expenses; without doing anything extravagant,\nor, on the other hand, anything mean. And the following shall be my\nexecutors, according to this my will: Olympichus, Aristides, Mnesigenes,\nHippocrates, Epicrates, Gorgylus, Diocles, Lycon, and Athanes. And my\nschool I leave to Lycon, since of the others some are too old, and others\ntoo busy. And the rest will do well, if they ratify this arrangement\nof mine. I also bequeath to him all my books, except such as we have\nwritten ourselves; and all my furniture in the dining-room, and the\ncouches, and the drinking cups. And let my executors give Epicrates five\nhundred drachmas, and one of my slaves, according to the choice made by\nArcesilaus. And first of all, let Lampyrion and Arcesilaus cancel the\nengagements which Daippus has entered into for Ir\u00e6us. And let him be\nacquitted of all obligation to Lampyrion or the heirs of Lampyrion; and\nlet him also be discharged from any bond or note of hand he may have\ngiven. And let my executors give him five hundred drachmas of silver,\nand one of my slaves, whichever Arcesilaus may approve, in order that,\nas he has done me great service, and co-operated with me in many things,\nhe may have a competency, and be enabled to live decently. And I give\ntheir freedom to Diophantus, and Diocles, and Abus. Simias I give to\nArcesilaus. I also give his freedom to Dromo. And when Arcesilaus\narrives, let Ir\u00e6us calculate with Olympichus and Epicrates, and the rest\nof my executors, the amount that has been expended on my funeral and on\nother customary expenses. And let the money that remains, be paid over\nto Arcesilaus by Olympichus, who shall give him no trouble, as to the\ntime or manner of payment. And Arcesilaus shall discharge the engagements\nwhich Strato has entered into with Olympichus and Aminias, which are\npreserved in writing in the care of Philocrates, the son of Tisamenus.\nAnd with respect to my monument, let them do whatever seems good to\nArcesilaus, and Olympichus, and Lycon.\u201d\n\nThis is his will, which is still extant, as Aristo, the Chian, has\ncollected and published it.\n\nVIII. And this Strato was a man, as has been shown above, of deservedly\ngreat popularity; having devoted himself to the study of every kind\nof philosophy, and especially of that branch of it called natural\nphilosophy, which is one of the most ancient and important branches of\nthe whole.\n\n\nLIFE OF LYCON.\n\nI. He was succeeded by Lycon, a native of the Troas, the son of Astyanax,\na man of great eloquence, and of especial ability in the education of\nyouth. For he used to say that it was fit for boys to be harnessed with\nmodesty and rivalry, as much as for horses to be equipped with a spur\nand a bridle. And his eloquence and energy in speaking is apparent, from\nthis instance. For he speaks of a virgin who was poor in the following\nmanner:\u2014\u201cA damsel, who, for want of a dowry, goes beyond the seasonable\nage, is a heavy burden to her father;\u201d on which account they say that\nAntigonus said with reference to him, that the sweetness and beauty of an\napple could not be transferred to anything else, but that one might see,\nin the case of this man, all these excellencies, in as great perfection\nas on a tree; and he said this, because he was a surpassingly sweet\nspeaker. On which account, some people prefixed a \u0393 to his name.[50]\nBut as a writer, he was very unequal to his reputation. And he used to\njest in a careless way, upon those who repented that they had not learnt\nwhen they had the opportunity, and who now wished that they had done so,\nsaying, said that they were accusing themselves, showing by a prayer\nwhich could not possibly be accomplished, their misplaced repentance for\ntheir idleness. He used also to say, that those who deliberated without\ncoming to a right conclusion, erred in their calculations, like men who\ninvestigate a correct nature by an incorrect standard, or who look at a\nface in disturbed water, or a distorted mirror. Another of his sayings\nwas, that many men go in pursuit of the crown to be won in the forum, but\nfew or none seek to attain the one to be gained at the Olympic games.\n\nII. And as he in many instances gave much advice to the Athenians, he was\nof exceedingly great service to them.\n\nIII. He was also a person of great neatness in his dress, wearing\ngarments of an unsurpassable delicacy, as we are told by Hermippus.\nHe was at the same time exceedingly devoted to the exercises of the\nGymnasium, and a man who was always in excellent condition as to his\nbody, displaying every quality of an athlete (though Antigonus of\nCarystus, pretends that he was bruised about the ears and dirty); and in\nhis own country he is said to have wrestled and played at ball at the\nIli\u00e6an games.\n\nIV. And he was exceedingly beloved by Eumenes and Attalus, who made him\ngreat presents; and Antigonus also tried to seduce him to his court,\nbut was disappointed. And he was so great an enemy to Hieronymus the\nPeripatetic, that he was the only person who would not go to see him on\nthe anniversary festival which he used to celebrate, and which we have\nmentioned in our life of Arcesilaus.\n\nV. And he presided over his school forty-four years, as Strato had left\nit to him in his will, in the hundred and twenty-seventh olympiad.\n\nVI. He was also a pupil of Panthoides, the dialectician.\n\nVII. He died when he was seventy-four years of age, having been a great\nsufferer with the gout, and there is an epigram of ours upon him:\u2014\n\n Nor shall wise Lycon be forgotten, who\n Died of the gout, and much I wonder at it.\n For he who ne\u2019er before could walk alone,\n Went the long road to hell in a single night.\n\nVIII. There were several people of the name of Lycon. The first was a\nPythagorean; the second was this man of whom we are speaking; the third\nwas an epic poet; the fourth was an epigrammatic poet.\n\nIX. I have fallen in with the following will of this philosopher. \u201cI make\nthe following disposition of my property; if I am unable to withstand\nthis disease:\u2014All the property in my house I leave to my brothers\nAstyanax and Lycon; and I think that they ought to pay all that I owe\nat Athens, and that I may have borrowed from any one, and also all the\nexpenses that may be incurred for my funeral, and for other customary\nsolemnities. And all that I have in the city, or in \u00c6gina, I give to\nLycon because he bears the same name that I do, and because he has spent\nthe greater part of his life with me, showing me the greatest affection,\nas it was fitting that he should do, since he was in the place of a son\nto me. And I leave my garden walk to those of my friends who like to\nuse it; to Bulon, and Callinus, and Ariston, and Amphion, and Lycon,\nand Python, and Aristomachus, and Heracleus, and Lycomedes, and Lycon\nmy nephew. And I desire that they will elect as president him whom they\nthink most likely to remain attached to the pursuit of philosophy, and\nmost capable of holding the school together. And I entreat the rest of\nmy friends to acquiesce in their election, for my sake and that of the\nplace. And I desire that Bulon, and Callinus, and the rest of my friends\nwill manage my funeral and the burning of my body, so that my obsequies\nmay not be either mean or extravagant. And the property which I have in\n\u00c6gina shall be divided by Lycon after my decease among the young men\nthere, for the purpose of anointing themselves, in order that the memory\nof me and of him who honoured me, and who showed his affection by useful\npresents, may be long preserved. And let him erect a statue of me; and as\nfor the place for it, I desire that Diophantus and Heraclides the son of\nDemetrius, shall select that, and take care that it be suitable for the\nproposed erection. With the property that I have in the city let Lycon\npay all the people of whom I have borrowed anything since his departure;\nand let Bulon and Callinus join him in this, and also in discharging\nall the expenses incurred for my funeral, and for all other customary\nsolemnities, and let him deduct the amount from the funds which I have\nleft in my house, and bequeathed to them both in common. Let him also\npay the physicians, Pasithemis and Medias, men who, for their attention\nto me and for their skill, are very deserving of still greater honour.\nAnd I give to the son of Callinus my pair of Thericlean cups; and to his\nwife I give my pair of Rhodian cups, and my smooth carpet, and my double\ncarpet, and my curtains, and the two best pillows of all that I leave\nbehind me; so that as far as the compliment goes, I may be seen not to\nhave forgotten them. And with respect to those who have been my servants,\nI make the following disposition:\u2014To Demetrius who has long been freed,\nI remit the price of his freedom, and I further give five min\u00e6, and a\ncloak, and a tunic, that as he has a great deal of trouble about me, he\nmay pass the rest of his life comfortably. To Criton, the Chalcedonian,\nI also remit the price of his freedom, and I further give him four min\u00e6.\nMicrus I hereby present with his freedom; and I desire Lycon to maintain\nhim, and instruct him for six years from the present time. I also give\nhis freedom to Chares, and desire Lycon to maintain him. And I further\ngive him two min\u00e6, and all my books that are published; but those which\nare not published, I give to Callinus, that he may publish them with\ndue care. I also give to Syrus, whom I have already emancipated, four\nmin\u00e6, and Menodora; and if he owes me anything I acquit him of the debt.\nAnd I give to Hilaras four min\u00e6, and a double carpet, and two pillows,\nand a curtain, and any couch which he chooses to select. I also hereby\nemancipate the mother of Micrus, and Noemon, and Dion, and Theon, and\nEuphranor, and Hermeas; and I desire that Agathon shall have his freedom\nwhen he has served two years longer; and that Ophelion, and Poseideon, my\nlitter-bearers, shall have theirs when they have waited four years more.\nI also give to Demetrius, and Criton, and Syrus, a couch a piece, and\ncoverlets from those which I leave behind me, according to the selection\nwhich Lycon is hereby authorised to make. And these are to be their\nrewards for having performed the duties to which they were appointed\nwell. Concerning my burial, let Lycon do as he pleases, and bury me\nhere or at home, just as he likes; for I am sure that he has the same\nregard for propriety that I myself have. And I give all the things herein\nmentioned, in the confidence that he will arrange everything properly.\nThe witnesses to this my will are Callinus of Hermione, Ariston of Ceos,\nand Euphronius of P\u00e6ania.\u201d\n\nAs he then was thoroughly wise in everything relating to education,\nand every branch of philosophy, he was no less prudent and careful in\nthe framing of his will. So that in this respect too he deserves to be\nadmired and imitated.\n\n\nLIFE OF DEMETRIUS.\n\nI. Demetrius was a native of Phalerus, and the son of Phanostratus. He\nwas a pupil of Theophrastus.\n\nII. And as a leader of the people at Athens he governed the city for ten\nyears, and was honoured with three hundred and sixty brazen statues, the\ngreater part of which were equestrian; and some were placed in carriages\nor in pair-horse chariots, and the entire number were finished within\nthree hundred days, so great was the zeal with which they were worked at.\nAnd Demetrius, the Magnesian, in his treatise on People of the same Name,\nsays that he began to be the leader of the commonwealth, when Harpalus\narrived in Athens, having fled from Alexander. And he governed his\ncountry for a long time in a most admirable manner. For he aggrandised\nthe city by increased revenues and by new buildings, although he was a\nperson of no distinction by birth.\n\nIII. Though Phavorinus, in the first book of his Commentaries, asserts\nthat he was of the family of Conon.\n\nIV. He lived with a citizen of noble birth, named Lamia, as his mistress,\nas the same author tells us in his first book.\n\nV. Again, in his second book he tells us that Demetrius was the slave of\nthe debaucheries of Cleon.\n\nVI. Didymus, in his Banquets, says that he was called \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, or\nBeautiful Eyed, and Lampeto, by some courtesan.\n\nVII. It is said that he lost his eye-sight in Alexandria, and recovered\nit again by the favour of Serapis; on which account he composed the p\u00e6ans\nwhich are sung and spoken of as his composition to this day.\n\nVIII. He was held in the greatest honour among the Athenians, but\nnevertheless, he found his fame darkened by envy, which attacks every\nthing; for he was impeached by some one on a capital charge, and as\nhe did not appear, he was condemned. His accusers, however, did not\nbecome masters of his person, but expended their venom on the brass,\ntearing down his statues and selling some and throwing others into the\nsea, and some they cut up into chamber-pots. For even this is stated.\nAnd one statue alone of him is preserved which is in the Acropolis.\nBut Phavorinus in his Universal History, says that the Athenians\ntreated Demetrius in this manner at the command of the king; and they\nalso impeached him as guilty of illegality in his administration, as\nPhavorinus says. But Hermippus says, that after the death of Cassander,\nhe feared the enmity of Antigonus, and on that account fled to Ptolemy\nSoter; and that he remained at his court for a long time, and, among\nother pieces of advice, counselled the king to make over the kingdom to\nhis sons by Eurydice. And as he would not agree to this measure, but gave\nthe crown to his son by Berenice, this latter, after the death of his\nfather, commanded Demetrius to be kept in prison until he should come to\nsome determination about him. And there he remained in great despondency;\nand while asleep on one occasion, he was bitten by an asp in the hand,\nand so he died. And he is buried in the district of Busiris, near\nDiospolis, and we have written the following epigram on him:\u2014\n\n An asp, whose tooth of venom dire was full,\n Did kill the wise Demetrius.\n The serpent beamed not light from out his eyes,\n But dark and lurid hell.\n\nBut Heraclides, in his Epitome of the Successions of Sotion, says\nthat Ptolemy wished to transmit the kingdom to Philadelphus, and that\nDemetrius dissuaded him from doing so by the argument, \u201cIf you give\nit to another, you will not have it yourself.\u201d And when Menander, the\ncomic poet, had an information laid against him at Athens (for this is\na statement which I have heard), he was very nearly convicted, for no\nother reason but that he was a friend of Demetrius. He was, however,\nsuccessfully defended by Telesphorus, the son-in-law of Demetrius.\n\nIX. In the multitude of his writings and the number of lines which they\namount to, he exceeded nearly all the Peripatetics of his day, being a\nman of great learning and experience on every subject. And some of his\nwritings are historical, some political, some on poets, some rhetorical,\nsome also are speeches delivered in public assemblies or on embassies;\nthere are also collections of \u00c6sop\u2019s Fables, and many other books. There\nare five volumes on the Legislation of Athens; two on Citizens of Athens;\ntwo on the Management of the People; two on Political Science; one on\nLaws; two on Rhetoric; two on Military Affairs; two on the Iliad; four on\nthe Odyssey; one called the Ptolemy; one on Love; the Ph\u00e6dondas, one; the\nM\u00e6don, one; the Cleon, one; the Socrates, one; the Artaxerxes, one; the\nHomeric, one; the Aristides, one; the Aristomachus, one; the Exhortatory,\none; one on the Constitution; one on his Ten Years\u2019 Government; one on\nthe Ionians; one on Ambassadors; one on Good Faith; one on Gratitude; one\non Futurity; one on Greatness of Soul; one on Marriage; one on Opinion;\none on Peace; one on Laws; one on Studies; one on Opportunity; the\nDionysius, one; the Chalcidean, one; the Maxims of the Athenians, one;\non Antiphanes, one; a Historic Preface, one; one Volume of Letters; one\ncalled an Assembly on Oath; one on Old Age; one on Justice; one volume of\n\u00c6sop\u2019s Fables; one of Apophthegms. His style is philosophical, combined\nwith the energy and impressiveness of an orator.\n\nX. When he was told that the Athenians had thrown down his statues, he\nsaid, \u201cBut they have not thrown down my virtues, on account of which they\nerected them.\u201d He used to say that the eyebrows were not an insignificant\npart of a man, for that they were able to overshadow the whole life.\nAnother of his sayings was that it was not Plutus alone who was blind,\nbut Fortune also, who acted as his guide. Another, that reason had as\nmuch influence on government, as steel had in war. On one occasion, when\nhe saw a debauched young man, he said, \u201cThere is a square Mercury with a\nlong robe, a belly, and a beard.\u201d It was a favourite saying of his, that\nin the case of men elated with pride one ought to cut something off their\nheight, and leave them their spirit. Another of his apophthegms was, that\nat home young men ought to show respect to their parents, and in the\nstreets to every one whom they met, and in solitary places to themselves.\nAnother, that friends ought to come to others in good fortune only when\ninvited, but to those in distress of their own accord.\n\nThese are the chief sayings attributed to him.\n\nXI. There were twenty persons of the name of Demetrius, of sufficient\nconsideration to be entitled to mention. First, a Chalcedonian, an\norator, older than Thrasymachus; the second, this person of whom we are\nspeaking; the third was a Byzantine, a Peripatetic philosopher; the\nfourth was a man surnamed Graphicus, a very eloquent lecturer, and also\na painter; the fifth was a native of Aspendus, a disciple of Apollonius,\nof Soli; the sixth was a native of Calatia, who wrote twenty books about\nAsia and Europe; the seventh was a Byzantine, who wrote an account of\nthe crossing of the Gauls from Europe into Asia, in thirteen books, and\nthe History of Antiochus and Ptolemy, and their Administration of the\nAffairs of Africa, in eight more; the eighth was a Sophist who lived\nin Alexandria, and who wrote a treatise on Rhetorical Art; the ninth\nwas a native of Adramyttium, a grammarian, who was nick-named Ixion,\nin allusion to some crime he had committed against Juno; the tenth\nwas a Cyrenean, a grammarian, who was surnamed Stamnus,[51] a very\ndistinguished man; the eleventh was a Scepsian, a rich man of noble\nbirth, and of great eminence for learning. He it was who advanced the\nfortunes of Metrodorus his fellow citizen; the twelfth was a grammarian\nof Erythr\u00e6, who was made a citizen of Lemnos; the thirteenth was a\nBithynian, a son of Diphilus the Stoic, and a disciple of Pan\u00e6tius of\nRhodes; the fourteenth was an orator of Smyrna. All of these were prose\nwriters.\n\nThe following were poets:\u2014The first a poet of the Old Comedy. The second\nan Epic poet, who has left nothing behind him that has come down to us,\nexcept these lines which he wrote against some envious people:\u2014\n\n They disregard a man while still alive,\n Whom, when he\u2019s dead, they honour; cities proud,\n And powerful nations, have with contest fierce,\n Fought o\u2019er a tomb and unsubstantial shade\n\nThe third was a native of Tarsus; a writer of Satires. The fourth was\na composer of Iambics, a bitter man. The fifth was a statuary, who\nis mentioned by Polemo. The sixth was a native of Erythr\u00e6, a man who\nwrote on various subjects, and who composed volumes of histories and\nrelations.[52]\n\n\nLIFE OF HERACLIDES.\n\nI. Heraclides was the son of Euthyphron, and was born at Heraclea, in\nPontus; he was also a wealthy man.\n\nII. After he came to Athens, he was at first a disciple of Speusippus,\nbut he also attended the schools of the Pythagorean philosophers, and\nhe adopted the principles of Plato; last of all he became a pupil of\nAristotle, as we are told by Sotion in his book entitled the Successions.\n\nIII. He used to wear delicate garments, and was a man of great size, so\nthat he was nicknamed by the Athenians Pompicus[53] instead of Ponticus.\nBut he was of quiet manners and noble aspect.\n\nIV. There are several books extant by him, which are exceedingly good\nand admirable. They are in the form of dialogue; some being Ethical\ndialogues; three on the subject of Justice; one on Temperance; five on\nPiety; one on Manly Courage; one, and a second which is distinct from it,\non Virtue; one on Happiness; one on Supremacy; one on Laws and questions\nconnected with them; one on Names; one called Covenants; one called The\nUnwilling Lover; and the Clinias.\n\nOf the physical dialogues, one is on the Mind; one on the Soul; one on\nthe Soul, and Nature and Appearances; one addressed to Democritus; one\non the Heavenly Bodies; one on the State of Things in the Shades below;\ntwo on Lives; one on the Causes of Diseases; one on the Good; one on the\ndoctrines of Zeno; one on the Doctrines of Metron.\n\nOf his grammatical dialogues, there are two on the Age of Homer and\nHesiod; two on Archilochus and Homer.\n\nThere are some on Music too; three on Euripides and Sophocles, and two\non Music. There are also two volumes, Solutions of Questions concerning\nHomer; one on Speculations; one, the Three Tragedians; one volume of\nCharacters; one dialogue on Poetry and the Poets; one on Conjecture; one\non Foresight; four, being Explanations of Heraclitus; one, Explanations\nwith reference to Democritus; two books of Solutions of Disputed\nPoints; one, the Axiom; one on Species; one book of Solutions; one of\nSuppositions; one addressed to Dionysius.\n\nOf rhetorical works, there is the dialogue on the being an Orator, or the\nProtagoras.\n\nOf historical dialogues, there are some on the Pythagoreans, and on\nInventions. Of these, some he has drawn up after the manner of Comic\nwriters; as, for instance, the one about Pleasure, and that about\nTemperance. And some in the style of the Tragedians, as, for instance,\nthe dialogues on the State of Things in the Shades below; and one on\nPiety, and that on Supremacy. And his style is a conversational and\nmoderate one, suited to the characters of philosophers and men occupied\nin the military or political affairs conversing together. Some of his\nworks also are on Geometry, and on Dialectics; and in all of them he\ndisplays a very varied and elevated style; and he has great powers of\npersuasion.\n\nV. He appears to have delivered his country when it was under the yoke of\ntyrants, by slaying the monarch, as Demetrius of Magnesia tells us, in\nhis treatise on People of the Same Name.\n\nVI. And he gives the following account of him. That he brought up a\nyoung serpent, and kept it till it grew large; and that when he was at\nthe point of death, he desired one of his faithful friends to hide his\nbody, and to place the serpent in his bed, that he might appear to have\nmigrated to the Gods. And all this was done; and while the citizens\nwere all attending his funeral and extolling his character, the serpent\nhearing the noise, crept out of his clothes and threw the multitude into\nconfusion. And afterwards everything was revealed, and Heraclides was\nseen, not as he hoped to have been, but as he really was. And we have\nwritten an epigram on him which runs thus:\u2014\n\n You wish\u2019d, O Heraclides, when you died,\n To leave a strange belief among mankind,\n That you, when dead, a serpent had become.\n But all your calculations were deceived,\n For this your serpent was indeed a beast,\n And you were thus discovered and pronounced another.\n\nAnd Hippobotus gives the same account.\n\nBut Hermippus says that once, when a famine oppressed the land, the\npeople of Heraclea consulted the Pythian oracle for the way to get rid\nof it; and that Heraclides corrupted the ambassadors who were sent to\nconsult the oracle, and also the priestess, with bribes; and that she\nanswered that they would obtain a deliverance from their distresses,\nif Heraclides, the son of Euthyphron, was presented by them with a\ngolden crown, and if when he was dead they paid him honours as a hero.\nAccordingly, this answer was brought back from the oracle to Heraclea,\nbut they who brought it got no advantage from it; for as soon as\nHeraclides had been crowned in the theatre, he was seized with apoplexy,\nand the ambassadors who had been sent to consult the oracle were stoned,\nand so put to death; and at the very same moment the Pythian priestess\nwas going down to the inner shrine, and while standing there was bitten\nby a serpent, and died immediately. This then is the account given of his\ndeath.\n\nVII. And Aristoxenus the musician says, that he composed tragedies,\nand inscribed them with the name of Thespis. And Cham\u00e6leon says, that\nhe stole essays from him on the subject of Homer and Hesiod, and\npublished them as his own. And Autodorus the Epicurean reproaches him,\nand contradicts all the arguments which he advanced in his treatise\non Justice. Moreover, Dionysius, called the Deserter, or as some say\nSpintharus, wrote a tragedy called Parthenop\u00e6us, and forged the name\nof Sophocles to it. And Heraclides was so much deceived that he took\nsome passages out of one of his works, and cited them as the words of\nSophocles; and Dionysius, when he perceived it, gave him notice of the\nreal truth; and as he would not believe it, and denied it, he sent him\nword to examine the first letters of the first verses of the book, and\nthey formed the name of Pancalus, who was a friend of Dionysius. And as\nHeraclides still refused to believe it, and said that it was possible\nthat such a thing might happen by chance, Dionysius sent him back word\nonce more, \u201cYou will find this passage too:\u2014\n\n \u201cAn aged monkey is not easily caught;\n He\u2019s caught indeed, but only after a time.\u201d\n\nAnd he added, \u201cHeraclides knows nothing of letters, and has no shame.\u201d\n\nVIII. And there were fourteen persons of the name of Heraclides. First,\nthis man of whom we are speaking; the second was a fellow citizen of his,\nwho composed songs for Pyrrhic dances, and other trifles; the third was\na native of Cum\u00e6, who wrote a history of the Persian war in five books;\nthe fourth was also a citizen of Cum\u00e6, who was an orator, and wrote a\ntreatise on his art; the fifth was a native of Calatia or Alexandria,\nwho wrote a Succession in six books, and a treatise on Ships, from which\nhe was called Lembos; the sixth was an Alexandrian, who wrote an account\nof the peculiar habits of the Persians; the seventh was a dialectician\nof Bargyleia, who wrote against Epicurus; the eighth was a physician, a\npupil of Hicesius; the ninth was a physician of Tarentum, a man of great\nskill; the tenth was a poet, who wrote Precepts; the eleventh was a\nsculptor of Phoc\u00e6a; the twelfth was an Epigrammatic poet of considerable\nbeauty; the thirteenth was a Magnesian, who wrote a history of the reign\nof Mithridates; the fourteenth was an astronomer, who wrote a treatise on\nAstronomy.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VI.\n\n\nLIFE OF ANTISTHENES.\n\nI. Antisthenes was an Athenian, the son of Antisthenes. And he was\nsaid not to be a legitimate Athenian; in reference to which he said to\nsome one who was reproaching him with the circumstance, \u201cThe mother of\nthe Gods too is a Phrygian;\u201d for he was thought to have had a Thracian\nmother. On which account, as he had borne himself bravely in the battle\nof Tanagra, he gave occasion to Socrates to say that the son of two\nAthenians could not have been so brave. And he himself, when disparaging\nthe Athenians who gave themselves great airs as having been born out of\nthe earth itself, said that they were not more noble as far as that went\nthan snails and locusts.\n\nII. Originally he was a pupil of Gorgias the rhetorician; owing to\nwhich circumstance he employs the rhetorical style of language in\nhis Dialogues, especially in his Truth and in his Exhortations. And\nHermippus says, that he had originally intended in his address at the\nassembly, on account of the Isthmian games, to attack and also to praise\nthe Athenians, and Thebans, and Laced\u00e6monians; but that he afterwards\nabandoned the design, when he saw that there were a great many spectators\ncome from those cities. Afterwards, he attached himself to Socrates, and\nmade such progress in philosophy while with him, that he advised all his\nown pupils to become his fellow pupils in the school of Socrates. And\nas he lived in the Pir\u00e6us, he went up forty furlongs to the city every\nday, in order to hear Socrates, from whom he learnt the art of enduring,\nand of being indifferent to external circumstances, and so became the\noriginal founder of the Cynic school.\n\nIII. And he used to argue that labour was a good thing, by adducing the\nexamples of the great Hercules, and of Cyrus, one of which he derived\nfrom the Greeks and the other from the barbarians.\n\nIV. He was also the first person who ever gave a definition of discourse,\nsaying, \u201cDiscourse is that which shows what anything is or was.\u201d And\nhe used continually to say, \u201cI would rather go mad than feel pleasure.\u201d\nAnd, \u201cOne ought to attach one\u2019s self to such women as will thank one for\nit.\u201d He said once to a youth from Pontus, who was on the point of coming\nto him to be his pupil, and was asking him what things he wanted, \u201cYou\nwant a new book, and a new pen, and a new tablet;\u201d\u2014meaning a new mind.\nAnd to a person who asked him from what country he had better marry a\nwife, he said, \u201cIf you marry a handsome woman, she will be common;[54]\nif an ugly woman, she will be a punishment to you.\u201d He was told once\nthat Plato spoke ill of him, and he replied, \u201cIt is a royal privilege\nto do well, and to be evil spoken of.\u201d When he was being initiated\ninto the mysteries of Orpheus, and the priest said that those who were\ninitiated enjoyed many good things in the shades below, \u201cWhy, then,\u201d said\nhe \u201cdo not you die?\u201d Being once reproached as not being the son of two\nfree citizens, he said, \u201cAnd I am not the son of two people skilled in\nwrestling; nevertheless, I am a skilful wrestler.\u201d On one occasion he was\nasked why he had but few disciples, and said, \u201cBecause I drove them away\nwith a silver rod.\u201d When he was asked why he reproved his pupils with\nbitter language, he said, \u201cPhysicians too use severe remedies for their\npatients.\u201d Once he saw an adulterer running away, and said, \u201cO unhappy\nman! how much danger could you have avoided for one obol!\u201d He used to\nsay, as Hecaton tells us in his Apophthegms, \u201cThat it was better to fall\namong crows,[55] than among flatterers; for that they only devour the\ndead, but the others devour the living.\u201d When he was asked what was the\nmost happy event that could take place in human life, he said, \u201cTo die\nwhile prosperous.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion one of his friends was lamenting to him that he had\nlost his memoranda, and he said to him, \u201cYou ought to have written them\non your mind, and not on paper.\u201d A favourite saying of his was, \u201cThat\nenvious people were devoured by their own disposition, just as iron is\nby rust.\u201d Another was, \u201cThat those who wish to be immortal ought to live\npiously and justly.\u201d He used to say too, \u201cThat cities were ruined when\nthey were unable to distinguish worthless citizens from virtuous ones.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he was being praised by some wicked men, and said, \u201cI\nam sadly afraid that I must have done some wicked thing.\u201d One of his\nfavourite sayings was, \u201cThat the fellowship of brothers of one mind was\nstronger than any fortified city.\u201d He used to say, \u201cThat those things\nwere the best for a man to take on a journey, which would float with\nhim if he were shipwrecked.\u201d He was once reproached for being intimate\nwith wicked men, and said, \u201cPhysicians also live with those who are\nsick; and yet they do not catch fevers.\u201d He used to say, \u201cthat it was\nan absurd thing to clean a cornfield of tares, and in war to get rid\nof bad soldiers, and yet not to rid one\u2019s self in a city of the wicked\ncitizens.\u201d When he was asked what advantage he had ever derived from\nphilosophy, he replied, \u201cThe advantage of being able to converse with\nmyself.\u201d At a drinking party, a man once said to him, \u201cGive us a song,\u201d\nand he replied, \u201cDo you play us a tune on the flute.\u201d When Diogenes asked\nhim for a tunic, he bade him fold his cloak. He was asked on one occasion\nwhat learning was the most necessary, and he replied, \u201cTo unlearn one\u2019s\nbad habits.\u201d And he used to exhort those who found themselves ill spoken\nof, to endure it more than they would any one\u2019s throwing stones at them.\nHe used to laugh at Plato as conceited; accordingly, once when there was\na fine procession, seeing a horse neighing, he said to Plato, \u201cI think\nyou too would be a very frisky horse:\u201d and he said this all the more,\nbecause Plato kept continually praising the horse. At another time, he\nhad gone to see him when he was ill, and when he saw there a dish in\nwhich Plato had been sick, he said, \u201cI see your bile there, but I do not\nsee your conceit.\u201d He used to advise the Athenians to pass a vote that\nasses were horses; and, as they thought that irrational, he said, \u201cWhy,\nthose whom you make generals have never learnt to be really generals,\nthey have only been voted such.\u201d\n\nA man said to him one day, \u201cMany people praise you.\u201d \u201cWhy, what evil,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201chave I done?\u201d When he turned the rent in his cloak outside,\nSocrates seeing it, said to him, \u201cI see your vanity through the hole in\nyour cloak.\u201d On another occasion, the question was put to him by some\none, as Phanias relates, in his treatise on the Philosophers of the\nSocratic school, what a man could do to show himself an honourable and\na virtuous man; and he replied, \u201cIf you attend to those who understand\nthe subject, and learn from them that you ought to shun the bad habits\nwhich you have.\u201d Some one was praising luxury in his hearing, and he\nsaid, \u201cMay the children of my enemies be luxurious.\u201d Seeing a young man\nplace himself in a carefully studied attitude before a modeller, he said,\n\u201cTell me, if the brass could speak, on what would it pride itself?\u201d And\nwhen the young man replied, \u201cOn its beauty.\u201d \u201cAre you not then,\u201d said he,\n\u201cashamed to rejoice in the same thing as an inanimate piece of brass?\u201d\nA young man from Pontus once promised to recollect him, if a vessel of\nsalt fish arrived; and so he took him with him, and also an empty bag,\nand went to a woman who sold meal, and filled his sack and went away; and\nwhen the woman asked him to pay for it, he said, \u201cThe young man will pay\nyou, when the vessel of salt fish comes home.\u201d\n\nHe it was who appears to have been the cause of Anytus\u2019s banishment, and\nof Meletus\u2019s death. For having met with some young men of Pontus, who\nhad come to Athens, on account of the reputation of Socrates, he took\nthem to Anytus, telling them, that in moral philosophy he was wiser than\nSocrates; and they who stood by were indignant at this, and drove him\naway. And whenever he saw a woman beautifully adorned, he would go off\nto her house, and desire her husband to bring forth his horse and his\narms; and then if he had such things, he would give him leave to indulge\nin luxury, for that he had the means of defending himself; but if he had\nthem not, then he would bid him strip his wife of her ornaments.\n\nV. And the doctrines he adopted were these. He used to insist that\nvirtue was a thing which might be taught; also, that the nobly born and\nvirtuously disposed, were the same people; for that virtue was of itself\nsufficient for happiness, and was in need of nothing, except the strength\nof Socrates. He also looked upon virtue as a species of work, not wanting\nmany arguments, or much instruction; and he taught that the wise man was\nsufficient for himself; for that everything that belonged to any one\nelse belonged to him. He considered obscurity of fame a good thing, and\nequally good with labour. And he used to say that the wise man would\nregulate his conduct as a citizen, not according to the established laws\nof the state, but according to the law of virtue. And that he would marry\nfor the sake of having children, selecting the most beautiful woman for\nhis wife. And that he would love her; for that the wise man alone knew\nwhat objects deserved love.\n\nDiocles also attributes the following apophthegms to him. To the wise\nman, nothing is strange and nothing remote. The virtuous man is worthy\nto be loved. Good men are friends. It is right to make the brave and\njust one\u2019s allies. Virtue is a weapon of which a man cannot be deprived.\nIt is better to fight with a few good men against all the wicked, than\nwith many wicked men against a few good men. One should attend to one\u2019s\nenemies, for they are the first persons to detect one\u2019s errors. One\nshould consider a just man as of more value than a relation. Virtue is\nthe same in a man as in a woman. What is good is honourable, and what is\nbad is disgraceful. Think everything that is wicked, foreign. Prudence\nis the safest fortification; for it can neither fall to pieces nor be\nbetrayed. One must prepare one\u2019s self a fortress in one\u2019s own impregnable\nthoughts.\n\nVI. He used to lecture in the Gymnasium called Cynosarges, not far from\nthe gates; and some people say that it is from that place that the sect\ngot the name of Cynics. And he himself was called Haplocyon (downright\ndog).\n\nVII. He was the first person to set the fashion of doubling his cloak,\nas Diocles says, and he wore no other garment. And he used to carry a\nstick and a wallet; but Neanthes says that he was the first person who\nwore a cloak without folding it. But Sosicrates, in the third book of his\nSuccessions, says that Diodorus, of Aspendos, let his beard grow, and\nused to carry a stick and a wallet.\n\nVIII. He is the only one of all the pupils of Socrates, whom Theopompus\npraises and speaks of as clever, and able to persuade whomsoever he\npleased by the sweetness of his conversation. And this is plain, both\nfrom his own writings, and from the Banquet of Xenophon. He appears to\nhave been the founder of the more manly Stoic school; on which account\nAthen\u00e6us, the epigrammatist, speaks thus of them:\u2014\n\n O ye, who learned are in Stoic fables,\n Ye who consign the wisest of all doctrines\n To your most sacred books; you say that virtue\n Is the sole good; for that alone can save\n The life of man, and strongly fenced cities.\n But if some fancy pleasure their best aim,\n One of the Muses \u2019tis who has convinc\u2019d them.\n\nHe was the original cause of the apathy of Diogenes, and the temperance\nof Crates, and the patience of Zeno, having himself, as it were, laid the\nfoundations of the city which they afterwards built. And Xenophon says,\nthat in his conversation and society, he was the most delightful of men,\nand in every respect the most temperate.\n\nIX. There are ten volumes of his writings extant. The first volume is\nthat in which there is the essay on Style, or on Figures of Speech;\nthe Ajax, or speech of Ajax; the Defence, of Orestes or the treatise\non Lawyers; the Isographe, or the Lysias and Isocrates; the reply to\nthe work of Isocrates, entitled the Absence of Witnesses. The second\nvolume is that in which we have the treatise on the Nature of Animals;\non the Pro-creation of Children, or on Marriage, an essay of an amatory\ncharacter; on the Sophists, an essay of a physiognomical character; on\nJustice and Manly Virtue, being three essays of an hortatory character;\ntwo treatises on Theognis. The third volume contains a treatise on the\nGood; on Manly Courage; on Law, or Political Constitutions; on Law, or\nwhat is Honourable and Just; on Freedom and Slavery; on Good Faith;\non a Guardian, or on Persuasion; on Victory, an economical essay. The\nfourth volume contains the Cyrus; the Greater Heracles, or a treatise on\nStrength. The fifth volume contains the Cyrus, or a treatise on Kingly\nPower; the Aspasia.\n\nThe sixth volume is that in which there is the treatise Truth; another (a\ndisputatious one) concerning Arguing; the Sathon, or on Contradiction,\nin three parts; and an essay on Dialect. The seventh contains a treatise\non Education, or Names, in five books; one on the Use of Names, or\nthe Contentious Man; one on Questions and Answers; one on Opinion and\nKnowledge, in four books; one on Dying; one on Life and Death; one on\nthose who are in the Shades below; one on Nature, in two books; two\nbooks of Questions in Natural Philosophy; one essay, called Opinions on\nthe Contentious Man; one book of Problems, on the subject of Learning.\nThe eighth volume is that in which we find a treatise on Music; one on\nInterpreters; one on Homer; one on Injustice and Impiety; one on Calchas;\none on a Spy; one on Pleasure. The ninth book contains an essay on the\nOdyssey; one on the Magic Wand; the Minerva, or an essay on Telemachus;\nan essay on Helen and Penelope; one on Proteus; the Cyclops, being an\nessay on Ulysses; an essay on the Use of Wine, or on Drunkenness, or\non the Cyclops; one on Circe; one on Amphiaraus; one on Ulysses and\nPenelope, and also on Ulysses\u2019 Dog. The tenth volume is occupied by\nthe Heracles, or Medas; the Hercules, or an Essay on Prudence or\nStrength; the Lord or the Lover; the Lord or the Spies; the Menexenus,\nor an essay on Governing; the Alcibiades; the Archelaus, or an essay on\nKingly Power.\n\nThese then are the names of his works. And Timon, rebuking him because of\ntheir great number, called him a universal chatterer.\n\nX. He died of some disease; and while he was ill Diogenes came to visit\nhim, and said to him, \u201cHave you no need of a friend?\u201d Once too he came\nto see him with a sword in his hand; and when Antisthenes said, \u201cWho can\ndeliver me from this suffering?\u201d he, pointing to the sword, said, \u201cThis\ncan;\u201d But he rejoined, \u201cI said from suffering, but not from life;\u201d for\nhe seemed to bear his disease the more calmly from his love of life. And\nthere is an epigram on him written by ourselves, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n In life you were a bitter dog, Antisthenes,\n Born to bite people\u2019s minds with sayings sharp,\n Not with your actual teeth. Now you are slain\n By fell consumption, passers by may say,\n Why should he not, one wants a guide to Hell.\n\nThere were also three other people of the name of Antisthenes. One, a\ndisciple of Heraclitus; the second, an Ephesian; the third, a historian\nof Rhodes. And since we have spoken of those who proceeded from the\nschool of Aristippus and Ph\u00e6don, we may now go on to the Cynics and\nStoics, who derived their origin from Antisthenes. And we will take them\nin the following order.\n\n\nLIFE OF DIOGENES.\n\nI. Diogenes was a native of Sinope, the son of Hicesius, a money-changer.\nAnd Diocles says that he was forced to flee from his native city, as his\nfather kept the public bank there, and had adulterated the coinage. But\nEubulides, in his essay on Diogenes, says, that it was Diogenes himself\nwho did this, and that he was banished with his father. And, indeed,\nhe himself, in his Pordalus, says of himself that he had adulterated\nthe public money. Others say that he was one of the curators, and was\npersuaded by the artisans employed, and that he went to Delphi, or else\nto the oracle at Delos, and there consulted Apollo as to whether he\nshould do what people were trying to persuade him to do; and that, as the\nGod gave him permission to do so, Diogenes, not comprehending that the\nGod meant that he might change the political customs[56] of his country\nif he could, adulterated the coinage; and being detected, was banished,\nas some people say, but as other accounts have it, took the alarm and\nfled away of his own accord. Some again, say that he adulterated the\nmoney which he had received from his father; and that his father was\nthrown into prison and died there; but that Diogenes escaped and went\nto Delphi, and asked, not whether he might tamper with the coinage, but\nwhat he could do to become very celebrated, and that in consequence he\nreceived the oracular answer which I have mentioned.\n\nII. And when he came to Athens he attached himself to Antisthenes; but as\nhe repelled him, because he admitted no one; he at last forced his way\nto him by his pertinacity. And once, when he raised his stick at him,\nhe put his head under it, and said, \u201cStrike, for you will not find any\nstick hard enough to drive me away as long as you continue to speak.\u201d And\nfrom this time forth he was one of his pupils; and being an exile, he\nnaturally betook himself to a simple mode of life.\n\nIII. And when, as Theophrastus tells us, in his Megaric Philosopher, he\nsaw a mouse running about and not seeking for a bed, nor taking care\nto keep in the dark, nor looking for any of those things which appear\nenjoyable to such an animal, he found a remedy for his own poverty.\nHe was, according to the account of some people, the first person who\ndoubled up his cloak out of necessity, and who slept in it; and who\ncarried a wallet, in which he kept his food; and who used whatever place\nwas near for all sorts of purposes, eating, and sleeping, and conversing\nin it. In reference to which habit he used to say, pointing to the\nColonnade of Jupiter, and to the Public Magazine, \u201cthat the Athenians had\nbuilt him places to live in.\u201d Being attacked with illness, he supported\nhimself with a staff; and after that he carried it continually, not\nindeed in the city, but whenever he was walking in the roads, together\nwith his wallet, as Olympiodorus, the chief man of the Athenians tells\nus; and Polyeuctus, the orator, and Lysanias, the son of \u00c6schrion, tell\nthe same story.\n\nWhen he had written to some one to look out and get ready a small house\nfor him, as he delayed to do it, he took a cask which he found in the\nTemple of Cybele, for his house, as he himself tells us in his letters.\nAnd during the summer he used to roll himself in the warm sand, but\nin winter he would embrace statues all covered with snow, practising\nhimself, on every occasion, to endure anything.\n\nIV. He was very violent in expressing his haughty disdain of others. He\nsaid that the \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 (school) of Euclides was \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 (gall). And he used\nto call Plato\u2019s \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f74 (discussions) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f74 (disguise). It was\nalso a saying of his that the Dionysian games were a great marvel to\nfools; and that the demagogues were the ministers of the multitude. He\nused likewise to say, \u201cthat when in the course of his life he beheld\npilots, and physicians, and philosophers, he thought man the wisest\nof all animals; but when again he beheld interpreters of dreams, and\nsoothsayers, and those who listened to them, and men puffed up with glory\nor riches, then he thought that there was not a more foolish animal than\nman.\u201d Another of his sayings was, \u201cthat he thought a man ought oftener to\nprovide himself with a reason than with a halter.\u201d On one occasion, when\nhe noticed Plato at a very costly entertainment tasting some olives, he\nsaid, \u201cO you wise man! why, after having sailed to Sicily for the sake of\nsuch a feast, do you not now enjoy what you have before you?\u201d And Plato\nreplied, \u201cBy the Gods, Diogenes, while I was there I ate olives and all\nsuch things a great deal.\u201d Diogenes rejoined, \u201cWhat then did you want to\nsail to Syracuse for? Did not Attica at that time produce any olives?\u201d\nBut Phavorinus, in his Universal History, tells this story of Aristippus.\nAt another time he was eating dried figs, when Plato met him, and he\nsaid to him, \u201cYou may have a share of these;\u201d and as he took some and\nate them, he said, \u201cI said that you might have a share of them, not that\nyou might eat them all.\u201d On one occasion Plato had invited some friends\nwho had come to him from Dionysius to a banquet, and Diogenes trampled\non his carpets, and said, \u201cThus I trample on the empty pride of Plato;\u201d\nand Plato made him answer, \u201cHow much arrogance are you displaying, O\nDiogenes! when you think that you are not arrogant at all.\u201d But, as\nothers tell the story, Diogenes said, \u201cThus I trample on the pride of\nPlato;\u201d and that Plato rejoined, \u201cWith quite as much pride yourself, O\nDiogenes.\u201d Sotion too, in his fourth book, states, that the Cynic made\nthe following speech to Plato: Diogenes once asked him for some wine,\nand then for some dried figs; so he sent him an entire jar full; and\nDiogenes said to him, \u201cWill you, if you are asked how many two and two\nmake, answer twenty? In this way, you neither give with any reference to\nwhat you are asked for, nor do you answer with reference to the question\nput to you.\u201d He used also to ridicule him as an interminable talker.\nWhen he was asked where in Greece he saw virtuous men; \u201cMen,\u201d said he,\n\u201cnowhere; but I see good boys in Laced\u00e6mon.\u201d On one occasion, when no\none came to listen to him while he was discoursing seriously, he began\nto whistle. And then when people flocked round him, he reproached them\nfor coming with eagerness to folly, but being lazy and indifferent about\ngood things. One of his frequent sayings was, \u201cThat men contended with\none another in punching and kicking, but that no one showed any emulation\nin the pursuit of virtue.\u201d He used to express his astonishment at the\ngrammarians for being desirous to learn everything about the misfortunes\nof Ulysses, and being ignorant of their own. He used also to say, \u201cThat\nthe musicians fitted the strings to the lyre properly, but left all the\nhabits of their soul ill-arranged.\u201d And, \u201cThat mathematicians kept their\neyes fixed on the sun and moon, and overlooked what was under their\nfeet.\u201d \u201cThat orators were anxious to speak justly, but not at all about\nacting so.\u201d Also, \u201cThat misers blamed money, but were preposterously fond\nof it.\u201d He often condemned those who praise the just for being superior\nto money, but who at the same time are eager themselves for great riches.\nHe was also very indignant at seeing men sacrifice to the Gods to procure\ngood health, and yet at the sacrifice eating in a manner injurious to\nhealth. He often expressed his surprise at slaves, who, seeing their\nmasters eating in a gluttonous manner, still do not themselves lay hands\non any of the eatables. He would frequently praise those who were about\nto marry, and yet did not marry; or who were about to take a voyage, and\nyet did not take a voyage; or who were about to engage in affairs of\nstate, and did not do so; and those who were about to rear children, yet\ndid not rear any; and those who were preparing to take up their abode\nwith princes, and yet did not take it up. One of his sayings was, \u201cThat\none ought to hold out one\u2019s hand to a friend without closing the fingers.\u201d\n\nHermippus, in his Sale of Diogenes, says that he was taken prisoner and\nput up to be sold, and asked what he could do; and he answered, \u201cGovern\nmen.\u201d And so he bade the crier \u201cgive notice that if any one wants to\npurchase a master, there is one here for him.\u201d When he was ordered not to\nsit down; \u201cIt makes no difference,\u201d said he, \u201cfor fish are sold, be where\nthey may.\u201d He used to say, that he wondered at men always ringing a dish\nor jar before buying it, but being content to judge of a man by his look\nalone. When Xeniades bought him, he said to him that he ought to obey him\neven though he was his slave; for that a physician or a pilot would find\nmen to obey them even though they might be slaves.\n\nV. And Eubulus says, in his essay entitled, The Sale of Diogenes, that he\ntaught the children of Xeniades, after their other lessons, to ride, and\nshoot, and sling, and dart. And then in the Gymnasium he did not permit\nthe trainer to exercise them after the fashion of athletes, but exercised\nthem himself to just the degree sufficient to give them a good colour\nand good health. And the boys retained in their memory many sentences\nof poets and prose writers, and of Diogenes himself; and he used to\ngive them a concise statement of everything in order to strengthen\ntheir memory; and at home he used to teach them to wait upon themselves,\ncontenting themselves with plain food, and drinking water. And he\naccustomed them to cut their hair close, and to eschew ornament, and to\ngo without tunics or shoes, and to keep silent, looking at nothing except\nthemselves as they walked along. He used, also to take them out hunting;\nand they paid the greatest attention and respect to Diogenes himself, and\nspoke well of him to their parents.\n\nVI. And the same author affirms, that he grew old in the household of\nXeniades, and that when he died he was buried by his sons. And that while\nhe was living with him, Xeniades once asked him how he should bury him;\nand he said, \u201cOn my face;\u201d and when he was asked why, he said, \u201cBecause,\nin a little while, everything will be turned upside down.\u201d And he said\nthis because the Macedonians were already attaining power, and becoming\na mighty people from having been very inconsiderable. Once, when a man\nhad conducted him into a magnificent house, and had told him that he\nmust not spit, after hawking a little, he spit in his face, saying that\nhe could not find a worse place. But some tell this story of Aristippus.\nOnce, he called out, \u201cHolloa, men.\u201d And when some people gathered round\nhim in consequence, he drove them away with his stick, saying, \u201cI called\nmen, and not dregs.\u201d This anecdote I have derived from Hecaton, in the\nfirst book of his Apophthegms. They also relate that Alexander said that\nif he had not been Alexander, he should have liked to be Diogenes. He\nused to call \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 (cripples), not those who were dumb and blind, but\nthose who had no wallet (\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1). On one occasion he went half shaved into\nan entertainment of young men, as Metrocles tells us in his Apophthegms,\nand so was beaten by them. And afterwards he wrote the names of all those\nwho had beaten him, on a white tablet, and went about with the tablet\nround his neck, so as to expose them to insult, as they were generally\ncondemned and reproached for their conduct.\n\nHe used to say that he was the hound of those who were praised; but that\nnone of those who praised them dared to go out hunting with him. A man\nonce said to him, \u201cI conquered men at the Pythian games:\u201d on which he\nsaid, \u201cI conquer men, but you only conquer slaves.\u201d When some people\nsaid to him, \u201cYou are an old man, and should rest for the remainder of\nyour life;\u201d \u201cWhy so?\u201d replied he, \u201csuppose I had run a long distance,\nought I to stop when I was near the end, and not rather press on?\u201d Once,\nwhen he was invited to a banquet, he said that he would not come: for\nthat the day before no one had thanked him for coming. He used to go bare\nfoot through the snow, and to do a number of other things which have been\nalready mentioned. Once he attempted to eat raw meat, but he could not\ndigest it. On one occasion he found Demosthenes, the orator, dining in\nan inn; and as he was slipping away, he said to him, \u201cYou will now be\never so much more in an inn.\u201d[57] Once, when some strangers wished to\nsee Demosthenes, he stretched out his middle finger, and said, \u201cThis is\nthe great demagogue of the Athenian people.\u201d When some one had dropped\na loaf, and was ashamed to pick it up again, he, wishing to give him a\nlesson, tied a cord round the neck of a bottle and dragged it all through\nthe Ceramicus. He used to say, that he imitated the teachers of choruses,\nfor that they spoke too loud, in order that the rest might catch the\nproper tone. Another of his sayings, was that most men were within a\nfinger\u2019s breadth of being mad. If, then, any one were to walk along,\nstretching out his middle finger, he will seem to be mad; but if he puts\nout his fore finger, he will not be thought so. Another of his sayings\nwas, that things of great value were often sold for nothing, and _vice\nvers\u00e2_. Accordingly, that a statue would fetch three thousand drachmas,\nand a bushel of meal only two obols; and when Xeniades had bought him, he\nsaid to him, \u201cCome, do what you are ordered to.\u201d And when he said\u2014\n\n \u201cThe streams of sacred rivers now\n Run backwards to their source!\u201d\n\n\u201cSuppose,\u201d rejoined Diogenes, \u201cyou had been sick, and had bought a\nphysician, could you refuse to be guided by him, and tell him\u2014\n\n \u201cThe streams of sacred rivers now\n Run backwards to their source?\u201d\n\nOnce a man came to him, and wished to study philosophy as his pupil; and\nhe gave him a saperda[58] and made him follow him. And as he from shame\nthrew it away and departed, he soon afterwards met him and, laughing,\nsaid to him, \u201cA saperda has dissolved your friendship for me.\u201d But\nDiocles tells this story in the following manner; that when some one said\nto him, \u201cGive me a commission, Diogenes,\u201d he carried him off, and gave\nhim a halfpenny worth of cheese to carry. And as he refused to carry it,\n\u201cSee,\u201d said Diogenes, \u201ca halfpenny worth of cheese has broken off our\nfriendship.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he saw a child drinking out of its hands, and so he threw\naway the cup which belonged to his wallet, saying, \u201cThat child has beaten\nme in simplicity.\u201d He also threw away his spoon, after seeing a boy, when\nhe had broken his vessel, take up his lentils with a crust of bread. And\nhe used to argue thus,\u2014\u201cEverything belongs to the gods; and wise men\nare the friends of the gods. All things are in common among friends;\ntherefore everything belongs to wise men.\u201d Once he saw a woman falling\ndown before the Gods in an unbecoming attitude; he, wishing to cure her\nof her superstition, as Zoilus of Perga tells us, came up to her, and\nsaid, \u201cAre you not afraid, O woman, to be in such an indecent attitude,\nwhen some God may be behind you, for every place is full of him?\u201d He\nconsecrated a man to \u00c6sculapius, who was to run up and beat all these who\nprostrated themselves with their faces to the ground; and he was in the\nhabit of saying that the tragic curse had come upon him, for that he was\u2014\n\n Houseless and citiless, a piteous exile\n From his dear native land; a wandering beggar,\n Scraping a pittance poor from day to day.\n\nAnd another of his sayings was that he opposed confidence to fortune,\nnature to law, and reason to suffering. Once, while he was sitting in\nthe sun in the Craneum, Alexander was standing by, and said to him, \u201cAsk\nany favour you choose of me.\u201d And he replied, \u201cCease to shade me from\nthe sun.\u201d On one occasion a man was reading some long passages, and when\nhe came to the end of the book and showed that there was nothing more\nwritten, \u201cBe of good cheer, my friends,\u201d exclaimed Diogenes, \u201cI see\nland.\u201d A man once proved to him syllogistically that he had horns, so\nhe put his hand to his forehead and said, \u201cI do not see them.\u201d And in a\nsimilar manner he replied to one who had been asserting that there was\nno such thing as motion, by getting up and walking away. When a man was\ntalking about the heavenly bodies and meteors, \u201cPray how many days,\u201d said\nhe to him, \u201cis it since you came down from heaven?\u201d\n\nA profligate eunuch had written on his house, \u201cLet no evil thing enter\nin.\u201d \u201cWhere,\u201d said Diogenes, \u201cis the master of the house going?\u201d After\nhaving anointed his feet with perfume, he said that the ointment from his\nhead mounted up to heaven, and that from his feet up to his nose. When\nthe Athenians entreated him to be initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries,\nand said that in the shades below the initiated had the best seats; \u201cIt\nwill,\u201d he replied, \u201cbe an absurd thing if Agesilaus and Epaminondas are\nto live in the mud, and some miserable wretches, who have been initiated,\nare to be in the islands of the blest.\u201d Some mice crept up to his table,\nand he said, \u201cSee, even Diogenes maintains his favourites.\u201d Once, when he\nwas leaving the bath, and a man asked him whether many men were bathing,\nhe said, \u201cNo;\u201d but when a number of people came out, he confessed\nthat there were a great many. When Plato called him a dog, he said,\n\u201cUndoubtedly, for I have come back to those who sold me.\u201d\n\nPlato defined man thus: \u201cMan is a two-footed, featherless animal,\u201d and\nwas much praised for the definition; so Diogenes plucked a cock and\nbrought it into his school, and said, \u201cThis is Plato\u2019s man.\u201d On which\naccount this addition was made to the definition, \u201cWith broad flat\nnails.\u201d A man once asked him what was the proper time for supper, and he\nmade answer, \u201cIf you are a rich man, whenever you please; and if you are\na poor man, whenever you can.\u201d When he was at Megara he saw some sheep\ncarefully covered over with skins, and the children running about naked;\nand so he said, \u201cIt is better at Megara to be a man\u2019s ram, than his son.\u201d\nA man once struck him with a beam, and then said, \u201cTake care.\u201d \u201cWhat,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201care you going to strike me again?\u201d He used to say that the\ndemagogues were the servants of the people; and garlands the blossoms of\nglory. Having lighted a candle in the day time, he said, \u201cI am looking\nfor a man.\u201d On one occasion he stood under a fountain, and as the\nbystanders were pitying him, Plato, who was present, said to them, \u201cIf\nyou wish really to show your pity for him, come away;\u201d intimating that he\nwas only acting thus out of a desire for notoriety. Once, when a man had\nstruck him with his fist, he said, \u201cO Hercules, what a strange thing that\nI should be walking about with a helmet on without knowing it!\u201d\n\nWhen Midias struck him with his fist and said, \u201cThere are three thousand\ndrachmas for you;\u201d the next day Diogenes took the cestus of a boxer\nand beat him soundly, and said, \u201cThere are three thousand drachmas for\nyou.\u201d[59] When Lysias, the drug-seller, asked him whether he thought\nthat there were any Gods: \u201cHow,\u201d said he, \u201ccan I help thinking so, when\nI consider you to be hated by them?\u201d but some attribute this reply to\nTheodorus. Once he saw a man purifying himself by washing, and said to\nhim, \u201cOh, wretched man, do not you know that as you cannot wash away\nblunders in grammar by purification, so, too, you can no more efface the\nerrors of a life in that same manner?\u201d\n\nHe used to say that men were wrong for complaining of fortune; for that\nthey ask of the Gods what appear to be good things, not what are really\nso. And to those who were alarmed at dreams he said, that they did not\nregard what they do while they are awake, but make a great fuss about\nwhat they fancy they see while they are asleep. Once, at the Olympic\ngames, when the herald proclaimed, \u201cDioxippus is the conqueror of men;\u201d\nhe said, \u201cHe is the conqueror of slaves, I am the conqueror of men.\u201d\n\nHe was greatly beloved by the Athenians; accordingly, when a youth had\nbroken his cask they beat him, and gave Diogenes another. And Dionysius,\nthe Stoic, says that after the battle of Ch\u00e6ronea he was taken prisoner\nand brought to Philip; and being asked who he was, replied, \u201cA spy, to\nspy upon your insatiability.\u201d And Philip marvelled at him and let him\ngo. Once, when Alexander had sent a letter to Athens to Antipater, by\nthe hands of a man named Athlias, he, being present, said, \u201cAthlias from\nAthlius, by means of Athlias to Athlius.\u201d[60] When Perdiccas threatened\nthat he would put him to death if he did not come to him, he replied,\n\u201cThat is nothing strange, for a scorpion or a tarantula could do as\nmuch: you had better threaten me that, if I kept away, you should be\nvery happy.\u201d He used constantly to repeat with emphasis that an easy\nlife had been given to man by the Gods, but that it had been overlaid\nby their seeking for honey, cheese-cakes, and unguents, and things of\nthat sort. On which account he said to a man, who had his shoes put on\nby his servant, \u201cYou are not thoroughly happy, unless he also wipes\nyour nose for you; and he will do this, if you are crippled in your\nhands.\u201d On one occasion, when he had seen the hieromnemones[61] leading\noff one of the stewards who had stolen a goblet, he said, \u201cThe great\nthieves are carrying off the little thief.\u201d At another time, seeing a\nyoung man throwing stones at a cross, he said, \u201cWell done, you will be\nsure to reach the mark.\u201d Once, too, some boys got round him and said,\n\u201cWe are taking care that you do not bite us;\u201d but he said, \u201cBe of good\ncheer, my boys, a dog does not eat beef.\u201d He saw a man giving himself\nairs because he was clad in a lion\u2019s skin, and said to him, \u201cDo not go\non disgracing the garb of nature.\u201d When people were speaking of the\nhappiness of Callisthenes, and saying what splendid treatment he received\nfrom Alexander, he replied, \u201cThe man then is wretched, for he is forced\nto breakfast and dine whenever Alexander chooses.\u201d When he was in want of\nmoney, he said that be reclaimed it from his friends and did not beg for\nit.\n\nOn one occasion he was working with his hands in the market-place, and\nsaid, \u201cI wish I could rub my stomach in the same way, and so avoid\nhunger.\u201d When he saw a young man going with some satraps to supper, he\ndragged him away and led him off to his relations, and bade them take\ncare of him. He was once addressed by a youth beautifully adorned, who\nasked him some question; and he refused to give him any answer, till\nhe satisfied him whether he was a man or a woman. And on one occasion,\nwhen a youth was playing the cottabus in the bath, he said to him, \u201cThe\nbetter you do it, the worse you do it.\u201d Once at a banquet, some of the\nguests threw him bones, as if he had been a dog; so he, as he went away,\nput up his leg against them as if he had been a dog in reality. He used\nto call the orators, and all those who speak for fame \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\n(thrice men), instead of \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (thrice miserable). He said that a\nrich but ignorant man, was like a sheep with a golden fleece. When he\nsaw a notice on the house of a profligate man, \u201cTo be sold.\u201d \u201cI knew,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cthat you who are so incessantly drunk, would soon vomit up\nyour owner.\u201d To a young man, who was complaining of the number of people\nwho sought his acquaintance, he said, \u201cDo not make such a parade of your\nvanity.\u201d\n\nHaving been in a very dirty bath, he said, \u201cI wonder where the people,\nwho bathe here, clean themselves.\u201d When all the company was blaming an\nindifferent harp-player, he alone praised him, and being asked why he\ndid so, he said, \u201cBecause, though he is such as he is, he plays the harp\nand does not steal.\u201d He saluted a harp player who was always left alone\nby his hearers, with, \u201cGood morning, cock;\u201d and when the man asked him,\n\u201cWhy so?\u201d he said, \u201cBecause you, when you sing, make every one get up.\u201d\nWhen a young man was one day making a display of himself, he, having\nfilled the bosom of his robe with lupins, began to eat them; and when the\nmultitude looked at him, he said, \u201cthat he marvelled at their leaving the\nyoung man to look at him.\u201d And when a man, who was very superstitious,\nsaid to him, \u201cWith one blow I will break your head;\u201d \u201cAnd I,\u201d he replied,\n\u201cwith one sneeze will make you tremble.\u201d When Hegesias entreated him to\nlend him one of his books, he said, \u201cYou are a silly fellow, Hegesias,\nfor you will not take painted figs, but real ones; and yet you overlook\nthe genuine practice of virtue, and seek for what is merely written.\u201d\nA man once reproached him with his banishment, and his answer was,\n\u201cYou wretched man, that is what made me a philosopher.\u201d And when, on\nanother occasion, some one said to him, \u201cThe people of Sinope condemned\nyou to banishment,\u201d he replied, \u201cAnd I condemned them to remain where\nthey were.\u201d Once he saw a man who had been victor at the Olympic games,\nfeeding (\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) sheep, and he said to him, \u201cYou have soon come across\nmy friend from the Olympic games, to the Nemean.\u201d When he was asked why\nathletes are insensible to pain, he said, \u201cBecause they are built up of\npork and beef.\u201d\n\nHe once asked for a statue; and being questioned as to his reason for\ndoing so, he said, \u201cI am practising disappointment.\u201d Once he was begging\nof some one (for he did this at first out of actual want), he said, \u201cIf\nyou have given to any one else, give also to me; and if you have never\ngiven to any one, then begin with me.\u201d On one occasion, he was asked\nby the tyrant, \u201cWhat sort of brass was the best for a statue?\u201d and he\nreplied, \u201cThat of which the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton are\nmade.\u201d When he was asked how Dionysius treats his friends, he said,\n\u201cLike bags; those which are full he hangs up, and those which are empty\nhe throws away.\u201d A man who was lately married put an inscription on his\nhouse, \u201cHercules Callinicus, the son of Jupiter, lives here; let no evil\nenter.\u201d And so Diogenes wrote in addition, \u201cAn alliance is made after the\nwar is over.\u201d He used to say that covetousness was the metropolis of all\nevils. Seeing on one occasion a profligate man in an inn eating olives,\nhe said, \u201cIf you had dined thus, you would not have supped thus.\u201d One of\nhis apophthegms was, that good men were the images of the Gods; another,\nthat love was the business of those who had nothing to do. When he was\nasked what was miserable in life, he answered, \u201cAn indigent old man.\u201d And\nwhen the question was put to him, what beast inflicts the worst bite, he\nsaid, \u201cOf wild beasts the sycophant, and of tame animals the flatterer.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he saw two Centaurs very badly painted; he said, \u201cWhich\nof the two is the worst?\u201d[62] He used to say that a speech, the object of\nwhich was solely to please, was a honeyed halter. He called the belly,\nthe Charybdis of life. Having heard once that Didymon the adulterer,\nhad been caught in the fact, he said, \u201cHe deserves to be hung by his\nname.\u201d[63] When the question was put to him, why gold is of a pale\ncolour, he said, \u201cBecause it has so many people plotting against it.\u201d\nWhen he saw a woman in a litter, he said, \u201cThe cage is not suited to the\nanimal.\u201d And seeing a runaway slave sitting on a well, he said, \u201cMy boy,\ntake care you do not fall in.\u201d Another time, he saw a little boy who\nwas a stealer of clothes from the baths, and said, \u201cAre you going for\nunguents, (\u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), or for other garments (\u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd).\u201d\nSeeing some women hanging on olive trees, he said, \u201cI wish every tree\nbore similar fruit.\u201d At another time, he saw a clothes stealer, and\naddressed him thus:\u2014\n\n \u201cWhat moves thee, say, when sleep has clos\u2019d the sight,\n To roam the silent fields in dead of night?\n Art thou some wretch by hopes of plunder led,\n Through heaps of carnage to despoil the dead.\u201d[64]\n\nWhen he was asked whether he had any girl or boy to wait on him, he said,\n\u201cNo.\u201d And as his questioner asked further, \u201cIf then you die, who will\nbury you?\u201d He replied, \u201cWhoever wants my house.\u201d Seeing a handsome youth\nsleeping without any protection, he nudged him, and said, \u201cWake up:\u2014\n\n \u201cMix\u2019d with the vulgar shall thy fate be found,\n Pierc\u2019d in the back, a vile dishonest wound.\u201d[65]\n\nAnd he addressed a man who was buying delicacies at a great expense:\u2014\n\n \u201cNot long, my son, will you on earth remain,\n If such your dealings.\u201d[66]\n\nWhen Plato was discoursing about his \u201cideas,\u201d and using the nouns\n\u201ctableness\u201d and \u201ccupness;\u201d \u201cI, O Plato!\u201d interrupted Diogenes, \u201csee a\ntable and a cup, but I see no tableness or cupness.\u201d Plato made answer,\n\u201cThat is natural enough, for you have eyes, by which a cup and a table\nare contemplated; but you have not intellect, by which tableness and\ncupness are seen.\u201d\n\nOn one occasion, he was asked by a certain person, \u201cWhat sort of a man, O\nDiogenes, do you think Socrates?\u201d and he said, \u201cA madman.\u201d Another time,\nthe question was put to him, when a man ought to marry? and his reply\nwas, \u201cYoung men ought not to marry yet, and old men never ought to marry\nat all.\u201d When asked what he would take to let a man give him a blow on\nthe head? he replied, \u201cA helmet.\u201d Seeing a youth smartening himself up\nvery carefully, he said to him, \u201cIf you are doing that for men, you are\nmiserable; and if for women, you are profligate.\u201d Once he saw a youth\nblushing, and addressed him, \u201cCourage, my boy, that is the complexion of\nvirtue.\u201d Having once listened to two lawyers, he condemned them both;\nsaying, \u201cThat the one had stolen the thing in question, and that the\nother had not lost it.\u201d When asked what wine he liked to drink, he said,\n\u201cThat which belongs to another.\u201d A man said to him one day, \u201cMany people\nlaugh at you.\u201d \u201cBut I,\u201d he replied, \u201cam not laughed down.\u201d When a man\nsaid to him, that it was a bad thing to live; \u201cNot to live,\u201d said he,\n\u201cbut to live badly.\u201d When some people were advising him to make search\nfor a slave who had run away, he said, \u201cIt would be a very absurd thing\nfor Manes to be able to live without Diogenes, but for Diogenes not to be\nable to live without Manes.\u201d When he was dining on olives, a cheese-cake\nwas brought in, on which he threw the olive away, saying:\u2014\n\n Keep well aloof, O stranger, from all tyrants.[67]\n\nAnd presently he added:\u2014\n\n He drove the olive off (\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b1\u03bd).[68]\n\nWhen he was asked what sort of a dog he was, he replied, \u201cWhen hungry,\nI am a dog of Melita; when satisfied, a Molossian; a sort which most of\nthose who praise, do not like to take out hunting with them, because\nof the labour of keeping up with them; and in like manner, you cannot\nassociate with me, from fear of the pain I give you.\u201d The question was\nput to him, whether wise men ate cheese-cakes, and he replied, \u201cThey eat\neverything, just as the rest of mankind.\u201d When asked why people give\nto beggars and not to philosophers, he said, \u201cBecause they think it\npossible that they themselves may become lame and blind, but they do not\nexpect ever to turn out philosophers.\u201d He once begged of a covetous man,\nand as he was slow to give, he said, \u201cMan, I am asking you for something\nto maintain me (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd) and not to bury me (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd).\u201d When some\none reproached him for having tampered with the coinage, he said, \u201cThere\nwas a time when I was such a person as you are now; but there never was\nwhen you were such as I am now, and never will be.\u201d And to another person\nwho reproached him on the same grounds, he said, \u201cThere were times when I\ndid what I did not wish to, but that is not the case now.\u201d When he went\nto Myndus, he saw some very large gates, but the city was a small one,\nand so he said, \u201cOh men of Myndus, shut your gates, lest your city should\nsteal out.\u201d On one occasion, he saw a man who had been detected stealing\npurple, and so he said:\u2014\n\n A purple death, and mighty fate overtook him.[69]\n\nWhen Craterus entreated him to come and visit him, he said, \u201cI would\nrather lick up salt at Athens, than enjoy a luxurious table with\nCraterus.\u201d On one occasion, he met Anaximenes, the orator, who was a fat\nman, and thus accosted him; \u201cPray give us, who are poor, some of your\nbelly; for by so doing you will be relieved yourself, and you will assist\nus.\u201d And once, when he was discussing some point, Diogenes held up a\npiece of salt fish, and drew off the attention of his hearers; and as\nAnaximenes was indignant at this, he said, \u201cSee, one pennyworth of salt\nfish has put an end to the lecture of Anaximenes.\u201d Being once reproached\nfor eating in the market-place, he made answer, \u201cI did, for it was in\nthe market-place that I was hungry.\u201d Some authors also attribute the\nfollowing repartee to him. Plato saw him washing vegetables, and so,\ncoming up to him, he quietly accosted him thus, \u201cIf you had paid court\nto Dionysius, you would not have been washing vegetables.\u201d \u201cAnd,\u201d he\nreplied, with equal quietness, \u201cif you had washed vegetables, you would\nnever have paid court to Dionysius.\u201d When a man said to him once, \u201cMost\npeople laugh at you;\u201d \u201cAnd very likely,\u201d he replied, \u201cthe asses laugh at\nthem; but they do not regard the asses, neither do I regard them.\u201d Once\nhe saw a youth studying philosophy, and said to him, \u201cWell done; inasmuch\nas you are leading those who admire your person to contemplate the beauty\nof your mind.\u201d\n\nA certain person was admiring the offerings in the temple at\nSamothrace,[70] and he said to him, \u201cThey would have been much more\nnumerous, if those who were lost had offered them instead of those who\nwere saved;\u201d but some attribute this speech to Diagoras the Melian. Once\nhe saw a handsome youth going to a banquet, and said to him, \u201cYou will\ncome back worse (\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd);\u201d and when he the next day after the banquet\nsaid to him, \u201cI have left the banquet, and was no worse for it;\u201d he\nreplied, \u201cYou were not Chiron, but Eurytion.\u201d[71] He was begging once\nof a very ill-tempered man, and as he said to him, \u201cIf you can persuade\nme, I will give you something;\u201d he replied, \u201cIf I could persuade you, I\nwould beg you to hang yourself.\u201d He was on one occasion returning from\nLaced\u00e6mon to Athens; and when some one asked him, \u201cWhither are you going,\nand whence do you come?\u201d he said, \u201cI am going from the men\u2019s apartments\nto the women\u2019s.\u201d Another time he was returning from the Olympic games,\nand when some one asked him whether there had been a great multitude\nthere, he said, \u201cA great multitude, but very few men.\u201d He used to say\nthat debauched men resembled figs growing on a precipice; the fruit of\nwhich is not tasted by men, but devoured by crows and vultures. When\nPhryne had dedicated a golden statue of Venus at Delphi, he wrote upon\nit, \u201cFrom the profligacy of the Greeks.\u201d\n\nOnce Alexander the Great came and stood by him, and said, \u201cI am\nAlexander, the great king.\u201d \u201cAnd I,\u201d said he, \u201cam Diogenes the dog.\u201d And\nwhen he was asked to what actions of his it was owing that he was called\na dog, he said, \u201cBecause I fawn upon those who give me anything, and bark\nat those who give me nothing, and bite the rogues.\u201d On one occasion he\nwas gathering some of the fruit of a fig-tree, and when the man who was\nguarding it told him a man hung himself on this tree the other day. \u201cI,\nthen,\u201d said he, \u201cwill now purify it.\u201d Once he saw a man who had been a\nconqueror at the Olympic games looking very often at a courtesan; \u201cLook,\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cat that warlike ram, who is taken prisoner by the first girl he\nmeets.\u201d One of his sayings was, that good-looking courtesans were like\npoisoned mead.\n\nOn one occasion he was eating his dinner in the market-place, and the\nbystanders kept constantly calling out \u201cDog;\u201d but he said, \u201cIt is you\nwho are the dogs, who stand around me while I am at dinner.\u201d When two\neffeminate fellows were getting out of his way, he said, \u201cDo not be\nafraid, a dog does not eat beetroot.\u201d Being once asked about a debauched\nboy, as to what country he came from, he said, \u201cHe is a Tegean.\u201d[72]\nSeeing an unskilful wrestler professing to heal a man he said, \u201cWhat\nare you about, are you in hopes now to overthrow those who formerly\nconquered you?\u201d On one occasion he saw the son of a courtesan throwing\na stone at a crowd, and said to him, \u201cTake care, lest you hit your\nfather.\u201d When a boy showed him a sword that he had received from one to\nwhom he had done some discreditable service, he told him, \u201cThe sword is\na good sword, but the handle is infamous.\u201d And when some people were\npraising a man who had given him something, he said to them, \u201cAnd do not\nyou praise me who was worthy to receive it?\u201d He was asked by some one\nto give him back his cloak; but he replied, \u201cIf you gave it me, it is\nmine; and if you only lent it me, I am using it.\u201d A supposititious son\n(\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) of somebody once said to him, that he had gold in his\ncloak; \u201cNo doubt,\u201d said he, \u201cthat is the very reason why I sleep with\nit under my head (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2).\u201d When he was asked what advantage he\nhad derived from philosophy, he replied, \u201cIf no other, at least this,\nthat I am prepared for every kind of fortune.\u201d The question was put to\nhim what countryman he was, and he replied, \u201cA Citizen of the world.\u201d\nSome men were sacrificing to the Gods to prevail on them to send them\nsons, and he said, \u201cAnd do you not sacrifice to procure sons of a\nparticular character?\u201d Once he was asking the president of a society for\na contribution,[73] and said to him:\u2014\n\n \u201cSpoil all the rest, but keep your hands from Hector.\u201d\n\nHe used to say that courtesans were the queens of kings; for that they\nasked them for whatever they chose. When the Athenians had voted that\nAlexander was Bacchus, he said to them, \u201cVote, too, that I am Serapis.\u201d\nWhen a man reproached him for going into unclean places, he said, \u201cThe\nsun too penetrates into privies, but is not polluted by them.\u201d When\nsupping in a temple, as some dirty loaves were set before him, he took\nthem up and threw them away, saying that nothing dirty ought to come into\na temple; and when some one said to him, \u201cYou philosophize without being\npossessed of any knowledge,\u201d he said, \u201cIf I only pretend to wisdom, that\nis philosophizing.\u201d A man once brought him a boy, and said that he was\na very clever child, and one of an admirable disposition. \u201cWhat, then,\u201d\nsaid Diogenes, \u201cdoes he want of me?\u201d He used to say, that those who utter\nvirtuous sentiments but do not do them, are no better than harps, for\nthat a harp has no hearing or feeling. Once he was going into a theatre\nwhile every one else was coming out of it; and when asked why he did so,\n\u201cIt is,\u201d said he, \u201cwhat I have been doing all my life.\u201d Once when he saw\na young man putting on effeminate airs, he said to him, \u201cAre you not\nashamed to have worse plans for yourself than nature had for you? for she\nhas made you a man, but you are trying to force yourself to be a woman.\u201d\nWhen he saw an ignorant man tuning a psaltery, he said to him, \u201cAre you\nnot ashamed to be arranging proper sounds on a wooden instrument, and\nnot arranging your soul to a proper life?\u201d When a man said to him, \u201cI am\nnot calculated for philosophy,\u201d he said, \u201cWhy then do you live, if you\nhave no desire to live properly?\u201d To a man who treated his father with\ncontempt, he said, \u201cAre you not ashamed to despise him to whom you owe\nit that you have it in your power to give yourself airs at all?\u201d Seeing\na handsome young man chattering in an unseemly manner, he said, \u201cAre\nyou not ashamed to draw a sword cut of lead out of a scabbard of ivory?\u201d\nBeing once reproached for drinking in a vintner\u2019s shop, he said, \u201cI have\nmy hair cut, too, in a barber\u2019s.\u201d At another time, he was attacked for\nhaving accepted a cloak from Antipater, but he replied:\u2014\n\n \u201cRefuse not thou to heed\n The gifts which from the mighty Gods proceed.\u201d[74]\n\nA man once struck him with a broom, and said, \u201cTake care,\u201d so he struck\nhim in return with his staff, and said, \u201cTake care.\u201d\n\nHe once said to a man who was addressing anxious entreaties to a\ncourtesan, \u201cWhat can you wish to obtain, you wretched man, that you\nhad not better be disappointed in?\u201d Seeing a man reeking all over with\nunguents, he said to him, \u201cHave a care, lest the fragrance of your head\ngive a bad odour to your life.\u201d One of his sayings was, that servants\nserve their masters, and that wicked men are the slaves of their\nappetites. Being asked why slaves were called \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1, he replied,\n\u201cBecause they have the feet of men (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd), and a soul such\nas you who are asking this question.\u201d He once asked a profligate fellow\nfor a mina; and when he put the question to him, why he asked others for\nan obol, and him for a mina, he said, \u201cBecause I hope to get something\nfrom the others another time, but the Gods alone know whether I shall\never extract anything from you again.\u201d Once he was reproached for asking\nfavours, while Plato never asked for any; and he said:\u2014\n\n \u201cHe asks as well as I do, but he does it\n Bending his head, that no one else may hear.\u201d\n\nOne day he saw an unskilful archer shooting; so he went and sat down by\nthe target, saying, \u201cNow I shall be out of harm\u2019s way.\u201d He used to say,\nthat those who were in love were disappointed in regard of the pleasure\nthey expected. When he was asked whether death was an evil, he replied,\n\u201cHow can that be an evil which we do not feel when it is present?\u201d When\nAlexander was once standing by him, and saying, \u201cDo not you fear me?\u201d He\nreplied, \u201cNo; for what are you, a good or an evil?\u201d And as he said that\nhe was good, \u201cWho, then,\u201d said Diogenes, \u201cfears the good?\u201d He used to\nsay, that education was, for the young sobriety, for the old comfort, for\nthe poor riches, and for the rich an ornament. When Didymus the adulterer\nwas once trying to cure the eye of a young girl (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2), he said, \u201cTake\ncare, lest when you are curing the eye of the maiden, you do not hurt the\npupil.\u201d[75] A man once said to him, that his friends laid plots against\nhim; \u201cWhat then,\u201d said he, \u201care you to do, if you must look upon both\nyour friends and enemies in the same light?\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he was asked, what was the most excellent thing among\nmen; and he said, \u201cFreedom of speech.\u201d He went once into a school, and\nsaw many statues of the Muses, but very few pupils, and said, \u201cGods,\nand all my good schoolmasters, you have plenty of pupils.\u201d He was in\nthe habit of doing everything in public, whether in respect of Venus or\nCeres; and he used to put his conclusions in this way to people: \u201cIf\nthere is nothing absurd in dining, then it is not absurd to dine in the\nmarket-place. But it is not absurd to dine, therefore it is not absurd to\ndine in the market-place.\u201d And as he was continually doing manual work in\npublic, he said one day, \u201cWould that by rubbing my belly I could get rid\nof hunger.\u201d Other sayings also are attributed to him, which it would take\na long time to enumerate, there is such a multiplicity of them.\n\nHe used to say, that there were two kinds of exercise: that, namely, of\nthe mind and that of the body; and that the latter of these created in\nthe mind such quick and agile phantasies at the time of its performance,\nas very much facilitated the practice of virtue; but that one was\nimperfect without the other, since the health and vigour necessary for\nthe practice of what is good, depend equally on both mind and body. And\nhe used to allege as proofs of this, and of the ease which practice\nimparts to acts of virtue, that people could see that in the case of\nmere common working trades, and other employments of that kind, the\nartisans arrived at no inconsiderable accuracy by constant practice;\nand that any one may see how much one flute player, or one wrestler, is\nsuperior to another, by his own continued practice. And that if these\nmen transferred the same training to their minds they would not labour\nin a profitless or imperfect manner. He used to say also, that there was\nnothing whatever in life which could be brought to perfection without\npractice, and that that alone was able to overcome every obstacle; that,\ntherefore, as we ought to repudiate all useless toils, and to apply\nourselves to useful labours, and to live happily, we are only unhappy in\nconsequence of most exceeding folly. For the very contempt of pleasure,\nif we only inure ourselves to it, is very pleasant; and just as they who\nare accustomed to live luxuriously, are brought very unwillingly to adopt\nthe contrary system; so they who have been originally inured to that\nopposite system, feel a sort of pleasure in the contempt of pleasure.\n\nThis used to be the language which he held, and he used to show in\npractice, really altering men\u2019s habits, and deferring in all things\nrather to the principles of nature than to those of law; saying that he\nwas adopting the same fashion of life as Hercules had, preferring nothing\nin the world to liberty; and saying that everything belonged to the wise,\nand advancing arguments such as I mentioned just above. For instance:\nevery thing belongs to the Gods; and the Gods are friends to the wise;\nand all the property of friends is held in common; therefore everything\nbelongs to the wise. He also argued about the law, that without it there\nis no possibility of a constitution being maintained; for without a\ncity there can be nothing orderly, but a city is an orderly thing; and\nwithout a city there can be no law; therefore law is order. And he played\nin the same manner with the topics of noble birth, and reputation, and\nall things of that kind, saying that they were all veils, as it were,\nfor wickedness; and that that was the only proper constitution which\nconsisted in order. Another of his doctrines was that all women ought\nto be possessed in common; and he said that marriage was a nullity, and\nthat the proper way would be for every man to live with her whom he\ncould persuade to agree with him. And on the same principle he said,\nthat all people\u2019s sons ought to belong to every one in common; and there\nwas nothing intolerable in the idea of taking anything out of a temple,\nor eating any animal whatever, and that there was no impiety in tasting\neven human flesh; as is plain from the habits of foreign nations; and he\nsaid that this principle might be correctly extended to every case and\nevery people. For he said that in reality everything was a combination\nof all things. For that in bread there was meat, and in vegetables there\nwas bread, and so there were some particles of all other bodies in\neverything, communicating by invisible passages and evaporating.\n\nVII. And he explains this theory of his clearly in the Thyestes, if\nindeed the tragedies attributed to him are really his composition, and\nnot rather the work of Philiscus, of \u00c6gina, his intimate friend, or\nof Pasiphon, the son of Lucian, who is stated by Phavorinus, in his\nUniversal History, to have written them after Diogenes\u2019 death.\n\nVIII. Music and geometry, and astronomy, and all things of that kind, he\nneglected, as useless and unnecessary. But he was a man very happy in\nmeeting arguments, as is plain from what we have already said.\n\nIX. And he bore being sold with a most magnanimous spirit. For as he\nwas sailing to \u00c6gina, and was taken prisoner by some pirates, under the\ncommand of Scirpalus, he was carried off to Crete and sold; and when\nthe crier asked him what art he understood, he said, \u201cThat of governing\nmen.\u201d And presently pointing out a Corinthian, very carefully dressed,\n(the same Xeniades whom we have mentioned before), he said, \u201cSell me to\nthat man; for he wants a master.\u201d Accordingly Xeniades bought him and\ncarried him away to Corinth; and then he made him tutor of his sons,\nand committed to him the entire management of his house. And he behaved\nhimself in every affair in such a manner, that Xeniades, when looking\nover his property, said, \u201cA good genius has come into my house.\u201d And\nCleomenes, in his book which is called the Schoolmaster, says, that he\nwished to ransom all his relations, but that Diogenes told him that they\nwere all fools; for that lions did not become the slaves of those who\nkept them, but, on the contrary, those who maintained lions were their\nslaves. For that it was the part of a slave to fear, but that wild beasts\nwere formidable to men.\n\nX. And the man had the gift of persuasion in a wonderful degree; so\nthat he could easily overcome any one by his arguments. Accordingly, it\nis said that an \u00c6ginetan of the name of Onesicritus, having two sons,\nsent to Athens one of them, whose name was Androsthenes, and that he,\nafter having heard Diogenes lecture, remained there; and that after\nthat, he sent the elder, Philiscus, who has been already mentioned,\nand that Philiscus was charmed in the same manner. And last of all, he\ncame himself, and then he too remained, no less than his son, studying\nphilosophy at the feet of Diogenes. So great a charm was there in the\ndiscourses of Diogenes. Another pupil of his was Phocion, who was\nsurnamed the Good; and Stilpon, the Megarian, and a great many other men\nof eminence as statesmen.\n\nXI. He is said to have died when he was nearly ninety years of age, but\nthere are different accounts given of his death. For some say that he ate\nan ox\u2019s foot raw, and was in consequence seized with a bilious attack,\nof which he died; others, of whom Cercidas, a Megalopolitan or Cretan,\nis one, say that he died of holding his breath for several days; and\nCercidas speaks thus of him in his Meliambics:\u2014\n\n He, that Sinopian who bore the stick,\n Wore his cloak doubled, and in th\u2019 open air\n Dined without washing, would not bear with life\n A moment longer: but he shut his teeth,\n And held his breath. He truly was the son\n Of Jove, and a most heavenly-minded dog,\n The wise Diogenes.\n\nOthers say that he, while intending to distribute a polypus to his dogs,\nwas bitten by them through the tendon of his foot, and so died. But\nhis own greatest friends, as Antisthenes tells us in his Successions,\nrather sanction the story of his having died from holding his breath.\nFor he used to live in the Craneum, which was a Gymnasium at the gates\nof Corinth. And his friends came according to their custom, and found\nhim with his head covered; and as they did not suppose that he was\nasleep, for he was not a man much subject to the influence of night or\nsleep, they drew away his cloak from his face, and found him no longer\nbreathing; and they thought that he had done this on purpose, wishing to\nescape the remaining portion of his life.\n\nOn this there was a quarrel, as they say, between his friends, as to who\nshould bury him, and they even came to blows; but when the elders and\nchief men of the city came there, they say that he was buried by them at\nthe gate which leads to the Isthmus. And they placed over him a pillar,\nand on that a dog in Parian marble. And at a later period his fellow\ncitizens honoured him with brazen statues, and put this inscription on\nthem:\u2014\n\n E\u2019en brass by lapse of time doth old become,\n But there is no such time as shall efface\n Your lasting glory, wise Diogenes;\n Since you alone did teach to men the art\n Of a contented life: the surest path\n To glory and a lasting happiness.\n\nWe ourselves have also written an epigram on him in the proceleusmatic\nmetre.\n\n _A._ Tell me, Diogenes, tell me true, I pray,\n How did you die; what fate to Pluto bore you?\n\n _B._ The savage bite of an envious dog did kill me.\n\nSome, however, say that when he was dying, he ordered his friends to\nthrow his corpse away without burying it, so that every beast might tear\nit, or else to throw it into a ditch, and sprinkle a little dust over it.\nAnd others say that his injunctions were, that he should be thrown into\nthe Ilissus; that so he might be useful to his brethren. But Demetrius,\nin his treatise on Men of the Same Name, says that Diogenes died in\nCorinth the same day that Alexander died in Babylon. And he was already\nan old man, as early as the hundred and thirteenth olympiad.\n\nXII. The following books are attributed to him. The dialogues entitled\nthe Cephalion; the Icthyas; the Jackdaw; the Leopard; the People of the\nAthenians; the Republic; one called Moral Art; one on Wealth; one on\nLove; the Theodorus; the Hypsias; the Aristarchus; one on Death; a volume\nof Letters; seven Tragedies, the Helen, the Thyestes, the Hercules, the\nAchilles, the Medea, the Chrysippus, and the \u0152dipus.\n\nBut Sosicrates, in the first book of his Successions, and Satyrus, in\nthe fourth book of his Lives, both assert that none of all these are the\ngenuine composition of Diogenes. And Satyrus affirms that the tragedies\nare the work of Philiscus, the \u00c6ginetan, a friend of Diogenes. But\nSotion, in his seventh book, says that these are the only genuine works\nof Diogenes: a dialogue on Virtue; another on the Good; another on Love;\nthe Beggar; the Tolm\u00e6us; the Leopard; the Cassander; the Cephalion;\nand that the Aristarchus, the Sisyphus, the Ganymede, a volume of\nApophthegms, and another of Letters, are all the work of Philiscus.\n\nXIII. There were five persons of the name of Diogenes. The first a native\nof Apollonia, a natural philosopher; and the beginning of his treatise\non Natural Philosophy is as follows: \u201cIt appears to me to be well for\nevery one who commences any kind of philosophical treatise, to lay down\nsome undeniable principle to start with.\u201d The second was a Sicyonian, who\nwrote an account of Peloponnesus. The third was the man of whom we have\nbeen speaking. The fourth was a Stoic, a native of Seleucia, but usually\ncalled a Babylonian, from the proximity of Seleucia to Babylon. The\nfifth was a native of Tarsus, who wrote on the subject of some questions\nconcerning poetry which he endeavours to solve.\n\nXIV. Athenodorus, in the eighth book of his Conversations, says, that the\nphilosopher always had a shining appearance, from his habit of anointing\nhimself.\n\n\nLIFE OF MONIMUS.\n\nI. Monimus was a Syracusan, and a pupil of Diogenes, but also a slave\nof some Corinthian money-changer, as Sosicrates tells us. Xeniades, who\nbought Diogenes, used often to come to him, extolling the excellency of\nDiogenes both in actions and words, till he excited a great affection\nfor the man in the mind of Monimus. For he immediately feigned madness,\nand threw about all the money and all the coins that were on the table,\nuntil his master discarded him, and then he straightway went to Diogenes\nand became his pupil. He also followed Crates the Cynic a good deal, and\ndevoted himself to the same studies as he did; and the sight of this\nconduct of his made his master all the more think him mad.\n\nII. And he was a very eminent man, so that even Menander, the comic\npoet, speaks of him; accordingly, in one of his plays, namely in the\nHippocomus, he mentions him thus:\u2014\n\n There is a man, O Philo, named Monimus,\n A wise man, though but little known, and one\n Who bears a wallet at his back, and is not\n Content with one but three. He never spoke\n A single sentence, by great Jove I swear,\n Like this one, \u201cKnow thyself,\u201d or any other\n Of the oft-quoted proverbs: all such sayings\n He scorned, as he did beg his way through dirt;\n Teaching that all opinion is but vanity.\n\nBut he was a man of such gravity that he despised glory, and sought only\nfor truth.\n\nIII. He wrote some jests mingled with serious treatises, and two essays\non the Appetites, and an Exhortation.\n\n\nLIFE OF ONESICRITUS.\n\nI. Onesicritus is called by some authors an \u00c6ginetan, but Demetrius the\nMagnesian affirms that he was a native of Astypal\u00e6a. He also was one of\nthe most eminent of the disciples of Diogenes.\n\nII. And he appears in some points to resemble Xenophon. For Xenophon\njoined in the expedition of Cyrus, and Onesicritus in that of Alexander;\nand Xenophon wrote the Cyrop\u00e6dia, and Onesicritus wrote an account of the\neducation of Alexander. Xenophon, too, wrote a Panegyric on Cyrus, and\nOnesicritus one on Alexander. They were also both similar to one another\nin style, except that a copyist is naturally inferior to the original.\n\nIII. Menander, too, who was surnamed Drymus, was a pupil of Diogenes,\nand a great admirer of Homer: and so was Heges\u00e6us of Sinope, who was\nnicknamed Cl\u0153us, and Philiscus the \u00c6ginetan, as we have said before.\n\n\nLIFE OF CRATES.\n\nI. Crates was a Theban by birth, and the son of Ascondus. He also was one\nof the eminent disciples of the Cynic. But Hippobotus asserts that he was\nnot a pupil of Diogenes, but of Bryson the Ach\u00e6an.\n\nII. There are the following sportive lines of his quoted:\u2014\n\n The waves surround vain Peres\u2019 fruitful soil,\n And fertile acres crown the sea-born isle;\n Land which no parasite e\u2019er dares invade,\n Or lewd seducer of a hapless maid;\n It bears figs, bread, thyme, garlic\u2019s savoury charms,\n Gifts which ne\u2019er tempt men to detested arms,\n They\u2019d rather fight for gold than glory\u2019s dreams.\n\nThere is also an account-book of his much spoken of, which is drawn up in\nsuch terms as these:\u2014\n\n Put down the cook for minas half a score,\n Put down the doctor for a drachma more:\n Five talents to the flatterer; some smoke\n To the adviser, an obol and a cloak\n For the philosopher; for the willing nymph,\n A talent.\n\nHe was also nicknamed Door-opener, because he used to enter every house\nand give the inmates advice. These lines, too, are his:\u2014\n\n All this I learnt and pondered in my mind,\n Drawing deep wisdom from the Muses kind,\n But all the rest is vanity.\n\nThere is a line, too, which tells us that he gained from philosophy:\u2014\n\n A peck of lupins, and to care for nobody.\n\nThis, too, is attributed to him:\u2014\n\n Hunger checks love; and should it not, time does.\n If both should fail you, then a halter choose.\n\nIII. He flourished about the hundred and thirteenth olympiad.\n\nIV. Antisthenes, in his Successions, says that he, having once, in a\ncertain tragedy, seen Telephus holding a date basket, and in a miserable\nplight in other respects, betook himself to the Cynic philosophy; and\nhaving turned his patrimony into money (for he was of illustrious\nextraction), he collected three hundred talents by that means, and\ndivided them among the citizens. And after that he devoted himself\nto philosophy with such eagerness, that even Philemon the comic poet\nmentions him. Accordingly he says:\u2014\n\n And in the summer he\u2019d a shaggy gown,\n To inure himself to hardship: in the winter\n He wore mere rags.\n\nBut Diocles says that it was Diogenes who persuaded him to discard all\nhis estate and his flocks, and to throw his money into the sea; and he\nsays further, that the house of Crates was destroyed by Alexander, and\nthat of Hipparchia under Philip. And he would very frequently drive away\nwith his staff those of his relations who came after him, and endeavoured\nto dissuade him from his design; and he remained immoveable.\n\nV. Demetrius, the Magnesian, relates that he deposited his money with\na banker, making an agreement with him, that if his sons turned out\nordinary ignorant people, he was then to restore it to them; but if they\nbecame philosophers, then he was to divide it among the people, for that\nthey, if they were philosophers, would have no need of anything. And\nEratosthenes tells us that he had by Hipparchia, whom we shall mention\nhereafter, a son whose name was Pasicles, and that when he grew up, he\ntook him to a brothel kept by a female slave, and told him that that was\nall the marriage that his father designed for him; but that marriages\nwhich resulted in adultery were themes for tragedians, and had exile and\nbloodshed for their prizes; and the marriages of those who lived with\ncourtesans were subjects for the comic poets, and often produced madness\nas the result of debauchery and drunkenness.\n\nVI. He had also a brother named Pasicles, a pupil of Euclides.\n\nVII. Phavorinus, in the second book of his Commentaries, relates a witty\nsaying of his; for he says, that once, when he was begging a favour of\nthe master of a gymnasium, on the behalf of some acquaintance, he touched\nhis thighs; and as he expressed his indignation at this, he said, \u201cWhy,\ndo they not belong to you as well as your knees?\u201d He used to say that it\nwas impossible to find a man who had never done wrong, in the same way as\nthere was always some worthless seed in a pomegranate. On one occasion\nhe provoked Nicodromus, the harp-player, and received a black eye from\nhim; so he put a plaster on his forehead and wrote upon it, \u201cNicodromus\ndid this.\u201d He used to abuse prostitutes designedly, for the purpose of\npractising himself in enduring reproaches. When Demetrius Phalereus sent\nhim some loaves and wine, he attacked him for his present, saying, \u201cI\nwish that the fountains bore loaves;\u201d and it is notorious that he was a\nwater drinker.\n\nHe was once reproved by the \u00e6diles of the Athenians, for wearing fine\nlinen, and so he replied, \u201cI will show you Theophrastus also clad in\nfine linen.\u201d And as they did not believe him, he took them to a barber\u2019s\nshop, and showed him to them as he was being shaved. At Thebes he was\nonce scourged by the master of the Gymnasium, (though some say it was by\nEuthycrates, at Corinth), and dragged out by the feet; but he did not\ncare, and quoted the line:\u2014\n\n I feel, O mighty chief, your matchless might,\n Dragged, foot first, downward from th\u2019 ethereal height.[76]\n\nBut Diocles says that it was by Menedemus, of Eretria, that he was\ndragged in this manner, for that as he was a handsome man, and supposed\nto be very obsequious to Asclepiades, the Phliasian, Crates touched his\nthighs and said, \u201cIs Asclepiades within?\u201d And Menedemus was very much\noffended, and dragged him out, as has been already said; and then Crates\nquoted the above-cited line.\n\nVIII. Zeno, the Citti\u00e6an, in his Apophthegms, says, that he once sewed\nup a sheep\u2019s fleece in his cloak, without thinking of it; and he was a\nvery ugly man, and one who excited laughter when he was taking exercise.\nAnd he used to say, when he put up his hands, \u201cCourage, Crates, as far as\nyour eyes and the rest of your body is concerned:\u2014\n\nIX. \u201cFor you shall see those who now ridicule you, convulsed with\ndisease, and envying your happiness, and accusing themselves of\nslothfulness.\u201d One of his sayings was, \u201cThat a man ought to study\nphilosophy, up to the point of looking on generals and donkey-drivers in\nthe same light.\u201d Another was, that those who live with flatterers, are\nas desolate as calves when in the company of wolves; for that neither\nthe one nor the other are with those whom they ought to be, or their own\nkindred, but only with those who are plotting against them.\n\nX. When he felt that he was dying, he made verses on himself, saying:\u2014\n\n You\u2019re going, noble hunchback, you are going\n To Pluto\u2019s realms, bent double by old age.\n\nFor he was humpbacked from age.\n\nXI. When Alexander asked him whether he wished to see the restoration\nof his country, he said, \u201cWhat would be the use of it? for perhaps some\nother Alexander would come at some future time and destroy it again.\n\n \u201cBut poverty and dear obscurity,\n Are what a prudent man should think his country\n For these e\u2019en fortune can\u2019t deprive him of.\u201d\n\nHe also said that he was:\u2014\n\n A fellow countryman of wise Diogenes,\n Whom even envy never had attacked.\n\nMenander, in his Twin-sister, mentions him thus:\u2014\n\n For you will walk with me wrapped in your cloak,\n As his wife used to with the Cynic Crates.\n\nXII. He gave his daughter to his pupils, as he himself used to say:\u2014\n\n To have and keep on trial for a month.\n\n\nLIFE OF METROCLES.\n\nI. Metrocles was the brother of Hipparchia; and though he had formerly\nbeen a pupil of Theophrastus, he had profited so little by his\ninstructions, that once, thinking that, while listening to a lecture\non philosophy, he had disgraced himself by his inattention, he fell\ninto despondency, and shut himself up in his house, intending to starve\nhimself to death. Accordingly, when Crates heard of it, he came to him,\nhaving been sent for; and eating a number of lupins, on purpose, he\npersuaded him by numbers of arguments, that he had done no harm; for\nthat it was not to be expected that a man should not indulge his natural\ninclinations and habits; and he comforted him by showing him that he, in\na similar case, would certainly have behaved in a similar manner. And\nafter that, he became a pupil of Crates, and a man of great eminence as a\nphilosopher.\n\nII. He burnt all his writings, as Hecaton tells us in the first book of\nhis Apophthegms, and said:\u2014\n\n These are the phantoms of infernal dreams;\n\nAs if he meant that they were all nonsense. But some say that it was the\nnotes which he had taken of the lectures of Theophrastus which he burnt,\nquoting the following verse:\u2014\n\n Vulcan, draw near, \u2019tis Thetis asks your aid.[77]\n\nIII. He used to say that some things could be bought with money, as for\ninstance a house; and some with time and industry, as education; that\nwealth was mischievous, if a man did not use it properly.\n\nIV. He died at a great age, having suffocated himself.\n\nV. His pupils were Theombrotus and Cleomenes, Demetrius of Alexandria,\nthe son of Theombrotus, Timarchus of Alexandria, the son of Cleomenes,\nand Echecles, of Ephesus. Not but what Echecles was also a pupil of\nTheombrotus; and Menedemus, of whom we shall speak hereafter, was his\npupil. Menippus, of Sinope, too, was a very eminent person in his school.\n\n\nLIFE OF HIPPARCHIA.\n\nI. Hipparchia, the sister of Metrocles, was charmed among others, by the\ndoctrines of this school.\n\nII. Both she and Metrocles were natives of Maronea. She fell in love with\nboth the doctrines and manners of Crates, and could not be diverted from\nher regard for him, by either the wealth, or high birth, or personal\nbeauty, of any of her suitors, but Crates was everything to her; and she\nthreatened her parents to make away with herself, if she were not given\nin marriage to him. Crates accordingly, being entreated by her parents to\ndissuade her from this resolution, did all he could; and at last, as he\ncould not persuade her, he rose up, and placing all his furniture before\nher, he said, \u201cThis is the bridegroom whom you are choosing, and this\nis the whole of his property; consider these facts, for it will not be\npossible for you to become his partner, if you do not also apply yourself\nto the same studies, and conform to the same habits that he does.\u201d But\nthe girl chose him; and assuming the same dress that he wore, went about\nwith him as her husband, and appeared with him in public everywhere, and\nwent to all entertainments in his company.\n\nIII. And once when she went to sup with Lysimachus, she attacked\nTheodorus, who was surnamed the Atheist; proposing to him the following\nsophism; \u201cWhat Theodorus could not be called wrong for doing, that same\nthing Hipparchia ought not to be called wrong for doing. But Theodorus\ndoes no wrong when he beats himself; therefore Hipparchia does no wrong\nwhen she beats Theodorus.\u201d He made no reply to what she said, but only\npulled her clothes about; but Hipparchia was neither offended nor\nashamed, as many a woman would have been; but when he said to her:\u2014\n\n \u201cWho is the woman who has left the shuttle\n So near the warp?\u201d[78]\n\n\u201cI, Theodorus, am that person,\u201d she replied; \u201cbut do I appear to you to\nhave come to a wrong decision, if I devote that time to philosophy, which\nI otherwise should have spent at the loom?\u201d And these and many other\nsayings are reported of this female philosopher.\n\nIV. There is also a volume of letters of Crates[79] extant, in which he\nphilosophizes most excellently; and in style is very little inferior to\nPlato. He also wrote some tragedies, which are imbued with a very sublime\nspirit of philosophy, of which the following lines are a specimen:\u2014\n\n \u2019Tis not one town, nor one poor single house,\n That is my country; but in every land\n Each city and each dwelling seems to me,\n A place for my reception ready made.\n\nAnd he died at a great age, and was buried in B\u0153otia.\n\n\nLIFE OF MENIPPUS.\n\nI. Menippus was also a Cynic, and a Ph\u0153nician by descent, a slave by\nbirth, as Achaicus tells us in his Ethics; and Diocles informs us that\nhis master was a native of Pontus, of the name of Baton; but that\nsubsequently, in consequence of his importunities and miserly habits, he\nbecame rich, and obtained the rights of citizenship at Corinth.\n\nII. He never wrote anything serious; but his writings are full of\nridiculous matter; and in some respects similar to those of Meleager, who\nwas his contemporary. And Hermippus tells us that he was a man who lent\nmoney at daily interest, and that he was called a usurer; for he used\nto lend on nautical usury, and take security, so that he amassed a very\ngreat amount of riches.\n\nIII. But at last he fell into a snare, and lost all his money, and in a\nfit of despair he hung himself, and so he died. And we have written a\nplayful epigram on him:\u2014\n\n This man was a Syrian by birth,\n And a Cretan usurious hound,\n As the name he was known by sets forth,\n You\u2019ve heard of him oft I\u2019ll be bound;\n His name was Menippus\u2014men entered his house,\n And stole all his goods without leaving a louse,\n When (from this the dog\u2019s nature you plainly may tell)\n He hung himself up, and so went off to hell.\n\nIV. But some say that the books attributed to him are not really his\nwork, but are the composition of Dionysius and Zopyrus the Colophonians,\nwho wrote them out of joke, and then gave them to him as a man well able\nto dispose of them.\n\nV. There were six persons of the name of Menippus; the first was the man\nwho wrote a history of the Lydians, and made an abridgment of Xanthus;\nthe second was this man of whom we have been speaking; the third was a\nsophist of Stratonice, a Carian by descent; the fourth was a statuary;\nthe fifth and the sixth were painters, and they are both mentioned by\nApollodorus.\n\nVI. The writings left by the Cynic amount to thirteen volumes; a\nDescription of the Dead; a volume called Wills; a volume of Letters\nin which the Gods are introduced; treatises addressed to the Natural\nPhilosophers, and Mathematicians, and Grammarians; one on the Generations\nof Epicurus, and on the Observance of the Twentieth Day by the\nphilosophers of his school; and one or two other essays.\n\n\nTHE LIFE OF MENEDEMUS.\n\nI. Menedemus was a disciple of Colotes of Lampsacus.\n\nII. He proceeded, as Hippobotus tells, to such a great degree of\nsuperstition, that he assumed the garb of a fury, and went about saying\nthat he had come from hell to take notice of all who did wrong, in order\nthat he might descend thither again and make his report to the deities\nwho abode in that country. And this was his dress: a tunic of a dark\ncolour reaching to his feet, and a purple girdle round his waist, an\nArcadian hat on his head with the twelve signs of the zodiac embroidered\non it, tragic buskins, a preposterously long beard, and an ashen staff in\nhis hand.\n\nIII. These then are the lives of each of the Cynics; and we shall also\nsubjoin some of the doctrines which they all held in common, if indeed\nit is not an abuse of language to call that a sect of philosophy at all,\ninstead of, as some contend it should be termed, a mere system of life.\n\nThey wished to abolish the whole system of logic and natural philosophy,\nlike Aristo of Chios, and thought that men should study nothing but\nethics; and what some people assert of Socrates was described by Diocles\nas a characteristic of Diogenes, for he said that his doctrine was, that\na man ought to investigate\u2014\n\n Only the good and ill that taketh place\n Within our houses.\n\nThey also discard all liberal studies. Accordingly, Antisthenes said that\nwise men only applied themselves to literature and learning for the sake\nof perverting others; they also wish to abolish geometry and music, and\neverything of that kind. Accordingly, Diogenes said once to a person who\nwas showing him a clock; \u201cIt is a very useful thing to save a man from\nbeing too late for supper.\u201d And once when a man made an exhibition of\nmusical skill before him, he said:\u2014\n\n \u201cCities are governed, so are houses too,\n By wisdom, not by harp-playing and whistling.\u201d[80]\n\nTheir doctrine is, that the chief good of mankind is to live according to\nvirtue, as Antisthenes says in his Hercules, in which they resemble the\nStoics. For those two sects have a good deal in common with one another,\non which account they themselves say that cynicism is a short road to\nvirtue; and Zeno, the Citti\u00e6an lived in the same manner.\n\nThey also teach that men ought to live simply, using only plain food in\nmoderate quantities, wearing nothing but a cloak, and despising riches,\nand glory, and nobleness of birth; accordingly some of them feed upon\nnothing beyond herbs and cold water, living in any shelter that they can\nfind, or in tubs as Diogenes did; for he used to say that it was the\npeculiar property of the Gods to want nothing, and that, therefore, when\na man wished for nothing he was like the Gods.\n\nAnother of their doctrines is, that virtue is a thing which may be\ntaught, as Antisthenes affirms in his Heraclides; and that when it has\nonce been attained it can never be lost. They also say that the wise\nman deserves to be loved, and cannot commit error, and is a friend to\nevery one who resembles him, and that he leaves nothing to fortune. And\neverything which is unconnected with either virtue or vice they call\nindifferent, agreeing in this with Aristo, the Chian.\n\nThese then were the Cynics; and now we must pass on to the Stoics, of\nwhich sect the founder was Zeno, who had been a disciple of Crates.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VII.\n\n\nLIFE OF ZENO.\n\nI. Zeno was the son of Mnaseas, or Demeas, and a native of Citium, in\nCyprus, which is a Grecian city, partly occupied by a Ph\u0153nician colony.\n\nII. He had his head naturally bent on one side, as Timotheus, the\nAthenian, tells us, in his work on Lives. And Apollonius, the Tyrian,\nsays that he was thin, very tall, of a dark complexion; in reference\nto which some one once called him an Egyptian Clematis, as Chrysippus\nrelates in the first volume of his Proverbs: he had fat, flabby, weak\nlegs, on which account Pers\u00e6us, in his Convivial Reminiscences, says that\nhe used to refuse many invitations to supper; and he was very fond, as it\nis said, of figs both fresh and dried in the sun.\n\nIII. He was a pupil, as has been already stated, of Crates. After that,\nthey say that he became a pupil of Stilpon and of Xenocrates, for ten\nyears, as Timocrates relates in his Life of Dion. He is also said to have\nbeen a pupil of Polemo. But Hecaton, and Apollonius, of Tyre, in the\nfirst book of his essay on Zeno, say that when he consulted the oracle,\nas to what he ought to do to live in the most excellent manner, the God\nanswered him that he ought to become of the same complexion as the dead,\non which he inferred that he ought to apply himself to the reading of the\nbooks of the ancients. Accordingly, he attached himself to Crates in the\nfollowing manner. Having purchased a quantity of purple from Ph\u0153nicia,\nhe was shipwrecked close to the Pir\u00e6us; and when he had made his way\nfrom the coast as far as Athens, he sat down by a bookseller\u2019s stall,\nbeing now about thirty years of age. And as he took up the second book\nof Xenophon\u2019s Memorabilia and began to read it, he was delighted with\nit, and asked where such men as were described in that book lived; and\nas Crates happened very seasonably to pass at the moment, the bookseller\npointed him out, and said, \u201cFollow that man.\u201d From that time forth\nhe became a pupil of Crates; but though he was in other respects very\nenergetic in his application to philosophy, still he was too modest for\nthe shamelessness of the Cynics. On which account, Crates, wishing to\ncure him of this false shame, gave him a jar of lentil porridge to carry\nthrough the Ceramicus; and when he saw that he was ashamed, and that he\nendeavoured to hide it, he struck the jar with his staff, and broke it;\nand, as Zeno fled away, and the lentil porridge ran all down his legs,\nCrates called after him, \u201cWhy do you run away, my little Ph\u0153nician,\nyou have done no harm?\u201d For some time then he continued a pupil of\nCrates, and when he wrote his treatise entitled the Republic, some said,\njokingly, that he had written it upon the tail of the dog.\n\nIV. And besides his Republic, he was the author also of the following\nworks:\u2014a treatise on a Life according to Nature; one on Appetite, or the\nNature of Man; one on Passions; one on the Becoming; one on Law; one on\nthe usual Education of the Greeks; one on Sight; one on the Whole; one\non Signs; one on the Doctrines of the Pythagoreans; one on Things in\nGeneral; one on Styles; five essays on Problems relating to Homer; one\non the Bearing of the Poets. There is also an essay on Art by him, and\ntwo books of Solutions and Jests, and Reminiscences, and one called the\nEthics of Crates. These are the books of which he was the author.\n\nV. But at last he left Crates, and became the pupil of the philosophers\nwhom I have mentioned before, and continued with them for twenty years.\nSo that it is related that he said, \u201cI now find that I made a prosperous\nvoyage when I was wrecked.\u201d But some affirm that he made this speech in\nreference to Crates. Others say, that while he was staying at Athens he\nheard of a shipwreck, and said, \u201cFortune does well in having driven us on\nphilosophy.\u201d But as some relate the affair, he was not wrecked at all,\nbut sold all his cargo at Athens, and then turned to philosophy.\n\nVI. And he used to walk up and down in the beautiful colonnade which is\ncalled the Peisianactium, and which is also called \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b7, from the\npaintings of Polygnotus, and there he delivered his discourses, wishing\nto make that spot tranquil; for in the time of the thirty, nearly\nfourteen hundred of the citizens had been murdered there by them.\n\nVII. Accordingly, for the future, men came thither to hear him, and from\nthis his pupils were called Stoics, and so were his successors also, who\nhad been at first called Zenonians, as Epicurus tells us in his Epistles.\nAnd before this time, the poets who frequented this colonnade (\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f70) had\nbeen called Stoics, as we are informed by Eratosthenes, in the eighth\nbook of his treatise on the Old Comedy; but now Zeno\u2019s pupils made the\nname more notorious. Now the Athenians had a great respect for Zeno, so\nthat they gave him the keys of their walls, and they also honoured him\nwith a golden crown, and a brazen statue; and this was also done by his\nown countrymen, who thought the statue of such a man an honour to their\ncity. And the Citti\u00e6ans, in the district of Sidon, also claimed him as\ntheir countryman.\n\nVIII. He was also much respected by Antigonus, who, whenever he came to\nAthens, used to attend his lectures, and was constantly inviting him to\ncome to him. But he begged off himself, and sent Pers\u00e6us, one of his\nintimate friends, who was the son of Demetrius, and a Citti\u00e6an by birth,\nand who flourished about the hundred and thirtieth olympiad, when Zeno\nwas an old man. The letter of Antigonus to Zeno was as follows, and it is\nreported by Apollonius, the Syrian, in his essay on Zeno.\n\nKING ANTIGONUS TO ZENO THE PHILOSOPHER, GREETING.\n\n\u201cI think that in good fortune and glory I have the advantage of you; but\nin reason and education I am inferior to you, and also in that perfect\nhappiness which you have attained to. On which account I have thought\nit good to address you, and invite you to come to me, being convinced\nthat you will not refuse what is asked of you. Endeavour, therefore, by\nall means to come to me, considering this fact, that you will not be the\ninstructor of me alone, but of all the Macedonians together. For he who\ninstructs the ruler of the Macedonians, and who leads him in the path of\nvirtue, evidently marshals all his subjects on the road to happiness. For\nas the ruler is, so is it natural that his subjects for the most part\nshould be also.\u201d\n\nAnd Zeno wrote him back the following answer.\n\nZENO TO KING ANTIGONUS, GREETING.\n\n\u201cI admire your desire for learning, as being a true object for the wishes\nof mankind, and one too that tends to their advantage. And the man who\naims at the study of philosophy has a proper disregard for the popular\nkind of instruction which tends only to the corruption of the morals.\nAnd you, passing by the pleasure which is so much spoken of, which\nmakes the minds of some young men effeminate, show plainly that you are\ninclined to noble pursuits, not merely by your nature, but also by your\nown deliberate choice. And a noble nature, when it has received even a\nslight degree of training, and which also meets with those who will teach\nit abundantly, proceeds without difficulty to a perfect attainment of\nvirtue. But I now find my bodily health impaired by old age, for I am\neighty years old: on which account I am unable to come to you. But I send\nyou some of those who have studied with me, who in that learning which\nhas reference to the soul, are in no respect inferior to me, and in their\nbodily vigour are greatly my superiors. And if you associate with them\nyou will want nothing that can bear upon perfect happiness.\u201d\n\nSo he sent him Pers\u00e6us and Philonides, the Theban, both of whom are\nmentioned by Epicurus, in his letter to his brother Aristobulus, as being\ncompanions of Antigonus.\n\nIX. And I have thought it worth while also to set down the decree of the\nAthenians concerning him; and it is couched in the following language.\n\n\u201cIn the archonship of Arrhenides, in the fifth presidency of the tribe\nAcamantis, on the twenty-first day of the month Maimacterion, on the\ntwenty-third day of the aforesaid presidency, in a duly convened\nassembly, Hippo, the son of Cratistoteles, of the borough of Xypetion,\nbeing one of the presidents, and the rest of the presidents, his\ncolleagues, put the following decree to the vote. And the decree was\nproposed by Thrason, of Anac\u00e6a, the son of Thrason.\n\n\u201cSince Zeno the son of Mnaseas, the Citti\u00e6an, has passed many years\nin the city, in the study of philosophy, being in all other respects\na good man, and also exhorting all the young men who have sought his\ncompany to the practice of virtue, and encouraging them in the practice\nof temperance; making his own life a model to all men of the greatest\nexcellence, since it has in every respect corresponded to the doctrines\nwhich he has taught; it has been determined by the people (and may the\ndetermination be fortunate), to praise Zeno, the son of Mnaseas, the\nCitti\u00e6an, and to present him with a golden crown in accordance with the\nlaw, on account of his virtue and temperance, and to build him a tomb in\nthe Ceramicus, at the public expense. And the people has appointed by\nits vote five men from among the citizens of Athens, who shall see to\nthe making of the crown and the building of the tomb. And the scribe of\nthe borough shall enrol the decree and engrave it on two pillars, and he\nshall be permitted to place one pillar in the Academy, and one in the\nLyceum. And he who is appointed to superintend the work shall divide the\nexpense that the pillars amount to, in such a way that every one may\nunderstand that the whole people of Athens honours good men both while\nthey are living and after they are dead. And Thrason of Anac\u00e6a, Philocles\nof the Pir\u00e6us, Ph\u00e6drus of Anaphlystos, Medon of Acharn\u00e6, Micythus of\nSypalettus, and Dion of P\u00e6ania, are hereby appointed to superintend the\nbuilding of the tomb.\u201d\n\nThese then are the terms of the decree.\n\nX. But Antigonus, of Carystos, says, that Zeno himself never denied that\nhe was a native of Cittium. For that when on one occasion, there was a\ncitizen of that town who had contributed to the building of some baths,\nand was having his name engraved on the pillar, as the countryman of Zeno\nthe philosopher, he bade them add, \u201cOf Cittium.\u201d\n\nXI. And at another time, when he had had a hollow covering made for some\nvessel, he carried it about for some money, in order to procure present\nrelief for some difficulties which were distressing Crates his master.\nAnd they say that he, when he first arrived in Greece, had more than a\nthousand talents, which he lent out at nautical usury.\n\nXII. And he used to eat little loaves and honey, and to drink a small\nquantity of sweet smelling wine.\n\nXIII. He had very few youthful acquaintances of the male sex, and he did\nnot cultivate them much, lest he should be thought to be a misogynist.\nAnd he dwelt in the same house with Pers\u00e6us; and once, when he brought in\na female flute-player to him, he hastened to bring her back to him.\n\nXIV. And he was, it is said, of a very accommodating temper; so much so,\nthat Antigonus, the king, often came to dine with him, and often carried\nhim off to dine with him, at the house of Aristocles the harp-player; but\nwhen he was there, he would presently steal away.\n\nXV. It is also said that he avoided a crowd with great care, so that he\nused to sit at the end of a bench, in order at all events to avoid being\nincommoded on one side. And he never used to walk with more than two or\nthree companions. And he used at times to exact a piece of money from all\nwho came to hear him, with a view of not being distressed by numbers; and\nthis story is told by Cleanthes, in his treatise on Brazen Money. And\nwhen he was surrounded by any great crowd, he would point to a balustrade\nof wood at the end of the colonnade which surrounded an altar, and say,\n\u201cThat was once in the middle of this place, but it was placed apart\nbecause it was in people\u2019s way; and now, if you will only withdraw from\nthe middle here, you too will incommode me much less.\u201d\n\nXVI. And when Demochares, the son of Laches, embraced him once, and said\nthat he would tell Antigonus, or write to him of everything which he\nwanted, as he always did everything for him, Zeno, when he had heard him\nsay this, avoided his company for the future. And it is said, that after\nthe death of Zeno, Antigonus said, \u201cWhat a spectacle have I lost.\u201d On\nwhich account he employed Thrason, their ambassador, to entreat of the\nAthenians to allow him to be buried in the Ceramicus. And when he was\nasked why he had such an admiration for him, he replied, \u201cBecause, though\nI gave him a great many important presents, he was never elated, and\nnever humbled.\u201d\n\nXVII. He was a man of a very investigating spirit, and one who inquired\nvery minutely into everything; in reference to which, Timon, in his\nSilli, speaks thus:\u2014\n\n I saw an aged woman of Ph\u0153nicia,\n Hungry and covetous, in a proud obscurity,\n Longing for everything. She had a basket\n So full of holes that it retained nothing.\n Likewise her mind was less than a skindapsus.[81]\n\nHe used to study very carefully with Philo, the dialectician, and to\nargue with him at their mutual leisure; on which account he excited the\nwonder of the younger Zeno, no less than Diodorus his master.\n\nXVIII. There were also a lot of dirty beggars always about him, as Timon\ntells us, where he says:\u2014\n\n Till he collected a vast cloud of beggars,\n Who were of all men in the world the poorest,\n And the most worthless citizens of Athens.\n\nAnd he himself was a man of a morose and bitter countenance, with a\nconstantly frowning expression. He was very economical, and descended\neven to the meanness of the barbarians, under the pretence of economy.\n\nXIX. If he reproved any one, he did it with brevity and without\nexaggeration, and as it were, at a distance. I allude, for instance, to\nthe way in which he spoke of a man who took exceeding pains in setting\nhimself off, for as he was crossing a gutter with great hesitation, he\nsaid, \u201cHe is right to look down upon the mud, for he cannot see himself\nin it.\u201d And when some Cynic one day said that he had no oil in his\ncruise, and asked him for some, he refused to give him any, but bade him\ngo away and consider which of the two was the more impudent. He was very\nmuch in love with Chremonides; and once, when he and Cleanthes were both\nsitting by him, he got up; and as Cleanthes wondered at this, he said,\n\u201cI hear from skilful physicians that the best thing for some tumours\nis rest.\u201d Once, when two people were sitting above him at table at a\nbanquet, and the one next him kept kicking the other with his foot, he\nhimself kicked him with his knee; and when he turned round upon him for\ndoing so, he said, \u201cWhy then do you think that your other neighbour is to\nbe treated in this way by you?\u201d\n\nOn one occasion he said to a man who was very fond of young boys,\nthat \u201cSchoolmasters who were always associating with boys had no more\nintellect than the boys themselves.\u201d He used also to say that the\ndiscourses of those men who were careful to avoid solecisms, and to\nadhere to the strictest rules of composition, were like Alexandrine\nmoney, they were pleasing to the eye and well-formed like the coin, but\nwere nothing the better for that; but those who were not so particular\nhe likened to the Attic tetradrachmas, which were struck at random and\nwithout any great nicety, and so he said that their discourses often\noutweighed the more polished styles of the others. And when Ariston, his\ndisciple, had been holding forth a good deal without much wit, but still\nin some points with a good deal of readiness and confidence, he said to\nhim, \u201cIt would be impossible for you to speak thus, if your father had\nnot been drunk when he begat you;\u201d and for the same reason he nicknamed\nhim the chatterer, as he himself was very concise in his speeches. Once,\nwhen he was in company with an epicure who usually left nothing for his\nmessmates, and when a large fish was set before him, he took it all as\nif he could eat the whole of it; and when the others looked at him with\nastonishment, he said, \u201cWhat then do you think that your companions feel\nevery day, if you cannot bear with my gluttony for one day?\u201d\n\nOn one occasion, when a youth was asking him questions with a pertinacity\nunsuited to his age, he led him to a looking-glass and bade him look at\nhimself, and then asked him whether such questions appeared suitable to\nthe face he saw there. And when a man said before him once, that in most\npoints he did not agree with the doctrines of Antisthenes, he quoted to\nhim an apophthegm of Sophocles, and asked him whether he thought there\nwas much sense in that, and when he said that he did not know, \u201cAre you\nnot then ashamed,\u201d said he, \u201cto pick out and recollect anything bad\nwhich may have been said by Antisthenes, but not to regard or remember\nwhatever is said that is good?\u201d A man once said, that the sayings of the\nphilosophers appeared to him very trivial; \u201cYou say true,\u201d replied Zeno,\n\u201cand their syllables too ought to be short, if that is possible.\u201d When\nsome one spoke to him of Polemo, and said that he proposed one question\nfor discussion and then argued another, he became angry, and said, \u201cAt\nwhat value did he estimate the subject that had been proposed?\u201d And he\nsaid that a man who was to discuss a question ought to have a loud voice\nand great energy, like the actors, but not to open his mouth too wide,\nwhich those who speak a great deal but only talk nonsense usually do. And\nhe used to say that there was no need for those who argued well to leave\ntheir hearers room to look about them, as good workmen do who want to\nhave their work seen; but that, on the contrary, those who are listening\nto them ought to be so attentive to all that is said as to have no\nleisure to take notes.\n\nOnce when a young man was talking a great deal, he said, \u201cYour ears have\nrun down into your tongue.\u201d On one occasion a very handsome man was\nsaying that a wise man did not appear to him likely to fall in love;\n\u201cThen,\u201d said he, \u201cI cannot imagine anything that will be more miserable\nthan you good-looking fellows.\u201d He also used often to say that most\nphilosophers were wise in great things, but ignorant of petty subjects\nand chance details; and he used to cite the saying of Caphesius, who,\nwhen one of his pupils was labouring hard to be able to blow very\npowerfully, gave him a slap, and said, that excellence did not depend\nupon greatness, but greatness on excellence. Once, when a young man was\narguing very confidently, he said, \u201cI should not like to say, O youth,\nall that occurs to me.\u201d And once, when a handsome and wealthy Rhodian,\nbut one who had no other qualification, was pressing him to take him as\na pupil, he, as he was not inclined to receive him, first of all made\nhim sit on the dusty seats that he might dirt his cloak, then he put him\ndown in the place of the poor that he might rub against their rags, and\nat last the young man went away. One of his sayings used to be, that\nvanity was the most unbecoming of all things, and especially so in the\nyoung. Another was, that one ought not to try and recollect the exact\nwords and expressions of a discourse, but to fix all one\u2019s attention on\nthe arrangement of the arguments, instead of treating it as if it were a\npiece of boiled meat, or some delicate eatable. He used also to say that\nyoung men ought to maintain the most scrupulous reserve in their walking,\ntheir gait, and their dress; and he was constantly quoting the lines of\nEuripides on Capaneus, that\u2014\n\n His wealth was ample.\n But yet no pride did mingle with his state,\n Nor had he haughty thought, or arrogance\n More than the poorest man.\n\nAnd one of his sayings used to be, that nothing was more unfriendly to\nthe comprehension of the accurate sciences than poetry; and that there\nwas nothing that we stood in so much need of as time. When he was asked\nwhat a friend was, he replied, \u201cAnother I.\u201d They say that he was once\nscourging a slave whom he had detected in theft; and when he said to\nhim, \u201cIt was fated that I should steal;\u201d he rejoined, \u201cYes, and that\nyou should be beaten.\u201d He used to call beauty the flower of the voice;\nbut some report this as if he had said that the voice is the flower of\nbeauty. On one occasion, when he saw a slave belonging to one of his\nfriends severely bruised, he said to his friend, \u201cI see the footsteps\nof your anger.\u201d He once accosted a man who was all over unguents\nand perfumes, \u201cWho is this who smells like a woman?\u201d When Dionysius\nMetathemenus asked him why he was the only person whom he did not\ncorrect, he replied, \u201cBecause I have no confidence in you.\u201d A young man\nwas talking a great deal of nonsense, and he said to him, \u201cThis is the\nreason why we have two ears and only one mouth, that we may hear more and\nspeak less.\u201d\n\nOnce, when he was at an entertainment and remained wholly silent, he was\nasked what the reason was; and so he bade the person who found fault with\nhim tell the king that there was a man in the room who knew how to hold\nhis tongue; now the people who asked him this were ambassadors who had\ncome from Ptolemy, and who wished to know what report they were to make\nof him to the king. He was once asked how he felt when people abused him,\nand he said, \u201cAs an ambassador feels when he is sent away without an\nanswer.\u201d Apollonius of Tyre tells us, that when Crates dragged him by the\ncloak away from Stilpo, he said, \u201cO Crates, the proper way to take hold\nof philosophers is by the ears; so now do you convince me and drag me by\nthem; but if you use force towards me, my body may be with you, but my\nmind with Stilpo.\u201d\n\nXX. He used to devote a good deal of time to Diodorus, as we learn from\nHippobotus; and he studied dialectics under him. And when he had made\na good deal of progress he attached himself to Polemo because of his\nfreedom from arrogance, so that it is reported that he said to him,\n\u201cI am not ignorant, O Zeno, that you slip into the garden-door and\nsteal my doctrines, and then clothe them in a Ph\u0153nician dress.\u201d When a\ndialectician once showed him seven species of dialectic argument in the\nmowing argument,[82] he asked him how much he charged for them, and when\nhe said \u201cA hundred drachmas,\u201d he gave him two hundred, so exceedingly\ndevoted was he to learning.\n\nXXI. They say too, that he was the first who ever employed the word duty\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd), and who wrote a treatise on the subject. And that he altered\nthe lines of Hesiod thus:\u2014\n\n He is the best of all men who submits\n To follow good advice; he too is good,\n Who of himself perceives whate\u2019er is fit.[83]\n\nFor he said that that man who had the capacity to give a proper hearing\nto what was said, and to avail himself of it, was superior to him who\ncomprehended everything by his own intellect; for that the one had only\ncomprehension, but the one who took good advice had action also.\n\nXXII. When he was asked why he, who was generally austere, relaxed at a\ndinner party, he said, \u201cLupins too are bitter, but when they are soaked\nthey become sweet.\u201d And Hecaton, in the second book of his Apophthegms,\nsays, that in entertainments of that kind, he used to indulge himself\nfreely. And he used to say that it was better to trip with the feet, than\nwith the tongue. And that goodness was attained by little and little,\nbut was not itself a small thing. Some authors, however, attribute this\nsaying to Socrates.\n\nXXIII. He was a person of great powers of abstinence and endurance; and\nof very simple habits, living on food which required no fire to dress it,\nand wearing a thin cloak, so that it was said of him:\u2014\n\n The cold of winter, and the ceaseless rain,\n Come powerless against him; weak is the dart\n Of the fierce summer sun, or fell disease,\n To bend that iron frame. He stands apart,\n In nought resembling the vast common crowd;\n But, patient and unwearied, night and day,\n Clings to his studies and philosophy.\n\nXXIV. And the comic poets, without intending it, praise him in their very\nattempts to turn him into ridicule. Philemon speaks thus of him in his\nplay entitled the Philosophers:\u2014\n\n This man adopts a new philosophy,\n He teaches to be hungry; nevertheless,\n He gets disciples. Bread his only food,\n His best desert dried figs; water his drink.\n\nBut some attribute these lines to Posidippus. And they have become\nalmost a proverb. Accordingly it used to be said of him, \u201cMore temperate\nthan Zeno the philosopher.\u201d Posidippus also writes thus in his Men\nTransported:\u2014\n\n So that for ten whole days he did appear\n More temperate than Zeno\u2019s self.\n\nXXV. For in reality he did surpass all men in this description of virtue,\nand in dignity of demeanour, and, by Jove, in happiness. For he lived\nninety-eight years, and then died, without any disease, and continuing in\ngood health to the last. But Pers\u00e6us, in his Ethical School, states that\nhe died at the age of seventy-two, and that he came to Athens when he\nwas twenty-two years old. But Apollonius says that he presided over his\nschool for forty-eight years.\n\nXXVI. And he died in the following manner. When he was going out of his\nschool, he tripped, and broke one of his toes; and striking the ground\nwith his hand, he repeated the line out of the Niobe:\u2014\n\n I come: why call me so?\n\nAnd immediately he strangled himself, and so he died. But the Athenians\nburied him in the Ceramicus, and honoured him with the decrees which I\nhave mentioned before, bearing witness to his virtue. And Antipater, the\nSidonian, wrote an inscription for him, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n Here Cittium\u2019s pride, wise Zeno, lies, who climb\u2019d\n The summits of Olympus; but unmoved\n By wicked thoughts ne\u2019er strove to raise on Ossa\n The pine-clad Pelion; nor did he emulate\n Th\u2019 immortal toils of Hercules; but found\n A new way for himself to th\u2019 highest heaven,\n By virtue, temperance, and modesty.\n\nAnd Zenodotus, the Stoic, a disciple of Diogenes, wrote another:\u2014\n\n You made contentment the chief rule of life,\n Despising haughty wealth, O God-like Zeno.\n With solemn look, and hoary brow serene,\n You taught a manly doctrine; and didst found\n By your deep wisdom, a great novel school,\n Chaste parent of unfearing liberty.\n And if your country was Ph\u0153nicia,\n Why need we grieve, from that land Cadmus came,\n Who gave to Greece her written books of wisdom.\n\nAnd Athen\u00e6us, the Epigrammatic poet, speaks thus of all the Stoics in\ncommon:\u2014\n\n O, ye who\u2019ve learnt the doctrines of the Porch,\n And have committed to your books divine\n The best of human learning; teaching men\n That the mind\u2019s virtue is the only good.\n And she it is who keeps the lives of men,\n And cities, safer than high gates or walls.\n But those who place their happiness in pleasure,\n Are led by the least worthy of the Muses.\n\nAnd we also have ourselves spoken of the manner of Zeno\u2019s death, in our\ncollection of poems in all metres, in the following terms:\u2014\n\n Some say that Zeno, pride of Cittium,\n Died of old age, when weak and quite worn out;\n Some say that famine\u2019s cruel tooth did slay him;\n Some that he fell, and striking hard the ground,\n Said, \u201cSee, I come, why call me thus impatiently?\u201d\n\nFor some say that this was the way in which he died. And this is enough\nto say concerning his death.\n\nXXVII. But Demetrius, the Magnesian, says, in his essay on People of\nthe Same Name, that his father Mnaseas often came to Athens, as he was\na merchant, and that he used to bring back many of the books of the\nSocratic philosophers, to Zeno, while he was still only a boy; and that,\nfrom this circumstance, Zeno had already become talked of in his own\ncountry; and that in consequence of this he went to Athens, where he\nattached himself to Crates. And it seems, he adds, that it was he who\nfirst recommended a clear enunciation of principles, as the best remedy\nfor error. He is said, too, to have been in the habit of swearing \u201cBy\nCapers,\u201d as Socrates swore \u201cBy the Dog.\u201d\n\nXXVIII. Some, indeed, among whom is Cassius the Sceptic, attack Zeno\non many accounts, saying first of all that he denounced the general\nsystem of education in vogue at the time, as useless, which he did in\nthe beginning of his Republic. And in the second place, that he used to\ncall all who were not virtuous, adversaries, and enemies, and slaves,\nand unfriendly to one another, parents to their children, brethren to\nbrethren, and kinsmen to kinsmen; and again, that in his Republic, he\nspeaks of the virtuous as the only citizens, and friends, and relations,\nand free men, so that in the doctrine of the Stoic, even parents and\ntheir children are enemies; for they are not wise. Also, that he lays\ndown the principle of the community of women both in his Republic and in\na poem of two hundred verses, and teaches that neither temples nor courts\nof law, nor gymnasia, ought to be erected in a city; moreover, that he\nwrites thus about money, \u201cThat he does not think that men ought to coin\nmoney either for purposes of traffic, or of travelling.\u201d Besides all\nthis, he enjoins men and women to wear the same dress, and to leave no\npart of their person uncovered.\n\nXXIX. And that this treatise on the Republic is his work we are assured\nby Chrysippus, in his Republic. He also discussed amatory subjects in the\nbeginning of that book of his which is entitled the Art of Love. And in\nhis Conversations he writes in a similar manner.\n\nSuch are the charges made against him by Cassius, and also by Isidorus,\nof Pergamus, the orator, who says that all the unbecoming doctrines and\nassertions of the Stoics were cut out of their books by Athenodorus,\nthe Stoic, who was the curator of the library at Pergamus. And that\nsubsequently they were replaced, as Athenodorus was detected, and placed\nin a situation of great danger; and this is sufficient to say about those\ndoctrines of his which were impugned.\n\nXXX. There were eight different persons of the name of Zeno. The first\nwas the Eleatic, whom we shall mention hereafter; the second was this\nman of whom we are now speaking; the third was a Rhodian, who wrote a\nhistory of his country in one book; the fourth was a historian who wrote\nan account of the expedition of Pyrrhus into Italy and Sicily; and also\nan epitome of the transactions between the Romans and Carthaginians; the\nfifth was a disciple of Chrysippus, who wrote very few books, but who\nleft a great number of disciples; the sixth was a physician of Herophila,\na very shrewd man in intellect, but a very indifferent writer; the\nseventh was a grammarian, who, besides other writings, has left some\nepigrams behind him; the eighth was a Sidonian by descent, a philosopher\nof the Epicurean school, a deep thinker, and very clear writer.\n\nXXXI. The disciples of Zeno were very numerous. The most eminent were,\nfirst of all, Pers\u00e6us, of Cittium, the son of Demetrius, whom some call\na friend of his, but others describe him as a servant and one of the\namanuenses who were sent to him by Antigonus, to whose son, Halcyoneus,\nhe also acted as tutor. And Antigonus once, wishing to make trial of him,\ncaused some false news to be brought to him that his estate had been\nravaged by the enemy; and as he began to look gloomy at this news, he\nsaid to him, \u201cYou see that wealth is not a matter of indifference.\u201d\n\nThe following works are attributed to him. One on Kingly Power; one\nentitled the Constitution of the Laced\u00e6monians; one on Marriage; one\non Impiety; the Thyestes; an Essay on Love; a volume of Exhortations;\none of Conversations; four of Apophthegms; one of Reminiscences; seven\ntreatises, the Laws of Plato.\n\nThe next was Ariston, of Chios, the son of Miltiades, who was the\nfirst author of the doctrine of indifference; then Herillus, who\ncalled knowledge the chief good; then Dionysius, who transferred this\ndescription to pleasure; as, on account of the violent disease which he\nhad in his eyes, he could not yet bring himself to call pain a thing\nindifferent. He was a native of Heraclea; there was also Sph\u00e6rus, of the\nBosphorus; and Cleanthes, of Assos, the son of Phanias, who succeeded him\nin his school, and whom he used to liken to tablets of hard wax, which\nare written upon with difficulty, but which retain what is written upon\nthem. And after Zeno\u2019s death, Sph\u00e6rus became a pupil of Cleanthes. And we\nshall speak of him in our account of Cleanthes.\n\nThese also were all disciples of Zeno, as we are told by Hippobotus,\nnamely:\u2014Philonides, of Thebes; Callippus, of Corinth; Posidonius, of\nAlexandria; Athenodorus, of Soli; and Zeno, a Sidonian.\n\nXXXII. And I have thought it best to give a general account of all the\nStoic doctrines in the life of Zeno, because he it was who was the\nfounder of the sect.\n\nHe has written a great many books, of which I have already given a list,\nin which he has spoken as no other of the Stoics has. And his doctrines\nin general are these. But we will enumerate them briefly, as we have been\nin the habit of doing in the case of the other philosophers.\n\nXXXIII. The Stoics divide reason according to philosophy, into three\nparts; and say that one part relates to natural philosophy, one to\nethics, and one to logic. And Zeno, the Citti\u00e6an, was the first who made\nthis division, in his treatise on Reason; and he was followed in it by\nChrysippus, in the first book of his treatise on Reason, and in the first\nbook of his treatise on Natural Philosophy; and also by Apollodorus; and\nby Syllus, in the first book of his Introduction to the Doctrines of the\nStoics; and by Eudromus, in his Ethical Elements; and by Diogenes, the\nBabylonian; and Posidonius. Now these divisions are called _topics_ by\nApollodorus, _species_ by Chrysippus and Eudromus, and _genera_ by all\nthe rest. And they compare philosophy to an animal, likening logic to the\nbones and sinews, natural philosophy to the fleshy parts, and ethical\nphilosophy to the soul. Again, they compare it to an egg; calling logic\nthe shell, and ethics the white, and natural philosophy the yolk. Also to\na fertile field; in which logic is the fence which goes round it, ethics\nare the fruit, and natural philosophy the soil, or the fruit-trees.\nAgain, they compare it to a city fortified by walls, and regulated by\nreason; and then, as some of them say, no one part is preferred to\nanother, but they are all combined and united inseparably; and so they\ntreat of them all in combination. But others class logic first, natural\nphilosophy second, and ethics third; as Zeno does in his treatise on\nReason, and in this he is followed by Chrysippus, and Archedemus, and\nEudromus.\n\nFor Diogenes of Ptolemais begins with ethics; but Apollodorus places\nethics second; and Pan\u00e6tius and Posidonius begin with natural philosophy,\nas Phanias, the friend of Posidonius asserts, in the first book of his\ntreatise on the School of Posidonius.\n\nBut Cleanthes says, that there are six divisions of reason according\nto philosophy: dialectics, rhetoric, ethics, politics, physics, and\ntheology; but others assert that these are not divisions of reason,\nbut of philosophy itself; and this is the opinion advanced by Zeno, of\nTarsus, among others.\n\nXXXIV. Some again say, that the logical division is properly subdivided\ninto two sciences, namely, rhetoric and dialectics; and some divide\nit also into definitive species, which is conversant with rules and\ntests; while others deny the propriety of this last division altogether,\nand argue that the object of rules and tests is the discovery of the\ntruth; for it is in this division that they explain the differences of\nrepresentations. They also argue that, on the other side, the science of\ndefinitions has equally for its object the discovery of truth, since we\nonly know things by the intervention of ideas. They also call rhetoric\na science conversant about speaking well concerning matters which admit\nof a detailed narrative; and dialectics they call the science of arguing\ncorrectly in discussions which can be carried on by question and answer;\non which account they define it thus: a knowledge of what is true, and\nfalse, and neither one thing nor the other.\n\nAgain, rhetoric itself they divide into three kinds; for one description\nthey say is concerning about giving advice, another is forensic, and\nthe third encomiastic; and it is also divided into several parts,\none relating to the discovery of arguments, one to style, one to the\narrangement of arguments, and the other to the delivery of the speech.\nAnd a rhetorical oration they divide into the exordium, the narration,\nthe reply to the statements of the adverse party, and the peroration.\n\nXXXV. Dialectics, they say, is divided into two parts; one of which has\nreference to the things signified, the other to the expression. That\nwhich has reference to the things signified or spoken of, they divide\nagain into the topic of things conceived in the fancy, and into those\nof axioms, of perfect determinations, of predicaments, of things alike,\nwhether upright or prostrate, of tropes, of syllogisms, and of sophisms,\nwhich are derived either from the voice or from the things. And these\nsophisms are of various kinds; there is the false one, the one which\nstates facts, the negative, the sorites, and others like these; the\nimperfect one, the inexplicable one, the conclusive one, the veiled one,\nthe horned one, the nobody, and the mower.\n\nIn the second part of dialectics, that which has for its object the\nexpression, they treat of written language, of the different parts of a\ndiscourse, of solecism and barbarism, of poetical forms of expression, of\nambiguity, of a melodious voice, of music; and some even add definitions,\ndivisions, and diction.\n\nThey say that the most useful of these parts is the consideration of\nsyllogisms; for that they show us what are the things which are capable\nof demonstration, and that contributes much to the formation of our\njudgment, and their arrangement and memory give a scientific character\nto our knowledge. They define reasoning to be a system composed of\nassumptions and conclusions: and syllogism is a syllogistic argument\nproceeding on them. Demonstration they define to be a method by which\none proceeds from that which is more known to that which is less.\nPerception, again, is an impression produced on the mind, its name\nbeing appropriately borrowed from impressions on wax made by a seal;\nand perception they divide into comprehensible and incomprehensible:\nComprehensible, which they call the criterion of facts, and which\nis produced by a real object, and is, therefore, at the same time\nconformable to that object; Incomprehensible, which has no relation\nto any real object, or else, if it has any such relation, does not\ncorrespond to it, being but a vague and indistinct representation.\n\nDialectics itself they pronounce to be a necessary science, and a virtue\nwhich comprehends several other virtues under its species. And the\ndisposition not to take up one side of an argument hastily, they defined\nto be a knowledge by which we are taught when we ought to agree to a\nstatement, and when we ought to withhold our agreement. Discretion they\nconsider to be a powerful reason, having reference to what is becoming,\nso as to prevent our yielding to an irrelevant argument. Irrefutability\nthey define to be a power in an argument, which prevents one from being\ndrawn from it to its opposite. Freedom from vanity, according to them, is\na habit which refers the perceptions back to right reason.\n\nAgain, they define knowledge itself as an assertion or safe\ncomprehension, or habit, which, in the perception of what is seen, never\ndeviates from the truth. And they say further, that without dialectic\nspeculation, the wise man cannot be free from all error in his reasoning.\nFor that that is what distinguishes what is true from what is false, and\nwhich easily detects those arguments which are only plausible, and those\nwhich depend upon an ambiguity of language. And without dialectics they\nsay it is not possible to ask or answer questions correctly. They also\nadd, that precipitation in denials extends to those things which are\ndone, so that those who have not properly exercised their perceptions\nfall into irregularity and thoughtlessness. Again, without dialectics,\nthe wise man cannot be acute, and ingenious, and wary, and altogether\ndangerous as an arguer. For that it belongs to the same man to speak\ncorrectly and to reason correctly, and to discuss properly those subjects\nwhich are proposed to him, and to answer readily whatever questions\nare put to him, all which qualities belong to a man who is skilful in\ndialectics. This then is a brief summary of their opinions on logic.\n\nXXXVI. And, that we may also enter into some more minute details\nrespecting them, we will subjoin what refers to what they call their\nintroductory science, as it is stated by Diocles, of Magnesia, in his\nExcursion of Philosophers, where he speaks as follows, and we will give\nhis account word for word.\n\nThe Stoics have chosen to treat, in the first place, of perception\nand sensation, because the criterion by which the truth of facts is\nascertained is a kind of perception, and because the judgment which\nexpresses the belief, and the comprehension, and the understanding of\na thing, a judgment which precedes all others, cannot exist without\nperception. For perception leads the way; and then thought, finding vent\nin expressions, explains in words the feelings which it derives from\nperception. But there is a difference between \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1. For\n\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 is a conception of the intellect, such as takes place in sleep;\nbut \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is an impression, \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, produced on the mind, that is\nto say, an alteration, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, as Chrysippus states in the twelfth\nbook of his treatise on the Soul. For we must not take this impression\nto resemble that made by a seal, since it is impossible to conceive that\nthere should be many impressions made at the same time on the same thing.\nBut \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is understood to be that which is impressed, and formed,\nand imprinted by a real object, according to a real object, in such a\nway as it could not be by any other than a real object; and, according\nto their ideas of the \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, some are sensible, and some are not.\nThose they call sensible, which are derived by us from some one or more\nsenses; and those they call not sensible, which emanate directly from the\nthought, as for instance, those which relate to incorporeal objects, or\nany others which are embraced by reason. Again, those which are sensible,\nare produced by a real object, which imposes itself on the intelligence,\nand compels its acquiescence; and there are also some others, which are\nsimply apparent, mere shadows, which resemble those which are produced by\nreal objects.\n\nAgain, these \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 are divided into rational and irrational; those\nwhich are rational belong to animals capable of reason; those which are\nirrational to animals destitute of reason. Those which are rational\nare thoughts; those which are irrational have no name; but are again\nsubdivided into artificial and not artificial. At all events, an image is\ncontemplated in a different light by a man skilful in art, from that in\nwhich it is viewed by a man ignorant of art.\n\nBy sensation, the Stoics understand a species of breath which proceeds\nfrom the dominant portion of the soul to the senses, whether it be a\nsensible perception, or an organic disposition, which, according to\nthe notions of some of them, is crippled and vicious. They also call\nsensation the energy, or active exercise, of the sense. According to\nthem, it is to sensation that we owe our comprehension of white and\nblack, and rough and smooth: from reason, that we derive the notions\nwhich result from a demonstration, those for instance which have for\ntheir object the existence of Gods, and of Divine Providence. For all\nour thoughts are formed either by indirect perception, or by similarity,\nor analogy, or transposition, or combination, or opposition. By a direct\nperception, we perceive those things which are the objects of sense; by\nsimilarity, those which start from some point present to our senses; as,\nfor instance, we form an idea of Socrates from his likeness. We draw our\nconclusions by analogy, adopting either an increased idea of the thing,\nas of Tityus, or the Cyclops; or a diminished idea, as of a pigmy. So,\ntoo, the idea of the centre of the world was one derived by analogy\nfrom what we perceived to be the case of the smaller spheres. We use\ntransposition when we fancy eyes in a man\u2019s breast; combination, when we\ntake in the idea of a Centaur; opposition, when we turn our thoughts to\ndeath. Some ideas we also derive from comparison, for instance, from a\ncomparison of words and places.\n\nThere is also nature; as by nature we comprehend what is just and\ngood. And privation, when for instance, we form a notion of a man\nwithout hands. Such are the doctrines of the Stoics, on the subject of\nphantasia, and sensation, and thought.\n\nXXXVII. They say that the proper criterion of truth is the comprehension,\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1; that is to say, one which is derived from a real object, as\nChrysippus asserts in the twelfth book of his Physics; and he is followed\nby Antipater and Apollodorus. For Boethus leaves a great many criteria,\nsuch as intellect, sensation, appetite, and knowledge; but Chrysippus\ndissents from his view, and in the first book of his treatise on Reason,\nsays, that sensation and preconception are the only criteria. And\npreconception is, according to him, a comprehensive physical notion of\ngeneral principles. But others of the earlier Stoics admit right reason\nas one criterion of the truth; for instance, this is the opinion of\nPosidonius, and is advanced by him in his essay on Criteria.\n\nXXXVIII. On the subject of logical speculation, there appears to be\na great unanimity among the greater part of the Stoics, in beginning\nwith the topic of the voice. Now voice is a percussion of the air; or,\nas Diogenes, the Babylonian, defines it, in his essay on the Voice,\na sensation peculiar to the hearing. The voice of a beast is a mere\npercussion of the air by some impetus: but the voice of a man is\narticulate, and is emitted by intellect, as Diogenes lays it down, and is\nnot brought to perfection in a shorter period than fourteen years. And\nthe voice is a body according to the Stoics; for so it is laid down by\nArchedemus, in his book on the Voice, and by Diogenes, and Antipater, and\nalso by Chrysippus, in the second volume of his Physics. For everything\nwhich makes anything, is a body; and the voice makes something when it\nproceeds to those who hear from those who speak.\n\nA word (\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03c2), again, is, according to Diogenes, a voice consisting of\nletters, as \u201cDay.\u201d A sentence (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) is a significant voice, sent out by\nthe intellect, as for instance, \u201cIt is day;\u201d but dialect is a peculiar\nstyle imprinted on the utterance of nations, according to their race;\nand causes varieties in the Greek language, being a sort of local habit,\nas for instance, the Attics say \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1, and the Ionians say \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7.\nThe elements of words are the twenty-four letters; and the word letter\nis used in a triple division of sense, meaning the element itself, the\ngraphical sign of the element, and the name, as Alpha. There are seven\nvowels, \u03b1, \u03b5, \u03b7, \u03b9, \u03bf, \u03c5, \u03c9; six mutes, \u03b2, \u03b3, \u03b4, \u03ba, \u03c0, \u03c4. But voice\nis different from a word, because voice is a sound; but a word is an\narticulate sound. And a word differs from a sentence, because a sentence\nis always significative of something, but a word by itself has no\nsignification, as for instance, \u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9. But this is not the case with a\nsentence. Again, there is a difference between speaking and pronouncing;\nthe sounds are pronounced, but what are spoken are things which are\ncapable of being spoken of.\n\nXXXIX. Now of sentences there are five parts, as Diogenes tells us in his\ntreatise on Voice; and he is followed by Chrysippus. There is the noun,\nthe common noun, the verb, the conjunction, and the article. Antipater\nadds also quality, in his treatise upon Words and the things expressed\nby them. And a common noun (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1) is, according to Diogenes, a\npart of a sentence signifying a common quality, as for instance, man,\nhorse. But a noun is a part of a sentence signifying a peculiar quality,\nsuch as Diogenes, Socrates. A verb is a part of a sentence signifying\nan uncombined categorem, as Diogenes (\u1f41 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) or, as others define\nit, an element of a sentence, devoid of case, signifying something\ncompound in reference to some person or persons, as, \u201cI write,\u201d \u201cI say.\u201d\nA conjunction is a part of a sentence destitute of case, uniting the\ndivisions of the sentence. An article is an element of a sentence, having\ncases, defining the genders of nouns and their numbers, as \u1f41, \u1f21, \u03c4\u1f78, \u03bf\u1f31,\n\u03b1\u1f31, \u03c4\u1f70.\n\nXL. The excellences of a sentence are five,\u2014good Greek, clearness,\nconciseness, suitableness, elegance. Good Greek (\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2) is a\ncorrect style, according to art, keeping aloof from any vulgar form of\nexpression; clearness is a style which states that which is conceived in\nthe mind in such a way that it is easily known; conciseness is a style\nwhich embraces all that is necessary to the clear explanation of the\nsubject under discussion; suitableness is a style suited to the subject;\nelegance is a style which avoids all peculiarity of expression. Of the\nvices of a sentence, on the other hand, barbarism is a use of words\ncontrary to that in vogue among the well-educated Greeks; solecism is a\nsentence incongruously put together.\n\nXLI. A poetical expression is, as Posidonius defines it in his\nintroduction on Style, \u201cA metrical or rhythmical diction, proceeding\nin preparation, and avoiding all resemblance to prose.\u201d For instance,\n\u201cThe vast and boundless earth,\u201d \u201cTh\u2019 expanse of heaven,\u201d are rhythmical\nexpressions; and poetry is a collection of poetical expressions\nsignifying something, containing an imitation of divine and human beings.\n\nXLII. A definition is, as Antipater explains it in the first book of his\ntreatise on Definitions, a sentence proceeding by analysis enunciated\nin such a way as to give a complete idea; or, as Chrysippus says in his\ntreatise on Definitions, it is the explanation of an idea. Description is\na sentence which, in a figurative manner, brings one to a knowledge of\nthe subject, or it may be called a simpler kind of definition, expressing\nthe power of a definition in plainer language. Genus is a comprehending\nof many ideas indissolubly connected, as animal; for this one expression\ncomprehends all particular kinds of animals. An idea is an imagination of\nthe mind which does not express actually anything real, or any quality,\nbut only a _quasi_ reality and a _quasi_ quality; such, for instance, is\nthe idea of a horse when a horse is not present. Species is that which is\ncomprehended under genus, as man is comprehended under animal.\n\nAgain, that is the most general genus which, being a genus itself, has no\nother genus, as the existent. And that is the most special species, which\nbeing a species has no other species, as, for instance, Socrates.\n\nXLIII. The division of genus is a dissection of it into the proximate\nspecies; as, for instance, \u201cOf animals, some are rational, others\nirrational.\u201d Contrary division is the dissection of genus into species on\nthe principle of the contrary; so as to be by a sort of negation; as, for\ninstance, \u201cOf existent things, some are good and some not good;\u201d and, \u201cOf\nthings which are not good, some are bad and some indifferent.\u201d Partition\nis an arrangement of a genus with reference to place, as Crinis says,\nfor instance, \u201cOf goods, some have reference to the mind and some to the\nbody.\u201d\n\nXLIV. Ambiguity (\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b1) is an expression signifying two or more\nthings having an ordinary or a peculiar meaning, according to the\npronunciation, in such a way that more things than one may be understood\nby the very same expression. Take, for instance, the words \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5. For you may understand by them, a house has fallen down three\ntimes (\u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5), or, a female flute-player has fallen, taking\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 as synonymous with \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\n\nLV. Dialectics are, as Posidonius explains them, the science of what is\ntrue and false, and neither one or the other, and it is, as Chrysippus\nexplains it, conversant about words that signify and things that are\nsignified; these then are the doctrines asserted by the Stoics in their\nspeculations on the subject of the voice.\n\nXLVI. But in that part of dialectics which concerns things and ideas\nsignified, they treat of propositions, of perfect enunciations, of\njudgments, of syllogisms, of imperfect enunciations, of attributes and\ndeficiencies, and of both direct and indirect categorems or predicaments.\n\nXLVII. And they say that enunciation is the manifestation of the ideal\nperception; and these enunciations the Stoics pronounce some to be\nperfect in themselves, and some to be defective; now those are defective,\nwhich furnish an incomplete sense, as for instance, \u201cHe writes.\u201d For\nthen we ask further, \u201cWho writes?\u201d But those are perfect in themselves,\nwhich give a sense entirely complete, as for instance, \u201cSocrates writes.\u201d\nAccordingly, in the defective enunciations, categorems are applied; but\nin those which are perfect in themselves, axioms, and syllogisms, and\nquestions, and interrogations, are brought into play. Now a categorem is\nsomething which is predicated of something else, being either a thing\nwhich is added to one or more objects, according to the definition of\nApollodorus, or else a defective enunciation added to the nominative\ncase, for the purpose of forming a proposition.\n\nNow of categorems, some are accidents \u2026[84] as for instance, \u201cThe sailing\nthrough a rock.\u201d \u2026 And of categorems, some are direct, some indirect,\nand some neither one nor the other. Now those are correct, which are\nconstrued with one of the oblique cases, in such a manner as to produce\na categorem, as for instance, \u201cHe hears, he sees, he converses.\u201d And\nthose are indirect, which are construed with the passive voice, as for\ninstance, \u201cI am heard, I am seen.\u201d And those which are neither one nor\nthe other, are those which are construed in a neutral kind of manner, as\nfor instance, \u201cTo think, to walk.\u201d And those are reciprocal, which are\namong the indirect ones, without being indirect themselves. Those are\neffects, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, which are such words as, \u201cHe is shaved;\u201d for then,\nthe man who is shaved, implies himself.\n\nThe oblique cases, are the genitive, the dative, and the accusative.\n\nXLVIII. An axiom, is that thing which is true, or false, or perfect\nin itself, being asserted, or denied positively, as far as depends\nupon itself; as Chrysippus explains it in his Dialectic Definitions;\nas for instance, \u201cIt is day,\u201d \u201cDion is walking.\u201d And it has received\nthe name of axiom, \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, because it is either maintained, \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\nor repudiated. For the man who says, \u201cIt is day,\u201d appears to maintain\nthe fact of its being day. If then it is day, the axiom put before one\nis true; but if it is not day, the axiom is false. And an axiom, a\nquestion, and an interrogation, differ from one another, and so does an\nimperative proposition from one which is adjurative, or imprecatory,\nor hypothetical, or appellative, or false. For that is an axiom which\nwe utter, when we affirm anything positively, which is either true or\nfalse. And a question is a thing complete in itself, as also is an axiom,\nbut which requires an answer, as for instance, \u201cIs it day?\u201d Now this\nis neither true nor false; but, as \u201cIt is day\u201d is an axiom; so is, \u201cIs\nit day?\u201d a question. But an interrogation, \u03c0\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, is a thing to which\nit is not possible to make an answer symbolically, as in the case of a\nquestion, \u1f10\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, saying merely \u201cYes,\u201d but we must reply, \u201cHe does live\nin this place.\u201d\n\nThe imperative proposition is a thing which we utter when we give an\norder, as for instance this:\u2014\n\n Do you now go to the sweet stream of Inachus.[85]\n \u2026\n\nThe appellative proposition is one which is used in the case in which,\nwhen a man says anything, he must address somebody, as for instance:\u2014\n\n Atrides, glorious king of men,\n Most mighty Agamemnon.[86]\n\nA false judgment is a proposition, which, while it has at the same time\nthe appearance of a real judgment, loses this character by the addition,\nand under the influence of, some particle, as for instance:\n\n The Parthenon at least is beautiful.\n How like the herdsman is to Priam\u2019s sons.\n\nThere is also the dubitative proposition, which differs from the\njudgment, inasmuch as it is always uttered in the form of a doubt; as for\ninstance:\u2014\n\n Are not, then, grief and life two kindred states?[87]\n\nBut questions, and interrogations, and things like these, are neither\ntrue nor false, while judgments and propositions are necessarily one or\nthe other.\n\nNow of axioms, some are simple, and others are not simple; as\nChrysippus, and Archedemus, and Athenodorus, and Antipater, and Crinis,\nagree in dividing them. Those are simple, which consist of an axiom\nor proposition, which is not ambiguous, (or of several axioms, or\npropositions of the same character,) as for instance the sentence, \u201cIt is\nday.\u201d And those are not simple, which consist of an axiom or proposition\nwhich is ambiguous, or of several axioms or propositions of that\ncharacter. Of an axiom, or proposition, which is ambiguous, as \u201cIf it is\nday;\u201d of several axioms, or propositions of that character, as, \u201cIf it is\nday, it is light.\u201d\n\nAnd simple propositions are divided into the affirmative, the negative,\nthe privative, the categorical, the definite, and the indefinite; those\nwhich are not simple, are divided into the combined, and the adjunctive,\nthe connected and the disjunctive, and the causal and the augmentative,\nand the diminutive. That is an affirmative proposition, \u201cIt is not day.\u201d\nAnd the species of this is doubly affirmative. That again is doubly\naffirmative, which is affirmative of an affirmative, as for instance, \u201cIt\nis not not day;\u201d for this amounts to, \u201cIt is day.\u201d That is a negative\nproposition, which consists of a negative particle and a categorem, as\nfor instance, \u201cNo one is walking.\u201d That is a privative proposition which\nconsists of a privative particle and an axiom according to power, as\n\u201cThis man is inhuman.\u201d That is a categorical proposition, which consists\nof a nominative case and a categorem, as for instance, \u201cDion is walking.\u201d\nThat is a definite proposition, which consists of a demonstrative\nnominative case and a categorem, as for instance, \u201cThis man is walking.\u201d\nThat is an indefinite one which consists of an indefinite particle, or\nof indefinite particles, as for instance, \u201cSomebody is walking,\u201d \u201cHe is\nmoving.\u201d\n\nOf propositions which are not simple, the combined proposition is, as\nChrysippus states, in his Dialectics, and Diogenes, too, in his Dialectic\nArt; that which is held together by the copulative conjunction \u201cif.\u201d\nAnd this conjunction professes that the second member of the sentence\nfollows the first, as for instance, \u201cIf it is day, it is light.\u201d That\nwhich is adjunctive is, as Crinis states in his Dialectic Art, an axiom\nwhich is made to depend on the conjunction \u201csince\u201d (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76), beginning\nwith an axiom and ending in an axiom, as for instance, \u201cSince it is\nday, it is light.\u201d And this conjunction professes both that the second\nportion of the proposition follows the first, and the first is true.\nThat is a connected proposition which is connected by some copulative\nconjunctions, as for instance, \u201cIt both is day, and it is light.\u201d That\nis a disjunctive proposition which is disconnected by the disjunctive\nconjunction, \u201cor\u201d (\u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9), as for instance, \u201cIt is either day or night.\u201d\nAnd this proposition professes that one or other of these propositions\nis false. That is a causal proposition which is connected by the word,\n\u201cbecause;\u201d as for instance, \u201cBecause it is day, it is light.\u201d For the\nfirst is, as it were, the cause of the second. That is an augmentative\nproposition, which explains the greater, which is construed with an\naugmentative particle, and which is placed between the two members of\nthe proposition, as for instance, \u201cIt is rather day than night.\u201d The\ndiminutive proposition is, in every respect, the exact contrary of the\npreceding one; as for instance, \u201cIt is less night than day.\u201d Again, at\ntimes, axioms or propositions are opposed to one another in respect of\ntheir truth and falsehood, when one is an express denial of the other; as\nfor instance, \u201cIt is day,\u201d and, \u201cIt is not day.\u201d\n\nAgain, a conjunctive proposition is correct, when it is such that the\nopposite of the conclusion is contradictory of the premiss; as for\ninstance, the proposition, \u201cIf it is day, it is light,\u201d is true; for,\n\u201cIt is not light,\u201d which is the opposite to the conclusion expressed, is\ncontradictory to the premiss, \u201cIt is day.\u201d And a conjunctive proposition\nis incorrect, when it is such that the opposite of the conclusion is not\ninconsistent with the premiss, as for instance, \u201cIf it is day, Dion is\nwalking.\u201d For the fact that Dion is not walking, is not contradictory of\nthe premiss, \u201cIt is day.\u201d\n\nAn adjunctive proposition is correct, which begins with a true premiss,\nand ends in a consequence which follows of necessity, as for instance,\n\u201cSince it is day, the sun is above the earth.\u201d But it is incorrect when\nit either begins with a false premiss, or ends with a consequence which\ndoes not follow properly; as for instance, \u201cSince it is night, Dion is\nwalking,\u201d for this may be said in the day-time.\n\nA causal proposition is correct, when it begins with a true premiss, and\nends in a consequence which necessarily follows from it, but yet does\nnot have its premiss reciprocally consequent upon its conclusion; as for\ninstance, \u201cBecause it is day, it is light.\u201d For the fact of its being\nlight, is a necessary consequence of its being day; but the fact of its\nbeing day, is not necessarily a consequence of its being light. A causal\nproposition is incorrect, which either begins with a false premiss, or\nends with a conclusion that does not follow from it, or which has a\npremiss which does not correspond to the conclusion; as for instance,\n\u201cBecause it is night, Dion is walking.\u201d\n\nA proposition is persuasive, which leads to the assent of the mind, as\nfor instance, \u201cIf she brought him forth, she is his mother.\u201d But still\nthis is a falsehood, for a hen is not the mother of an egg. Again, there\nare some propositions which are possible, and some which are impossible;\nand some which are necessary, and some which are not necessary. That is\npossible, which is capable of being true, since external circumstances\nare no hindrance to its being true; as for instance, \u201cDiocles lives.\u201d And\nthat is impossible which is not capable of being true; as for instance,\n\u201cThe earth flies.\u201d That is necessary which, being true, is not capable\nof being false; or perhaps is intrinsically capable of being false,\nbut still has external circumstances which hinder its being false, as\nfor instance, \u201cVirtue profits a man.\u201d That again, is not necessary,\nwhich is true, but which has a capacity of being false, though external\ncircumstances offer no hindrance to either alternative; as for instance,\n\u201cDion walks.\u201d\n\nThat is a reasonable or probable proposition, which has a great\npreponderance of opportunities in favour of its being true; as for\ninstance, \u201cI shall be alive to-morrow.\u201d And there are other different\nkinds of propositions and conversions of them, from true to false, and\nre-conversions again; concerning which we must speak at some length.\n\nXLIX. An argument, as Crinis says, is that which is composed of a lemma\nor major premiss, an assumption or minor premiss, and a conclusion; as\nfor instance this, \u201cIf it is day, it is light;\u201d \u201cBut it is day, therefore\nit is light.\u201d For the lemma, or major premiss, is, \u201cIf it is day, it is\nlight.\u201d The assumption, or minor premiss, is, \u201cIt is day.\u201d The conclusion\nfollows, \u201cTherefore it is light.\u201d The mode of a proposition is, as it\nwere, a figure of an argument, as for instance, such as this, \u201cIf it is\nthe first, it is the second; but it is the first, therefore it is the\nsecond.\u201d\n\nA conditional syllogism is that which is composed of both the preceding\narguments; as for instance, \u201cIf Plato is alive, Plato breathes; but the\nfirst fact is so, therefore so is the second.\u201d And this conditional\nsyllogism has been introduced for the sake, in long and complex\nsentences, of not being forced to repeat the assumption, as it was a long\none, and also the conclusion; but of being able, instead, to content\none\u2019s self with summing it up briefly thus, \u201cThe first case put is true,\ntherefore so is the second.\u201d\n\nOf arguments, some are conclusive, others are inconclusive. Those are\ninconclusive which are such, that the opposite of the conclusion drawn\nin them is not necessarily incompatible with the connection of the\npremisses. As for instance, such arguments as these, \u201cIf it is day, it\nis light; but it is day, therefore, Dion is walking.\u201d But of conclusive\narguments, some are called properly by the kindred name conclusions,\nand some are called syllogistic arguments. Those then are syllogistic\nwhich are either such as do not admit of demonstration, or such as are\nbrought to an indemonstrable conclusion, according to some one or more\npropositions; such for instance as the following: \u201cIf Dion walks, then\nDion is in motion.\u201d Those are conclusive, which infer their conclusion\nspecially, and not syllogistically; such for instance, as this, \u201cThe\nproposition it is both day and night is false. Now it is day; therefore,\nit is not night.\u201d\n\nThose again, are unsyllogistic arguments which have an air of\nprobability about them, and a resemblance to syllogistic ones, but\nwhich still do not lead to the deduction of proper conclusions. As for\ninstance, \u201cIf Dion is a horse, Dion is an animal; but Dion is not a\nhorse, therefore, Dion is not an animal.\u201d\n\nAgain, of arguments, some are true, and some are false. Those are true\nwhich deduce a conclusion from true premisses, as, for instance, \u201cIf\nvirtue profits, then vice injures.\u201d And those are false which have\nsome falsehood in their premisses, or which are inconclusive; as, for\ninstance, \u201cIf it is day, it is light; but it is day, therefore, Dion is\nalive.\u201d\n\nThere are also arguments which are possible, and others which are\nimpossible; some likewise which are necessary, and others which are not\nnecessary. There are too, some which are not demonstrated from their not\nstanding in need of demonstration, and these are laid down differently\nby different people; but Chrysippus enumerates five kinds, which serve\nas the foundation for every kind of argument; and which are assumed in\nconclusive arguments properly so called, and in syllogisms, and in modes.\n\nThe first kind that is not demonstrated, is that in which the whole\nargument consists of a conjunctive and an antecedent; and in which\nthe first term repeats itself so as to form a sort of conjunctive\nproposition, and to bring forward as the conclusion the last term. As,\nfor instance, \u201cIf the first be true, so is the second; but the first\nis true, therefore, so is the second.\u201d The second kind that is not\ndemonstrated, is that which, by means of the conjunctive and the opposite\nof the conclusion, has a conclusion opposite to the first premiss. As,\nfor instance, \u201cIf it be day, it is light; but it is night, therefore it\nis not day.\u201d For here the assumption arises from the opposite of the\nconclusion, and the conclusion from the opposite of the first term.\nThe third kind that is not demonstrative, is that which, by a negative\ncombination, and by one of the terms in the proposition, produces the\ncontradictory of the remainder; as, for instance, \u201cPlato is not dead and\nalive at the same time but Plato is dead; therefore, Plato is not alive.\u201d\nThe fourth kind that is not demonstrative, is that which, by means of a\ndisjunctive, and one of those terms which are in the disjunctive, has\na conclusion opposite to what remains; as, for instance, \u201cIt is either\nthe first, or the second; but it is the first; therefore, it is not the\nsecond.\u201d The fifth kind that is not demonstrative, is that in which the\nwhole argument consists of a disjunctive proposition, and the opposite of\none of the terms, and then one makes the conclusion identical with the\nremainder; as, for instance, \u201cIt is either day or night; but it is not\nnight; therefore it is day.\u201d\n\nAccording to the Stoics, truth follows upon truth, as \u201cIt is light,\u201d\nfollows upon \u201cIt is day.\u201d And falsehood follows upon falsehood; as,\n\u201cIf it is false that it is night, it is also false that it is dark.\u201d\nSometimes too, truth follows from falsehood; for instance, though it is\nfalse that \u201cthe earth flies,\u201d it is true that \u201cthere is the earth.\u201d But\nfalsehood does never follow from truth; for, from the fact that \u201cthere is\nthe earth,\u201d it does not follow \u201cthat the earth flies.\u201d\n\nThere are also some arguments which are perplexed, being veiled and\nescaping notice; or such as are called sorites, the horned one, or the\nnobody. That is a veiled argument[88] which resembles the following one;\n\u201ctwo are not a few, nor three, nor those, nor four, and so on to ten; but\ntwo are few; therefore, so are ten few.\u201d\n\nThe nobody is a conjunctive argument, and one that consists of the\nindefinite and the definite, and which has a minor premiss and a\nconclusion; as, for instance, \u201cIf any one is here, he is not in Rhodes.\u201d\n\nL. Such then are the doctrines which the Stoics maintain on the subject\nof logic, in order as far as possible to establish their point that the\nlogician is the only wise man. For they assert that all affairs are\nlooked at by means of that speculation which proceeds by argument,\nincluding under this assertion both those that belong to natural and also\nthose which belong to moral philosophy: for, say they, how else could one\ndetermine the exact value of nouns, or how else could one explain what\nlaws are imposed upon such and such actions? Moreover, as there are two\nhabits both incidental to virtue, the one considers what each existing\nthing is, and the other inquires what it is called. These then are the\nnotions of the Stoics on the subject of logic.\n\nLI. The ethical part of philosophy they divide into the topic of\ninclination, the topic of good and bad, the topic of the passions, the\ntopic of virtue, the topic of the chief good, and of primary estimation,\nand of actions; the topic of what things are becoming, and of exhortation\nand dissuasion. And this division is the one laid down by Chrysippus,\nand Archedemus, and Zeno, of Tarsus, and Apollodorus, and Diogenes, and\nAntipater, and Posidonius. For Zeno, of Cittium, and Cleanthes, have, as\nbeing more ancient they were likely to, adopted a more simple method of\ntreating these subjects. But these men divided logical and the natural\nphilosophy.\n\nLII. They say that the first inclination which an animal has is to\nprotect itself, as nature brings herself to take an interest in it from\nthe beginning, as Chrysippus affirms in the first book of his treatise on\nEnds; where he says, that the first and dearest object to every animal\nis its own existence, and its consciousness of that existence. For that\nit is not natural for any animal to be alienated from itself, or even\nto be brought into such a state as to be indifferent to itself, being\nneither alienated from nor interested in itself. It remains, therefore,\nthat we must assert that nature has bound the animal to itself by the\ngreatest unanimity and affection; for by that means it repels all that\nis injurious, and attracts all that is akin to it and desirable. But as\nfor what some people say, that the first inclination of animals is to\npleasure, they say what is false. For they say that pleasure, if there\nbe any such thing at all, is an accessory only, which, nature, having\nsought it out by itself, as well as those things which are adapted to its\nconstitution, receives incidentally in the same manner as animals are\npleased, and plants made to flourish.\n\nMoreover, say they, nature makes no difference between animals and\nplants, when she regulates them so as to leave them without voluntary\nmotion or sense; and some things too take place in ourselves in the same\nmanner as in plants. But, as inclination in animals tends chiefly to the\npoint of making them pursue what is appropriate to them, we may say that\ntheir inclinations are regulated by nature. And as reason is given to\nrational animals according to a more perfect principle, it follows, that\nto live correctly according to reason, is properly predicated of those\nwho live according to nature. For nature is as it were the artist who\nproduces the inclination.\n\nLIII. On which account Zeno was the first writer who, in his treatise\non the Nature of Man, said, that the chief good was confessedly to live\naccording to nature; which is to live according to virtue, for nature\nleads us to this point. And in like manner Cleanthes speaks in his\ntreatise on Pleasure, and so do Posidonius and Hecaton in their essays\non Ends as the Chief Good. And again, to live according to virtue is\nthe same thing as living according to one\u2019s experience of those things\nwhich happen by nature; as Chrysippus explains it in the first book of\nhis treatise on the Chief Good. For our individual natures are all parts\nof universal nature; on which account the chief good is to live in a\nmanner corresponding to nature, and that means corresponding to one\u2019s\nown nature and to universal nature; doing none of those things which the\ncommon law of mankind is in the habit of forbidding, and that common law\nis identical with that right reason which pervades everything, being the\nsame with Jupiter, who is the regulator and chief manager of all existing\nthings.\n\nAgain, this very thing is the virtue of the happy man and the perfect\nhappiness of life when everything is done according to a harmony\nwith the genius of each individual with reference to the will of the\nuniversal governor and manager of all things. Diogenes, accordingly, says\nexpressly that the chief good is to act according to sound reason in our\nselection of things according to our nature. And Archedemus defines it\nto be living in the discharge of all becoming duties. Chrysippus again\nunderstands that the nature, in a manner corresponding to which we ought\nto live, is both the common nature, and also human nature in particular;\nbut Cleanthes will not admit of any other nature than the common one\nalone, as that to which people ought to live in a manner corresponding;\nand repudiates all mention of a particular nature. And he asserts\nthat virtue is a disposition of the mind always consistent and always\nharmonious; that one ought to seek it out for its own sake, without being\ninfluenced by fear or hope by any external influence. Moreover, that it\nis in it that happiness consists, as producing in the soul the harmony\nof a life always consistent with itself; and that if a rational animal\ngoes the wrong way, it is because it allows itself to be misled by the\ndeceitful appearances of exterior things, or perhaps by the instigation\nof those who surround it; for nature herself never gives us any but good\ninclinations.\n\nLIV. Now virtue is, to speak generally, a perfection in everything, as\nin the case of a statue; whether it is invisible as good health, or\nspeculative as prudence. For Hecaton says, in the first book of his\ntreatise on Virtues, that the scientific and speculative virtues are\nthose which have a constitution arising from speculation and study,\nas, for instance, prudence and justice; and that those which are not\nspeculative are those which are generally viewed in their extension as a\npractical result or effect of the former; such for instance, as health\nand strength. Accordingly, temperance is one of the speculative virtues,\nand it happens that good health usually follows it, and is marshalled\nas it were beside it; in the same way as strength follows the proper\nstructure of an arch.\u2014And the unspeculative virtues derive their name\nfrom the fact of their not proceeding from any acquiescence reflected by\nintelligence; but they are derived from others, are only accessories,\nand are found even in worthless people, as in the case of good health,\nor courage. And Posidonius, in the first book of his treaties on Ethics,\nsays that the great proof of the reality of virtue is that Socrates, and\nDiogenes, and Antisthenes, made great improvement; and the great proof\nof the reality of vice may be found in the fact of its being opposed to\nvirtue.\n\nAgain, Chrysippus, in the first book of his treatise on the Chief Good,\nand Cleanthes, and also Posidonius in his Exhortations, and Hecaton, all\nagree that virtue may be taught. And that they are right, and that it\nmay be taught, is plain from men becoming good after having been bad. On\nthis account Pan\u00e6tius teaches that there are two virtues, one speculative\nand the other practical; but others make three kinds, the logical, the\nnatural, and the ethical. Posidonius divides virtue into four divisions;\nand Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Antipater make the divisions more numerous\nstill; for Apollophanes asserts that there is but one virtue, namely,\nprudence.\n\nAmong the virtues some are primitive and some are derived. The\nprimitive ones are prudence, manly courage, justice, and temperance.\nAnd subordinate to these, as a kind of species contained in them, are\nmagnanimity, continence, endurance, presence of mind, wisdom in council.\nAnd the Stoics define prudence as a knowledge of what is good, and bad,\nand indifferent; justice as a knowledge of what ought to be chosen, what\nought to be avoided, and what is indifferent; magnanimity as a knowledge\nof engendering a lofty habit, superior to all such accidents as happen\nto all men indifferently, whether they be good or bad; continence they\nconsider a disposition which never abandons right reason, or a habit\nwhich never yields to pleasure; endurance they call a knowledge or habit\nby which we understand what we ought to endure, what we ought not, and\nwhat is indifferent; presence of mind they define as a habit which is\nprompt at finding out what is suitable on a sudden emergency; and wisdom\nin counsel they think a knowledge which leads us to judge what we are to\ndo, and how we are to do it, in order to act becomingly. And analogously,\nof vices too there are some which are primary, and some which are\nsubordinate; as, for instance, folly, and cowardice, and injustice, and\nintemperance, are among the primary vices; incontinence, slowness, and\nfolly in counsel among the subordinate ones. And the vices are ignorance\nof those things of which the virtues are the knowledge.\n\nLV. Good, looked at in a general way, is some advantage, with the more\nparticular distinction, being partly what is actually useful, partly\nwhat is not contrary to utility. On which account virtue itself, and the\ngood which partakes of virtue are spoken of in a threefold view of the\nsubject. First, as to what kind of good it is, and from what it ensues;\nas, for instance, in an action done according to virtue. Secondly, as to\nthe agent, in the case of a good man who partakes of virtue.\u2026[89]\n\nAt another time, they define the good in a peculiar manner, as being what\nis perfect according to the nature of a rational being as rational being.\nAnd, secondly, they say that it is conformity to virtue, so that all\nactions which partake of virtue, and all good men, are themselves in some\nsense the good. And in the third place, they speak of its accessories,\njoy, and mirth, and things of that kind. In the same manner they speak of\nvices, which they divide into folly, cowardice, injustice, and things of\nthat kind. And they consider that those things which partake of vices,\nand actions done according to vice, and bad men, are themselves in some\nsense the evil; and its accessories are despondency, and melancholy, and\nother things of that kind.\n\nLVI. Again, of goods, some have reference to the mind, and some are\nexternal; and some neither have reference to the mind, nor are external.\nThe goods having reference to the mind are virtues, and actions according\nto the virtues. The external goods are the having a virtuous country, a\nvirtuous friend, and the happiness of one\u2019s country and friend. And those\nwhich are not external, and which have no reference to the mind, are\nsuch as a man\u2019s being virtuous and happy to himself. And reciprocally,\nof evils, some have reference to the mind, such as the vices and actions\naccording to them; some are external, such as having a foolish country,\nor a foolish friend, or one\u2019s country or one\u2019s friend being unhappy. And\nthose evils which are not external, and which have no reference to the\nmind, are such as a man\u2019s being worthless and unhappy to himself.\n\nLVII. Again, of goods, some are final, some are efficient, and some are\nboth final and efficient. For instance, a friend, and the services\ndone by him to one, are efficient goods; but courage, and prudence, and\nliberty, and delight, and mirth, and freedom from pain, and all kinds of\nactions done according to virtue, are final goods. There are too, as I\nsaid before, some goods which are both efficient and final; for inasmuch\nas they produce perfect happiness they are efficient, and inasmuch as\nthey complete it by being themselves parts of it, they are final. And\nin the same way, of evils, some are final, and some efficient, and some\npartake of both natures. For instance, an enemy and the injuries done to\none by him, are efficient evils; fear, meanness of condition, slavery,\nwant of delight, depression of spirits, excessive grief, and all actions\ndone according to vice, are final evils; and some partake of both\ncharacters, since, inasmuch as they produce perfect unhappiness, they are\nefficient; and inasmuch as they complete it in such a way as to become\nparts of it, they are final.\n\nLVIII. Again, of the goods which have reference to the mind, some\nare habits, some are dispositions, and some are neither habits nor\ndispositions. Dispositions are virtues, habits are practices, and those\nwhich are neither habits nor dispositions are energies. And, speaking\ngenerally, the following may be called mixed goods: happiness in one\u2019s\nchildren, and a happy old age. But knowledge is a pure good. And some\ngoods are continually present, such as virtue; and some are not always\npresent, as joy, or taking a walk.\n\nLIX. But every good is expedient, and necessary, and profitable, and\nuseful, and serviceable, and beautiful, and advantageous, and eligible,\nand just. Expedient, inasmuch as it brings us things, which by their\nhappening to us do us good; necessary, inasmuch as it assists us in\nwhat we have need to be assisted; profitable, inasmuch as it repays all\nthe care that is expended on it, and makes a return with interest to\nour great advantage; useful, inasmuch as it supplies us with what is of\nutility; serviceable, because it does us service which is much praised;\nbeautiful, because it is in accurate proportion to the need we have of\nit, and to the service it does. Advantageous, inasmuch as it is of such a\ncharacter as to confer advantage on us; eligible, because it is such that\nwe may rationally choose it; and just, because it is in accordance with\nlaw, and is an efficient cause of union.\n\nAnd they call the honourable the perfect good, because it has naturally\nall the numbers which are required by nature, and because it discloses\na perfect harmony. Now, the species of this perfect good are four in\nnumber: justice, manly courage, temperance, and knowledge; for in these\ngoods all beautiful actions have their accomplishment. And analogously,\nthere are also four species of the disgraceful: injustice, and cowardice,\nand intemperance, and folly. And the honourable is predicated in one\nsense, as making those who are possessed of it worthy of all praise; and\nin a second sense, it is used of what is well adapted by nature for its\nproper work; and in another sense, when it expresses that which adorns a\nman, as when we say that the wise man alone is good and honourable.\n\nThe Stoics also say, that the beautiful is the only good, as Hecaton\nsays, in the third book of his treatise on Goods, and Chrysippus asserts\nthe same principle in his essays on the Beautiful. And they say that this\nis virtue, and that which partakes of virtue; and this assertion is equal\nto the other, that everything good is beautiful, and that the good is an\nequivalent term to the beautiful, inasmuch as the one thing is exactly\nequal to the other. For since it is good, it is beautiful; and it is\nbeautiful, therefore, it is good.\n\nLX. But it seems that all goods are equal, and that every good is to be\ndesired in the highest degree, and that it admits of no relaxation, and\nof no extension. Moreover, they divide all existing things into good,\nbad, and indifferent. The good are the virtues, prudence, justice, manly\ncourage, temperance, and the rest of the like qualities. The bad are the\ncontraries, folly, injustice, and the like. Those are indifferent which\nare neither beneficial nor injurious, such as life, health, pleasure,\nbeauty, strength, riches, a good reputation, nobility of birth; and their\ncontraries, death, disease, labour, disgrace, weakness, poverty, a bad\nreputation, baseness of birth, and the like; as Hecaton lays it down in\nthe seventh book of his treatise on the Chief Good; and he is followed by\nApollodorus, in his Ethics, and by Chrysippus. For they affirm that those\nthings are not good but indifferent, though perhaps a little more near to\none species than to the other.\n\nFor, as it is the property of the hot to warm and not to chill one, so\nit is the property of the good to benefit and not to injure one. Now,\nwealth and good health cannot be said to benefit any more than to injure\nany one: therefore, neither wealth nor good health are goods. Again,\nthey say that that thing is not good which it is possible to use both\nwell and ill. But it is possible to make either a good or a bad use of\nwealth, or of health; therefore, wealth and good health are not goods.\nPosidonius, however, affirms that these things do come under the head of\ngoods. But Hecaton, in the nineteenth book of his treatise on Goods, and\nChrysippus, in his treatises on Pleasure, both deny that pleasure is a\ngood. For they say that there are disgraceful pleasures, and that nothing\ndisgraceful is good. And that to benefit a person is to move him or to\nkeep him according to virtue, but to injure him is to move him or to keep\nhim according to vice.\n\nThey also assert, that things indifferent are so spoken of in a twofold\nmanner; firstly, those things are called so, which have no influence in\nproducing either happiness or unhappiness; such for instance, as riches,\nglory, health, strength, and the like; for it is possible for a man to\nbe happy without any of these things; and also, it is upon the character\nof the use that is made of them, that happiness or unhappiness depends.\nIn another sense, those things are called indifferent, which do not\nexcite any inclination or aversion, as for instance, the fact of a man\u2019s\nhaving an odd or an even number of hairs on his head, or his putting\nout or drawing back his finger; for it is not in this sense that the\nthings previously mentioned are called indifferent, for they do excite\ninclination or aversion. On which account some of them are chosen, though\nthere is equal reason for preferring or shunning all the others.\n\nLXI. Again, of things indifferent, they call some preferred (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1),\nand others rejected (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1). Those are preferred, which have some\nproper value (\u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd), and those are rejected, which have no value at all\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1). And by the term proper value, they mean that quality\nof things, which causes them to concur in producing a well-regulated\nlife; and in this sense, every good has a proper value. Again, they\nsay that a thing has value, when in some point of view, it has a sort\nof intermediate power of aiding us to live conformably to nature; and\nunder this class, we may range riches or good health, if they give any\nassistance to natural life. Again, value is predicated of the price\nwhich one gives for the attainment of an object, which some one, who\nhas experience of the object sought, fixes as its fair price; as if we\nwere to say, for instance, that as some wheat was to be exchanged for\nbarley, with a mule thrown in to make up the difference. Those goods\nthen are preferred, which have a value, as in the case of the mental\ngoods, ability, skill, improvement, and the like; and in the case of the\ncorporeal goods, life, health, strength, a good constitution, soundness,\nbeauty; and in the case of external goods, riches, glory, nobility of\nbirth, and the like.\n\nRejected things are, in the case of qualities of the mind, stupidity,\nunskilfulness, and the like; in the case of circumstances affecting\nthe body, death, disease, weakness, a bad constitution, mutilation,\ndisgrace, and the like; in the case of external circumstances, poverty,\nwant of reputation, ignoble birth, and the like. But those qualities\nand circumstances which are indifferent, are neither preferred nor\nrejected. Again, of things preferred, some are preferred for their own\nsakes, some for the sake of other things, and some partly for their own\nsakes and partly for that of other things. Those which are preferred for\ntheir own sakes, are ability, improvement, and the like; those which are\npreferred for the sake of other things, are wealth, nobility of birth,\nand the like; those which are preferred partly for their own sake, and\npartly for that of something else, are strength, vigour of the senses,\nuniversal soundness, and the like; for they are preferred, for their own\nsakes, inasmuch as they are in accordance with nature; and for the sake\nof something else, inasmuch as they are productive of no small number of\nadvantages; and the same is the case in the inverse ratio, with those\nthings which are rejected.\n\nLXII. Again, they say that that is duty, which is preferred, and which\ncontains in itself reasonable arguments why we should prefer it; as\nfor instance, its corresponding to the nature of life itself; and this\nargument extends to plants and animals, for even their nature is subject\nto the obligation of certain duties. And duty (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd) had this name\ngiven to it by Zeno, in the first instance, its appellation being derived\nfrom its coming to, or according to some people, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f25\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; and its effect is something kindred to the preparations made by\nnature. Now of the things done according to inclination, some are duties,\nand some are contrary to duty; and some are neither duties nor contrary\nto duty. Those are duties, which reason selects to do, as for instance,\nto honour one\u2019s parents, one\u2019s brothers, one\u2019s country, to gratify one\u2019s\nfriends. Those actions are contrary to duty, which reason does not\nchoose; as for instance, to neglect one\u2019s parents, to be indifferent to\none\u2019s brothers, to shirk assisting one\u2019s friends, to be careless about\nthe welfare of one\u2019s country, and so on. Those are neither duties, nor\ncontrary to duty, which reason neither selects to do, nor, on the other\nhand, repudiates, such actions, for instance, as to pick up straw, to\nhold a pen, or a comb, or things of that sort.\n\nAgain, there are some duties which do not depend on circumstances, and\nsome which do. These do not depend on circumstances, to take care of\none\u2019s health, and of the sound state of one\u2019s senses, and the like. Those\nwhich do depend on circumstances, are the mutilation of one\u2019s members,\nthe sacrificing of one\u2019s property, and so on. And the case of those\nactions which are contrary to duty, is similar. Again, of duties, some\nare always such, and some are not always. What is always a duty, is to\nlive in accordance with virtue; but to ask questions, to give answers, to\nwalk, and the like, are not always duties. And the same statement holds\ngood with respect to acts contrary to duty.\n\nThere is also a class of intermediate duties, such as the duty of boys\nobeying their masters.\n\nLXIII. The Stoics also say that the mind is divisible into eight parts;\nfor that the five organs of sensation, and the vocal power, and the\nintellectual power, which is the mind itself, and the generative power,\nare all parts of the mind. But by error, there is produced a perversion\nwhich operates on the intellect, from which many perturbations arise, and\nmany causes of inconstancy. And all perturbation is itself, according\nto Zeno, a movement of the mind, or superfluous inclination, which is\nirrational, and contrary to nature. Moreover, of the superior class of\nperturbations, as Hecaton says, in the second book of his treatise on\nthe Passions, and as Zeno also says in his work on the Passions, there\nare four kinds, grief, fear, desire, and pleasure. And they consider\nthat these perturbations are judgments, as Chrysippus contends in his\nwork on the Passions; for covetousness is an opinion that money is a\nbeautiful object, and in like manner drunkenness and intemperance, and\nother things of the sort, are judgments. And grief they define to be an\nirrational contraction of the mind, and it is divided into the following\nspecies, pity, envy, emulation, jealousy, pain, perturbation, sorrow,\nanguish, confusion. Pity is a grief over some one, on the ground of his\nbeing in undeserved distress. Envy is a grief, at the good fortune of\nanother. Emulation is a grief at that belonging to some one else, which\none desires one\u2019s self. Jealousy is a grief at another also having what\none has one\u2019s self. Pain is a grief which weighs one down. Perturbation\nis grief which narrows one, and causes one to feel in a strait. Sorrow\nis a grief arising from deliberate thought, which endures for some\ntime, and gradually increases. Anguish is a grief with acute pain.\nConfusion is an irrational grief, which frets one, and prevents one from\nclearly discerning present circumstances. But fear is the expectation\nof evil; and the following feelings are all classed under the head of\nfear: apprehension, hesitation, shame, perplexity, trepidation, and\nanxiety. Apprehension is a fear which produces alarm. Shame is a fear\nof discredit. Hesitation is a fear of coming activity. Perplexity is a\nfear, from the imagination of some unusual thing. Trepidation is a fear\naccompanied with an oppression of the voice. Anxiety is a fear of some\nuncertain event.\n\nAgain, desire is an irrational appetite; to which head, the following\nfeelings are referrible: want, hatred, contentiousness, anger, love,\nenmity, rage. Want is a desire arising from our not having something\nor other, and is, as it were, separated from the thing, but is still\nstretching, and attracted towards it in vain. And hatred is a desire that\nit should be ill with some one, accompanied with a certain continual\nincrease and extension. Contentiousness is a certain desire accompanied\nwith deliberate choice. Anger is a desire of revenge, on a person who\nappears to have injured one in an unbecoming way. Love is a desire not\nconversant about a virtuous object, for it is an attempt to conciliate\naffection, because of some beauty which is seen. Enmity is a certain\nanger of long duration, and full of hatred, and it is a watchful passion,\nas is shown in the following lines:\u2014\n\n For though we deem the short-liv\u2019d fury past,\n \u2019Tis sure the mighty will revenge at last.[90]\n\nBut rage is anger at its commencement.\n\nAgain, pleasure is an irrational elation of the mind over something\nwhich appears to be desirable; and its different species are enjoyment,\nrejoicing at evil, delight, and extravagant joy. Enjoyment now, is a\npleasure which charms the mind through the ears. Rejoicing at evil\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1), is a pleasure which arises at the misfortunes of others.\nDelight (\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2), that is to say turning (\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2), is a certain turning\nof the soul (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2), to softness. Extravagant joy is the\ndissolution of virtue. And as there are said to be some sicknesses\n(\u1f00\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), in the body, as, for instance, gout and arthritic\ndisorders; so too are those diseases of the soul, such as a fondness for\nglory, or for pleasure, and other feelings of that sort. For an \u1f00\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\nis a disease accompanied with weakness; and a disease is an opinion of\nsomething which appears exceedingly desirable. And, as in the case of the\nbody, there are illnesses to which people are especially liable, such as\ncolds or diarrh\u0153a; so also are there propensities which the mind is under\nthe influence of, such as enviousness, pitifulness, quarrelsomeness, and\nso on.\n\nThere are also three good dispositions of the mind; joy, caution, and\nwill. And joy they say is the opposite of pleasure, since it is a\nrational elation of the mind; so caution is the opposite of fear, being\na rational avoidance of anything, for the wise man will never be afraid,\nbut he will act with caution; and will, they define as the opposite of\ndesire, since it is a rational wish. As therefore some things fall under\nthe class of the first perturbations, in the same manner do some things\nfall under the class of the first good dispositions. And accordingly,\nunder the head of will, are classed goodwill, placidity, salutation,\naffection; and under the head of caution are ranged reverence and\nmodesty; under the head of joy, we speak of delight, mirth, and good\nspirits.\n\nLXIV. They say also, that the wise man is free from perturbations,\nbecause he has no strong propensities. But that this freedom from\npropensities also exists in the bad man, being, however, then quite\nanother thing, inasmuch as it proceeds in him only from the hardness and\nunimpressibility of his nature. They also pronounce the wise man free\nfrom vanity, since he regards with equal eye what is glorious and what is\ninglorious. At the same time, they admit that there is another character\ndevoid of vanity, who, however, is only reckoned one of the rash men,\nbeing in fact the bad man. They also say that all the virtuous men are\naustere, because they do never speak with reference to pleasure, nor do\nthey listen to what is said by others with reference to pleasure. At the\nsame time, they call another man austere too, using the term in nearly\nthe same sense as they do when they speak of austere wine, which is used\nin compounding medicines, but not for drinking.\n\nThey also pronounce the wise to be honest-hearted men, anxiously\nattending to those matters which may make them better, by means of some\nprinciple which conceals what is bad, and brings to light what is good.\nNor is there any hypocrisy about them; for they cut off all pretence in\ntheir voice and appearance. They also keep aloof from business; for they\nguard carefully against doing any thing contrary to their duty. They\ndrink wine, but they do not get drunk; and they never yield to frenzy.\nOccasionally, extraordinary imaginations may obtain a momentary power\nover them, owing to some melancholy or trifling, arising not according to\nthe principle of what is desirable, but contrary to nature. Nor, again,\nwill the wise man feel grief; because grief is an irrational contraction\nof the soul, as Apollodorus defines it in his Ethics.\n\nThey are also, as they say, godlike; for they have something in them\nwhich is as it were a God. But the bad man is an atheist. Now there are\ntwo kinds of atheists; one who speaks in a spirit of hostility to, and\nthe other, who utterly disregards, the divine nature; but they admit\nthat all bad men are not atheists in this last sense. The good, on the\ncontrary, are pious; for they have a thorough acquaintance with the laws\nrespecting the Gods. And piety is a knowledge of the proper reverence\nand worship due to the Gods. Moreover they sacrifice to the Gods, and\nkeep themselves pure; for they avoid all offences having reference to\nthe Gods, and the Gods admire them; for they are holy and just in all\nthat concerns the Deity; and the wise men are the only priests; for they\nconsider the matters relating to sacrifices, and the erection of temples,\nand purifications, and all other things which peculiarly concern the\nGods. They also pronounce that men are bound to honour their parents,\nand their brethren, in the second place after the Gods. They also say\nthat parental affection for one\u2019s children is natural to them, and is a\nfeeling which does not exist in bad men. And they lay down the position\nthat all offences are equal, as Chrysippus argues in the fourth book of\nhis Ethic Questions, and so say Pers\u00e6us and Zeno. For if one thing that\nis true is not more true than another thing that is true, neither is one\nthing that is false more false than another thing that is false; so too,\none deceit is not greater than another, nor one sin than another. For the\nman who is a hundred furlongs from Canopus, and the man who is only one,\nare both equally not in Canopus; and so too, he who commits a greater\nsin, and he who commits a less, are both equally not in the right path.\n\nHeraclides of Tarsus, indeed, the friend of Antipater, of Tarsus, and\nAthenodorus, both assert that offences are not equal.\n\nAgain, the Stoics, as for instance, Chrysippus, in the first book of his\nwork on Lives, say, that the wise man will take a part in the affairs of\nthe state, if nothing hinders him. For that he will restrain vice, and\nexcite men to virtue. Also, they say that he will marry, as Zeno says,\nin his Republic, and beget children. Moreover, that the wise man will\nnever form mere opinions, that is to say, he will never agree to anything\nthat is false; and that he will become a Cynic; for that Cynicism is a\nshort path to virtue, as Apollodorus calls it in his Ethics; that he\nwill even eat human flesh, if there should be occasion; that he is the\nonly free man, and that the bad are slaves; for that freedom is a power\nof independent action, but slavery a deprivation of the same. That there\nis besides, another slavery, which consists in subjection, and a third\nwhich consists in possession and subjection; the contrary of which is\nmasterhood, which is likewise bad.\n\nAnd they say, that not only are the wise free, but that they are also\nkings, since kingly power is an irresponsible dominion, which can only\nexist in the case of the wise man, as Chrysippus says in his treatise\non the Proper Application of his Terms made by Zeno; for he says that\na ruler ought to give decisions on good and evil, and that none of the\nwicked understand these things. In the same way, they assert that they\nare the only people who are fit to be magistrates or judges, or orators,\nand that none of the bad are qualified for these tasks. Moreover, that\nthey are free from all error, in consequence of their not being prone to\nany wrong actions. Also, that they are unconnected with injury, for that\nthey never injure any one else, nor themselves. Also, that they are not\npitiful, and that they never make allowance for any one; for that they do\nnot relax the punishments appointed by law, since yielding, and pity, and\nmercifulness itself, never exist in any of their souls, so as to induce\nan affectation of kindness in respect of punishment; nor do they ever\nthink any punishment too severe. Again, they say that the wise man never\nwonders at any of the things which appear extraordinary; as for instance,\nat the stories about Charon, or the ebbing of the tide, or the springs\nof hot water, or the bursting forth of flames. But, say they further,\nthe wise man will not live in solitude; for he is by nature sociable and\npractical. Accordingly, he will take exercise for the sake of hardening\nand invigorating his body. And the wise man will pray, asking good things\nfrom the Gods, as Posidonius says in the first book of his treatise on\nDuties, and Hecaton says the same thing in the thirteenth book of his\ntreatise on Extraordinary Things.\n\nThey also say, that friendship exists in the virtuous alone, on account\nof their resemblance to one another. And they describe friendship itself\nas a certain communion of the things which concern life, since we use\nour friends as ourselves. And they assert that a friend is desirable for\nhis own sake, and that a number of friends is a good; and that among the\nwicked there is no such thing as friendship, and that no wicked man can\nhave a friend.\n\nAgain, they say that all the foolish are mad; for that they are not\nprudent, and that madness is equivalent to folly in every one of its\nactions; but that the wise man does everything properly, just as we say\nthat Ismenias can play every piece of flute-music well. Also, they say\nthat everything belongs to the wise man, for that the law has given them\nperfect and universal power; but some things also are said to belong to\nthe wicked, just in the same manner as some things are said to belong\nto the unjust, or as a house is said to belong to a city in a different\nsense from that in which a thing belongs to the person who uses it.\n\nLXV. And they say that virtues reciprocally follow one another, and that\nhe who has one has all; for that the precepts of them all are common,\nas Chrysippus affirms in the first book of his treatise on Laws; and\nApollodorus, in his Natural Philosophy, according to the ancient system;\nand Hecaton, in the third book of his treatise on Virtues. For they\nsay that the man who is endued with virtue, is able to consider and\nalso to do what must be done. But what must be done must be chosen, and\nencountered, and distributed, and awaited; so that if the man does some\nthings by deliberate choice, and some in a spirit of endurance, and some\ndistributively, and some patiently; he is prudent, and courageous, and\njust, and temperate. And each of the virtues has a particular subject\nof its own, about which it is conversant; as, for instance, courage is\nconversant about the things which must be endured: prudence is conversant\nabout what must be done and what must not, and what is of a neutral\nor indifferent character. And in like manner, the other virtues are\nconversant about their own peculiar subjects; and wisdom in counsel and\nshrewdness follow prudence; and good order and decorum follow temperance;\nand equality and goodness of judgment follow justice; and constancy and\nenergy follow courage.\n\nAnother doctrine of the Stoics is, that there is nothing intermediate\nbetween virtue and vice; while the Peripatetics assert that there is a\nstage between virtue and vice, being an improvement on vice which has not\nyet arrived at virtue. For the Stoics say, that as a stick must be either\nstraight or crooked, so a man must be either just or unjust, and cannot\nbe more just than just, or more unjust than unjust; and that the same\nrule applies to all cases. Moreover, Chrysippus is of opinion that virtue\ncan be lost, but Cleanthes affirms that it cannot; the one saying that it\ncan be lost by drunkenness or melancholy, the other maintaining that it\ncannot be lost on account of the firm perceptions which it implants in\nmen. They also pronounce it a proper object of choice; accordingly, we\nare ashamed of actions which we do improperly, while we are aware that\nwhat is honourable is the only good. Again, they affirm that it is of\nitself sufficient for happiness, as Zeno says, and he is followed in this\nassertion by Chrysippus in the first book of his treatise on Virtues, and\nby Hecaton in the second book of his treatise on Goods.\n\n\u201cFor if,\u201d says he, \u201cmagnanimity be sufficient of itself to enable us to\nact in a manner superior to all other men; and if that is a part of\nvirtue, then virtue is of itself sufficient for happiness, despising all\nthings which seem troublesome to it.\u201d However, Pan\u00e6tius and Posidonius\ndo not admit that virtue has this sufficiency of itself, but say that\nthere is also need of good health, and competency, and strength. And\ntheir opinion is that a man exercises virtue in everything, as Cleanthes\nasserts, for it cannot be lost; and the virtuous man on every occasion\nexercises his soul, which is in a state of perfection.\n\nLXVI. Again, they say that justice exists by nature, and not because\nof any definition or principle; just as law does, or right reason, as\nChrysippus tells us in his treatise on the Beautiful; and they think\nthat one ought not to abandon philosophy on account of the different\nopinions prevailing among philosophers, since on this principle one would\nwholly quit life, as Posidonius argues in his Exhortatory Essays. Another\ndoctrine of Chrysippus is, that general learning is very useful.\n\nAnd the School in general maintain that there are no obligations of\njustice binding on us with reference to other animals, on account of\ntheir dissimilarity to us, as Chrysippus asserts in the first book of his\ntreatise on Justice, and the same opinion is maintained by Posidonius\nin the first book of his treatise on Duty. They say too, that the wise\nman will love those young men, who by their outward appearance, show a\nnatural aptitude for virtue; and this opinion is advanced by Zeno, in\nhis Republic, and by Chrysippus in the first book of his work on Lives,\nand by Apollodorus in his Ethics. And they describe love as an endeavour\nto benefit a friend on account of his visible beauty; and that it is an\nattribute not of acquaintanceship, but of friendship. Accordingly, that\nThrasonides, although he had his mistress in his power, abstained from\nher, because he was hated by her. Love, therefore, according to them is a\npart of friendship, as Chrysippus asserts in his essay on Love; and it is\nnot blameable. Moreover, beauty is the flower of virtue.\n\nAnd as there are three kinds of lives; the theoretical, the practical,\nand the logical; they say that the last is the one which ought to be\nchosen. For that a logical, that is a rational, animal was made by nature\non purpose for speculation and action. And they say that a wise man will\nvery rationally take himself out of life, either for the sake of his\ncountry or of his friends, or if he be in bitter pain, or under the\naffliction of mutilation, or incurable disease. And they also teach that\nwomen ought to be in common among the wise, so that whoever meets with\nany one may enjoy her, and this doctrine is maintained by Zeno in his\nRepublic, and by Chrysippus in his treatise on Polity, and by Diogenes\nthe Cynic, and by Plato; and then, say they, we shall love all boys\nequally after the manner of fathers, and all suspicion on the ground of\nundue familiarity will be removed.\n\nThey affirm too, that the best of political constitutions is a mixed one,\ncombined of democracy, and kingly power, and aristocracy. And they say\nmany things of this sort, and more too, in their Ethical Dogmas, and they\nmaintain them by suitable explanations and arguments. But this may be\nenough for us to say of their doctrines on this head by way of summary,\nand taking them in an elementary manner.\n\nLXVII. They divide natural philosophy into the topics of bodies, and\nof principles, and of elements, and of Gods, and of boundaries, and of\nplace, and of the vacuum. And they make these divisions according to\nspecies; but according to genera they divide them into three topics,\nthat of the world, that of the elements, and the third is that which\nreasons on causes. The topic about the world, they say, is subdivided\ninto two parts. For that in one point of view, the mathematicians also\nhave a share in it; and according to it it is that they prosecute their\ninvestigations into the nature of the fixed stars and the planets; as,\nfor instance, whether the sun is of such a size as he appears to be, and\nsimilarly, whether the moon is; and in the same way they investigate\nthe question of spherical motion, and others of the same character. The\nother point of view is that which is reserved exclusively for natural\nphilosophers, according to which it is that the existence and substance\nof things are examined, [for instance, whether the sun and the stars\nconsist of matter and form,] and whether the sun is born or not born,\nwhether it is living or lifeless, corruptible or incorruptible, whether\nit is regulated by Providence, and other questions of this kind.\n\nThe topic which examines into causes they say is also divisible into\ntwo parts; and with reference to one of its considerations, the\ninvestigations of physicians partake of it; according to which it is\nthat they investigate the dominant principle of the soul, and the\nthings which exist in the soul, and seeds, and things of this kind.\nAnd its other division is claimed as belonging to them also by the\nmathematicians, as, for instance, how we see, what is the cause of our\nappearance being reflected in a mirror, how clouds are collected, how\nthunder is produced, and the rainbow, and the halo, and comets, and\nthings of that kind.\n\nLXVIII. They think that there are two general principles in the universe,\nthe active and the passive. That the passive is matter, an existence\nwithout any distinctive quality. That the active is the reason which\nexists in the passive, that is to say, God. For that he, being eternal,\nand existing throughout all matter, makes everything. And Zeno, the\nCitti\u00e6an, lays down this doctrine in his treatise on Essence, and so does\nCleanthes in his essay on Atoms, Chrysippus in the first book of his\nInvestigations in Natural Philosophy, towards the end, Archedemus in his\nwork on Elements, and Posidonius in the second book of his treatise on\nNatural Philosophy. But they say that principles and elements differ from\none another. For that the one had no generation or beginning, and will\nhave no end; but that the elements may be destroyed by the operation of\nfire. Also, that the elements are bodies, but principles have no bodies\nand no forms, and elements too have forms.\n\nNow a body, says Apollodorus in his Natural Philosophy, is extended in\na threefold manner; in length, in breadth, in depth; and then it is\ncalled a solid body; and the superficies is the limit of the body having\nlength and breadth alone, but not depth. But Posidonius, in the third\nbook of his Heavenly Ph\u00e6nomena, will not allow a superficies either\nany substantial reality, or any intelligible existence. A line is the\nlimit of a superficies, or length without breadth, or something which\nhas nothing but length. A point is the boundary of a line, and is the\nsmallest of all symbols.\n\nThey also teach that God is unity, and that he is called Mind, and Fate,\nand Jupiter, and by many other names besides. And that, as he was in the\nbeginning by himself, he turned into water the whole substance which\npervaded the air; and as the seed is contained in the produce, so too, he\nbeing the seminal principle of the world, remained behind in moisture,\nmaking matter fit to be employed by himself in the production of those\nthings which were to come after; and then, first of all, he made the\nfour elements, fire, water, air, and earth. And Zeno speaks of these in\nhis treatise on the Universe, and so does Chrysippus in the first book of\nhis Physics, and so does Archedemus in some treatise on the Elements.\n\nLXIX. Now an element is that out of which at first all things which are\nare produced, and into which all things are resolved at last. And the\nfour elements are all equally an essence without any distinctive quality,\nnamely, matter; but fire is the hot, water the moist, air the cold, and\nearth the dry\u2014though this last quality is also common to the air. The\nfire is the highest, and that is called \u00e6ther, in which first of all the\nsphere was generated in which the fixed stars are set, then that in which\nthe planets revolve; after that the air, then the water; and the sediment\nas it were of all is the earth, which is placed in the centre of the rest.\n\nLXX. They also speak of the world in a threefold sense; at one time\nmeaning God himself, whom they call a being of a certain quality, having\nfor his peculiar manifestation universal substance, a being imperishable,\nand who never had any generation, being the maker of the arrangement and\norder that we see; and who, after certain periods of time, absorbs all\nsubstance in himself, and then re-produces it from himself. And this\narrangement of the stars they call the world, and so the third sense\nis one composed of both the preceding ones. And the world is a thing\nwhich is peculiarly of such and such a quality consisting of universal\nsubstance, as Posidonius affirms in his Meteorological Elements, being a\nsystem compounded of heaven and earth, and all the creatures which exist\nin them; or it may be called a system compounded of Gods and men, and of\nthe things created on their account. And the heaven is the most remote\ncircumference of the world, in which all the Divine Nature is situated.\n\nAgain, the world is inhabited and regulated according to intellect\nand providence, as Chrysippus says, in his works on Providence, and\nPosidonius in the thirteenth book of his treatise on Gods, since mind\npenetrates into every part of the world, just as the soul pervades us;\nbut it is in a greater degree in some parts, and in a less degree in\nothers. For instance, it penetrates as a habit, as, for instance, into\nthe bones and sinews; and into some it penetrates as the mind does, for\ninstance, into the dominant principle. And thus the whole world, being\na living thing, endowed with a soul and with reason, has the \u00e6ther as\nits dominant principle, as Antipater, of Tyre, says in the eighth book\nof his treatise on the World. But Chrysippus, in the first book of his\nessay on Providence, and Posidonius in his treatise on Gods, say that the\nheaven is the dominant principle of the world; and Cleanthes attributes\nthis to the sun. Chrysippus, however, on this point contradicts himself;\nfor he says in another place, that the most subtle portion of the \u00e6ther,\nwhich is also called by the Stoics the first God, is what is infused in\na sensible manner into all the beings which are in the air, and through\nevery animal and every plant, and through the earth itself according to a\ncertain habit; and that it is this which communicates to them the faculty\nof feeling.\n\nThey say too, that the world is one and also finite, having a spherical\nform. For that such a shape is the most convenient for motion, as\nPosidonius says, in the fifteenth book of his Discussions on Natural\nPhilosophy, and so says Antipater also in his essay on the World. And\non the outside there is diffused around it a boundless vacuum, which is\nincorporeal. And it is incorporeal inasmuch, as it is capable of being\ncontained by bodies, but is not so. And that there is no such thing as\na vacuum in the world, but that it is all closely united and compact;\nfor that this condition is necessarily brought about by the concord\nand harmony which exist between the heavenly bodies and those of the\nearth. And Chrysippus mentions a vacuum in his essay on a Vacuum, and\nalso in the first book of his treatise on the Physical Arts, and so\ndoes Apollophanes in his Natural Philosophy, and so does Apollodorus,\nand so does Posidonius in the second book of his discourses on Natural\nPhilosophy. And they say that these things are all incorporeal, and all\nalike. Moreover, that time is incorporeal, since it is an interval of the\nmotion of the world. And that of time, the past and the future are both\nillimitable, but the present is limited. And they assert that the world\nis perishable, inasmuch as it was produced by reason, and is one of the\nthings which are perceptible by the senses; and whatever has its parts\nperishable, must also be perishable in the whole. And the parts of the\nworld are perishable, for they change into one another. Therefore, the\nwhole world is perishable. And again, if anything admits of a change for\nthe worse it is perishable; therefore, the world is perishable, for it\ncan be dried up, and it can be covered with water.\n\nNow the world was created when its substance was changed from fire to\nmoisture, by the action of the air; and then its denser parts coagulated,\nand so the earth was made, and the thinner portions were evaporated and\nbecame air; and this being rarefied more and more, produced fire. And\nthen, by the combination of all these elements, were produced plants and\nanimals, and other kinds of things. Now Zeno speaks of the creation, and\nof the destruction of the world, in his treatise on the Universe, and so\ndoes Cleanthes, and so does Antipater, in the tenth book of his treatise\non the World. But Pan\u00e6tius asserts that the world is imperishable.\n\nAgain, that the world is an animal, and that it is endued with reason,\nand life, and intellect, is affirmed by Chrysippus, in the first volume\nof his treatise on Providence, and by Apollodorus in his Natural\nPhilosophy, and by Posidonius; and that it is an animal in this sense,\nas being an essence endued with life, and with sensation. For that which\nis an animal, is better than that which is not an animal. But nothing is\nbetter than the world; therefore the world is an animal. And it is endued\nwith life, as is plain from the fact of our own soul being as it were\na fragment broken off from it. But Boethus denies that the world is an\nanimal.\n\nAgain, that the world is one, is affirmed by Zeno, in his treatise on\nthe Universe, and by Chrysippus, and by Apollodorus, in his Natural\nPhilosophy, and by Posidonius, in the first book of his Discourses\non Natural Philosophy. And by the term, the universe, according to\nApollodorus, is understood both the world itself, and also the whole of\nthe world itself, and of the exterior vacuum taken together. The world,\nthen, is finite, and the vacuum infinite.\n\nLXXI. Of the stars, those which are fixed are only moved in connection\nwith the movements of the entire heaven; but the planets move according\nto their own peculiar and separate motions. And the sun takes an oblique\npath through the circle of the zodiac, and in the same manner also does\nthe moon, which is of a winding form. And the sun is pure fire, as\nPosidonius asserts in the seventh book of his treatise on the Heavenly\nBodies, and it is larger than the earth, as the same author informs us,\nin the sixteenth book of his Disclosures on Natural Philosophy. Also\nit is spherical, as he says in another place, being made on the same\nprinciple as the world is. Therefore it is fire, because it performs all\nthe functions of fire. And it is larger than the earth, as is proved by\nthe fact of the whole earth being illuminated by it, and also the whole\nheaven. Also the fact of the earth throwing a conical shadow, proves that\nthe sun is greater than it, and the sun is seen in every part, because\nof its magnitude. But the moon is of a more earthy nature than the sun,\ninasmuch as it is nearer the earth.\n\nMoreover, they say that all these fiery bodies, and all the other\nstars, receive nutriment; the sun from the vast sea, being a sort of\nintellectual appendage; and the moon from the fresh waters, being mingled\nwith the air, and also near the earth, as Posidonius explains it in the\nsixth book of his Discourses on Natural Philosophy. And all the other\nstars derive their nourishment from the earth. They also consider that\nthe stars are of a spherical figure, and that the earth is immovable. And\nthat the moon has not a light of her own, but that she borrows it from\nthe sun. And that the sun is eclipsed, when the moon runs in front of it\non the side towards us, as Zeno describes in his work on the Universe;\nfor when it comes across it in its passage, it conceals it, and again it\nreveals it; and this is a phenomenon easily seen in a basin of water.\nAnd the moon is eclipsed when it comes below the shadow of the earth, on\nwhich account this never happens, except at the time of the full moon;\nand although it is diametrically opposite to the sun every month, still\nit is not eclipsed every month, because when its motions are obliquely\ntowards the sun, it does not find itself in the same place as the sun,\nbeing either a little more to the north, or a little more to the south.\nWhen therefore it is found in the same place with the sun, and with the\nother intermediate objects, then it takes as it were the diameter of the\nsun, and is eclipsed. And its place is along the line which runs between\nthe crab and the scorpion, and the ram and the bull, as Posidonius tells\nus.\n\nLXXII. They also say that God is an animal immortal, rational, perfect,\nand intellectual in his happiness, unsusceptible of any kind of evil,\nhaving a foreknowledge of the world and of all that is in the world;\nhowever, that he has not the figure of a man; and that he is the creator\nof the universe, and as it were, the Father of all things in common, and\nthat a portion of him pervades everything, which is called by different\nnames, according to its powers; for they call him \u0394\u03af\u03b1 as being the person\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f43\u03bd) everything is, and \u0396\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1, inasmuch as he is the cause of life,\n(\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0396\u1fc6\u03bd), or because he pervades life. And \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6, with reference to the\nextension of his dominant power over the \u00e6ther (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1). And \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1,\non account of his extension through the air (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1). And \u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\non account of his pervading fire, which is the chief instrument of art;\nand \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd, as pervading moisture, and \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, as pervading the\nearth (\u0393\u1fc6). And in the same way, regarding some other of his peculiar\nattributes, they have given him other names.[91]\n\nThe substance of God is asserted by Zeno to be the universal world, and\nthe heaven; and Chrysippus agrees with this doctrine, in his eleventh\nbook on the Gods, and so also does Posidonius, in the first book of his\ntreatise on the same subject. Antipater, in the seventh book of his\ntreatise on the World, says that his substance is a\u00ebrial. And Boethus,\nin his treatise on Nature, calls the substance of God the sphere of the\nfixed stars.\n\nLXXIII. And his nature they define to be, that which keeps the world\ntogether, and sometimes that which produces the things upon the earth.\nAnd nature is a habit which derives its movements from itself, perfecting\nand holding together all that arises out of it, according to the\nprinciples of production, in certain definite periods, and doing the same\nas the things from which it is separated. And it has for its object,\nsuitableness and pleasure, as is plain from its having created man.\n\nLXXIV. But Chrysippus, in his treatise on Fate, and Posidonius, in the\nsecond book of his work on Fate, and Zeno, and Boethus, in the eleventh\nbook of his treatise on Fate, say, that all things are produced by fate.\nAnd fate, (\u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7), is a connected (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7) cause of existing\nthings, or the reason according to which the world is regulated.\n\nLXXV. They also say that divination has a universal existence, since\nProvidence has; and they define it as an act on account of certain\nresults, as Zeno and Chrysippus, in the second book of his treatise on\nDivination, and Athenodorus and Posidonius, in the twelfth book of his\ndiscourses on Natural Philosophy, and in the fifth book of his treatise\non Divination, all agree in saying; for Pan\u00e6tius denies that it has any\ncertain foundation.\n\nLXXVI. And they say that the substance of all existing things is Primary\nMatter, as Chrysippus asserts in the first book of his Physics; and\nZeno says the same. Now matter is that from which anything whatever is\nproduced. And it is called by a twofold appellation, essence and matter;\nthe one as relating to all things taken together, and the other to things\nin particular and separate. The one which relates to all things taken\ntogether, never becomes either greater or less; but the one relating to\nthings in particular, does become greater or less, as the case may be.\n\nLXXVII. Body is, according to them, a substance and finite; as Antipater\nsays, in the second book of his treatise on Substance; and Apollodorus,\nin his Natural Philosophy, agrees with him. It is also subject to change,\nas we learn from the same author; for if it were immutable, then the\nthings which have been produced out of it would not have been produced;\non which account he also says that it is infinitely divisible: but\nChrysippus denies that it is infinite; for that nothing is infinite,\nwhich is divisible at all.\n\nLXXVIII. He admits, however, that it is infinitely divisible, and that\nits concretions take place over the whole of it, as he explains in the\nthird book of his Physics, and not according to any circumference or\njuxtaposition; for a little wine when thrown into the sea, will keep its\ndistinctness for a brief period, but after that, will be lost.\n\nLXXIX. They also say that there are some D\u00e6mones, who have a sympathy\nwith mankind, being surveyors of all human affairs; and that there are\nheroes, which are the souls of virtuous men, which have left their bodies.\n\nLXXX. Of the things which take place in the air, they say that winter is\nthe effect of the air above the earth being cooled, on account of the\nretirement of the sun to a greater distance than before; that spring is\na good temperature of the air, according to the sun\u2019s approach towards\nus; that summer is the effect of the air above the earth being warmed by\nthe approach of the sun towards the north; that autumn is caused by the\nretreat of the sun from us \u2026 to those places from which they flow.[92]\n\nLXXXI. And the cause of the production of the winds is the sun, which\nevaporates the clouds. Moreover, the rainbow is the reflexion of the\nsun\u2019s rays from the moist clouds, or, as Posidonius explains it in his\nMeteorology, a manifestation of a section of the sun or moon, in a cloud\nsuffused with dew; being hollow and continuous to the sight; so that it\nis reflected as in a mirror, under the appearance of a circle. And that\ncomets, and bearded stars, and meteors, are fires which have an existence\nwhen the density of the air is borne upwards to the regions of the \u00e6ther.\n\nThat a ray of light is a kindling of sudden fire, borne through the air\nwith great rapidity, and displaying an appearance of length; that rain\nproceeds from the clouds, being a transformation of them into water,\nwhenever the moisture which is caught up from the earth or from the sea,\nby the sun, is not able to be otherwise disposed of; for when it is\nsolidified, it is then called hoar frost. And hail is a cloud congealed,\nand subsequently dispersed by the wind. Snow is moisture from a congealed\ncloud, as Posidonius tells us in the eighth book of his discourse on\nNatural Philosophy. Lightning is a kindling of the clouds from their\nbeing rubbed together, or else broken asunder by the wind, as Zeno tells\nus in his treatise on the Universe; and thunder is the noise made by them\non the occasion of their being rubbed together or broken asunder; and\nthe thunderbolt is a sudden kindling which falls with great violence on\nthe earth, from the clouds being rubbed together or broken asunder, or,\nas others say, it is a conversion of fiery air violently brought down to\nthe earth. A typhon is a vast thunderbolt, violent and full of wind, or\na smoky breath of a cloud broken asunder. A \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 is a cloud rent by\nfire, with wind,[93] \u2026 into the hollows of the earth, or when the wind\nis pent up in the earth, as Posidonius says in his eighth book; and that\nsome of them are shakings, others rendings, others emissions of fire, and\nothers, instances of violent fermentation.\n\nLXXXII. They also think that the general arrangement of the world is in\nthis fashion; that the earth is in the middle, occupying the place of the\ncentre; next to which comes the water, of a spherical form; and having\nthe same centre as the earth; so that the earth is in the water; and next\nto the water comes the air, which has also a spherical form.\n\nLXXXIII. And that there are five circles in the heaven; of which the\nfirst is the arctic circle, which is always visible; the second is the\ntropical summer circle; the third is the equinoctial circle; the fourth,\nthe winter tropical circle; and the fifth the antarctic, which is not\nvisible. And they are called parallel, because they do not incline to one\nanother; they are drawn however around the same centre. But the zodiac\nis oblique, cutting the parallel circles. There are also five zones on\nthe earth; the first is the northern one, placed under the arctic circle,\nuninhabitable by reason of the cold; the second is temperate; the third\nis uninhabitable because of the heat, and is called the torrid zone; the\nfourth is a temperate zone, on the other side of the torrid zone; the\nfifth is the southern zone, being also uninhabitable by reason of the\ncold.[94]\n\nLXXXIV. Another of their doctrines is that nature is an artificial fire\ntending by a regular road to production, which is a fiery kind of breath\nproceeding according to art. Also, that the soul is sensible, and that\nit is a spirit which is born with us; consequently it is a body and\ncontinues to exist after death; that nevertheless it is perishable. But\nthat the soul of the universe is imperishable, and that the souls which\nexist in animals are only parts of that of the universe. But Zeno, the\nCitti\u00e6an, and Antipater, in their treatise concerning the Soul, and\nPosidonius also, all say that the soul is a warm spirit; for that by\nit we have our breath, and by it we are moved. Cleanthes, accordingly,\nasserts that all souls continue to exist till they are burnt up; but\nChrysippus says that it is only the souls of the wise that endure. And\nthey further teach that there are eight parts of the soul; the five\nsenses, and the generative faculties, and voice, and reason. And we see\nbecause of a body of luminous air which extends from the organ of sight\nto the object in a conical form, as it is asserted by Chrysippus, in the\nsecond book of his Natural Philosophy, and also by Apollodorus. And the\napex of this cone is close to the eye, and its base is formed by the\nobject which is seen; so that that which is seen is as it were reported\nto the eye by this continuous cone of air extended towards it like a\nstaff. In the same way, we hear because the air between the speaker and\nthe hearer is struck in a spherical manner; and is then agitated in\nwaves, resembling the circular eddies which one sees in a cistern when a\nstone is dropped into it.\n\nSleep, they say, is produced by a relaxation of the \u00e6sthetic energies\nwith reference to the dominant part of the soul. And the causes of the\npassions they explain to be the motions and conversions which take place\nin connection with this spirit or soul.\n\nLXXXV. Seed, they define as a thing of a nature capable of producing\nother things of the same nature as the thing from which it has been\nseparated. And the seed of man, which man emits, is, together with\nmoisture, mixed up with the parts of the soul by that kind of mixture\nwhich corresponds to the capacity of the parents. And Chrysippus says,\nin the second book of his Natural Philosophy, that it is a spirit\naccording to substance; as is manifest from the seeds which are planted\nin the earth; and which, if they are old, do not germinate, because all\ntheir virtue has evaporated. And Sph\u00e6rus says, that seed proceeds from\nthe entire body, and that that is how it is that it produces all the\nparts of the body.\n\nThey also say that the seed of the female is unproductive; for, as\nSph\u00e6rus says, it is devoid of tone, and small in quantity, and watery.\n\nLXXXVI. They also say that that is the dominant part of the soul which is\nits most excellent part; in which the imaginations and the desires are\nformed, and whence reason proceeds. And this place is in the heart.\n\nThese then are the doctrines on the subject of natural philosophy\nentertained by them, which it seems sufficient for us to detail, having\nregard to the due proportions of this book. And the following are the\npoints in which some of them disagreed with the rest.\n\n\nLIFE OF ARISTON.\n\nI. Ariston the Bald, a native of Chios, surnamed the Siren, said, that\nthe chief good was to live in perfect indifference to all those things\nwhich are of an intermediate character between virtue and vice; making\nnot the slightest difference between them, but regarding them all on a\nfooting of equality. For that the wise man resembles a good actor; who,\nwhether he is filling the part of Agamemnon or Thersites, will perform\nthem both equally well.\n\nII. And he discarded altogether the topic of physics, and of logic,\nsaying that the one was above us, and that the other had nothing to do\nwith us; and that the only branch of philosophy with which we had any\nreal concern was ethics.\n\nIII. He also said that dialectic reasonings were like cobwebs; which,\nalthough they seem to be put together on principles of art, are utterly\nuseless.\n\nIV. And he did not introduce many virtues into his scheme, as Zeno did;\nnor one virtue under a great many names, as the Megaric philosophers did;\nbut defined virtue as consisting in behaving in a certain manner with\nreference to a certain thing.\n\nV. And as he philosophized in this manner, and carried on his discussions\nin the Cynosarges, he got so much influence as to be called a founder of\na sect. Accordingly, Miltiades, and Diphilus were called Aristoneans.\n\nVI. He was a man of very persuasive eloquence, and one who could adapt\nhimself well to the humours of a multitude. On which account Timon says\nof him:\u2014\n\n And one who, from Ariston\u2019s wily race,\n Traced his descent.\n\nDiocles, the Magnesian, tells us that Ariston having fallen in with\nPolemo, passed over to his school, at a time when Zeno was lying ill\nwith a long sickness. The Stoic doctrine to which he was most attached,\nwas the one that the wise man is never guided by opinions. But Pers\u00e6us\nargued against this, and caused one of two twin brothers to place a\ndeposit in his hands, and then caused the other to reclaim it; and thus\nhe convicted him, as he was in doubt on this point, and therefore forced\nto act on opinion. He was a great enemy of Arcesilaus. And once, seeing\na bull of a monstrous conformation, having a womb, he said, \u201cAlas! here\nis an argument for Arcesilaus against the evidence of his senses.\u201d On\nanother occasion, when a philosopher of the Academy said that he did not\ncomprehend anything, he said to him, \u201cDo not you even see the man who is\nsitting next to you?\u201d And as he said that he did not, he said:\u2014\n\n Who then has blinded you, who\u2019s been so harsh,\n As thus to rob you of your beaming eyes?\n\nVII. The following works are attributed to him. Two books of Exhortatory\nDiscourses; Dialogues on the Doctrines of Zeno; six books of\nConversations; seven books of Discussions on Wisdom; Conversations on\nLove; Commentaries on Vain Glory; twenty-five books of Reminiscences;\nthree books of Memorabilia; eleven books of Apophthegms; a volume\nagainst the Orators; a volume against the Rescripts of Alexinus; three\ntreatises against the Dialecticians; four books of Letters to Cleanthes.\nBut Pan\u00e6tius and Sosicrates say, that his only genuine writings are his\nletters; and that all the rest are the works of Ariston the Peripatetic.\n\nVIII. It is said that he, being bald, got a stroke of the sun, and so\ndied. And we have written a jesting epigram on him in Scazon iambics, in\nthe following terms:\u2014\n\n Why, O Ariston, being old and bald,\n Did you allow the sun to roast your crown?\n Thus, in an unbecoming search for warmth,\n Against your will, you\u2019ve found out chilly Hell.\n\nIX. There was also another man of the name of Ariston; a native of Julii,\none of the Peripatetic school. And another who was an Athenian musician.\nA fourth who was a tragic poet. A fifth, a native of Al\u00e6a, who wrote a\ntreatise on the Oratorical Art. A sixth was a peripatetic Philosopher of\nAlexandria.\n\n\nLIFE OF HERILLUS\n\nI. Herillus, a native of Carthage, said that the chief good was\nknowledge; that is to say, the always conducting one\u2019s self in such a way\nas to refer everything to the principle of living according to knowledge,\nand not been misled by ignorance. He also said that knowledge was a habit\nnot departing from reason in the reception of perceptions.\n\nOn one occasion, he said that there was no such thing as a chief good,\nbut that circumstances and events changed it, just as the same piece of\nbrass might become a statue either of Alexander or of Socrates. And that\nbesides the chief good or end (\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2[95]), there was a subordinate end\n(\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c2) different from it. And that those who were not wise aimed at\nthe latter; but that only the wise man directed his views to the former.\nAnd all the things between virtue and vice he pronounced indifferent.\n\nII. His books contain but few lines, but they are full of power, and\ncontain arguments in opposition to Zeno.\n\nIII. It is said, that when he was a boy, many people were attached to\nhim; and as Zeno wished to drive them away, he persuaded him to have his\nhead shaved, which disgusted them all.\n\nIV. His books are these. One on Exercise; one on the Passions; one on\nOpinion; the Lawgiver; the Skilful Midwife; the Contradictory Teacher;\nthe Preparer; the Director; the Mercury; the Medea; a book of Dialogues;\na book of Ethical Propositions.\n\n\nLIFE OF DIONYSIUS\n\nI. Dionysius, the Deserter, as he was called, asserted that pleasure\nwas the chief good, from the circumstance of his being afflicted with\na complaint in his eyes. For, as he suffered severely, he could not\npronounce pain a thing indifferent.\n\nII. He was the son of Theophantus, and a native of Heraclea.\n\nIII. He was a pupil, as we are told by Diocles, first of all of\nHeraclides, his fellow citizen; after that of Alexinus, and Menedemus;\nand last of all of Zeno. And at first, as he was very devoted to\nlearning, he tried his hand at all kinds of poetry. Afterwards, he\nattached himself to Aratus, whom he took for his model. Having left Zeno,\nhe turned to the Cyrenaics, and became a frequenter of brothels, and in\nother respects indulged in luxury without disguise.\n\nIV. When he had lived near eighty years, he died of starvation.\n\nV. The following books are attributed to him. Two books on Apathy; two\non Exercise; four on Pleasure; one on Riches, and Favours, and Revenge;\none on the Use of Men; one on Good Fortune; one on Ancient Kings; one on\nThings which are Praised; one on Barbarian Customs.\n\nThese now are the chief men who differed from the Stoics. But the man who\nsucceeded Zeno in his school was Cleanthes, whom we must now speak of.\n\n\nLIFE OF CLEANTHES\n\nI. Cleanthes was a native of Assos, and the son of Phanias. He was\noriginally a boxer, as we learn from Antisthenes, in his Successions.\nAnd he came to Athens, having but four drachmas, as some people say, and\nattaching himself to Zeno, he devoted himself to Philosophy in a most\nnoble manner; and he adhered to the same doctrines as his master.\n\nII. He was especially eminent for his industry, so that as he was a\nvery poor man, he was forced to undertake mercenary employments, and\nhe used to draw water in the gardens by night, and by day he used to\nexercise himself in philosophical discussions; on which account he was\ncalled Phreantles.[96] They also say that he was on one occasion brought\nbefore a court of justice, to be compelled to give an account what his\nsources of income were from which he maintained himself in such good\ncondition; and that then he was acquitted, having produced as his witness\nthe gardener in whose garden he drew the water; and a woman who was a\nmealseller, in whose establishment he used to prepare the meal. And the\njudges of the Areopagus admired him, and voted that ten min\u00e6 should be\ngiven to him; but Zeno forbade him to accept them.\n\nThey also say that Antigonus presented him three thousand drachmas.\nAnd once, when he was conducting some young men to some spectacle, it\nhappened that the wind blew away his cloak, and it was then seen that\nhe had nothing on under it; on which he was greatly applauded by the\nAthenians, according to the account given by Demetrius, the Magnesian,\nin his essay on People of the same Name. And he was greatly admired by\nthem on account of this circumstance.\n\nThey also say that Antigonus, who was a pupil of his, once asked him why\nhe drew water; and that he made answer, \u201cDo I do nothing beyond drawing\nwater? Do I not also dig, and do I not water the land, and do all sorts\nof things for the sake of philosophy?\u201d For Zeno used to accustom him to\nthis, and used to require him to bring him an obol by way of tribute.[97]\nAnd once he brought one of the pieces of money which he had collected in\nthis way, into the middle of a company of his acquaintances, and said,\n\u201cCleanthes could maintain even another Cleanthes if he were to choose;\nbut others who have plenty of means to support themselves, seek for\nnecessaries from others; although they only study philosophy in a very\nlazy manner.\u201d And, in reference to these habits of his, Cleanthes was\ncalled a second Heracles.\n\nIII. He was then very industrious; but he was not well endowed by nature,\nand was very slow in his intellect. On which account Timon says of him:\u2014\n\n What stately ram thus measures o\u2019er the ground,\n And master of the flock surveys them round?\n What citizen of Assos, dull and cold,\n Fond of long words, a mouth-piece, but not bold.[98]\n\nAnd when he was ridiculed by his fellow pupils, he used to bear it\npatiently.\n\nIV. He did not even object to the name when he was called an ass; but\nonly said that he was the only animal able to bear the burdens which Zeno\nput upon him. And once, when he was reproached as a coward, he said,\n\u201cThat is the reason why I make but few mistakes.\u201d He used to say, in\njustification of his preference of his own way of life to that of the\nrich, \u201cThat while they were playing at ball, he was earning money by\ndigging hard and barren ground.\u201d And he very often used to blame himself.\nAnd once, Ariston heard him doing so, and said, \u201cWho is it that you are\nreproaching?\u201d and he replied, \u201cAn old man who has grey hair, but no\nbrains.\u201d\n\nWhen some one once said to him, that Arcesilaus did not do what he ought,\n\u201cDesist,\u201d he replied, \u201cand do not blame him; for, if he destroys duty as\nfar as his words go, at all events he establishes it by his actions.\u201d\nArcesilaus once said to him, \u201cI never listen to flatterers.\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d\nrejoined Cleanthes, \u201cI flatter you, when I say that though you say one\nthing, you do another.\u201d When some one once asked him what lesson he ought\nto inculcate on his son, he replied, \u201cThe warning of Electra:\u201d\u2014\n\n Silence, silence, gently step.[99]\n\nWhen a Laced\u00e6monian once said in his hearing, that labour was a good\nthing, he was delighted, and addressed him:\u2014\n\n Oh, early worth, a soul so wise and young\n Proclaims you from the sage Lycurgus sprung.[100]\n\nHecaton tells us in his Apophthegms, that once when a young man said,\n\u201cIf a man who beats his stomach \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 then a man who slaps his thigh\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9,\u201d he replied, \u201cDo you stick to your \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9.\u201d But analogous\nwords do not always indicate analogous facts. Once when he was conversing\nwith a youth, he asked him if he felt; and as he said that he did, \u201cWhy\nis it then,\u201d said Cleanthes, \u201cthat I do not feel that you feel?\u201d\n\nWhen Sositheus, the poet, said in the theatre where he was present:\u2014\n\n Men whom the folly of Cleanthes urges;\n\nHe continued in the same attitude; at which the hearers were surprised,\nand applauded him, but drove Sositheus away. And when he expressed his\nsorrow for having abused him in this manner, he answered him gently,\nsaying, \u201cThat it would be a preposterous thing for Bacchus and Hercules\nto bear being ridiculed by the poets without any expression of anger, and\nfor him to be indignant at any chance attack.\u201d He used also to say, \u201cThat\nthe Peripatetics were in the same condition as lyres, which though they\nutter sweet notes, do not hear themselves.\u201d And it is said, that when\nhe asserted that, on the principles of Zeno, one could judge of a man\u2019s\ncharacter by his looks, some witty young men brought him a profligate\nfellow, having a hardy look from continual exercise in the fields, and\nrequested him to tell them his moral character; and he, having hesitated\na little, bade the man depart; and, as he departed, he sneezed, \u201cI have\nthe fellow now,\u201d said Cleanthes, \u201che is a debauchee.\u201d\n\nHe said once to a man who was conversing with him by himself, \u201cYou are\nnot talking to a bad man.\u201d And when some one reproached him with his old\nage, he rejoined, \u201cI too wish to depart, but when I perceive myself to\nbe in good health in every respect, and to be able to recite and read, I\nam content to remain.\u201d They say too, that he used to write down all that\nhe heard from Zeno on oyster shells, and on the shoulder-blades of oxen,\nfrom want of money to buy paper with.\n\nV. And though he was of this character, and in such circumstances, he\nbecame so eminent, that, though Zeno had many other disciples of high\nreputation, he succeeded him as the president of his School.\n\nVI. And he left behind him some excellent books, which are these. One\non Time; two on Zeno\u2019s System of Natural Philosophy; four books of the\nExplanations of Heraclitus; one on Sensation; one on Art; one addressed\nto Democritus; one to Aristarchus; one to Herillus; two on Desire; one\nentitled Arch\u00e6ology; one on the Gods; one on the Giants; one on Marriage;\none on Poets; three on Duty; one on Good Counsel; one on Favour; one\ncalled Exhortatory; one on Virtues; one on Natural Ability; one on\nGorgippus; one on Enviousness; one on Love; one on Freedom; one called\nthe Art of Love; one on Honour; one on Glory; The Statesman; one on\nCounsel; one on Laws; one on Deciding as a Judge; one on the Way of Life;\nthree on Reason; one on the Chief Good; one on the Beautiful; one on\nActions; one on Knowledge; one on Kingly Power; one on Friendship; one on\nBanquets; one on the Principle that Virtue is the same in Man and Woman;\none on the Wise Man Employing Sophisms; one on Apophthegms; two books\nof Conversations; one on Pleasure; one on Properties; one on Doubtful\nThings; one on Dialectics; one on Modes; one on Categorems.\n\nVII. These are his writings.\n\nAnd he died in the following manner. His gums swelled very much; and,\nat the command of his physicians, he abstained from food for two days.\nAnd he got so well that his physicians allowed him to return to all his\nformer habits; but he refused, and saying that he had now already gone\npart of the way, he abstained from food for the future, and so died;\nbeing, as some report, eighty years old, and having been a pupil of Zeno\nnineteen years. And we have written a playful epigram on him also, which\nruns thus:\u2014\n\n I praise Cleanthes, but praise Pluto more;\n Who could not bear to see him grown so old,\n So gave him rest at last among the dead,\n Who\u2019d drawn such loads of water while alive.\n\n\nLIFE OF SPH\u00c6RUS.\n\nI. Sph\u00e6rus, a native of the Bosphorus, was, as we have said before, a\npupil of Cleanthes after the death of Zeno.\n\nII. And when he made a considerable advance in philosophy he went to\nAlexandria, to the court of Ptolemy Philopater. And once, when there\nwas a discussion concerning the question whether a wise man would allow\nhimself to be guided by opinion, and when Sph\u00e6rus affirmed that he would\nnot, the king, wishing to refute him, ordered some pomegranates of wax\nto be set before him; and when Sph\u00e6rus was deceived by them, the king\nshouted that he had given his assent to a false perception. But Sph\u00e6rus\nanswered very neatly, that he had not given his assent to the fact that\nthey were pomegranates, but to the fact that it was probable that they\nmight be pomegranates. And that a perception which could be comprehended\ndiffered from one that was only probable.\n\nOnce, when Mnesistratus accused him of denying that Ptolemy was a king,\nhe said to him, \u201cThat Ptolemy was a man with such and such qualities, and\na king.\u201d[101]\n\nIII. He wrote the following books. Two on the World; one on the Elements\nof Seed; one on Fortune; one on the Smallest Things; one on Atoms and\nPhantoms; one on the Senses; five Conversations about Heraclitus; one on\nEthical Arrangement; one on Duty; one on Appetite; two on the Passions;\none on Kingly Power; on the Laced\u00e6monian Constitution; three on Lycurgus\nand Socrates; one on Law; one on Divination; one volume of Dialogues on\nLove; one on the Eretrian Philosophers; one on Things Similar; one on\nTerms; one on Habits; three on Contradictions; one on Reason; one on\nRiches; one on Glory; one on Death; two on the Art of Dialectics; one on\nCategorems; one on Ambiguity; and a volume of Letters.\n\n\nLIFE OF CHRYSIPPUS.\n\nI. Chrysippus was the son of Apollonius, and a native of either Soli or\nTarsus, as Alexander tells us in his Successions; and he was a pupil of\nCleanthes. Previously he used to practise running as a public runner;\nthen he became a pupil of Zeno or of Cleanthes, as Diocles and the\ngenerality of authors say, and while he was still living he abandoned\nhim, and became a very eminent philosopher.\n\nII. He was a man of great natural ability, and of great acuteness in\nevery way, so that in many points he dissented from Zeno, and also\nfrom Cleanthes, to whom he often used to say that he only wanted to\nbe instructed in the dogmas of the school, and that he would discover\nthe demonstrations for himself. But whenever he opposed him with any\nvehemence, he always repented, so that he used frequently to say:\u2014\n\n In most respects I am a happy man,\n Excepting where Cleanthes is concerned;\n For in that matter I am far from fortunate.\n\nAnd he had such a high reputation as a dialectician, that most people\nthought that if there were such a science as dialectics among the Gods;\nit would be in no respect different from that of Chrysippus. But though\nhe was so eminently able in matter, he was not perfect in style.\n\nIII. He was industrious beyond all other men; as is plain from his\nwritings; for he wrote more than seven hundred and five books. And he\noften wrote several books on the same subject, wishing to put down\neverything that occurred to him; and constantly correcting his previous\nassertions, and using a great abundance of testimonies. So that, as in\none of his writings he had quoted very nearly the whole of the Medea of\nEuripides, and some one had his book in his hands; this latter, when he\nwas asked what he had got there, made answer, \u201cThe Medea of Chrysippus.\u201d\nAnd Apollodorus, the Athenian, in his Collection of Dogmas, wishing to\nassert that what Epicurus had written out of his own head, and without\nany quotations to support his arguments, was a great deal more than all\nthe books of Chrysippus, speaks thus (I give his exact words), \u201cFor if\nany one were to take away from the books of Chrysippus all the passages\nwhich he quotes from other authors, his paper would be left empty.\u201d\n\nThese are the words of Apollodorus; but the old woman who lived with him,\nas Diocles reports, used to say that he wrote five hundred lines every\nday. And Hecaton says, that he first applied himself to philosophy, when\nhis patrimony had been confiscated, and seized for the royal treasury.\n\nIV. He was slight in person, as is plain from his statue which is in the\nCeramicus, which is nearly hidden by the equestrian statue near it; in\nreference to which circumstance, Carneades called him Crypsippus.[102]\nHe was once reproached by some one for not attending the lectures of\nAriston, who was drawing a great crowd after him at the time; and he\nreplied, \u201cIf I had attended to the multitude I should not have been a\nphilosopher.\u201d And once, when he saw a dialectician pressing hard on\nCleanthes, and proposing sophistical fallacies to him, he said, \u201cCease\nto drag that old man from more important business, and propose these\nquestions to us who are young.\u201d At another time, when some one wishing to\nask him something privately, was addressing him quietly, but when he saw\na multitude approaching began to speak more energetically he said to him:\u2014\n\n Alas, my brother! now your eye is troubled;\n You were quite sane just now; and yet how quickly\n Have you succumbed to frenzy.[103]\n\nAnd at drinking parties he used to behave quietly, moving his legs about\nhowever, so that a female slave once said, \u201cIt is only the legs of\nChrysippus that are drunk.\u201d And he had so high an opinion of himself,\nthat once, when a man asked him, \u201cTo whom shall I entrust my son?\u201d he\nsaid, \u201cTo me, for if I thought that there was any one better than myself,\nI would have gone to him to teach me philosophy.\u201d In reference to which\nanecdote they report that people used to say of him:\u2014\n\n He has indeed a clear and subtle head,\n The rest are forms of empty \u00e6ther made.[104]\n\nAnd also:\u2014\n\n For if Chrysippus had not lived and taught,\n The Stoic school would surely have been nought.\n\nVI. But at last, when Arcesilaus and Lacydes, as Sotion records in\nhis eighth book, came to the Academy, he joined them in the study of\nphilosophy; from which circumstance he got the habit of arguing for and\nagainst a custom, and discussed magnitudes and quantities, following the\nsystem of the Academics.\n\nVII. Hermippus relates, that one day, when he was teaching in the Odeum,\nhe was invited to a sacrifice by his pupils; and, that drinking some\nsweet unmixed wine, he was seized with giddiness, and departed this life\nfive days afterwards, when he had lived seventy-three years; dying in the\nhundred and forty-third olympiad, as Apollodorus says in his Chronicles.\nAnd we have written an epigram on him:\u2014\n\n Chrysippus drank with open mouth some wine\n Then became giddy, and so quickly died.\n Too little reck\u2019d he of the Porch\u2019s weal,\n Or of his country\u2019s, or of his own dear life;\n And so descended to the realms of Hell.\n\nBut some people say that he died of a fit of immoderate laughter. For\nthat seeing his ass eating figs, he told his old woman to give the ass\nsome unmixed wine to drink afterwards, and then laughed so violently that\nhe died.\n\nVIII. He appears to have been a man of exceeding arrogance. Accordingly,\nthough he wrote such numbers of books, he never dedicated one of them\nto any sovereign. And he was contented with one single old woman, as\nDemetrius tells us, in his People of the same Name. And when Ptolemy\nwrote to Cleanthes, begging him either to come to him himself or to send\nhim some one, Sph\u00e6rus went to him, but Chrysippus slighted the invitation.\n\nIX. However, he sent for the sons of his sister, Aristocreon and\nPhilocrates, and educated them; and he was the first person who ventured\nto hold a school in the open air in the Lyceum, as the before mentioned\nDemetrius relates.\n\nX. There was also another Chrysippus, a native of Cnidos, a physician,\nfrom whom Erasistratus testifies that he received great benefit. And\nanother also who was a son of his, and the physician of Ptolemy; who,\nhaving had a false accusation brought against him, was apprehended and\npunished by being scourged. There was also a fourth who was a pupil of\nErasistratus; and a fifth was an author of a work called Georgics.\n\nXI. Now this philosopher used to delight in proposing questions of this\nsort. The person who reveals the mysteries to the uninitiated commits\na sin; the hierophant reveals them to the uninitiated; therefore the\nhierophant commits sin? Another was, that which is not in the city, is\nalso not in the house; but a well is not in the city, therefore, there is\nnot a well in the house. Another was, there is a certain head; that head\nyou have not got; there is then a head that you have not got; therefore,\nyou have not got a head. Again, if a man is in Megara, he is not in\nAthens; but there is a man in Megara, therefore, there is not a man in\nAthens. Again, if you say anything, what you say comes out of your mouth;\nbut you say \u201ca waggon,\u201d therefore a waggon comes out of your mouth.\nAnother was, if you have not lost a thing, you have it; but you have not\nlost horns; therefore, you have horns. Though some attribute this sophism\nto Eubulides.\n\nXII. There are people who run Chrysippus down as having written a great\ndeal that is very shameful and indecent. For in his treatise on the\nAncient Natural Historians, he relates the story of Jupiter and Juno\nvery indecently, devoting six hundred lines to what no one could repeat\nwithout polluting his mouth. For, as it is said, he composes this story,\nthough he praises it as consisting of natural details, in a way more\nsuitable to street walkers than to Goddesses; and not at all resembling\nthe ideas which have been adopted or cited by writers in paintings. For\nthey were found neither in Polemo, nor in Hypsicrates, nor in Antigonus,\nbut were inserted by himself. And in his treatise on Polity, he allows\npeople to marry their mothers, or their daughters, or their sons. And\nhe repeats this doctrine in his treatise on those things which are not\ndesirable for their own sake, in the very opening of it. And in the third\nbook of his treatise on Justice, he devotes a thousand lines to bidding\npeople devour even the dead.\n\nIn the second book of his treatise on Life and Means of Support, where he\nis warning us to consider beforehand, how the wise man ought to provide\nhimself with means, he says, \u201cAnd yet why need he provide himself with\nmeans? for if it is for the sake of living, living at all is a matter\nof indifference; if it is for the sake of pleasure, that is a matter of\nindifference too; if it is for the sake of virtue, that is of itself\nsufficient for happiness. But the methods of providing one\u2019s self with\nmeans are ridiculous; for instance, some derive them from a king; and\nthen it will be necessary to humour him. Some from friendship; and\nthen friendship will become a thing to be bought with a price. Some\nfrom wisdom; and then wisdom will become mercenary; and these are the\naccusations which he brings.\u201d\n\nBut since he has written many books of high reputation, it has seemed\ngood to me to give a catalogue of them, classifying them according to\ntheir subjects. They are the following:\u2014\n\nBooks on Logic; Propositions; Logical Questions; a book of the\nContemplations of the Philosopher; six books of Dialectic Terms addressed\nto Metrodorus; one on the Technical Terms used in Dialectics, addressed\nto Zeno; one called the Art of Dialectics, addressed to Aristagoras; four\nbooks of Probable Conjunctive Reasons, addressed to Dioscorides.\n\nThe first set of treatises on the Logical Topics, which concern things,\ncontains: one essay on Propositions; one on those Propositions which are\nnot simple; two on the Copulative Propositions, addressed to Athenades;\nthree on Positive Propositions, addressed to Aristagoras; one on Definite\nPropositions, addressed to Athenodorus; one on Privative Propositions,\naddressed to Thearus; three on the Best Propositions, addressed to Dion;\nfour on the Differences between Indefinite Propositions; two on those\nPropositions which are enunciated with a reference to time; two on\nPerfect Propositions.\n\nThe second set contains, one essay on a Disjunctive True Propositions,\naddressed to Gorgippides; four on a Conjunctive True Proposition, also\naddressed to Gorgippides; one called, the Sect, addressed to Gorgippides;\none on the argument of Consequents; one on questions touched upon in the\nthree preceding treatises, and now re-examined, this also is addressed\nto Gorgippides; one on what is Possible, addressed to Clitus; one on the\ntreatise of Philo, on Signification; one on what it is that Falsehood\nconsists in.\n\nThe third set contains, two treatises on Imperative Propositions; two\non Interrogation; four on Examination; an epitome of the subject of\nInterrogation and Examination; four treatises on Answer; an abridgment on\nAnswer; two essays on Investigation.\n\nThe fourth set contains ten books on Categorems, addressed to Metrodorus;\none treatise on what is Direct and Indirect, addressed to Philarchus; one\non Conjunctions, addressed to Apollonides; four on Categorems, addressed\nto Pasylus.\n\nThe fifth set contains, one treatise on the Five Cases; one on Things\ndefined according to the Subject; two on Enunciation, addressed to\nStesagoras; two on Appellative Nouns.\n\nThe next class of his writings refers to rules of Logic, with reference\nto words, and speech which consists of words.\n\nThe first set of these contains, six treatises on Singular and Plural\nEnunciations; five on Words, addressed to Sosigenes and Alexander; four\non the Inequality of Words, addressed to Dion; three on the Sorites\nwhich refer to Words; one on Solecisms in the Use of Words, addressed to\nDionysius; one entitled Discourses, contrary to Customs; one entitled\nDiction, and addressed to Dionysius.\n\nThe second set contains, five treatises on the Elements of Speech and of\nPhrases; four on the Arrangement of Phrases; three on the Arrangement,\nand on the Elements of Phrases, addressed to Philip; one on the Elements\nof Discourse, addressed to Nicias; one on Correlatives.\n\nThe third set contains, two treatises against those who do not admit\nDivision; four on Ambiguous Expressions, addressed to Apollos; one,\nAmbiguity in Modes; two on the Ambiguous Use of Figures, in Conjunctive\nPropositions; two on the essay on Ambiguous Expressions, by Panthoides;\nfive on the Introduction to the Ambiguous Expressions; one, being an\nabridgment of the Ambiguous Expressions, addressed to Epicrates; and a\ncollection of instances to serve as an Introduction to the Ambiguous\nExpressions, in two books.\n\nThe next class is on the subject of that part of logic which is\nconversant about reasonings and modes.\n\nThe first set of works in this class, contains, the Art of Reasoning\nand of Modes, in five books, addressed to Dioscorides; a treatise on\nReasoning, in three books; one on the Structure of Modes, addressed to\nStesagoras, in five books; a comparison of the Elements of Modes; a\ntreatise on Reciprocal and Conjunctive Reasonings; an essay to Agathon,\ncalled also an essay on Problems, which follow one another; a treatise,\nproving that Syllogistic Propositions suppose one or more other terms;\none on Conclusions, addressed to Aristagoras; one essay, proving that\nthe same reasoning can affect several figures; one against those who\ndeny that the same reasoning can be expressed by syllogism, and without\nsyllogism, in two books; three treatises against those who attack the\nresolution of Syllogisms; one on the treatise on Modes, by Philo,\naddressed to Timostratus; two treatises on Logic, in one volume,\naddressed to Timocrates and Philomathes; one volume of questions on\nReasonings and Modes.\n\nThe second set contains, one book of Conclusive Reasonings, addressed\nto Zeno; one on Primary Syllogisms, which are not demonstrative; one on\nthe resolution of Syllogisms; one, in two books, on Captious Reasonings,\naddressed to Pasylus; one book of Considerations on Syllogisms; one book\nof Introductory Syllogisms, addressed to Zeno; three of Introductory\nModes, addressed also to Zeno; five of False Figures of Syllogism; one\nof a Syllogistic Method, for the resolution of arguments, which are not\ndemonstrative; one of Researches into the Modes, addressed to Zeno and\nPhilomathes (but this appears to be an erroneous title).\n\nThe third set contains, one essay on Incidental Reasonings, addressed to\nAthenades (this again is an incorrect title); three books of Incidental\nDiscourses on the Medium (another incorrect title); one essay on the\nDisjunctive Reasons of Aminias.\n\nThe fourth set contains, a treatise on Hypothesis, in three books,\naddressed to Meleager; a book of hypothetical reasonings on the Laws,\naddressed also to Meleager; two books of hypothetical reasoning to serve\nas an Introduction; two books of hypothetical reasonings on Theorems; a\ntreatise in two books, being a resolution of the Hypothetical Reasonings\nof Hedylus; an essay, in three books, being a resolution of the\nHypothetical Reasonings of Alexander (this is an incorrect title); two\nbooks of Expositions, addressed to Leodamas.\n\nThe fifth set contains, an introduction to Fallacy, addressed to\nAristocreon; an introduction to False Reasonings; a treatise in six\nbooks, on Fallacy, addressed to Aristocreon.\n\nThe sixth set contains, a treatise against those who believe Truth and\nFalsehood to be the same thing. One, in two books, against those who have\nrecourse to division to resolve the Fallacy, addressed to Aristocreon; a\ndemonstrative essay, to prove that it is not proper to divide indefinite\nterms; an essay, in three books, in answer to the objections against\nthe non-division of Indefinite Terms, addressed to Pasylus; a solution,\naccording to the principles of the ancients, addressed to Dioscorides; an\nessay on the Resolution of the Fallacy, addressed to Aristocreon, this is\nin three books; a resolution of the Hypothetical Arguments of Hedylus,\nin one book, addressed to Aristocreon and Apollos.\n\nThe seventh set contains, a treatise against those who contend that\nthe premisses on the Fallacy, are false; a treatise on Negative\nReasoning, addressed to Aristocreon, in two books; one book of Negative\nReasonings, addressed to Gymnasias; two books of a treatise on Reasoning\nby Progression, addressed to Stesagoras; two books of Reasonings by\nInterrogation, and on the Arrest,[105] addressed to Onetor; an essay, in\ntwo books, on the Corrected Argument, addressed to Aristobulus; another\non the Non-apparent Argument, addressed to Athenades.\n\nThe eighth set contains, an essay on the Argument Outis, in eight books,\naddressed to Menecrates; a treatise, in two books, on Arguments composed\nof a finite term, and an indefinite term, addressed to Pasylus; another\nessay on the Argument Outis, addressed to Epicrates.\n\nThe ninth set contains, two volumes of Sophisms, addressed to Heraclides,\nand Pollis; five volumes of Dialectic Arguments, which admit of no\nsolution, addressed to Dioscorides; an essay, in one book, against the\nMethod of Arcesilaus, addressed to Sph\u00e6rus.\n\nThe tenth set contains, a treatise in six books, against Custom,\naddressed to Metrodorus; and another, in seven books, on Custom,\naddressed to Gorgippides.\n\nThere are, therefore, works on Logic, in the four grand classes which we\nhave here enumerated, embracing various questions, without any connection\nwith one another, to the number of thirty nine sets, amounting in the\nwhole to three hundred and eleven treatises on Logic.\n\nThe next division comprises those works which have for their object, the\nexplanation of Moral Ideas.\n\nThe first class of this division, contains an essay, giving a description\nof Reason, addressed to Theosphorus; a book of Ethical questions; three\nbooks of Principles, to serve as the foundation of Dogmas, addressed\nto Philomathes; two books of definitions of Good-breeding, addressed\nto Metrodorus; two books of definitions of the Bad, addressed to\nMetrodorus; two books of definitions of Neutral Things, addressed also\nto Metrodorus; seven books of definitions of Things, according to their\ngenera, addressed to Metrodorus; and two books of Definitions, according\nto other systems, addressed to Metrodorus.\n\nThe second set contains, a treatise on Things Similar, in three books,\naddressed to Aristocles; an essay on Definitions, in seven books,\naddressed to Metrodorus.\n\nThe third set contains, a treatise, in seven books, on the Incorrect\nObjections made to Definitions, addressed to Laodamas; two books of\nProbable Arguments bearing on Definitions, addressed to Dioscorides;\ntwo books on Species and Genus, addressed to Gorgippides; one book on\nDivisions; two books on Contraries, addressed to Dionysius; a book of\nProbable Arguments relating to Divisions, and Genera, and Species; a book\non Contraries.\n\nThe fourth set contains, a treatise, in seven books, on Etymologies,\naddressed to Diocles; another, in four books, on the same subject,\naddressed to the same person.\n\nThe fifth set contains, a treatise in two books, on Proverbs, addressed\nto Zenodotus; an essay on Poems, addressed to Philomathes; an essay, on\nHow one Ought to Listen to Poems, in two books; an essay, in reply to\nCritics, addressed to Diodorus.\n\nThe next division refers to Ethics, looked at in a general point of view,\nand to the different systems arising out of them, and to the Virtues.\n\nThe first set contains, an essay against Pictures, addressed to Timonax;\nan essay on the Manner in which we express ourselves about, and form our\nConceptions of, each separate thing; two books of Thoughts, addressed to\nLaodamas; an essay, in three books, on Conception, addressed to Pythonax;\nan essay, that the Wise Man is not Guided by Opinion; an essay, in five\nbooks, on Comprehension, and Knowledge, and Ignorance; a treatise on\nReason, in two books; a treatise on the Employment of Reason, addressed\nto Leptines.\n\nThe second set contains, a treatise, that the Ancient Philosophers\napproved of Logic, with Proofs to support the Arguments, in two books,\naddressed to Zeno; a treatise on Dialectics, in four books, addressed\nto Aristocreon; an answer to the Objections urged against Dialectics,\nin three books; an essay on Rhetoric, in four books, addressed to\nDioscorides.\n\nThe third set contains, a treatise on Habit, in three books, addressed\nto Cleon; a treatise on Art and Want of Art, in four books, addressed to\nAristocreon; a treatise, in four books, on the Difference between the\nVirtues, addressed to Diodorus; a treatise, to show that all the Virtues\nare Equal; a treatise on the Virtues, in two books, addressed to Pollis.\n\nThe next division refers to Ethics, as relating to Good and Evil.\n\nThe first set contains, a treatise in ten books, on the Honourable, and\non Pleasure, addressed to Aristocreon; a demonstration, that Pleasure is\nnot the Chief Good of Man, in four books; a demonstration that Pleasure\nis not a Good at all, in four books; a treatise on what is said by \u2026[106]\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VIII.\n\n\nLIFE OF PYTHAGORAS.\n\nI. Since we have now gone through the Ionian philosophy, which was\nderived from Thales, and the lives of the several illustrious men who\nwere the chief ornaments of that school; we will now proceed to treat\nof the Italian School, which was founded by Pythagoras, the son of\nMnesarchus, a seal engraver, as he is recorded to have been by Hermippus;\na native of Samos, or as Aristoxenus asserts, a Tyrrhenian, and a\nnative of one of the islands which the Athenians occupied after they\nhad driven out the Tyrrhenians. But some authors say that he was the\nson of Marmacus, the son of Hippasus, the son of Euthyphron, the son of\nCleonymus, who was an exile from Phlias; and that Marmacus settled in\nSamos, and that from this circumstance Pythagoras was called a Samian.\nAfter that he migrated to Lesbos, having come to Pherecydes with letters\nof recommendation from Zoilus, his uncle. And having made three silver\ngoblets, he carried them to Egypt as a present for each of the three\npriests. He had brothers, the eldest of whom was named Eunomus, the\nmiddle one Tyrrhenus, and a slave named Zamolxis, to whom the Get\u00e6\nsacrifice, believing him to be the same as Saturn, according to the\naccount of Herodotus.[107]\n\nII. He was a pupil, as I have already mentioned, of Pherecydes, the\nSyrian; and after his death he came to Samos, and became a pupil of\nHermodamas, the descendant of Creophylus, who was by this time an old man.\n\nIII. And as he was a young man, and devoted to learning, he quitted his\ncountry, and got initiated into all the Grecian and barbarian sacred\nmysteries. Accordingly, he went to Egypt, on which occasion Polycrates\ngave him a letter of introduction to Amasis; and he learnt the Egyptian\nlanguage, as Antipho tells us, in his treatise on those men who have been\nconspicuous for virtue, and he associated with the Chald\u00e6ans and with the\nMagi.\n\nAfterwards he went to Crete, and in company with Epimenides, he descended\ninto the Id\u00e6an cave, (and in Egypt too, he entered into the holiest\nparts of their temples,) and learned all the most secret mysteries that\nrelate to their Gods. Then he returned back again to Samos, and finding\nhis country reduced under the absolute dominion of Polycrates, he set\nsail, and fled to Crotona in Italy. And there, having given laws to the\nItalians, he gained a very high reputation, together with his scholars,\nwho were about three hundred in number, and governed the republic in\na most excellent manner; so that the constitution was very nearly an\naristocracy.\n\nIV. Heraclides Ponticus says, that he was accustomed to speak of himself\nin this manner; that he had formerly been \u00c6thalides, and had been\naccounted the son of Mercury; and that Mercury had desired him to select\nany gift he pleased except immortality. And that he accordingly had\nrequested that, whether living or dead, he might preserve the memory of\nwhat had happened to him. While, therefore, he was alive, he recollected\neverything; and when he was dead, he retained the same memory. And at a\nsubsequent period he passed into Euphorbus, and was wounded by Menelaus.\nAnd while he was Euphorbus, he used to say that he had formerly been\n\u00c6thalides; and that he had received as a gift from Mercury the perpetual\ntransmigration of his soul, so that it was constantly transmigrating\nand passing into whatever plants or animals it pleased; and he had also\nreceived the gift of knowing and recollecting all that his soul had\nsuffered in hell, and what sufferings too are endured by the rest of the\nsouls.\n\nBut after Euphorbus died, he said that his soul had passed into\nHermotimus; and when he wished to convince people of this, he went into\nthe territory of the Branchid\u00e6, and going into the temple of Apollo, he\nshowed his shield which Menelaus had dedicated there as an offering.\nFor he said that he, when he sailed from Troy, had offered up his\nshield[108] which was already getting worn out, to Apollo, and that\nnothing remained but the ivory face which was on it. And when Hermotimus\ndied, then he said that he had become Pyrrhus, a fisherman of Delos; and\nthat he still recollected everything, how he had been formerly \u00c6thalides,\nthen Euphorbus, then Hermotimus, and then Pyrrhus. And when Pyrrhus died,\nhe became Pythagoras, and still recollected all the circumstances that I\nhave been mentioning.\n\nV. Now, some people say that Pythagoras did not leave behind him a single\nbook; but they talk foolishly; for Heraclitus, the natural philosopher,\nspeaks plainly enough of him, saying, \u201cPythagoras, the son of Mnesarchus,\nwas the most learned of all men in history; and having selected from\nthese writings, he thus formed his own wisdom and extensive learning,\nand mischievous art.\u201d And he speaks thus, because Pythagoras, in the\nbeginning of his treatise on Natural Philosophy, writes in the following\nmanner: \u201cBy the air which I breathe, and by the water which I drink, I\nwill not endure to be blamed on account of this discourse.\u201d\n\nAnd there are three volumes extant written by Pythagoras. One on\nEducation; one on Politics; and one on Natural Philosophy. But the\ntreatise which is now extant under the name of Pythagoras is the work of\nLysis, of Tarentum, a philosopher of the Pythagorean School, who fled to\nThebes, and became the master of Epaminondas. And Heraclides, the son of\nSarapion, in his Abridgment of Sotion, says that he wrote a poem in epic\nverse on the Universe; and besides that a sacred poem, which begins thus;\u2014\n\n Dear youths, I warn you cherish peace divine,\n And in your hearts lay deep these words of mine.\n\nA third about the Soul; a fourth on Piety; a fifth entitled Helothales,\nwhich was the name of the father of Epicharmus, of Cos; a sixth called\nCrotona, and other poems too. But the mystic discourse which is extant\nunder his name, they say is really the work of Hippasus, having been\ncomposed with a view to bring Pythagoras into disrepute. There were\nalso many other books composed by Aston, of Crotona, and attributed to\nPythagoras.\n\nAristoxenus asserts that Pythagoras derived the greater part of his\nethical doctrines from Themistoclea, the priestess at Delphi. And Ion,\nof Chios, in his Victories, says that he wrote some poems and attributed\nthem to Orpheus. They also say that the poem called the Scopiad\u00e6 is by\nhim, which begins thus:\u2014\n\n Behave not shamelessly to any one.\n\nVI. And Sosicrates, in his Successions, relates that he, having being\nasked by Leon, the tyrant of the Phliasians, who he was, replied, \u201cA\nphilosopher.\u201d And adds, that he used to compare life to a festival. \u201cAnd\nas some people came to a festival to contend for the prizes, and others\nfor the purposes of traffic, and the best as spectators; so also in life,\nthe men of slavish dispositions,\u201d said he, \u201care born hunters after glory\nand covetousness, but philosophers are seekers after truth.\u201d And thus he\nspoke on this subject. But in the three treatises above mentioned, the\nfollowing principles are laid down by Pythagoras generally.\n\nHe forbids men to pray for anything in particular for themselves,\nbecause they do not know what is good for them. He calls drunkenness an\nexpression identical with ruin, and rejects all superfluity, saying,\n\u201cThat no one ought to exceed the proper quantity of meat and drink.\u201d\nAnd on the subject of venereal pleasures, he speaks thus:\u2014\u201cOne ought\nto sacrifice to Venus in the winter, not in the summer; and in autumn\nand spring in a lesser degree. But the practice is pernicious at every\nseason, and is never good for the health.\u201d And once, when he was asked\nwhen a man might indulge in the pleasures of love, he replied, \u201cWhenever\nyou wish to be weaker than yourself.\u201d\n\nVII. And he divides the life of man thus. A boy for twenty years; a\nyoung man (\u03bd\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2) for twenty years; a middle-aged man (\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) for\ntwenty years; an old man for twenty years. And these different ages\ncorrespond proportionably to the seasons: boyhood answers to spring;\nyouth to summer; middle age to autumn; and old age to winter. And he uses\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 here as equivalent to \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 as equivalent to\n\u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1.\n\nVIII. He was the first person, as Tim\u00e6us says, who asserted that the\nproperty of friends is common, and that friendship is equality. And his\ndisciples used to put all their possessions together into one store, and\nuse them in common; and for five years they kept silence, doing nothing\nbut listen to discourses, and never once seeing Pythagoras, until they\nwere approved; after that time they were admitted into his house, and\nallowed to see him. They also abstained from the use of cypress coffins,\nbecause the sceptre of Jupiter was made of that wood, as Hermippus tells\nus in the second book of his account of Pythagoras.\n\nIX. He is said to have been a man of the most dignified appearance, and\nhis disciples adopted an opinion respecting him, that he was Apollo\nwho had come from the Hyperboreans; and it is said, that once when he\nwas stripped naked, he was seen to have a golden thigh. And there were\nmany people who affirmed, that when he was crossing the river Nessus it\naddressed him by his name.\n\nX. Tim\u00e6us, in the tenth book of his Histories, tells us, that he used to\nsay that women who were married to men had the names of the Gods, being\nsuccessively called virgins, then nymphs, and subsequently mothers.\n\nXI. It was Pythagoras also who carried geometry to perfection, after\nM\u0153ris had first found out the principles of the elements of that\nscience, as Aristiclides tells us in the second book of his History\nof Alexander; and the part of the science to which Pythagoras applied\nhimself above all others was arithmetic. He also discovered the numerical\nrelation of sounds on a single string: he also studied medicine.\nAnd Apollodorus, the logician, records of him, that he sacrificed a\nhecatomb, when he had discovered that the square of the hypothenuse of a\nright-angled triangle is equal to the squares of the sides containing the\nright angle. And there is an epigram which is couched in the following\nterms:\u2014\n\n When the great Samian sage his noble problem found,\n A hundred oxen dyed with their life-blood the ground.\n\nXII. He is also said to have been the first man who trained athletes on\nmeat; and Eurymenes was the first man, according to the statement of\nPhavorinus, in the third book of his Commentaries, who ever did submit\nto this diet, as before that time men used to train themselves on dry\nfigs and moist cheese, and wheaten bread; as the same Phavorinus informs\nus in the eighth book of his Universal History. But some authors state,\nthat a trainer of the name of Pythagoras certainly did train his athletes\non this system, but that it was not our philosopher; for that he even\nforbade men to kill animals at all, much less would have allowed his\ndisciples to eat them, as having a right to live in common with mankind.\nAnd this was his pretext; but in reality he prohibited the eating of\nanimals, because he wished to train and accustom men to simplicity of\nlife, so that all their food should be easily procurable, as it would be,\nif they ate only such things as required no fire to dress them, and if\nthey drank plain water; for from this diet they would derive health of\nbody and acuteness of intellect.\n\nThe only altar at which he worshipped was that of Apollo the Father, at\nDelos, which is at the back of the altar of Ceratinus, because wheat, and\nbarley, and cheese-cakes are the only offerings laid upon it, being not\ndressed by fire; and no victim is ever slain there, as Aristotle tells us\nin his Constitution of the Delians. They say, too, that he was the first\nperson who asserted that the soul went a necessary circle being changed\nabout and confined at different times in different bodies.\n\nXIII. He was also the first person who introduced measures and weights\namong the Greeks; as Aristoxenus the musician informs us.\n\nXIV. Parmenides, too, assures us, that he was the first person who\nasserted the identity of Hesperus and Lucifer.\n\nXV. And he was so greatly admired, that they used to say that his friends\nlooked on all his sayings as the oracles of God.[109] And he himself\nsays in his writings, that he had come among men after having spent two\nhundred and seven years in the shades below. Therefore the Lucanians\nand the Peucetians, and the Messapians, and the Romans, flocked around\nhim, coming with eagerness to hear his discourses; but until the time of\nPhilolaus there were no doctrines of Pythagoras ever divulged; and he was\nthe first person who published the three celebrated books which Plato\nwrote to have purchased for him for a hundred min\u00e6. Nor were the number\nof his scholars who used to come to him by night fewer than six hundred.\nAnd if any of them had ever been permitted to see him, they wrote of it\nto their friends, as if they had gained some great advantage.\n\nThe people of Metapontum used to call his house the temple of Ceres; and\nthe street leading to it they called the street of the Muses, as we are\ntold by Phavorinus in his Universal History.\n\nAnd the rest of the Pythagoreans used to say, according to the account\ngiven by Aristoxenus, in the tenth book of his Laws on Education, that\nhis precepts ought not to be divulged to all the world; and Xenophilus,\nthe Pythagorean, when he was asked what was the best way for a man to\neducate his son, said, \u201cThat he must first of all take care that he was\nborn in a city which enjoyed good laws.\u201d\n\nPythagoras, too, formed many excellent men in Italy, by his precepts,\nand among them Zaleucus,[110] and Charondas,[111] the lawgivers.\n\nXVI. For he was very eminent for his power of attracting friendships; and\namong other things, if ever he heard that any one had any community of\nsymbols with him, he at once made him a companion and a friend.\n\nXVII. Now, what he called his symbols were such as these. \u201cDo not stir\nthe fire with a sword.\u201d \u201cDo not sit down on a bushel.\u201d \u201cDo not devour\nyour heart.\u201d \u201cDo not aid men in discarding a burden, but in increasing\none.\u201d \u201cAlways have your bed packed up.\u201d \u201cDo not bear the image of a God\non a ring.\u201d \u201cEfface the traces of a pot in the ashes.\u201d \u201cDo not wipe a\nseat with a lamp.\u201d \u201cDo not make water in the sunshine.\u201d \u201cDo not walk in\nthe main street.\u201d \u201cDo not offer your right hand lightly.\u201d \u201cDo not cherish\nswallows under your roof.\u201d \u201cDo not cherish birds with crooked talons.\u201d\n\u201cDo not defile; and do not stand upon the parings of your nails, or the\ncuttings of your hair.\u201d \u201cAvoid a sharp sword.\u201d \u201cWhen you are travelling\nabroad, look not back at your own borders.\u201d Now the precept not to stir\nfire with a sword meant, not to provoke the anger or swelling pride\nof powerful men; not to violate the beam of the balance meant, not to\ntransgress fairness and justice; not to sit on a bushel is to have an\nequal care for the present and for the future, for by the bushel is meant\none\u2019s daily food. By not devouring one\u2019s heart, he intended to show\nthat we ought not to waste away our souls with grief and sorrow. In the\nprecept that a man when travelling abroad should not turn his eyes back,\nhe recommended those who were departing from life not to be desirous to\nlive, and not to be too much attracted by the pleasures here on earth.\nAnd the other symbols may be explained in a similar manner, that we may\nnot be too prolix here.\n\nXVIII. And above all things, he used to prohibit the eating of the\nerythinus, and the melanurus; and also, he enjoined his disciples to\nabstain from the hearts of animals, and from beans. And Aristotle informs\nus, that he sometimes used also to add to these prohibitions paunches\nand mullet. And some authors assert that he himself used to be contented\nwith honey and honeycomb, and bread, and that he never drank wine in the\nday time. And his desert was usually vegetables, either boiled or raw;\nand he very rarely ate fish. His dress was white, very clean, and his\nbed-clothes were also white, and woollen, for linen had not yet been\nintroduced into that country. He was never known to have eaten too much,\nor to have drunk too much, or to indulge in the pleasures of love. He\nabstained wholly from laughter, and from all such indulgences as jests\nand idle stories. And when he was angry, he never chastised any one,\nwhether slave or freeman. He used to call admonishing, feeding storks.\n\nHe used to practise divination, as far as auguries and auspices go, but\nnot by means of burnt offerings, except only the burning of frankincense.\nAnd all the sacrifices which he offered consisted of inanimate things.\nBut some, however, assert that he did sacrifice animals, limiting himself\nto cocks, and sucking kids, which are called \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, but that he very\nrarely offered lambs. Aristoxenus, however, affirms that he permitted\nthe eating of all other animals, and only abstained from oxen used in\nagriculture, and from rams.\n\nXIX. The same author tells us, as I have already mentioned, that he\nreceived his doctrines from Themistoclea, at Delphi. And Hieronymus\nsays, that when he descended to the shades below, he saw the soul of\nHesiod bound to a brazen pillar, and gnashing its teeth; and that of\nHomer suspended from a tree, and snakes around it, as a punishment for\nthe things that they had said of the Gods. And that those people also\nwere punished who refrained from commerce with their wives; and that on\naccount of this he was greatly honoured by the people of Crotona.\n\nBut Aristippus, of Cyrene, in his Account of Natural Philosophers,\nsays that Pythagoras derived his name from the fact of his speaking\n(\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) truth no less than the God at Delphi (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5).\n\nIt is said that he used to admonish his disciples to repeat these lines\nto themselves whenever they returned home to their houses:\u2014\n\n In what have I transgress\u2019d? What have I done?\n What that I should have done have I omitted?\n\nAnd that he used to forbid them to offer victims to the Gods, ordering\nthem to worship only at those altars which were unstained with blood. He\nforbade them also to swear by the Gods; saying, \u201cThat every man ought\nso to exercise himself, as to be worthy of belief without an oath.\u201d He\nalso taught men that it behoved them to honour their elders, thinking\nthat which was precedent in point of time more honourable; just as in the\nworld, the rising of the sun was more so than the setting; in life, the\nbeginning more so than the end; and in animals, production more so than\ndestruction.\n\nAnother of his rules was that men should honour the Gods above the\nd\u00e6mones, heroes above men; and of all men parents were entitled to the\nhighest degree of reverence. Another, that people should associate with\none another in such a way as not to make their friends enemies, but to\nrender their enemies friends. Another was that they should think nothing\nexclusively their own. Another was to assist the law, and to make\nwar upon lawlessness. Not to destroy or injure a cultivated tree, nor\nany animal either which does not injure men. That modesty and decorum\nconsisted in never yielding to laughter, and yet not looking stern.\nHe taught that men should avoid too much flesh, that they should in\ntravelling let rest and exertion alternate; that they should exercise\nmemory; that they should never say or do anything in anger; that they\nshould not pay respect to every kind of divination; that they should\nuse songs set to the lyre; and by hymns to the Gods and to eminent men,\ndisplay a reasonable gratitude to them.\n\nHe also forbade his disciples to eat beans, because, as they were\nflatulent, they greatly partook of animal properties [he also said that\nmen kept their stomachs in better order by avoiding them]; and that such\nabstinence made the visions which appear in one\u2019s sleep gentle and free\nfrom agitation. Alexander also says, in his Successions of Philosophers,\nthat he found the following dogmas also set down in the Commentaries of\nPythagoras:\u2014\n\nThat the monad was the beginning of everything. From the monad proceeds\nan indefinite duad, which is subordinate to the monad as to its cause.\nThat from the monad and the indefinite duad proceed numbers. And from\nnumbers signs. And from these last, lines of which plane figures consist.\nAnd from plane figures are derived solid bodies. And from solid bodies\nsensible bodies, of which last there are four elements; fire, water,\nearth, and air. And that the world, which is endued with life, and\nintellect, and which is of a spherical figure, having the earth, which\nis also spherical, and inhabited all over in its centre, results from a\ncombination of these elements, and derives its motion from them; and also\nthat there are antipodes,[112] and that what is below, as respects us, is\nabove in respect of them.\n\nHe also taught that light and darkness and cold and heat, and dryness and\nmoisture, were equally divided in the world; and that, while heat was\npredominant it was summer; while cold had the mastery it was winter; when\ndryness prevailed it was spring; and when moisture preponderated, winter.\nAnd while all these qualities were on a level, then was the loveliest\nseason of the year; of which the flourishing spring was the wholesome\nperiod, and the season of autumn the most pernicious one. Of the day, he\nsaid that the flourishing period was the morning, and the fading one the\nevening; on which account that also was the least healthy time.\n\nAnother of his theories was, that the air around the earth was\nimmoveable, and pregnant with disease, and that everything in it was\nmortal; but that the upper air was in perpetual motion, and pure and\nsalubrious; and that everything in that was immortal, and on that account\ndivine. And that the sun, and the moon, and the stars, were all Gods;\nfor in them the warm principle predominates which is the cause of life.\nAnd that the moon derives its light from the sun. And that there is a\nrelationship between men and the Gods, because men partake of the divine\nprinciple; on which account also, God exercises his providence for our\nadvantage. Also, that fate is the cause of the arrangement of the world\nboth generally and particularly. Moreover, that a ray from the sun\npenetrated both the cold \u00e6ther and the dense \u00e6ther; and they call the air\n(\u1f00\u1f74\u03c1), the cold \u00e6ther (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1), and the sea and moisture they call\nthe dense \u00e6ther (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1). And this ray descends into the depths,\nand in this way vivifies everything. And everything which partakes of\nthe principle of heat lives, on which account also plants are animated\nbeings; but that all living things have not necessarily souls. And that\nthe soul is a something torn off from the \u00e6ther, both warm and cold, from\nits partaking of the cold \u00e6ther. And that the soul is something different\nfrom life. Also, that it is immortal, because that from which it has been\ndetached is immortal.\n\nAlso, that animals are born from one another by seeds, and that it is\nimpossible for there to be any spontaneous production by the earth.\nAnd that seed is a drop from the brain which contains in itself a warm\nvapour; and that when this is applied to the womb, it transmits virtue,\nand moisture, and blood from the brain, from which flesh, and sinews, and\nbones, and hair, and the whole body are produced. And from the vapour is\nproduced the soul, and also sensation. And that the infant first becomes\na solid body at the end of forty days; but, according to the principles\nof harmony, it is not perfect till seven, or perhaps nine, or at most ten\nmonths, and then it is brought forth. And that it contains in itself all\nthe principles of life, which are all connected together, and by their\nunion and combination form a harmonious whole, each of them developing\nitself at the appointed time.\n\nThe senses in general, and especially the sight, are a vapour of\nexcessive warmth, and on this account a man is said to see through air,\nand through water. For the hot principle is opposed by the cold one;\nsince, if the vapour in the eyes were cold, it would have the same\ntemperature as the air, and so would be dissipated. As it is, in some\npassages he calls the eyes the gates of the sun. And he speaks in a\nsimilar manner of hearing, and of the other senses.\n\nHe also says that the soul of man is divided into three parts; into\nintuition (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), and reason (\u03c6\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd), and mind (\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2), and that the first\nand last divisions are found also in other animals, but that the middle\none, reason, is only found in man. And that the chief abode of the soul\nis in those parts of the body which are between the heart and the brain.\nAnd that that portion of it which is in the heart is the mind (\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2);\nbut that deliberation (\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2), and reason (\u03c6\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd), reside in the brain.[113]\n\nMoreover, that the senses are drops from them; and that the reasoning\nsense is immortal, but the others are mortal. And that the soul is\nnourished by the blood; and that reasons are the winds of the soul.\nThat it is invisible, and so are its reasons, since the \u00e6ther itself is\ninvisible. That the links of the soul are the veins, and the arteries,\nand the nerves. But that when it is vigorous, and is by itself in a\nquiescent state, then its links are words and actions. That when it\nis cast forth upon the earth it wanders about, resembling the body.\nMoreover, that Mercury is the steward of the souls, and that on this\naccount he has the name of Conductor, and Commercial, and Infernal,\nsince it is he who conducts the souls from their bodies, and from earth,\nand sea; and that he conducts the pure souls to the highest region, and\nthat he does not allow the impure ones to approach them, nor to come\nnear one another; but commits them to be bound in indissoluble fetters\nby the Furies. The Pythagoreans also assert, that the whole air is full\nof souls, and that these are those which are accounted d\u00e6mones, and\nheroes. Also, that it is by them that dreams are sent among men, and\nalso the tokens of disease and health; these last too, being sent not\nonly to men, but to sheep also, and other cattle. Also, that it is they\nwho are concerned with purifications, and expiations, and all kinds of\ndivination, and oracular predictions, and things of that kind.\n\nThey also say, that the most important privilege in man is, the being\nable to persuade his soul to either good or bad. And that men are happy\nwhen they have a good soul; yet, that they are never quiet, and that they\nnever retain the same mind long. Also, that an oath is justice; and that\non that account, Jupiter is called Jupiter of Oaths (\u1f4d\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2). Also, that\nvirtue is harmony, and health, and universal good, and God; on which\naccount everything owes its existence and consistency to harmony. Also,\nthat friendship is a harmonious equality.\n\nAgain, they teach that one ought not to pay equal honours to Gods\nand to heroes; but that one ought to honour the Gods at all times,\nextolling them with praises, clothed in white garments, and keeping one\u2019s\nbody chaste; but that one ought not to pay such honour to the heroes\ntill after midday. Also, that a state of purity is brought about by\npurifications, and washings, and sprinklings, and by a man\u2019s purifying\nhimself from all funerals, or concubinage, or pollution of every kind,\nand by abstaining from all flesh that has either been killed or died of\nitself, and from mullets, and from melanuri, and from eggs, and from such\nanimals as lay eggs, and from beans, and from other things which are\nprohibited by those who have the charge of the mysteries in the temples.\n\nAnd Aristotle says, in his treatise on Beans, that Pythagoras enjoined\nhis disciples to abstain from beans, either because they resemble some\npart of the human body, or because they are like the gates of hell (for\nthey are the only plants without parts); or because they dry up other\nplants, or because they are representatives of universal nature, or\nbecause they are used in elections in oligarchical governments. He also\nforbade his disciples to pick up what fell from the table, for the sake\nof accustoming them not to eat immoderately, or else because such things\nbelong to the dead.\n\nBut Aristophanes says, that what falls belongs to the heroes; saying, in\nhis Heroes:\u2014\n\n Never taste the things which fall\n From the table on the floor.\n\nHe also forbade his disciples to eat white poultry, because a cock of\nthat colour was sacred to Month, and was also a suppliant. He was also\naccounted a good animal;[114] and he was sacred to the God Month, for he\nindicates the time.\n\nThe Pythagoreans were also forbidden to eat of all fish that were sacred;\non the ground that the same animals ought not to be served up before both\nGods and men, just as the same things do not belong to freemen and to\nslaves. Now, white is an indication of a good nature, and black of a bad\none. Another of the precepts of Pythagoras was, that men ought not to\nbreak bread; because in ancient times friends used to assemble around one\nloaf, as they even now do among the barbarians. Nor would he allow men to\ndivide bread which unites them. Some think that he laid down this rule in\nreference to the judgment which takes place in hell; some because this\npractice engenders timidity in war. According to others, what is alluded\nto is the Union, which presides over the government of the universe.\n\nAnother of his doctrines was, that of all solid figures the sphere was\nthe most beautiful; and of all plane figures, the circle. That old\nage and all diminution were similar, and also increase and youth were\nidentical. That health was the permanence of form, and disease the\ndestruction of it. Of salt his opinion was, that it ought to be set\nbefore people as a reminder of justice; for salt preserves everything\nwhich it touches, and it is composed of the purest particles of water\nand sea.\n\nThese are the doctrines which Alexander asserts that he discovered in the\nPythagorean treatises; and Aristotle gives a similar account of them.\n\nXV. Timon, in his Silli, has not left unnoticed the dignified appearance\nof Pythagoras, when he attacks him on other points. And his words are\nthese:\u2014\n\n Pythagoras, who often teaches\n Precepts of magic, and with speeches\n Of long high-sounding diction draws,\n From gaping crowds, a vain applause.\n\nAnd respecting his having been different people at different times,\nXenophanes adds his evidence in an elegiac poem which commences thus:\u2014\n\n Now I will on another subject touch,\n And lead the way.\n\nAnd the passage in which he mentions Pythagoras is as follows:\u2014\n\n They say that once, as passing by he saw\n A dog severely beaten, he did pity him,\n And spoke as follows to the man who beat him:\u2014\n \u201cStop now, and beat him not; since in his body,\n Abides the soul of a dear friend of mine,\n Whose voice I recognized as he was crying.\u201d\n\nThese are the words of Xenophanes.\n\nCratinus also ridiculed him in his Pythagorean Woman; but in his\nTarentines, he speaks thus:\u2014\n\n They are accustomed, if by chance they see\n A private individual abroad,\n To try what powers of argument he has,\n How he can speak and reason: and they bother him\n With strange antithesis and forced conclusions,\n Errors, comparisons, and magnitudes,\n Till they have filled and quite perplex\u2019d his mind.\n\nAnd Mnesimachus says in his Alcm\u00e6on:\u2014\n\n As we do sacrifice to the Ph\u0153bus whom\n Pythagoras worships, never eating aught\n Which has the breath of life.\n\nAristophon says in his Pythagorean:\u2014\n\n _A._ He said that when he did descend below\n Among the shades in Hell, he there beheld\n All men who e\u2019er had died; and there he saw,\n That the Pythagoreans differ\u2019d much\n From all the rest; for that with them alone\n Did Pluto deign to eat, much honouring\n Their pious habits.\n\n _B._ He\u2019s a civil God,\n If he likes eating with such dirty fellows.\n\nAnd again, in the same play he says:\u2014\n\n They eat\n Nothing but herbs and vegetables, and drink\n Pure water only. But their lice are such,\n Their cloaks so dirty, and their unwash\u2019d scent\n So rank, that no one of our younger men\n Will for a moment bear them.\n\nXXI. Pythagoras died in this manner. When he was sitting with some of\nhis companions in Milo\u2019s house, some one of those whom he did not think\nworthy of admission into it, was excited by envy to set fire to it. But\nsome say that the people of Crotona themselves did this, being afraid\nlest he might aspire to the tyranny. And that Pythagoras was caught as\nhe was trying to escape; and coming to a place full of beans, he stopped\nthere, saying that it was better to be caught than to trample on the\nbeans, and better to be slain than to speak; and so he was murdered\nby those who were pursuing him. And in this way, also, most of his\ncompanions were slain; being in number about forty; but that a very few\ndid escape, among whom were Archippus, of Tarentum, and Lysis, whom I\nhave mentioned before.\n\nBut Dic\u00e6archus relates that Pythagoras died afterwards, having escaped\nas far as the temple of the Muses, at Metapontum, and that he died there\nof starvation, having abstained from food for forty days. And Heraclides\nsays, in his abridgment of the life of Satyrus, that after he had buried\nPherecydes in Delos, he returned to Italy, and finding there a superb\nbanquet prepared at the house of Milo, of Crotona, he left Crotona, and\nwent to Metapontum, and there put an end to his life by starvation, not\nwishing to live any longer. But Hermippus says, that when there was war\nbetween the people of Agrigentum and the Syracusans, Pythagoras went out\nwith his usual companions, and took the part of the Agrigentines; and\nas they were put to flight, he ran all round a field of beans, instead\nof crossing it, and so was slain by the Syracusans; and that the rest,\nbeing about five-and-thirty in number, were burnt at Tarentum, when they\nwere trying to excite a sedition in the state against the principal\nmagistrates.\n\nHermippus also relates another story about Pythagoras. For he says that\nwhen he was in Italy, he made a subterraneous apartment, and charged his\nmother to write an account of everything that took place, marking the\ntime of each on a tablet, and then to send them down to him, until he\ncame up again; and that his mother did so; and that Pythagoras came up\nagain after a certain time, lean, and reduced to a skeleton; and that\nhe came into the public assembly, and said that he had arrived from the\nshades below, and then he recited to them all that had happened during\nhis absence. And they, being charmed by what he told them, wept and\nlamented, and believed that Pythagoras was a divine being; so that they\neven entrusted their wives to him, as likely to learn some good from him;\nand that they too were called Pythagoreans. And this is the story of\nHermippus.\n\nXXII. And Pythagoras had a wife, whose name was Theano; the daughter of\nBrontinus, of Crotona. But some say that she was the wife of Brontinus,\nand only a pupil of Pythagoras. And he had a daughter named Damo, as\nLysis mentions in his letter to Hipparchus; where he speaks thus of\nPythagoras: \u201cAnd many say that you philosophize in public, as Pythagoras\nalso used to do; who, when he had entrusted his Commentaries to Damo,\nhis daughter, charged her to divulge them to no person out of the house.\nAnd she, though she might have sold his discourses for much money, would\nnot abandon them, for she thought poverty and obedience to her father\u2019s\ninjunctions more valuable than gold; and that too, though she was a\nwoman.\u201d\n\nHe had also a son, named Telauges, who was the successor of his father\nin his school, and who, according to some authors, was the teacher of\nEmpedocles. At least Hippobotus relates that Empedocles said:\u2014\n\n \u201cTelauges, noble youth, whom in due time,\n Theano bore to wise Pythagoras.\u201d\n\nBut there is no book extant, which is the work of Telauges, though\nthere are some extant, which are attributed to his mother Theano. And\nthey tell a story of her, that once, when she was asked how long a woman\nought to be absent from her husband to be pure, she said, the moment she\nleaves her own husband, she is pure; but she is never pure at all, after\nshe leaves any one else. And she recommended a woman, who was going to\nher husband, to put off her modesty with her clothes, and when she left\nhim, to resume it again with her clothes; and when she was asked, \u201cWhat\nclothes?\u201d she said, \u201cThose which cause you to be called a woman.\u201d\n\nXXIII. Now Pythagoras, as Heraclides, the son of Sarapion, relates, died\nwhen he was eighty years of age; according to his own account of his age,\nbut according to the common account, he was more than ninety. And we have\nwritten a sportive epigram on him, which is couched in the following\nterms:\u2014\n\n You\u2019re not the only man who has abstained\n From living food, for so likewise have we;\n And who, I\u2019d like to know did ever taste\n Food while alive, most sage Pythagoras?\n When meat is boil\u2019d, or roasted well and salted,\n I don\u2019t think it can well be called living.\n Which, therefore, without scruple then we eat it,\n And call it no more living flesh, but meat.\n\nAnd another, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n Pythagoras was so wise a man, that he\n Never eat meat himself, and called it sin.\n And yet he gave good joints of beef to others.\n So that I marvel at his principles;\n Who others wronged, by teaching them to do\n What he believed unholy for himself.\n\nAnd another, as follows:\u2014\n\n Should you Pythagoras\u2019 doctrine wish to know,\n Look on the centre of Euphorbus\u2019 shield.\n For he asserts there lived a man of old,\n And when he had no longer an existence,\n He still could say that he had been alive,\n Or else he would not still be living now.\n\nAnd this one too:\n\n Alas! alas! why did Pythagoras hold\n Beans in such wondrous honour? Why, besides,\n Did he thus die among his choice companions?\n There was a field of beans; and so the sage,\n Died in the common road of Agrigentum,\n Rather than trample down his favourite beans.\n\nXXIV. And he flourished about the sixtieth olympiad; and his system\nlasted for nine or ten generations. And the last of the Pythagoreans,\nwhom Aristoxenus knew, were Xenophilus, the Chalcidean, from Thrace; and\nPhanton, the Phliasian, and Echecrates, and Diodes, and Polymnestus, who\nwere also Phliasians, and they were disciples of Philolaus and Eurytus,\nof Tarentum.\n\nXXV. And there were four men of the name of Pythagoras, about the same\ntime, at no great distance from one another. One was a native of Crotona,\na man who attained tyrannical power; the second was a Phliasian, a\ntrainer of wrestlers, as some say; the third was a native of Zacynthus;\nthe fourth was this our philosopher, to whom they say the mysteries of\nphilosophy belong, in whose time that proverbial phrase, \u201cIpse dixit,\u201d\nwas introduced into ordinary life. Some also affirm, that there was\nanother man of the name of Pythagoras, a statuary of Rhodes; who is\nbelieved to have been the first discoverer of rhythm and proportion; and\nanother was a Samian statuary; and another an orator, of no reputation;\nand another was a physician, who wrote a treatise on Squills; and also\nsome essays on Homer; and another was a man, who wrote a history of the\naffairs of the Dorians, as we are told by Dionysius.\n\nBut Eratosthenes says, as Phavorinus quotes him, in the eighth book of\nhis Universal History, that this philosopher, of whom we are speaking,\nwas the first man who ever practised boxing in a scientific manner, in\nthe forty-eighth olympiad, having his hair long, and being clothed in a\npurple robe; and that he was rejected from the competition among boys,\nand being ridiculed for his application, he immediately entered among the\nmen, and came off victorious. And this statement is confirmed among other\nthings, by the epigram which The\u00e6tetus composed:\u2014\n\n Stranger, if e\u2019er you knew Pythagoras,\n Pythagoras, the man with flowing hair,\n The celebrated boxer, erst of Samos;\n I am Pythagoras. And if you ask\n A citizen of Elis of my deeds,\n You\u2019ll surely think he is relating fables.\n\nPhavorinus says, that he employed definitions, on account of the\nmathematical subjects to which he applied himself. And that Socrates\nand those who were his pupils, did so still more; and that they were\nsubsequently followed in this by Aristotle and the Stoics.\n\nHe too, was the first person, who ever gave the name of \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 to the\nuniverse, and the first who called the earth round; though Theophrastus\nattributes this to Parmenides, and Zeno to Hesiod. They say too,\nthat Cylon used to be a constant adversary of his, as Antidicus was\nof Socrates. And this epigram also used to be repeated, concerning\nPythagoras the athlete:\u2014\n\n Pythagoras of Samos, son of Crates,\n Came while a child to the Olympic games,\n Eager to battle for the prize in boxing.\n\nXXVI. There is a letter of this philosopher extant, which is couched in\nthe following terms:\u2014\n\nPYTHAGORAS TO ANAXIMENES.\n\n\u201cYou too, my most excellent friend, if you were not superior to\nPythagoras, in birth and reputation, would have migrated from Miletus\nand gone elsewhere. But now the reputation of your father keeps you\nback, which perhaps would have restrained me too, if I had been like\nAnaximenes. But if you, who are the most eminent man, abandon the cities,\nall their ornaments will be taken from them, and the Median power will\nbe more dangerous to them. Nor is it always seasonable to be studying\nastronomy, but it is more honourable to exhibit a regard for one\u2019s\ncountry. And I myself am not always occupied about speculations of my own\nfancy, but I am busied also with the wars which the Italians are waging\nagainst one another.\u201d\n\nBut since we have now finished our account of Pythagoras, we must also\nspeak of the most eminent of the Pythagoreans. After whom, we must\nmention those who are spoken of more promiscuously in connection with\nno particular school; and then we will connect the whole series of\nphilosophers worth speaking of, till we arrive at Epicurus, as we have\nalready promised.\n\nNow Telauges and Theano we have mentioned; and we must now speak of\nEmpedocles, in the first place, for, according to some accounts, he was a\npupil of Pythagoras.\n\n\nLIFE OF EMPEDOCLES.\n\nI. Empedocles, as Hippobotus relates, was the son of Meton, the son of\nEmpedocles, and a citizen of Agrigentum. And Tim\u00e6us, in the fifteenth\nbook of his Histories, gives the same account, adding that Empedocles,\nthe grandfather of the poet, was also a most eminent man. And Hermippus\ntells the same story as Tim\u00e6us; and in the same spirit Heraclides, in\nhis treatise on Diseases, relates that he was of an illustrious family,\nsince his father bred a fine stud of horses. Erastothenes, in his List\nof the Conquerors at the Olympic Games, says, that the father of Meton\ngained the victory in the seventy-first olympiad, quoting Aristotle as\nhis authority for the assertion.\n\nBut Apollodorus, the grammarian, in his Chronicles, says that he was the\nson of Meton; and Glaucus says that he came to Thurii when the city was\nonly just completed. And then proceeding a little further, he adds:\u2014\n\n And some relate that he did flee from thence,\n And came to Syracuse, and on their side\n Did fight in horrid war against th\u2019 Athenians;\n But those men seem to me completely wrong\u2014\n For by this time he must have been deceased,\n Or very old, which is not much believed;\n For Aristotle, and Heraclides too,\n Say that he died at sixty years of age.\n\nBut certainly the person who got the victory with a single horse in the\nseventy-first olympiad was a namesake of this man, and that it is which\ndeceived Apollodorus as to the age of this philosopher.\n\nBut Satyrus, in his Lives, asserts, that Empedocles was the son of\nEx\u00e6netus, and that he also left a son who was named Ex\u00e6netus. And\nthat in the same Olympiad, he himself gained the victory with the\nsingle horse; and his son, in wrestling, or, as Heraclides says in\nhis Abridgment, in running. But I have found in the Commentaries of\nPhavorinus, that Empedocles sacrificed, and gave as a feast to the\nspectators of the games, an ox made of honey and flour, and that he had a\nbrother named Callicratidas.\n\nBut Telauges, the son of Pythagoras, in his letters to Philolaus, says\nthat Empedocles was the son of Archinomus; and that he was a citizen of\nAgrigentum, he himself asserts at the beginning of his Purifications.\n\n Friends, who the mighty citadel inhabit,\n Which crowns the golden waves of Acragas.\n\nAnd this is enough to say about his family.\n\nII. Tim\u00e6us, in his ninth book, relates that he was a pupil of Pythagoras,\nsaying that he was afterwards convicted of having divulged his doctrines,\nin the same way as Plato was, and therefore that he was forbidden from\nthenceforth to attend his school. And they say that Pythagoras himself\nmentions him when he says:\u2014\n\n And in that band there was a learned man\n Of wondrous wisdom; one, who of all men\n Had the profoundest wealth of intellect.\n\nBut some say that when the philosopher says this, he is referring to\nParmenides.\n\nNeanthes relates, that till the time of Philolaus and Empedocles, the\nPythagoreans used to admit all persons indiscriminately into their\nschool; but when Empedocles made their doctrines public by means of his\npoems, then they made a law to admit no Epic poet. And they say that\nthe same thing happened to Plato; for that he too was excluded from the\nschool. But who was the teacher of the Pythagorean school that Empedocles\nwas a pupil of, they do not say; for, as for the letter of Telauges, in\nwhich he is stated to have been a pupil of Hippasus and Brontinus, that\nis not worthy of belief. But Theophrastus says that he was an imitator\nand a rival of Parmenides, in his poems, for that he too had delivered\nhis opinions on natural philosophy in epic verse.\n\nHermippus, however, says that he was an imitator, not of Parmenides,\nbut of Xenophanes with whom he lived; and that he imitated his epic\nstyle, and that it was at a later period that he fell in with the\nPythagoreans. But Alcidamas, in his Natural Philosophy, says, that Zeno\nand Empedocles were pupils of Parmenides, about the same time; and that\nthey subsequently seceded from him; and that Zeno adopted a philosophical\nsystem peculiar to himself; but that Empedocles became a pupil of\nAnaxagoras and Pythagoras, and that he imitated the pompous demeanour,\nand way of life, and gestures of the one, and the system of Natural\nPhilosophy of the other.\n\nIII. And Aristotle, in his Sophist, says that Empedocles was the first\nperson who invented rhetoric, and Zeno the first person who invented\ndialectics. And in his book on Poetry, he says, that Empedocles was a\nman of Homeric genius, and endowed with great power of language, and\na great master of metaphor, and a man who employed all the successful\nartifices of poetry, and also that when he had written several poems, and\namong them one on the passage of the Hellespont, by Xerxes, and also the\npro\u0153mium of a hymn to Apollo, his daughter subsequently burnt them, or,\nas Hieronymus says, his sister, burning the pro\u0153mium unintentionally,\nbut the Persian poem on purpose, because it was incomplete. And speaking\ngenerally, he says that he wrote tragedies and political treatises.\n\nBut Heraclides, the son of Sarapion, says that the tragedies were the\nwork of some other Empedocles; and Hieronymus says that he had met with\nforty-three. Neanthes, too, affirms that when he was a young man, he\nwrote tragedies, and that he himself had subsequently met with them; and\nSatyrus, in his Lives, states that he was a physician, and also a most\nexcellent orator. And accordingly, that Gorgias, of Leontini, was his\npupil, a man of the greatest eminence as a rhetorician, and one who left\nbehind him a treatise containing a complete system of the art; and who,\nas we are told by Apollodorus, in his Chronicles, lived to the age of a\nhundred and nine years.\n\nIV. Satyrus tells us that he used to say that he had been present when\nEmpedocles was practising magic; and that he professes this science, and\nmany others too in his poems when he says:\u2014\n\n And all the drugs which can relieve disease,\n Or soften the approach of age, shall be\n Revealed to your inquiries; I do know them,\n And I to you alone will them disclose.\n You shall restrain the fierce unbridled winds,\n Which, rushing o\u2019er the earth, bow down the corn,\n And crush the farmer\u2019s hopes. And when you will,\n You shall recall them back to sweep the land:\n Then you shall learn to dry the rainy clouds,\n And bid warm summer cheer the heart of men.\n Again, at your behest, the drought shall yield\n To wholesome show\u2019rs: when you give the word\n Hell shall restore its dead.\n\nV. And Tim\u00e6us, in his eighteenth book, says, that this man was held in\ngreat esteem on many accounts; for that once, when the etesian gales\nwere blowing violently, so as to injure the crops, he ordered some asses\nto be flayed, and some bladders to be made of their hides, and these he\nplaced on the hills and high places to catch the wind. And so, when the\nwind ceased, he was called wind-forbidder (\u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2). And Heraclides,\nin his treatise on Diseases, says that he dictated to Pausanias the\nstatement which he made about the dead woman. Now Pausanias, as both\nAristippus and Satyrus agree, was much attached to him; and he dedicated\nto him the works which he wrote on Natural Philosophy, in the following\nterms:\u2014\n\n Hear, O Pausanias, son of wise Anchites.\n\nHe also wrote an epigram upon him:\u2014\n\n Gela, his native land, does boast the birth\n Of wise Anchites\u2019 son, that great physician,\n So fitly named Pausanias,[115] from his skill;\n A genuine son of \u00c6sculapius,\n Who has stopped many men whom fell disease\n Marked for its own, from treading those dark paths\n Which lead to Proserpine\u2019s infernal realms.\n\nVI. The case of the dead woman above mentioned, Heraclides says, was\nsomething of this sort; that he kept her corpse for thirty days dead,\nand yet free from corruption; on which account he has called himself a\nphysician and a prophet, taking it also from these verses:\u2014\n\n Friends who the mighty citadel inhabit,\n Which crowns the golden waves of Acragas\n Votaries of noble actions, Hail to ye;\n I, an immortal God, no longer mortal,\n Now live among you well revered by all,\n As is my due, crowned with holy fillets\n And rosy garlands. And whene\u2019er I come\n To wealthy cities, then from men and women\n Due honours meets me; and crowds follow me,\n Seeking the way which leads to gainful glory.\n Some ask for oracles, and some entreat,\n For remedies against all kinds of sickness.\n\nVII. And he says that Agrigentum was a very large city, since it had\neight hundred thousand inhabitants; on which account Empedocles, seeing\nthe people immersed in luxury, said, \u201cThe men of Agrigentum devote\nthemselves wholly to luxury as if they were to die to-morrow, but they\nfurnish their houses as if they were to live for ever.\u201d\n\nVIII. It is said that Cleomenes, the rhapsodist, sung this very poem,\ncalled the Purifications, at Olympia; at least this is the account given\nby Phavorinus, in his Commentaries.\n\nIX. And Aristotle says, that he was a most liberal man, and far removed\nfrom anything like a domineering spirit; since he constantly refused\nthe sovereign power when it was offered to him, as Xanthus assures us\nin his account of him, showing plainly that he preferred a simple style\nof living. And Tim\u00e6us tells the same story, giving at the same time the\nreason why he was so very popular. For he says that when on one occasion,\nhe was invited to a banquet by one of the magistrates, the wine was\ncarried about, but the supper was not served up. And as every one else\nkept silence, he, disapproving of what he saw, bade the servants bring in\nthe supper; but the person who had invited him said that he was waiting\nfor the secretary of the council. And when he came he was appointed\nmaster of the feast, at the instigation of the giver of it, and then he\ngave a plain intimation of his tyrannical inclinations, for he ordered\nall the guests to drink, and those who did not drink were to have the\nwine poured over their heads. Empedocles said nothing at the moment,\nbut the next day he summoned them before the court, and procured the\nexecution of both the entertainer and the master of the feast.\n\nAnd this was the beginning of his political career. And at another\ntime, when Acron, the physician, asked of the council a place where he\nmight erect a monument to his father, on account of his eminence as a\nphysician, Empedocles came forward and opposed any such grant, adducing\nmany arguments on the ground of equality, and also putting the following\nquestion:\u2014\u201cAnd what elegy shall we inscribe upon it? Shall we say:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u2019 \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\u201d[116]\n\nBut some give the second line thus:\u2014\n\n \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nAnd others assert that it is the composition of Simonides.\n\nBut afterwards Empedocles abolished the assembly of a thousand, and\nestablished a council in which the magistrates were to hold office for\nthree years, on such a footing that it should consist not only of rich\nmen, but of those who were favourers of the interests of the people.\nTim\u00e6us, however, in his first and second book (for he often mentions\nhim), says that he appeared to entertain opinions adverse to a republic.\nAnd, as far as his poetry goes, any one may see that he was arrogant and\nself-satisfied. Accordingly, he says:\u2014\n\n Hail to ye,\n I, an immortal God, no longer mortal,\n Now live among you:\n\nAnd so on.\n\nBut when he went to the olympic games he was considered a worthy object\nof general attention; so that there was no mention made of any one else\nin comparison of Empedocles.\n\nX. Afterwards, indeed, when Agrigentum was settled, the descendants\nof his enemies opposed his return; on which account he retired to\nPeloponnesus, where he died. And Timon has not let even Empedocles\nescape, but satirises him in this style, saying:\u2014\n\n And then Empedocles, the honeyed speaker\n Of soft forensic speeches; he did take\n As many offices as he was able,\n Creating magistrates who wanted helpers.\n\nBut there are two accounts of the manner of his death.\n\nXI. For Heraclides, relating the story about the dead woman, how\nEmpedocles got great glory from sending away a dead woman restored to\nlife, says that he celebrated a sacrifice in the field of Pisianax, and\nthat some of his friends were invited, among whom was Pausanias. And\nthen, after the banquet, they lay down, some going a little way off, and\nsome lying under the trees close by in the field, and some wherever they\nhappened to choose. But Empedocles himself remained in the place where he\nhad been sitting. But when day broke, and they arose, he alone was not\nfound. And when he was sought for, and the servants were examined and\nsaid that they did not know, one of them said, that at midnight he had\nheard a loud voice calling Empedocles; and that then he himself rose up\nand saw a great light from heaven, but nothing else. And as they were all\namazed at what had taken place, Pausanias descended and sent some people\nto look for him; but afterwards he was commanded not to busy himself\nabout the matter, as he was informed that what had happened was deserving\nof thankfulness, and that they behoved to sacrifice to Empedocles as to\none who had become a God.\n\nHermippus says also, that a woman of the name of Panthea, a native of\nAgrigentum, who had been given over by the physicians, was cured by him,\nand that it was on this account that he celebrated a sacrifice; and that\nthe guests invited were about eighty in number. But Hippobotus says that\nhe rose up and went away as if he were going to mount \u00c6tna; and that when\nhe arrived at the crater of fire he leaped in, and disappeared, wishing\nto establish a belief that he had become a God. But afterwards the truth\nwas detected by one of his slippers having been dropped. For he used to\nwear slippers with brazen soles. Pausanias, however, contradicts this\nstatement.[117]\n\nBut Diodorus, of Ephesus, writing about Anaximander, says that Empedocles\nimitated him; indulging in a tragic sort of pride, and wearing\nmagnificent apparel. And when a pestilence attacked the people of\nSelinus, by reason of the bad smells arising from the adjacent river, so\nthat the men died and the women bore dead children, Empedocles contrived\na plan, and brought into the same channel two other rivers at his own\nexpense; and so, by mixing their waters with that of the other river, he\nsweetened the stream. And as the pestilence was removed in this way, when\nthe people of Selinus were on one occasion holding a festival on the bank\nof the river, Empedocles appeared among them; and they rising up, offered\nhim adoration, and prayed to him as to a God. And he, wishing to confirm\nthis idea which they had adopted of him, leaped into the fire.\n\nBut Tim\u00e6us contradicts all these stories; saying expressly, that he\ndeparted into Peloponnesus, and never returned at all, on which account\nthe manner of his death is uncertain. And he especially denies the\ntale of Heraclides in his fourth book; for he says that Pisianax was\na Syracusan, and had no field in the district of Agrigentum; but that\nPausanias erected a monument in honour of his friend, since such a\nreport had got about concerning him; and, as he was a rich man, made it\na statue and little chapel, as one might erect to a God. \u201cHow then,\u201d\nadds Tim\u00e6us, \u201ccould he have leaped into a crater, of which, though they\nwere in the neighbourhood, he had never made any mention? He died then\nin Peloponnesus; and there is nothing extraordinary in there being no\ntomb of his to be seen; for there are many other men who have no tomb\nvisible.\u201d These are the words of Tim\u00e6us; and he adds further, \u201cBut\nHeraclides is altogether a man fond of strange stories, and one who would\nassert that a man had fallen from the moon.\u201d\n\nHippobotus says, that there was a clothed statue of Empedocles which\nlay formerly in Agrigentum, but which was afterwards placed in front of\nthe Senate House of the Romans divested of its clothing, as the Romans\nhad carried it off and erected it there. And there are traces of some\ninscriptions or reliefs still discernible on it.\n\nNeanthes of Cyzicus, who also wrote about the Pythagoreans, says, that\nwhen Meton was dead, the seeds of tyrannical power began to appear; and\nthat then Empedocles persuaded the Agrigentines to desist from their\nfactious disputes, and to establish political equality. And besides, as\nthere were many of the female citizens destitute of dowry, he portioned\nthem out of his own private fortune. And relying on these actions of\nhis, he assumed a purple robe and wore a golden circlet on his hand, as\nPhavorinus relates in the first book of his Commentaries. He also wore\nslippers with brazen soles, and a Delphian garland. His hair was let\ngrow very long, and he had boys to follow him; and he himself always\npreserved a solemn countenance, and a uniformly grave deportment. And\nhe marched about in such style, that he seemed to all the citizens, who\nmet him and who admired his deportment, to exhibit a sort of likeness to\nkingly power. And afterwards, it happened that as on the occasion of some\nfestival he was going in a chariot to Messene, he was upset and broke his\nthigh; and he was taken ill in consequence, and so died, at the age of\nseventy-seven. And his tomb is in Megara.\n\nBut as to his age, Aristotle differs from this account of Neanthes;\nfor he asserts that he died at sixty years of age; others again say,\nthat he was a hundred and nine when he died. He flourished about the\neighty-fourth olympiad. Demetrius, of Tr\u0153zen, in his book against the\nSophists, reports that, as the lines of Homer say:\u2014\n\n He now, self-murdered, from a beam depends,\n And his mad soul to blackest hell descends.[118]\n\nBut in the letter of Telauges, which has been mentioned before, it is\nsaid that he slipped down through old age, and fell into the sea, and so\ndied.\n\nAnd this is enough to say about his death.\n\nThere is also a jesting epigram of ours upon him, in our collection of\nPoems in all Metres, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n You too, Empedocles, essayed to purge\n Your body in the rapid flames, and drank\n The liquid fire from the restless crater;\n I say not that you threw yourself at once\n Into the stream of \u00c6tna\u2019s fiery flood.\n But seeking to conceal yourself you fell,\n And so you met with unintended death.\n\nAnd another:\u2014\n\n \u2019Tis said the wise Empedocles did fall\n Out of his chariot, and so broke his thigh:\n But if he leapt into the flames of \u00c6tna,\n How could his tomb be shown in Megara?\n\nXII. The following were some of his doctrines. He used to assert that\nthere were four elements, fire, water, earth, and air. And that that\nis friendship by which they are united, and discord by which they are\nseparated. And he speaks thus on this subject:\u2014\n\n Bright Jove, life-giving Juno, Pluto dark,\n And Nestis, who fills mortal eyes with tears.\n\nMeaning by Jove fire, by Juno the earth, by Pluto the air, and by Nestis\nwater. And these things, says he, never cease alternating with one\nanother; inasmuch as this arrangement is perpetual. Accordingly, he says\nsubsequently:\u2014\n\n Sometimes in friendship bound they coalesce,\n Sometimes they\u2019re parted by fell discord\u2019s hate.\n\nAnd he asserts that the sun is a vast assemblage of fire, and that it is\nlarger than the moon. And the moon is disk-shaped; and that the heaven\nitself is like crystal; and that the soul inhabits every kind of form of\nanimals and plants. Accordingly, he thus expresses himself.\n\n For once I was a boy, and once a girl.\n A bush, a bird, a fish who swims the sea,\n\nXIII. His writings on Natural Philosophy and his Purifications extend\nto five thousand verses; and his Medical Poem to six hundred; and his\nTragedies we have spoken of previously.\n\n\nLIFE OF EPICHARMUS.\n\nI. Epicharmus was a native of Cos, the son of Helothales; he also was\na pupil of Pythagoras. When he was three months old he was brought to\nMegara, in Sicily, and from thence he came to Syracuse, as he himself\ntells us in his writings. And on his statue there is the following\ninscription.\n\n As the bright sun excels the other stars,\n As the sea far exceeds the river streams:\n So does sage Epicharmus men surpass,\n Whom hospitable Syracuse has crowned.\n\nII. He has left behind him Commentaries in which he treats of natural\nphilosophy, and delivers apophthegms, and discusses medicine. He has\nalso added brief notes to many of his commentaries, in which he declares\nplainly that he is the author of the works.\n\nIII. He died at the age of ninety years.\n\n\nLIFE OF ARCHYTAS.\n\nI. Archytas was a native of Tarentum, and the son of Mnesagoras; or, as\nAristoxenus relates, of Histi\u00e6us.\n\nII. He also was a Pythagorean; and he it was who saved Plato\u2019s life\nby means of a letter, when he was in danger of being put to death by\nDionysius.\n\nIII. He was a man held in very general esteem on account of his universal\nvirtue; and he was seven times appointed general of his countrymen, when\nno one else had ever held the office for more than one year, as the law\nforbade it to be held for a longer period.\n\nIV. Plato wrote his letters to him; as he had begun the correspondence by\nwriting himself to Plato, which he did in the following manner:\u2014\n\nARCHYTAS TO PLATO, GREETING.\n\n\u201cI am very glad that you have recovered from your delicate state of\nhealth; for you yourself have sent me word of your recovery, and Lamiscus\ngives the same account. I have been much occupied with some commentaries,\nand have been among the Lucanians, and have met with the descendants of\nOcellus. I have now in my possession, and I send to you the treatises on\nLaw, and Kingly Power, and Piety, and the Creation of the Universe. As\nfor the rest, I have not been able to find them, but whenever I do find\nany, I will send them to you.\u201d\n\nThus wrote Archytas. And Plato sent him an answer in the following terms:\u2014\n\nPLATO TO ARCHYTAS, GREETING.\n\n\u201cI was exceedingly glad to receive the Commentaries which came from you,\nand I have admired their author in the greatest possible degree; and he\nseems to us to be a man worthy of his ancient ancestors. For they are\nsaid to have been originally natives of Myra; and to have been among the\nTrojans, whom Laomedon took with him, gallant men, as the story handed\ndown by tradition attests. As for my Commentaries which you ask me for,\nthey are not yet completed, but such as they are I send them to you. And\non the propriety of taking care of such things we are both agreed, so\nthat I have no need to impress anything on you on that head. Farewell.\u201d\n\nThese then are the letters which these philosophers wrote to one another.\n\nV. There were four people of the name of Archytas. The first, this man\nof whom we are speaking. The second was a Mytilenean, a musician. The\nthird wrote a treatise on Agriculture. The fourth was an epigrammatic\npoet. Some writers also make mention of a fifth, who was an architect;\nand there is a book on mechanics extant which is attributed to him; which\nbegins in this way:\u2014\n\n\u201cThis is what I heard from Teucer, the Carthaginian.\u201d\n\nAnd concerning the musician, the following story is told: That once he\nwas reproached for not making himself heard, and he replied, \u201cMy organ\ncontends on my behalf, and speaks.\u201d\n\nVI. Aristoxenus says, that this Pythagorean was never once defeated while\nacting as general. But that as he was attacked by envy, he once gave up\nhis command, and his army was immediately taken prisoner.\n\nVII. He was the first person who applied mathematical principles to\nmechanics, and reduced them to a system; and the first also who gave a\nmethodical impulse to descriptive geometry in seeking, in the sections of\na demicylinder for a proportional mean, which should enable him to find\nthe double of a given cube. He was also the first person who ever gave\nthe geometrical measure of a cube, as Plato mentions in his Republic.\n\n\nLIFE OF ALCM\u00c6ON.\n\nI. Alcm\u00e6on was a citizen of Crotona; he also was a pupil of Pythagoras.\nAnd the chief part of his writings are on medical subjects; but he also\nat times discusses points of natural philosophy, and asserts that the\ngreater part of human affairs have two sides. He appears to have been the\nfirst person who wrote a treatise on Natural Philosophy, as Phavorinus\naffirms, in his Universal History; and he used to argue that the moon had\nthe same nature for ever which she had at that moment.\n\nII. He was the son of Pirithus, as he himself states at the beginning of\nhis treatise, where he says, \u201cAlcm\u00e6on, of Crotona, the son of Pirithus,\nsays this to Brontinus, and Leon, and Bathyllus. About things invisible,\nand things mortal, the Gods alone have a certain knowledge; but men may\nform conjectures.\u2026\u201d And so on.\n\nHe used also to say that the soul was immortal, and that it was in a\nstate of perpetual motion in the same way as the sun.\n\n\nLIFE OF HIPPASUS.\n\nI. Hippasus was a citizen of Metapontum, and a pupil of Pythagoras.\n\nII. He used to say that the time of the changes of the world was\ndefinite, and that the universe also was finite, and in a state of\nperpetual motion.\n\nIII. Demetrius, in his treatise on People of the same Name, says that he\nleft no writings behind him.\n\nIV. There were two people of the name of Hippasus; this man, and another\nwho wrote an account of the Constitution of the Laced\u00e6monians, in five\nbooks. And he was himself a Laced\u00e6monian.\n\n\nLIFE OF PHILOLAUS.\n\nI. Philolaus was a native of Crotona, and a pupil of Pythagoras, it was\nfrom him that Plato wrote to Dion to take care and purchase the books of\nPythagoras.\n\nII. And he died under suspicion of having designed to seize on the\ntyranny; and we have written an epigram on him:\u2014\n\n I say that all men ought above all things\n To guard against suspicion. For, though innocent,\n Still if you are suspected, you\u2019re unfortunate.\n And thus his native city of Crotona\n Slew Philolaus; for the jealous citizens\n Thought that his house betrayed a tyrant\u2019s purpose.\n\nIII. His theory was, that everything was produced by harmony and\nnecessity. And he was the first person who affirmed that the earth moved\nin a circle; though some attribute the assertion of this principle to\nIcetas of Syracuse.\n\nIV. He wrote one book, which Hermippus reports, on the authority of some\nunknown writer, that Plato the philosopher purchased when he was in\nSicily (having come thither to the court of Dionysius), of the relations\nof Philolaus, for forty Alexandrian min\u00e6 of silver; and that from this\nbook he copied his Tim\u00e6us. But others say that Plato received it as a\npresent, after having obtained his liberty for a young man, one of the\ndisciples of Philolaus, who had been arrested by Dionysius. Demetrius,\nin his treatise on people of the same name, says that he was the first\nof the Pythagoreans who wrote a treatise on Natural Philosophy; and it\nbegins thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cBut nature in the world has been composed of bodies infinite and finite,\nand so is the whole world and all that is in it.\u201d\n\n\nLIFE OF EUDOXUS.\n\nI. Eudoxus was the son of \u00c6schines, and a native of Cnidus. He was an\nastronomer, a geometrician, a physician, and a lawgiver. In geometry he\nwas a pupil of Archytas, and in medicine of Philistion, the Sicilian,\nas Callimachus relates in his Tablets; and Sotion, in his Successions,\nasserts that he was likewise a pupil of Plato; for that, when he was\ntwenty-three years of age, and in very narrow circumstances, he came to\nAthens with Theomedon the physician, by whom he was chiefly supported,\nbeing attracted by the reputation of the Socratic school. Some say that\nhis attachment to Theomedon was cemented by nearer ties. And when he\nhad arrived at Pir\u00e6us, he went up to the city every day, and when he\nhad heard the Sophists lecture he returned. And having spent two months\nthere, he returned home again; and being again aided by the contributions\nof his friends, he set sail for Egypt, with Chrysippus the physician,\nbearing letters of introduction from Agesilaus to Nectanabis, and that he\nrecommended him to the priests.\n\nII. And having remained there a year and four months, he shaved his\neyebrows after the manner of the Egyptian priests, and composed, as it is\nsaid, the treatise called the Octaeteris. From thence he went to Cyzicus,\nand to the Propontis, in both of which places he lived as a Sophist; he\nalso went to the court of Mausolus. And then, in this manner, he returned\nagain to Athens, having a great many disciples with him, for the sake,\nas some say, of annoying Plato, because he had originally discarded him\nfrom his school. Some say, that when Plato gave an entertainment on one\noccasion, Eudoxus, as the guests were very numerous, introduced the\nfashion of sitting in a semicircle.\n\nNicomachus, the son of Aristotle, affirms that he used to say, that\npleasure was the good.\n\nIII. He was received in his own country with great honours, as the\ndecree that was passed respecting him shows. He was also accounted\nvery illustrious among the Greeks, having given laws to his own fellow\ncitizens, as Hermippus tells us in the fourth book of his account of\nthe Seven Wise Men; and having also written treatises on Astronomy and\nGeometry, and several other considerable works.\n\nHe had three daughters, Actis, Philtis, and Delphis. And Eratosthenes\nasserts, in his books addressed to Baton, that he also composed dialogues\nentitled Dialogues of Dogs; others say that these were written by some\nEgyptians, in their own language, and that Eudoxus translated them, and\npublished them in Greece. One of his pupils was Chrysippus, of Cnidos,\nson of Erineus, who learnt of him all that he knew about the Gods,\nand the world, and the heavenly bodies; and who learnt medicine from\nPhilistion the Sicilian. He also left some very admirable Reminiscences.\n\nIV. He had a son of the name of Aristagoras, who was the teacher of\nChrysippus, the son of A\u00ebthlius; he was the author of a work on Remedies\nfor the Eyes, as speculations on natural philosophy had come very much\nunder his notice.\n\nV. There were three people of the name of Eudoxus. The first, this man\nof whom we are speaking; the second, a Rhodian, who wrote histories; the\nthird, a Siciliot, a son of Agathocles, a comic poet, who gained three\nvictories at the Dionysia in the city, and five at the Len\u00e6a,[119] as\nApollodorus tells us in his Chronicles. We also find another, who was a\nphysician of Cnidos, who is mentioned by this Eudoxus, in his Circuit of\nthe World, where he says that he used to warn people to keep constantly\nexercising their limbs in every kind of exercise, and their senses too.\n\nVI. The same author says, that the Cnidean Eudoxus flourished about the\nhundred and third olympiad; and that he was the inventor of the theory\nof crooked lines. And he died in his fifty-third year. But when he was\nin Egypt with Conuphis, of Heliopolis, Apis licked his garment; and so\nthe priests said that he would be short-lived, but very illustrious, as\nit is reported by Phavorinus in his Commentaries. And we have written an\nepigram on him, that runs thus:\u2014\n\n \u2019Tis said, that while at Memphis wise Eudoxus\n Learnt his own fate from th\u2019 holy fair-horned bull;\n He said indeed no word, bulls do not speak\n Nor had kind nature e\u2019er calf Apis gifted\n With an articulately speaking mouth.\n But standing on one side he lick\u2019d his cloak,\n Showing by this most plainly\u2014in brief time\n You shall put off your life. So death came soon,\n When he had just seen three and fifty times\n The Pleiads rise to warn the mariners.\n\nAnd instead of Eudoxus, they used to call him Endoxus,[120] on account\nof the brilliancy of his reputation. And since we have gone through\nthe illustrious Pythagoreans, we must now speak of the Promiscuous\nphilosophers, as they call them. And we will first of all speak of\nHeraclitus.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IX.\n\n\nLIFE OF HERACLITUS.\n\nI. Heraclitus was the son of Blyson, or, as some say, of Heracion, and a\ncitizen of Ephesus. He flourished about the sixty-ninth olympiad.\n\nII. He was above all men of a lofty and arrogant spirit, as is plain from\nhis writings, in which he says, \u201cAbundant learning does not form the\nmind; for if it did, it would have instructed Hesiod, and Pythagoras,\nand likewise Xenophanes, and Hecat\u00e6us. For the only piece of real wisdom\nis to know that idea, which by itself will govern everything on every\noccasion.\u201d He used to say, too, that Homer deserved to be expelled from\nthe games and beaten, and Archilochus likewise. He used also to say,\n\u201cIt is more necessary to extinguish insolence, than to put out a fire.\u201d\nAnother of his sayings was, \u201cThe people ought to fight for the law, as\nfor their city.\u201d He also attacks the Ephesians for having banished his\ncompanion Hermodorus, when he says, \u201cThe Ephesians deserve to have all\ntheir youth put to death, and all those who are younger still banished\nfrom their city, inasmuch as they have banished Hermodorus, the best man\namong them, saying, \u2018Let no one of us be pre-eminently good; and if there\nbe any such person, let him go to another city and another people.\u2019\u201d\n\nAnd when he was requested to make laws for them, he refused, because the\ncity was already immersed in a thoroughly bad constitution. And having\nretired to the temple of Diana with his children, he began to play\nat dice; and when all the Ephesians flocked round him, he said, \u201cYou\nwretches, what are you wondering at? is it not better to do this, than to\nmeddle with public affairs in your company?\u201d\n\nIII. And at last, becoming a complete misanthrope, he used to live,\nspending his time in walking about the mountains; feeding on grasses\nand plants, and in consequence of these habits, he was attacked by the\ndropsy, and so then he returned to the city, and asked the physicians, in\na riddle, whether they were able to produce a drought after wet weather.\nAnd as they did not understand him, he shut himself up in a stable for\noxen, and covered himself with cow-dung, hoping to cause the wet to\nevaporate from him, by the warmth that this produced. And as he did\nhimself no good in this way, he died, having lived seventy years; and\nwe have written an epigram upon him which runs thus:\u2014\n\n I\u2019ve often wondered much at Heraclitus,\n That he should chose to live so miserably,\n And die by such a miserable fate.\n For fell disease did master all his body,\n With water quenching all the light of his eyes,\n And bringing darkness o\u2019er his mind and body.\n\nBut Hermippus states, that what he asked the physicians was this, whether\nany one could draw off the water by depressing his intestines? and\nwhen they answered that they could not, he placed himself in the sun,\nand ordered his servants to plaster him over with cow-dung; and being\nstretched out in that way, on the second day he died, and was buried\nin the market-place. But Neanthes, of Cyzicus says, that as he could\nnot tear off the cow-dung, he remained there, and on account of the\nalteration in his appearance, he was not discovered, and so was devoured\nby the dogs.\n\nIV. And he was a wonderful person, from his boyhood, since, while he was\nyoung, he used to say that he knew nothing but when he had grown up, he\nthen used to affirm that he knew everything. And he was no one\u2019s pupil,\nbut he used to say, that he himself had investigated every thing, and\nhad learned everything of himself. But Sotion relates, that some people\naffirmed that he had been a pupil of Xenophanes. And that Ariston, stated\nin his account of Heraclitus, that he was cured of the dropsy, and died\nof some other disease. And Hippobotus gives the same account.\n\nV. There is a book of his extant, which is about nature generally, and it\nis divided into three discourses; one on the Universe; one on Politics;\nand one on Theology. And he deposited this book in the temple of Diana,\nas some authors report, having written it intentionally in an obscure\nstyle, in order that only those who were able men might comprehend it,\nand that it might not be exposed to ridicule at the hands of the common\npeople. Timon attacks this man also, saying:\u2014\n\n Among them came that cuckoo Heraclitus\n The enigmatical obscure reviler\n Of all the common people.\n\nTheophrastus asserts, that it was out of melancholy that he left some\nof his works half finished, and wrote several, in completely different\nstyles; and Antisthenes, in his Successions, adduces as a proof of his\nlofty spirit, the fact, that he yielded to his brother the title and\nprivileges of royalty.[121] And his book had so high a reputation, that\na sect arose in consequence of it, who were called after his own name,\nHeracliteans.\n\nVI. The following may be set down in a general manner as his main\nprinciples: that everything is created from fire, and is dissolved into\nfire; that everything happens according to destiny, and that all existing\nthings are harmonized, and made to agree together by opposite tendencies;\nand that all things are full of souls and d\u00e6mones. He also discussed all\nthe passions which exist in the world, and used also to contend that the\nsun was of that precise magnitude of which he appears to be. One of his\nsayings too was, that no one, by whatever road he might travel, could\never possibly find out the boundaries of the soul, so deeply hidden are\nthe principles which regulate it. He used also to call opinion the sacred\ndisease; and to say that eye-sight was often deceived. Sometimes, in his\nwritings, he expresses himself with great brilliancy and clearness; so\nthat even the most stupid man may easily understand him, and receive an\nelevation of soul from him. And his conciseness, and the dignity of his\nstyle, are incomparable.\n\nIn particulars, his doctrines are of this kind. That fire is an\nelement, and that it is by the changes of fire that all things exist;\nbeing engendered sometimes by rarity, some times by density. But he\nexplains nothing clearly. He also says, that everything is produced by\ncontrariety, and that everything flows on like a river; that the universe\nis finite, and that there is one world, and that that is produced from\nfire, and that the whole world is in its turn again consumed by fire at\ncertain periods, and that all this happens according to fate. That of the\ncontraries, that which leads to production is called war and contest, and\nthat which leads to the conflagration is called harmony and peace; that\nchange is the road leading upward, and the road leading downward; and\nthat the whole world exists according to it.\n\nFor that fire, when densified becomes liquid, and becoming concrete,\nbecomes also water; again, that the water when concrete is turned to\nearth, and that this is the road down; again, that the earth itself\nbecomes fused, from which water is produced, and from that everything\nelse is produced; and then he refers almost everything to the evaporation\nwhich takes place from the sea; and this is the road which leads upwards.\nAlso, that there are evaporations, both from earth and sea, some of which\nare bright and clear, and some are dark; and that the fire is increased\nby the dark ones, and the moisture by the others. But what the space\nwhich surrounds us is, he does not explain. He states, however, that\nthere are vessels in it, turned with their hollow part towards us; in\nwhich all the bright evaporations are collected, and form flames, which\nare the stars; and that the brightest of these flames, and the hottest,\nis the light of the sun; for that all the other stars are farther off\nfrom the earth; and that on this account, they give less light and\nwarmth; and that the moon is nearer the earth, but does not move through\na pure space; the sun, on the other hand, is situated in a transparent\nspace, and one free from all admixture, preserving a well proportioned\ndistance from us, on which account it gives us more light and more heat.\nAnd that the sun and moon are eclipsed, when the before-mentioned vessels\nare turned upwards. And that the different phases of the moon take place\nevery month, as its vessel keeps gradually turning round. Moreover, that\nday and night, and months and years, and rains and winds, and things\nof that kind, all exist according to, and are caused by, the different\nevaporations.\n\nFor that the bright evaporation catching fire in the circle of the sun\ncauses day, and the predominance of the opposite one causes night; and\nagain, from the bright one the heat is increased so as to produce summer,\nand from the dark one the cold gains strength and produces winter; and\nhe also explains the causes of the other phenomena in a corresponding\nmanner.\n\nBut with respect to the earth, he does not explain at all of what\ncharacter it is, nor does he do so in the case of the vessels; and these\nwere his main doctrines.\n\nVII. Now, what his opinion about Socrates was, and what expressions he\nused when he met with a treatise of his which Euripides brought him,\naccording to the story told by Ariston, we have detailed in our account\nof Socrates. Seleucus, the grammarian, however, says that a man of the\nname of Croton, in his Diver, relates that it was a person of the name\nof Crates who first brought this book into Greece; and that he said that\nhe wanted some Delian diver who would not be drowned in it. And the book\nis described under several titles; some calling it the Muses, some a\ntreatise on Nature; but Diodotus calls it\u2014\n\n A well compacted helm to lead a man\n Straight through the path of life.\n\nSome call it a science of morals, the arrangement of the changes[122] of\nunity and of everything.\n\nVIII. They say that when he was asked why he preserved silence, he said,\n\u201cThat you may talk.\u201d\n\nIX. Darius was very desirous to enjoy his conversation; and wrote thus to\nhim:\u2014\n\nKING DARIUS, THE SON OF HYSTASPES, ADDRESSES HERACLITUS OF EPHESUS, THE\nWISE MAN, GREETING HIM.\n\n\u201cYou have written a book on Natural Philosophy, difficult to understand\nand difficult to explain. Accordingly, if in some parts it is explained\nliterally, it seems to disclose a very important theory concerning the\nuniversal world, and all that is contained in it, as they are placed in a\nstate of most divine motion. But commonly, the mind is kept in suspense,\nso that those who have studied your work the most, are not able precisely\nto disentangle the exact meaning of your expressions. Therefore, king\nDarius, the son of Hystaspes wishes to enjoy the benefit of hearing you\ndiscourse, and of receiving some Grecian instruction. Come, therefore,\nquickly to my sight, and to my royal palace; for the Greeks, in\ngeneral, do not accord to wise men the distinction which they deserve,\nand disregard the admirable expositions delivered by them, which are,\nhowever, worthy of being seriously listened to and studied; but with me\nyou shall have every kind of distinction and honour, and you shall enjoy\nevery day honourable and worthy conversation, and your pupils\u2019 life shall\nbecome virtuous, in accordance with your precepts.\u201d\n\nHERACLITUS, OF EPHESUS, TO KING DARIUS, THE SON OF HYSTASPES, GREETING.\n\n\u201cAll the men that exist in the world, are far removed from truth and\njust dealings; but they are full of evil foolishness, which leads them\nto insatiable covetousness and vain-glorious ambition. I, however,\nforgetting all their worthlessness, and shunning satiety, and who wish\nto avoid all envy on the part of my countrymen, and all appearance of\narrogance, will never come to Persia, since I am quite contented with a\nlittle, and live as best suits my own inclination.\u201d\n\nX. This was the way in which the man behaved even to the king. And\nDemetrius, in his treatise on People of the same Name, says that he also\ndespised the Athenians, among whom he had a very high reputation. And\nthat though he was himself despised by the Ephesians, he nevertheless\npreferred his own home. Demetrius Phalereus also mentions him in his\nDefence of Socrates.\n\nXI. There were many people who undertook to interpret his book. For\nAntisthenes and Heraclides, Ponticus, and Cleanthes, and Sph\u00e6rus the\nStoic; and besides them Pausanias, who was surnamed Heraclitistes, and\nNicomedes, and Dionysius, all did so. And of the grammarians, Diodotus\nundertook the same task; and he says that the subject of the book is not\nnatural philosophy, but politics; and that all that is said in it about\nnatural philosophy, is only by way of illustration. And Hieronymus tells\nus, that a man of the name of Scythinus, an iambic poet, attempted to\nrender the book into verse.\n\nXII. There are many epigrams extant which were written upon him, and this\nis one of them:\u2014\n\n I who lie here am Heraclitus, spare me\n Ye rude unlettered men: \u2019Twas not for you\n That I did labour, but for wiser people.\n One man may be to me a countless host,\n And an unnumbered multitude be no one;\n And this I still say in the shades below.\n\nAnd there is another expressed thus:\u2014\n\n Be not too hasty, skimming o\u2019er the book\n Of Heraclitus; \u2019tis a difficult road,\n For mist is there, and darkness hard to pierce.\n But if you have a guide who knows his system,\n Then everything is clearer than the sun.\n\nXIII. There were five people of the name of Heraclitus. The first\nwas this philosopher of ours. The second a lyric poet, who wrote a\npanegyrical hymn on the Twelve Gods. The third was an Elegiac poet, of\nHalicarnassus; on whom Callimachus wrote the following epigram:\u2014\n\n I heard, O Heraclitus, of your death,\n And the news filled my eyes with mournful tears,\n When I remembered all the happy hours\n When we with talk beguiled the setting sun.\n You now are dust; but still the honeyed voice\n Of your sweet converse doth and will survive;\n Nor can fell death, which all things else destroys,\n Lay upon that his ruthless conquering grasp.\n\nThe fourth was a Lesbian, who wrote a history of Macedonia. The fifth was\na man who blended jest with earnest; and who, having been a harp-player,\nabandoned that profession for a serio-comic style of writing.\n\n\nLIFE OF XENOPHANES.\n\nI. Xenophanes was the son of Dexius, or, as Apollodorus says, of\nOrthomenes. He was a citizen of Colophon; and is praised by Timon.\nAccordingly, he says:\u2014\n\n Xenophanes, not much a slave to vanity,\n The wise reprover of the tricks of Homer.\n\nHe, having been banished from his own country, lived at Zancle, in Sicily,\nand at Catana.\n\nII. And, according to the statements made by some people, he was a pupil\nof no one; but, as others say, he was a pupil of Boton the Athenian; or,\nas another account again affirms, of Archelaus. He was, if we may believe\nSotion, a contemporary of Anaximander.\n\nIII. He wrote poems in hexameter and in elegiac verse; and also he wrote\niambics against Hesiod and Homer, attacking the things said in their\npoems about the Gods. He also used to recite his own poems. It is said\nlikewise, that he argued against the opinions of Thales and Pythagoras,\nand that he also attacked Epimenides. He lived to an extreme old age; as\nhe says somewhere himself:\u2014\n\n Threescore and seven long years are fully passed,\n Since first my doctrines spread abroad through Greece:\n And \u2019twixt that time and my first view of light\n Six lustres more must added be to them:\n If I am right at all about my age,\n Lacking but eight years of a century.\n\nHis doctrine was, that there were four elements of existing things; and\nan infinite number of worlds, which were all unchangeable. He thought\nthat the clouds were produced by the vapour which was borne upwards from\nthe sun, and which lifted them up into the circumambient space. That the\nessence of God was of a spherical form, in no respect resembling man;\nthat the universe could see, and that the universe could hear, but could\nnot breathe; and that it was in all its parts intellect, and wisdom, and\neternity. He was the first person who asserted that everything which is\nproduced is perishable, and that the soul is a spirit. He used also to\nsay that the many was inferior to unity. Also, that we ought to associate\nwith tyrants either as little as possible, or else as pleasantly as\npossible.\n\nWhen Empedocles said to him that the wise man was undiscoverable, he\nreplied, \u201cVery likely; for it takes a wise man to discover a wise\nman.\u201d And Sotion says, that he was the first person who asserted that\neverything is incomprehensible. But he is mistaken in this.\n\nXenophanes wrote a poem on the Founding of Colophon; and also, on the\nColonisation of Elea, in Italy, consisting of two thousand verses. And he\nflourished about the sixtieth olympiad.\n\nIV. Demetrius Phalereus, in his treatise on Old Age, and Phen\u00e6tius the\nStoic, in his essay on Cheerfulness, relate that he buried his sons\nwith his own hands, as Anaxagoras had also done. And he seems to have\nbeen detested[123] by the Pythagoreans, Parmeniscus, and Orestades, as\nPhavorinus relates in the first book of his Commentaries.\n\nV. There was also another Xenophanes, a native of Lesbos, and an iambic\npoet.\n\nThese are the Promiscuous or unattached philosophers.\n\n\nLIFE OF PARMENIDES.\n\nI. Parmenides, the son of Pyres, and a citizen of Velia, was a pupil of\nXenophanes. And Theophrastus, in his Abridgment, says that he was also a\npupil of Anaximander. However, though he was a pupil of Xenophanes, he\nwas not afterwards a follower of his; but he attached himself to Aminias,\nand Diochaetes the Pythagorean, as Sotion relates, which last was a poor\nbut honourable and virtuous man. And he it was whose follower he became,\nand after he was dead he erected a shrine, or \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd, in his honour. And\nso Parmenides, who was of a noble family and possessed of considerable\nwealth, was induced, not by Xenophanes but by Aminias, to embrace the\ntranquil life of a philosopher.\n\nII. He was the first person who asserted that the earth was of a\nspherical form; and that it was situated in the centre of the universe.\nHe also taught that there were two elements, fire and earth; and that one\nof them occupies the place of the maker, the other that of the matter.\nHe also used to teach that man was originally made out of clay; and that\nthey were composed of two parts, the hot and the cold; of which, in fact,\neverything consists. Another of his doctrines was, that the mind and the\nsoul were the same thing, as we are informed by Theophrastus, in his\nNatural Philosophy, when he enumerates the theories of nearly all the\ndifferent philosophers.\n\nHe also used to say that philosophy was of a twofold character; one kind\nresting on certain truth, the other on opinion. On which account he says\nsome where:\n\n And \u2019twill be needful for you well to know,\n The fearless heart of all-convincing truth:\n Also the opinions, though less sure, of men,\n Which rest upon no certain evidence.\n\nIII. Parmenides too philosophizes in his poems; as Hesiod and Xenophanes,\nand Empedocles used to. And he used to say that argument was the test\nof truth; and that the sensations were not trustworthy witnesses.\nAccordingly, he says:\u2014\n\n Let not the common usages of men\n Persuade your better taught experience,\n To trust to men\u2019s unsafe deceitful sight,\n Or treacherous ears, or random speaking tongue:\n Reason alone will prove the truth of facts.\n\nOn which account Timon says of him:\u2014\n\n The vigorous mind of wise Parmenides,\n Who classes all the errors of the thoughts\n Under vain phantasies.\n\nPlato inscribed one of his dialogues with his name\u2014Parmenides, or an\nessay on Ideas. He flourished about the sixty-ninth Olympiad. He appears\nto have been the first person who discovered that Hesperus and Lucifer\nwere the same star, as Phavorinus records, in the fifth book of his\nCommentaries. Some, however, attribute this discovery to Pythagoras. And\nCallimachus asserts that the poem in which this doctrine is promulgated\nis not his work.\n\nIV. He is said also to have given laws to his fellow-citizens, as\nSpeusippus records, in his account of the Philosophers. He was also the\nfirst employer of the question called the Achilles,[124] as Phavorinus\nassures us in his Universal History.\n\nV. There was also another Parmenides, an orator, who wrote a treatise on\nthe art of Oratory.\n\n\nLIFE OF MELISSUS.\n\nI. Melissus was a Samian, and the son of Ithagenes. He was a pupil\nof Parmenides; but he also had conversed with Heraclitus, when he\nrecommended him to the Ephesians, who were unacquainted with him, as\nHippocrates recommended Democritus to the people of Abdera.\n\nII. He was a man greatly occupied in political affairs, and held in\ngreat esteem among his fellow citizens; on which account he was elected\nadmiral. And he was admired still more on account of his private virtues.\n\nIII. His doctrine was, that the Universe was infinite, unsusceptible of\nchange, immoveable, and one, being always like to itself, and complete;\nand that there was no such thing as real motion, but that there only\nappeared to be such. As respecting the Gods, too, he denied that there\nwas any occasion to give a definition of them, for that there was no\ncertain knowledge of them.\n\nIV. Apollodorus states that he flourished about the eighty-fourth\nolympiad.\n\n\nLIFE OF ZENO, THE ELEATIC.\n\nI. Zeno was a native of Velia. Apollodorus, in his Chronicles, says that\nhe was by nature the son of Teleutagoras, but by adoption the son of\nParmenides.\n\nII. Timon speaks thus of him and Melissus:\u2014\n\n Great is the strength, invincible the might\n Of Zeno, skilled to argue on both sides\n Of any question, th\u2019 universal critic;\n And of Melissus too. They rose superior\n To prejudice in general; only yielding\n To very few.\n\nAnd Zeno had been a pupil of Parmenides, and had been on other accounts\ngreatly attached to him.\n\nIII. He was a tall man, as Plato tells us in his Parmenides, and the\nsame writer, in his Ph\u00e6drus, calls him also the Eleatic Palamedes.\n\nIV. Aristotle, in his Sophist, says that he was the inventor of\ndialectics, as Empedocles was of rhetoric. And he was a man of the\ngreatest nobleness of spirit, both in philosophy and in politics. There\nare also many books extant, which are attributed to him, full of great\nlearning and wisdom.\n\nV. He, wishing to put an end to the power of Nearches, the tyrant (some,\nhowever, call the tyrant Diomedon), was arrested, as we are informed by\nHeraclides, in his abridgment of Satyrus. And when he was examined, as\nto his accomplices, and as to the arms which he was taking to Lipara, he\nnamed all the friends of the tyrant as his accomplices, wishing to make\nhim feel himself alone. And then, after he had mentioned some names,\nhe said that he wished to whisper something privately to the tyrant;\nand when he came near him he bit him, and would not leave his hold till\nhe was stabbed. And the same thing happened to Aristogiton, the tyrant\nslayer. But Demetrius, in his treatise on People of the same Name, says\nthat it was his nose that he bit off.\n\nMoreover, Antisthenes, in his Successions, says that after he had given\nhim information against his friends, he was asked by the tyrant if\nthere was any one else. And he replied, \u201cYes, you, the destruction of\nthe city.\u201d And that he also said to the bystanders, \u201cI marvel at your\ncowardice, if you submit to be slaves to the tyrant out of fear of such\npains as I am now enduring.\u201d And at last he bit off his tongue and spit\nit at him; and the citizens immediately rushed forward, and slew the\ntyrant with stones. And this is the account that is given by almost every\none.\n\nBut Hermippus says, that he was put into a mortar, and pounded to death.\nAnd we ourselves have written the following epigram on him:\u2014\n\n Your noble wish, O Zeno, was to slay\n A cruel tyrant, freeing Elea\n From the harsh bonds of shameful slavery,\n But you were disappointed; for the tyrant\n Pounded you in a mortar. I say wrong,\n He only crushed your body, and not you.\n\nVI. And Zeno was an excellent man in other respects, and he was also\na despiser of great men in an equal degree with Heraclitus; for he,\ntoo, preferred the town which was formerly called Hyele, and afterwards\nElea, being a colony of the Phoc\u00e6ans, and his own native place, a poor\ncity possessed of no other importance than the knowledge of how to raise\nvirtuous citizens, to the pride of the Athenians; so that he did not\noften visit them, but spent his life at home.\n\nVII. He, too, was the first man who asked the question called\nAchilles,[125] though Phavorinus attributes its first use to Parmenides,\nand several others.\n\nVIII. His chief doctrines were, that there were several worlds, and that\nthere was no vacuum; that the nature of all things consisted of hot and\ncold, and dry and moist, these elements interchanging their substances\nwith one another; that man was made out of the earth, and that his soul\nwas a mixture of the before-named elements in such a way that no one of\nthem predominated.\n\nIX. They say that when he was reproached, he was indignant; and that\nwhen some one blamed him, he replied, \u201cIf when I am reproached, I am not\nangered, then I shall not be pleased when I am praised.\u201d\n\nX. We have already said in our account of the Citti\u00e6an, that there were\neight Zenos; but this one flourished about the seventy-ninth olympiad.\n\n\nLIFE OF LEUCIPPUS.\n\nI. Leucippus was a native of Velia, but, as some say, of Abdera; and, as\nothers report, of Melos.\n\nII. He was a pupil of Zeno. And his principal doctrines were, that all\nthings were infinite, and were interchanged with one another; and that\nthe universe was a vacuum, and full of bodies; also that the worlds were\nproduced by bodies falling into the vacuum, and becoming entangled with\none another; and that the nature of the stars originated in motion,\naccording to their increase; also, that the sun is borne round in a\ngreater circle around the moon; that the earth is carried on revolving\nround the centre; and that its figure resembles a drum; he was the first\nphilosopher who spoke of atoms as principles.\n\nIII. These are his doctrines in general; in particular detail, they are\nas follow: he says that the universe is infinite, as I have already\nmentioned; that of it, one part is a plenum, and the other a vacuum. He\nalso says that the elements, and the worlds which are derived from them,\nare infinite, and are dissolved again into them; and that the worlds are\nproduced in this manner: That many bodies, of various kinds and shapes,\nare borne by amputation from the infinite, into a vast vacuum; and then,\nthey being collected together, produce one vortex; according to which\nthey, dashing against one another, and whirling about in every direction,\nare separated in such a way that like attaches itself to like.\n\nBut as they are all of equal weight, when by reason of their number they\nare no longer able to whirl about, the thin ones depart into the outer\nvacuum, as if they bounded through, and the others remain behind, and\nbecoming entangled with one another, run together, and produce a sort of\nspherical shaped figure.\n\nThis subsists as a kind of membrane; containing within itself bodies of\nevery kind; and as these are whirled about so as to revolve according to\nthe resistance of the centre, the circumambient membrane becomes thin,\nsince bodies are without ceasing, uniting according to the impulse given\nby the vortex; and in this way the earth is produced, since these bodies\nwhich have once been brought to the centre remain there.\n\nOn the other side, there is produced another enveloping membrane, which\nincreases incessantly by the accretion of exterior bodies; and which, as\nit is itself animated by a circular movement, drags with it, and adds to\nitself, everything it meets with; some of these bodies thus enveloped\nre-unite again and form compounds, which are at first moist and clayey,\nbut soon becoming dry, and being drawn on in the universal movement of\nthe circular vortex, they catch fire, and constitute the substance of the\nstars. The orbit of the sun is the most distant one; that of the moon is\nthe nearest to the earth; and between the two are the orbits of the other\nstars.\n\nAll the stars are set on fire by the rapidity of their own motion; and\nthe sun is set on fire by the stars; the moon has only a slight quantity\nof fire; the sun and the moon are eclipsed in \u2026[126] in consequence of\nthe inclination of the earth towards the south. In the north it always\nsnows, and those districts are cold, and are often frozen.\n\nThe sun is eclipsed but seldom; but the moon frequently, because her\norbits are unequal.\n\nLeucippus admits also, that the production of worlds, their increase,\ntheir diminution, and their destruction, depend on a certain necessity,\nthe character of which he does not precisely explain.\n\n\nLIFE OF DEMOCRITUS.\n\nI. Democritus was the son of Hegesistratus, but as some say, of\nAthenocrites, and, according to other accounts, of Damasippus. He was\na native of Abdera, or, as it is stated by some authors, a citizen of\nMiletus.\n\nII. He was a pupil of some of the Magi and Chald\u00e6ans, whom Xerxes had\nleft with his father as teachers, when he had been hospitably received\nby him, as Herodotus informs us;[127] and from these men he, while still\na boy, learned the principles of astronomy and theology. Afterwards, his\nfather entrusted him to Leucippus, and to Anaxagoras, as some authors\nassert, who was forty years older than he. And Phavorinus, in his\nUniversal History, says that Democritus said of Anaxagoras, that his\nopinions about the sun and moon were not his own, but were old theories,\nand that he had stolen them. And that he used also to pull to pieces his\nassertions about the composition of the world, and about mind, as he was\nhostile to him, because he had declined to admit him as a pupil. How then\ncan he have been a pupil of his, as some assert? And Demetrius in his\ntreatise on People of the same Name, and Antisthenes in his Successions,\nboth affirm that he travelled to Egypt to see the priests there, and\nto learn mathematics of them; and that he proceeded further to the\nChald\u00e6ans, and penetrated into Persia, and went as far as the Persian\nGulf. Some also say that he made acquaintance with the Gymnosophists in\nIndia, and that he went to \u00c6thiopia.\n\nIII. He was one of three brothers who divided their patrimony among them;\nand the most common story is, that he took the smaller portion, as it was\nin money, because he required money for the purpose of travelling; though\nhis brothers suspected him of entertaining some treacherous design. And\nDemetrius says, that his share amounted to more than a hundred talents,\nand that he spent the whole of it.\n\nIV. He also says, that he was so industrious a man, that he cut off for\nhimself a small portion of the garden which surrounded his house, in\nwhich there was a small cottage, and shut himself up in it. And on one\noccasion, when his father brought him an ox to sacrifice, and fastened it\nthere, he for a long time did not discover it, until his father having\nroused him, on the pretext of the sacrifice, told him what he had done\nwith the ox.\n\nV. He further asserts, that it is well known that he went to Athens, and\nas he despised glory, he did not desire to be known; and that he became\nacquainted with Socrates, without Socrates knowing who he was. \u201cFor I\ncame,\u201d says he, \u201cto Athens, and no one knew me.\u201d \u201cIf,\u201d says Thrasylus,\n\u201cthe Rivals is really the work of Plato, then Democritus must be the\nanonymous interlocutor, who is introduced in that dialogue, besides\n\u0152nopides and Anaxagoras, the one I mean who, in the conversation with\nSocrates, is arguing about philosophy, and whom the philosopher tells,\nthat a philosopher resembles a conqueror in the Pentathlum.\u201d And he was\nveritably a master of five branches of philosophy. For he was thoroughly\nacquainted with physics, and ethics, and mathematics, and the whole\nencyclic system, and indeed he was thoroughly experienced and skilful in\nevery kind of art. He it was who was the author of the saying, \u201cSpeech\nis the shadow of action.\u201d But Demetrius Phalereus, in his Defence of\nSocrates, affirms that he never came to Athens at all. And that is a\nstill stranger circumstance than any, if he despised so important a\ncity, not wishing to derive glory from the place in which he was, but\npreferring rather himself to invest the place with glory.\n\nVI. And it is evident from his writings, what sort of man he was.\n\u201cHe seems,\u201d says Thrasylus, \u201cto have been also an admirer of the\nPythagoreans.\u201d And he mentions Pythagoras himself, speaking of him with\nadmiration, in the treatise which is inscribed with his name. And he\nappears to have derived all his doctrines from him to such a degree, that\none would have thought that he had been his pupil, if the difference\nof time did not prevent it. At all events, Glaucus, of Rhegium, who\nwas a contemporary of his, affirms that he was a pupil of some of the\nPythagorean school.\n\nAnd Apollodorus, of Cyzicus, says that he was intimate with Philolaus;\n\u201cHe used to practise himself,\u201d says Antisthenes, \u201cin testing perceptions\nin various manners; sometimes retiring into solitary places, and spending\nhis time even among tombs.\u201d\n\nVII. And he further adds, that when he returned from his travels, he\nlived in a most humble manner; like a man who had spent all his property,\nand that on account of his poverty, he was supported by his brother\nDamasus. But when he had foretold some future event, which happened\nas he had predicted, and had in consequence become famous, he was for\nall the rest of his life thought worthy of almost divine honours by\nthe generality of people. And as there was a law, that a man who had\nsquandered the whole of his patrimony, should not be allowed funeral\nrites in his country, Antisthenes says, that he, being aware of this\nlaw, and not wishing to be exposed to the calumnies of those who envied\nhim, and would be glad to accuse him, recited to the people his work\ncalled the Great World, which is far superior to all his other writings,\nand that as a reward for it he was presented with five hundred talents;\nand not only that, but he also had some brazen statues erected in his\nhonour. And when he died, he was buried at the public expense; after\nhaving attained the age of more than a hundred years. But Demetrius says,\nthat it was his relations who read the Great World, and that they were\npresented with a hundred talents only; and Hippobotus coincides in this\nstatement.\n\nVIII. And Aristoxenus, in his Historic Commentaries, says that Plato\nwished to burn all the writings of Democritus that he was able to\ncollect; but that Amyclas and Cleinias, the Pythagoreans, prevented him,\nas it would do no good; for that copies of his books were already in many\nhands. And it is plain that that was the case; for Plato, who mentions\nnearly all the ancient philosophers, nowhere speaks of Democritus; not\neven in those passages where he has occasion to contradict his theories,\nevidently, because he said that if he did, he would be showing his\ndisagreement with the best of all philosophers; a man whom even Timon\npraises in the following terms:\u2014\n\n Like that Democritus, wisest of men,\n Sage ruler of his speech; profound converser,\n Whose works I love to read among the first.\n\nIX. But he was, according to the statement made by himself in the Little\nWorld, a youth when Anaxagoras was an old man, being forty years younger\nthan he was. And he says, that he composed the Little World seven hundred\nand thirty years after the capture of Troy. And he must have been born,\naccording to the account given by Apollodorus in his Chronicles, in the\neightieth olympiad; but, as Thrasylus says, in his work entitled the\nEvents, which took place before the reading of the books of Democritus,\nin the third year of the seventy-seventh olympiad, being, as it is there\nstated, one year older than Socrates. He must therefore have been a\ncontemporary of Archelaus, the pupil of Anaxagoras, and of \u0152nopides,\nfor he makes mention of this letter. He also speaks of the theories of\nParmenides and Zeno, on the subject of the One, as they were the men of\nthe highest reputation in histories, and he also speaks of Protagoras of\nAbdera, who confessedly lived at the same time as Socrates.\n\nX. Athenodorus tells us, in the eighth book of his Conversations, that\nonce, when Hippocrates came to see him, he ordered some milk to be\nbrought; and that, when he saw the milk, he said that it was the milk\nof a black goat, with her first kid; on which Hippocrates marvelled at\nhis accurate knowledge. Also, as a young girl came with Hippocrates, on\nthe first day, he saluted her thus, \u201cGood morning, my maid;\u201d but on the\nnext day, \u201cGood morning, woman;\u201d for, indeed, she had ceased to be a maid\nduring the night.\n\nXI. And Hermippus relates, that Democritus died in the following manner:\nhe was exceedingly old, and appeared at the point of death; and his\nsister was lamenting that he would die during the festival of the\nThesmophoria,[128] and so prevent her from discharging her duties to the\nGoddess; and so he bade her be of good cheer, and desired her to bring\nhim hot loaves every day. And, by applying these to his nostrils, he kept\nhimself alive even over the festival. But when the days of the festival\nwere passed (and it lasted three days), then he expired, without any\npain, as Hipparchus assures us, having lived a hundred and nine years.\nAnd we have written an epigram upon him in our collection of poems in\nevery metre, which runs thus:\u2014\n\n What man was e\u2019er so wise, who ever did\n So great a deed as this Democritus?\n Who kept off death, though present for three days,\n And entertained him with hot steam of bread.\n\nSuch was the life of this man.\n\nXII. Now his principal doctrines were these. That atoms and the vacuum\nwere the beginning of the universe; and that everything else existed\nonly in opinion. That the worlds were infinite, created, and perishable.\nBut that nothing was created out of nothing, and that nothing was\ndestroyed so as to become nothing. That the atoms were infinite both\nin magnitude and number, and were borne about through the universe in\nendless revolutions. And that thus they produced all the combinations\nthat exist; fire, water, air, and earth; for that all these things are\nonly combinations of certain atoms; which combinations are incapable of\nbeing affected by external circumstances, and are unchangeable by reason\nof their solidity. Also, that the sun and the moon are formed by such\nrevolutions and round bodies; and in like manner the soul is produced;\nand that the soul and the mind are identical: that we see by the falling\nof visions across our sight; and that everything that happens, happens of\nnecessity. Motion, being the cause of the production of everything, which\nhe calls necessity. The chief good he asserts to be cheerfulness; which,\nhowever, he does not consider the same as pleasure; as some people, who\nhave misunderstood him, have fancied that he meant; but he understands by\ncheerfulness, a condition according to which the soul lives calmly and\nsteadily, being disturbed by no fear, or superstition, or other passion.\nHe calls this state \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, and \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7c, and several other names.\nEverything which is made he looks upon as depending for its existence on\nopinion; but atoms and the vacuum he believes exist by nature. These were\nhis principal opinions.\n\nXIII. Of his books, Thrasylus has given a regular catalogue, in the same\nway that he has arranged the works of Plato, dividing them into four\nclasses.\n\nNow these are his ethical works. The Pythagoras; a treatise on the\nDisposition of the Wise Man; an essay on those in the Shades Below; the\nTritogeneia (this is so called because from Minerva three things are\nderived which hold together all human affairs); a treatise on Manly\nCourage or Valour; the Horn of Amalthea; an essay on Cheerfulness; a\nvolume of Ethical Commentaries. A treatise entitled, For Cheerfulness,\n(\u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7c) is not found.\n\nThese are his writings on natural philosophy. The Great World (which\nTheophrastus asserts to be the work of Leucippus); the Little World; the\nCosmography; a treatise on the Planets; the first book on Nature; two\nbooks on the Nature of Man, or on Flesh; an essay on the Mind; one on the\nSenses (some people join these two together in one volume, which they\nentitle, on the Soul); a treatise on Juices; one on Colours; one on the\nDifferent Figures; one on the Changes of Figures; the Cratynteria (that\nis to say, an essay, approving of what has been said in preceding ones);\na treatise on Ph\u00e6nomenon, or on Providence; three books on Pestilences,\nor Pestilential Evils; a book of Difficulties. These are his books on\nnatural philosophy.\n\nHis miscellaneous works are these. Heavenly Causes; A\u00ebrial Causes; Causes\naffecting Plane Surfaces; Causes referring to Fire, and to what is in\nFire; Causes affecting Voices; Causes affecting Seeds, and Plants, and\nFruits; three books of Causes affecting Animals; Miscellaneous Causes; a\ntreatise on the Magnet. These are his miscellaneous works.\n\nHis mathematical writings are the following. A treatise on the Difference\nof Opinion, or on the Contact of the Circle and the Sphere; one on\nGeometry; one on Numbers; one on Incommensurable Lines, and Solids,\nin two books; a volume called Explanations; the Great Year, or the\nAstronomical Calendar; a discussion on the Clepsydra; the Map of the\nHeavens; Geography; Polography; Actinography, or a discussion on Rays of\nLight. These are his mathematical works.\n\nHis works on music are the following. A treatise on Rhythm and Harmony;\none on Poetry; one on the beauty of Epic Poems; one on Euphonious and\nDiscordant Letters; one on Homer, or on Propriety of Diction[129] and\nDialects; one on Song, one on Words; the Onomasticon. These are his\nmusical works.\n\nThe following are his works on art. Prognostics; a treatise on the Way\nof Living, called also Di\u00e6tetics, or the Opinions of a Physician; Causes\nrelating to Unfavourable and Favourable Opportunities; a treatise on\nAgriculture, called also the Georgic; one on Painting; Tactics, and\nFighting in heavy Armour. These are his works on such subjects.\n\nSome authors also give a list of some separate treatises which they\ncollect from his Commentaries. A treatise on the Sacred Letters seen at\nBabylon; another on the Sacred Letters seen at Meroe; the Voyage round\nthe Ocean; a treatise on History; a Chaldaic Discourse; a Phrygian\nDiscourse; a treatise on Fever; an essay on those who are attacked with\nCough after illness; the Principles of Laws; Things made by Hand, or\nProblems.\n\nAs to the other books which some writers ascribed to him, some are merely\nextracts from his other writings, and some are confessedly the work of\nothers. And this is a sufficient account of his writings.\n\nXIV. There were six people of the name of Democritus. The first was this\nman of whom we are speaking; the second was a musician of Chios, who\nlived about the same time; the third was a sculptor who is mentioned by\nAntigonus; the fourth is a man who wrote a treatise on the Temple at\nEphesus, and on the city of Samothrace; the fifth was an epigrammatic\npoet, of great perspicuity and elegance; the sixth was a citizen of\nPergamus, who wrote a treatise on Oratory.\n\n\nLIFE OF PROTAGORAS.\n\nI. Protagoras was the son of Artemon, or, as Apollodorus says (which\naccount is corroborated by Deinon, in his History of Persia), of M\u00e6ander.\nHe was a native of Abdera, as Heraclides Ponticus tell us, in his\ntreatise on Laws; and the same authority informs us that he made laws\nfor the Thurians. But, according to the statement of Eupolis, in his\nFlatterers, he was a native of Teos; for he says:\u2014\n\n Within you\u2019ll find Protagoras, of Teos.\n\nHe, and Prodicus of Ceos, used to levy contributions for giving their\nlectures; and Plato, in his Protagoras, says that Prodicus had a very\npowerful voice.\n\nII. Protagoras was a pupil of Democritus. And he was surnamed Wisdom, as\nPhavorinus informs us in his Universal History.\n\nIII. He was the first person who asserted that in every question there\nwere two sides to the argument exactly opposite to one another. And he\nused to employ them in his arguments, being the first person who did so.\nBut he began something in this manner: \u201cMan is the measure of all things:\nof those things which exist as he is; and of those things which do not\nexist as he is not.\u201d And he used to say that nothing else was soul except\nthe senses, as Plato says, in the The\u00e6tetus; and that everything was\ntrue. And another of his treatises he begins in this way: \u201cConcerning the\nGods, I am not able to know to a certainty whether they exist or whether\nthey do not. For there are many things which prevent one from knowing,\nespecially the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of the life of\nman.\u201d And on account of this beginning of his treatise, he was banished\nby the Athenians. And they burnt his books in the market-place, calling\nthem in by the public crier, and compelling all who possessed them to\nsurrender them.\n\nHe was the first person who demanded payment of his pupils; fixing\nhis charge at a hundred min\u00e6. He was also the first person who gave a\nprecise definition of the parts of time; and who explained the value of\nopportunity, and who instituted contests of argument, and who armed the\ndisputants with the weapon of sophism. He it was too who first left facts\nout of consideration, and fastened his arguments on words; and who was\nthe parent of the present superficial and futile kinds of discussion. On\nwhich account Timon says of him:\u2014\n\n Protagoras, that slippery arguer,\n In disputatious contests fully skilled.\n\nHe too, it was, who first invented that sort of argument which is called\nthe Socratic, and who first employed the reasonings of Antisthenes, which\nattempt to establish the point that they cannot be contradicted; as Plato\ntells us in his Euthydemus. He was also the first person who practised\nregular discussions on set subjects, as Artemidorus, the dialectician,\ntells us in his treatise against Chrysippus. He was also the original\ninventor of the porter\u2019s pad for men to carry their burdens on, as we\nare assured by Aristotle, in his book on Education; for he himself was a\nporter, as Epicurus says somewhere or other. And it was in this way that\nhe became highly thought of by Democritus, who saw him as he was tying up\nsome sticks.\n\nHe was also the first person who divided discourse into four parts;\nentreaty, interrogation, answer, and injunction: though some writers\nmake the parts seven; narration, interrogation, answer, injunction,\npromise, entreaty, and invocation; and these he called the foundations of\ndiscourse: but Alcidamas says that there are four divisions of discourse;\naffirmation, denial, interrogation, and invocation.\n\nV. The first of his works that he ever read in public was the treatise\non the Gods, the beginning of which we have quoted above, and he read\nthis at Athens in the house of Euripides, or, as some say, in that\nof Megaclides; others say that he read it in the Lyceum; his pupil,\nArchagoras, the son of Theodotus, giving him the aid of his voice. His\naccuser was Pythodorus, the son of Polyzelus, one of the four hundred;\nbut Aristotle calls him Evathlus.\n\nVI. The writings of his which are still extant are these: a treatise on\nthe Art of Contention; one on Wrestling; one on Mathematics; one on a\nRepublic; one on Ambition; one on Virtues; one on the Original Condition\nof Man; one on those in the Shades Below; one on the Things which are not\ndone properly by Men; one volume of Precepts; one essay entitled Justice\nin Pleading for Hire; two books of Contradictions.\n\nThese are his books.\n\nPlato also addressed a dialogue to him.\n\nVII. Philochorus relates that, as he was sailing to Sicily his ship was\nwrecked, and that this circumstance is alluded to by Euripides in his\nIxion; and some say that he died on his journey, being about ninety years\nold. But Apollodorus states his age at seventy years, and says that he\nwas a sophist forty years, and that he flourished about the eighty-fourth\nOlympiad. There is an epigram upon him written by myself, in the\nfollowing terms:\u2014\n\n I hear accounts of you, Protagoras,\n That, travelling far from Athens, on the road,\n You, an old man, and quite infirm, did die.\n For Cecrops\u2019 city drove you forth to exile;\n But you, though \u2019scaping dread Minerva\u2019s might,\n Could not escape the outspread arms of Pluto.\n\nVIII. It is said that once, when he demanded of Evathlus his pupil\npayment for his lessons, Evathlus said to him, \u201cBut I have never been\nvictorious in an argument;\u201d and he rejoined, \u201cBut if I gain my cause,\nthen I should naturally receive the fruits of my victory, and so would\nyou obtain the fruits of yours.\u201d\n\nIX. There was also another Protagoras, an astronomer, on whom Euphorion\nwrote an elegy; and a third also, who was a philosopher of the Stoic\nsect.\n\n\nLIFE OF DIOGENES, OF APOLLONIA.\n\nI. Diogenes was a native of Apollonia, and the son of Apollothemis,\na natural philosopher of high reputation; and he was, as Antisthenes\nreports, a pupil of Anaximenes. He was also a contemporary of Anaxagoras,\nand Demetrius Phalereus says, in his Defence of Socrates, that he was\nvery unpopular at Athens, and even in some danger of his life.\n\nII. The following were his principal doctrines; that the air was an\nelement; that the worlds were infinite, and that the vacuum also was\ninfinite; that the air, as it was condensed, and as it was rarified,\nwas the productive cause of the worlds; that nothing can be produced\nout of nothing;[130] and that nothing can be destroyed so as to become\nnothing; that the earth is round, firmly planted in the middle of the\nuniverse, having acquired its situation from the circumvolutions of the\nhot principle around it, and its consistency from the cold.\n\nThe first words of his treatise are:\u2014\n\n\u201cIt appears to me that he who begins any treatise ought to lay down\nprinciples about which there can be no dispute, and that his exposition\nof them ought to be simple and dignified.\u201d\n\n\nLIFE OF ANAXARCHUS.\n\nI. Anaxarchus was a native of Abdera. He was a pupil of Diogenes, of\nSmyrna; but, as some say, of Metrodorus, of Chios; who said that he was\nnot even sure that he knew nothing; and Metrodorus was a pupil of Nessus,\nof Chios; though others assert that he was a disciple of Democritus.\n\nII. Anaxarchus too enjoyed the intimacy of Alexander, and flourished\nabout the hundred and tenth olympiad. He had for an enemy Nicocreon, the\ntyrant of Cyprus. And on one occasion, when Alexander, at a banquet,\nasked him what he thought of the entertainment, he is said to have\nreplied, \u201cO king, everything is provided very sumptuously; and the only\nthing wanting is to have the head of some satrap served up;\u201d hinting\nat Nicocreon. And Nicocreon did not forget his grudge against him for\nthis; but after the death of the king, when Anaxarchus, who was making a\nvoyage, was driven against his will into Cyprus, he took him and put him\nin a mortar, and commanded him to be pounded to death with iron pestles.\nAnd then they say that he, disregarding this punishment, uttered that\ncelebrated saying, \u201cBeat the bag of Anaxarchus, but you will not beat\nAnaxarchus himself.\u201d And then, when Nicocreon commanded that his tongue\nshould be cut out, it is said that he bit it off, and spit it at him. And\nwe have written an epigram upon him in the following terms:\u2014\n\n Beat more and more; you\u2019re beating but a bag;\n Beat, Anaxarchus is in heav\u2019n with Jove.\n Hereafter Proserpine will rack your bones,\n And say, Thus perish, you accursed beater.\n\nIII. Anaxarchus, on account of the evenness of his temper and the\ntranquillity of his life, was called the Happy. And he was a man to\nwhom it was very easy to reprove men and bring them to temperance.\nAccordingly, he produced an alteration in Alexander who thought himself\na God, for when he saw the blood flowing from some wound that he had\nreceived, he pointed to him with his finger, and said, \u201cThis is blood,\nand not:\u2014\n\n \u201cSuch stream as issues from a wounded God;\n Pure emanation, uncorrupted flood,\n Unlike our gross, diseas\u2019d, terrestrial blood.\u201d[131]\n\nBut Plutarch says that it was Alexander himself who quoted these lines to\nhis friends.\n\nThey also tell a story that Anaxarchus once drank to him, and then showed\nthe goblet, and said:\u2014\n\n Shall any mortal hand dare wound a God?\n\n\nLIFE OF PYRRHO.\n\nI. Pyrrho was a citizen of Elis, and the son of Pleistarchus, as Diocles\ninforms us, and, as Apollodorus in his Chronicles asserts, he was\noriginally a painter.\n\nII. And he was a pupil of Bryson, the son of Stilpon, as we are told\nby Alexander in his Chronicles. After that he attached himself to\nAnaxarchus, and attended him everywhere; so that he even went as far as\nthe Gymnosophists, in India, and the Magi.\n\nIII. Owing to which circumstance, he seems to have taken a noble line in\nphilosophy, introducing the doctrine of incomprehensibility, and of the\nnecessity of suspending one\u2019s judgment, as we learn from Ascanius, of\nAbdera. For he used to say that nothing was honourable, or disgraceful,\nor just, or unjust. And on the same principle he asserted that there\nwas no such thing as downright truth; but that men did everything in\nconsequence of custom and law. For that nothing was any more this than\nthat. And his life corresponded to his principles; for he never shunned\nanything, and never guarded against anything; encountering everything,\neven waggons for instance, and precipices, and dogs, and everything of\nthat sort; committing nothing whatever to his senses. So that he used\nto be saved, as Antigonus the Carystian tells us, by his friends who\naccompanied him. And \u00c6nesidemus says that he studied philosophy on the\nprinciple of suspending his judgment on all points, without however, on\nany occasion acting in an imprudent manner, or doing anything without due\nconsideration. And he lived to nearly ninety years of age.\n\nIV. And Antigonus, of Carystus, in his account of Pyrrho, mentions the\nfollowing circumstances respecting him; that he was originally a person\nof no reputation, but a poor man, and a painter; and that a picture of\nsome camp-bearers, of very moderate execution, was preserved in the\nGymnasium at Elis, which was his work; and that he used to walk out into\nthe fields and seek solitary places, very rarely appearing to his family\nat home; and that he did this in consequence of having heard some Indian\nreproaching Anaxarchus for never teaching any one else any good, but for\ndevoting all his time to paying court to princes in palaces. He relates\nof him too, that he always maintained the same demeanour, so that if any\none left him in the middle of his delivery of a discourse, he remained\nand continued what he was saying; although, when a young man, he was of a\nvery excitable temperament. Often too, says Antigonus, he would go away\nfor a time, without telling any one beforehand, and taking any chance\npersons whom he chose for his companions. And once, when Anaxarchus had\nfallen into a pond, he passed by without assisting him; and when some\none blamed him for this, Anaxarchus himself praised his indifference and\nabsence of all emotion.\n\nOn one occasion he was detected talking to himself, and when he was\nasked the reason, he said that he was studying how to be good. In his\ninvestigations he was never despised by any one, because he always spoke\nexplicitly and straight to the question that had been put to him. On\nwhich account Nausiphanes was charmed by him even when he was quite\nyoung. And he used to say that he should like to be endowed with the\ndisposition of Pyrrho, without losing his own power of eloquence. And\nhe said too, that Epicurus, who admired the conversation and manners of\nPyrrho, was frequently asking him about him.\n\nV. He was so greatly honoured by his country, that he was appointed\na priest; and on his account all the philosophers were exempted from\ntaxation. He had a great many imitators of his impassiveness; in\nreference to which Timon speaks thus of him in his Python, and in his\nSilli:\u2014\n\n Now, you old man, you Pyrrho, how could you\n Find an escape from all the slavish doctrines\n And vain imaginations of the Sophists?\n How did you free yourself from all the bonds\n Of sly chicane, and artful deep persuasion?\n How came you to neglect what sort of breeze\n Blows round your Greece, and what\u2019s the origin\n And end of everything?\n\nAnd again, in his Images, he says:\u2014\n\n These things, my heart, O Pyrrho, longs to hear,\n How you enjoy such ease of life and quiet,\n The only man as happy as a God.\n\nAnd the Athenians presented him with the freedom of their city, as\nDiocles tells us, because he had slain Cotys, the Thracian.\n\nVI. He also lived in a most blameless manner with his sister, who was a\nmidwife, as Eratosthenes relates, in his treatise on Riches and Poverty;\nso that he himself used to carry poultry, and pigs too if he could get\nany, into the market-place and sell them. And he used to clean all the\nfurniture of the house without expressing any annoyance. And it is said\nthat he carried his indifference so far that he even washed a pig. And\nonce, when he was very angry about something connected with his sister\n(and her name was Philista), and some one took him up, he said, \u201cThe\ndisplay of my indifference does not depend on a woman.\u201d On another\noccasion, when he was driven back by a dog which was attacking him, he\nsaid to some one who blamed him for being discomposed, \u201cThat it was a\ndifficult thing entirely to put off humanity; but that a man ought to\nstrive with all his power to counteract circumstances with his actions if\npossible, and at all events with his reason.\u201d They also tell a story that\nonce, when some medicines of a consuming tendency, and some cutting and\ncautery was applied to him for some wound, that he never even contracted\nhis brow. And Timon intimates his disposition plainly enough in the\nletters which he wrote to Python. Moreover, Philo, the Athenian, who was\na friend of his, said that he was especially fond of Democritus; and next\nto him of Homer; whom he admired greatly, and was continually saying:\u2014\n\n But as the race of falling leaves decay,\n Such is the fate of man.[132]\n\nHe used also, as it is said, to compare men to wasps, and flies, and\nbirds, and to quote the following lines:\u2014\n\n Die then, my friend, what boots it to deplore?\n The great, the good Patroclus is no more.\n He, far thy better, was foredoom\u2019d to die;\n And thou, doest thou bewail mortality?[133]\n\nAnd so he would quote anything that bore on the uncertainty and emptiness\nand fickleness of the affairs of man. Posidonius tells the following\nanecdote about him: that when some people who were sailing with him\nwere looking gloomy because of a storm, he kept a calm countenance,\nand comforted their minds, exhibiting himself on deck eating a pig, and\nsaying that it became a wise man to preserve an untroubled spirit in that\nmanner. Numenius is the only writer who asserts that he used to deliver\npositive dogmas.\n\nVII. He had many eminent disciples, and among them Eurylochus, of whom\nthe following defective characteristic is related; for, they say, that he\nwas once worked up to such a pitch of rage that he took up a spit with\nthe meat on it, and chased the cook as far as the market-place. And once\nin Elis he was so harassed by some people who put questions to him in the\nmiddle of his discourses, that he threw down his cloak and swam across\nthe Alpheus. He was the greatest possible enemy to the Sophists, as Timon\ntells us. But Philo, on the contrary, was very fond of arguing; on which\naccount Timon speaks of him thus:\u2014\n\n Avoiding men to study all devoted,\n He ponders with himself, and never heeds\n The glory or disputes which harass Philo.\n\nBesides these disciples, Pyrrho also had Hecateus of Abdera, and Timon\nthe Phliasian, who wrote the Silli, and whom we shall speak of hereafter;\nand also Nausiphanes, of Teos, who, as some say, was the master of\nEpicurus.\n\nVIII. All these men were called Pyrrhoneans from their master; and also\ndoubters, and sceptics, and ephectics, or suspenders of their judgment,\nand investigators, from their principles. And their philosophy was called\ninvestigatory, from their investigating or seeking the truth on all\nsides; and sceptical from their being always doubting (\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9), and\nnever finding; and ephectic, from the disposition which they encouraged\nafter investigation, I mean the suspending of their judgment (\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u1f74);\nand doubting, because they asserted that the dogmatic philosophers only\ndoubted, and that they did the same. [And they were called Pyrrhoneans\nfrom Pyrrho himself.]\n\nBut Theodosius, in his Chapters on Scepticism, contends, that we ought\nnot to call the Pyrrhonean school sceptical; for since, says he, the\nmotion and agitation of the mind in each individual is incomprehensible\nto others, we are unable to know what was the disposition of Pyrrho; and\nif we do not know it we ought not to be called Pyrrhoneans. He also\nadds that Pyrrho was not the original inventor of Scepticism, and that\nhe had no particular dogma of any kind; and that, consequently, it can\nonly be called Pyrrhonism from some similarity. Some say that Homer was\nthe original founder of this school; since he at different times gives\ndifferent accounts of the same circumstance, as much as any one else ever\ndid; and since he never dogmatizes definitively respecting affirmation;\nthey also say that the maxims of the seven wise men were sceptical;\nsuch as that, \u201cSeek nothing in excess,\u201d and that, \u201cSuretyship is near\ncalamity;\u201d which shows that calamity follows a man who has given positive\nand certain surety; they also argue that Archilochus and Euripides were\nSceptics; and Archilochus speaks thus:\u2014\n\n And now, O Glaucus, son of Leptines,\n Such is the mind of mortal man, which changes\n With every day that Jupiter doth send.\n\nAnd Euripides says:\u2014\n\n Why then do men assert that wretched mortals\n Are with true wisdom gifted; for on you\n We all depend; and we do everything\n Which pleases you.\n\nMoreover, Xenophanes, and Zeno the Eleatic, and Democritus were also\nSceptics; of whom Xenophanes speaks thus:\u2014\n\n And no man knows distinctly anything,\n And no man ever will.\n\nAnd Zeno endeavours to put an end to the doctrine of motion by saying:\n\u201cThe object moved does not move either in the place in which it is, or\nin that in which it is not.\u201d Democritus, too, discards the qualities,\nwhere he says: what is cold is cold in opinion, and what is hot is hot\nin opinion; but atoms and the vacuum exist in reality. And again he\nsays: \u201cBut we know nothing really; for truth lies in the bottom.\u201d Plato,\ntoo, following them, attributes the knowledge of the truth to the Gods\nand to the sons of the Gods, and leaves men only the investigation of\nprobability. And Euripides says:\u2014\n\n Who now can tell whether to live may not\n Be properly to die. And whether that\n Which men do call to die, may not in truth\n Be but the entrance into real life?\n\nAnd Empedocles speaks thus:\u2014\n\n These things are not perceptible to sight,\n Nor to the ears, nor comprehensible\n To human intellect.\n\nAnd in a preceding passage he says:\u2014\n\n Believing nothing, but such circumstances\n As have befallen each.\n\nHeraclitus, too, says, \u201cLet us not form conjectures at random, about\nthings of the greatest importance.\u201d And Hippocrates delivers his opinion\nin a very doubtful manner, such as becomes a man; and before them all\nHomer has said:\u2014\n\n Long in the field of words we may contend,\n Reproach is infinite and knows no end.\n\nAnd immediately after:\u2014\n\n Armed, or with truth or falsehood, right or wrong.\n (So voluble a weapon is the tongue),\n Wounded we wound, and neither side can fail,\n For every man has equal strength to rail:[134]\n\nIntimating the equal vigour and antithetical force of words. And the\nSceptics persevered in overthrowing all the dogmas of every sect, while\nthey themselves asserted nothing dogmatically; and contented themselves\nwith expressing the opinions of others, without affirming anything\nthemselves, not even that they did affirm nothing; so that even discarded\nall positive denial; for to say, \u201cWe affirm nothing,\u201d was to affirm\nsomething. \u201cBut we,\u201d said they, \u201cenunciate the doctrines of others, to\nprove our own perfect indifference; it is just as if we were to express\nthe same thing by a simple sign.\u201d So these words, \u201cWe affirm nothing,\u201d\nindicate the absence of all affirmation, just as other propositions,\nsuch as, \u201cNot more one thing than another,\u201d or, \u201cEvery reason has a\ncorresponding reason opposed to it,\u201d and all such maxims indicate a\nsimilar idea. But the phrase, \u201cNot more one thing,\u201d &c., has sometimes\nan affirmative sense, indicating the equality of certain things, as for\ninstance, in this sentence, \u201cA pirate is not worse than a liar.\u201d But\nby the sceptics this is said not positively, but negatively, as for\ninstance, where the speaker contests a point and says, \u201cIt was not\nScylla, any more than it was Chim\u00e6ra.\u201d And the word \u201cmore,\u201d itself, is\nsometimes used to indicate a comparison, as when we say, \u201cThat honey is\nmore sweet than grapes.\u201d And at other times it is used positively, and at\nthe same time negatively, as when we say, \u201cVirtue profits us more than\nhurts us;\u201d for in this phrase we intimate that virtue does profit, and\ndoes not hurt us. But the Sceptics abolish the whole expression, \u201cNot\nmore than it;\u201d saying, that \u201cPrudence has not existence, any more than it\nhas no existence.\u201d Accordingly, then, expression, as Timon says in his\nPython, indicates nothing more than an absence of all affirmation, or of\nall assent of the judgment.\n\nAlso the expression, \u201cEvery reason has a corresponding reason,\u201d &c., does\nin the same manner indicate the suspension of the judgment; for if, while\nthe facts are different, the expressions are equipollent, it follows that\na man must be quite ignorant of the real truth.\n\nBesides this, to this assertion there is a contrary assertion opposed,\nwhich, after having destroyed all others, turns itself against itself,\nand destroys itself, resembling, as it were, those cathartic medicines\nwhich, after they have cleansed the stomach, then discharge themselves,\nand are got rid of. And so the dogmatic philosophers say, that all these\nreasonings are so far from overturning the authority of reason that they\nconfirm it. To this the Sceptics reply, that they only employ reason as\nan instrument, because it is impossible to overturn the authority of\nreason, without employing reason; just as if we assert that there is\nno such thing as space, we must employ the word \u201cspace,\u201d but that not\ndogmatically, but demonstratively; and if we assert that nothing exists\naccording to necessity, it is unavoidable that we must use the word\n\u201cnecessity.\u201d The same principle of interpretation did they adopt; for\nthey affirmed that facts are not by nature such as they appear to be, but\nthat they only seem such; and they said, that what they doubt is not what\nthey think, for their thoughts are evident to themselves, but the reality\nof the things which are only made known to them by their sensations.\n\nThe Pyrrhonean system, then, is a simple explanation of appearances, or\nof notions of every kind, by means of which, comparing one thing with\nanother one arrives at the conclusion, that there is nothing in all\nthese notions, but contradiction and confusion; as \u00c6nesidemus says in\nhis Introduction to Pyrrhonism. As to the contradictions which are found\nin those speculations, when they have pointed out in what way each fact\nis convincing, they then, by the same means, take away all belief from\nit; for they say that we regard as certain, those things which always\nproduce similar impressions on the senses, those which are the offspring\nof habit, or which are established by the laws, and those too which give\npleasure or excite wonder. And they prove that the reasons opposite to\nthose on which our assent is founded are entitled to equal belief.\n\nIX. The difficulties which they suggest, relating to the agreement\nsubsisting between what appears to the senses, and what is comprehended\nby the intellect, divide themselves into ten modes of argument, according\nto which the subject and object of our knowledge is incessantly changing.\nAnd these ten modes Pyrrho lays down in the following manner.\n\nThe first relates to the difference which one remarks between the\nsentiments of animals in respect of pleasure, and pain, and what is\ninjurious, and what is advantageous; and from this we conclude, that\nthe same objects do not always produce the same impressions; and that\nthe fact of this difference ought to be a reason with us for suspending\nour judgment. For there are some animals which are produced without\nany sexual connexion, as those which live in the fire, and the Arabian\nPh\u0153nix, and worms. Others again are engendered by copulation, as men\nand others of that kind; and some are composed in one way, and others\nin another; on which account they also differ in their senses, as for\ninstance, hawks are very keen-sighted; dogs have a most acute scent. It\nis plain, therefore, that the things seen produce different impressions\non those animals which differ in their power of sight. So, too, young\nbranches are eagerly eaten by the goat, but are bitter to mankind; and\nhemlock is nutritious for the quail, but deadly to man; and pigs eat\ntheir own dung, but a horse does not.\n\nThe second mode refers to the nature and idiosyncracies of men. According\nto Demophon, the steward of Alexander used to feel warm in the shade,\nand to shiver in the sun. And Andron, the Argive, as Aristotle tells us,\ntravelled through the dry parts of Libya, without once drinking. Again,\none man is fond of medicine, another of farming, another of commerce;\nand the same pursuits are good for one man, and injurious to another; on\nwhich account, we ought to suspend our opinions.\n\nThe third mode, is that which has for its object the difference of the\norgans of sense. Accordingly, an apple presents itself to the sight as\nyellow, to the taste as sweet, to the smell as fragrant; and the same\nform is seen, in very different lights, according to the differences of\nmirrors. It follows, therefore, that what is seen is just as likely to be\nsomething else as the reality.\n\nThe fourth refers to the dispositions of the subject, and the changes in\ngeneral to which it is liable. Such as health, sickness, sleep, waking,\njoy, grief, youth, old age, courage, fear, want, abundance, hatred,\nfriendship, warmth, cold, easiness of breathing, oppression of the\nrespiratory organs, and so on. The objects, therefore, appear different\nto us according to the disposition of the moment; for, even madmen are\nnot in a state contrary to nature. For, why are we to say that of them\nmore than of ourselves? For we too look at the sun as if it stood still.\nTheon, of Tithora, the Stoic, used to walk about in his sleep; and a\nslave of Pericles\u2019 used, when in the same state, to walk on the top of\nthe house.\n\nThe fifth mode is conversant with laws, and established customs, and\nbelief in mythical traditions, and the conventions of art, and dogmatical\nopinions. This mode embraces all that relates to vice, and to honesty; to\nthe true, and to the false; to the good, and to the bad; to the Gods, and\nto the production, and destruction of all visible objects. Accordingly,\nthe same action is just in the case of some people, and unjust in that\nof others. And good in the case of some, and bad in that of others. On\nthis principle we see that the Persians do not think it unnatural for a\nman to marry his daughter; but among the Greeks it is unlawful. Again,\nthe Massaget\u00e6, as Eudoxus tells us in the first book of his Travels over\nthe World, have their women in common; but the Greeks do not. And the\nCilicians delight in piracy, but the Greeks avoid it. So again, different\nnations worship different Gods; and some believe in the providence of\nGod, and others do not. The Egyptians embalm their dead, and then bury\nthem; the Romans burn them; the P\u00e6onians throw them into the lakes. All\nthese considerations show that we ought to suspend our judgment.\n\nThe sixth mode has reference to the promiscuousness and confusion of\nobjects; according to which nothing is seen by us simply and by itself;\nbut in combination either with air, or with light, or with moisture, or\nwith solidity, or heat, or cold, or motion, or evaporation or some other\npower. Accordingly, purple exhibits a different hue in the sun, and in\nthe moon, and in a lamp. And our own complexions appear different when\nseen at noonday and at sunset. And a stone which one cannot lift in the\nair, is easily displaced in the water, either because it is heavy itself\nand is made light by the water, or because it is light in itself and is\nmade heavy by the air. So that we cannot positively know the peculiar\nqualities of anything, just as we cannot discover oil in ointment.\n\nThe seventh mode has reference to distances, and position, and space, and\nto the objects which are in space. In this mode one establishes the fact\nthat objects which we believe to be large, sometimes appear small; that\nthose which we believe to be square, sometimes appear round; that those\nwhich we fancy even, appear full of projections; those which we think\nstraight, seem bent; and those which we believe to be colourless, appear\nof quite a different complexion. Accordingly, the sun, on account of its\ndistance from us, appears small. The mountains too, at a distance,[135]\nappear airy masses and smooth, but when beheld close, they are rough.\nAgain, the sun has one appearance at his rise, and quite a different one\nat midday. And the same body looks very different in a wood from what\nit does on plain ground. So too, the appearance of an object changes\naccording to its position as regards us; for instance, the neck of a dove\nvaries as it turns. Since then, it is impossible to view these things\nirrespectively of place and position, it is clear that their real nature\nis not known.\n\nThe eighth mode has respect to the magnitudes or quantities of things; or\nto the heat or coldness, or to the speed or slowness, or to the paleness\nor variety of colour of the subject. For instance, a moderate quantity of\nwine when taken invigorates, but an excessive quantity weakens. And the\nsame is the case with food, and other similar things.\n\nThe ninth depends upon the frequency, or rarity, or strangeness of the\nthing under consideration. For instance, earthquakes excite no wonder\namong those nations with whom they are of frequent occurrence; nor does\nthe sun, because he is seen every day.\n\nThe ninth mode is called by Phavorinus, the eighth, and by Sextus and\n\u00c6nesidemus, the tenth; and Sextus calls the tenth the eighth, which\nPhavorinus reckons the tenth as the ninth in order.\n\nThe tenth mode refers to the comparison between one thing and another;\nas, for instance, between what is light and what is heavy; between\nwhat is strong and what is weak; between what is greater and what is\nless; what is above and what is below. For instance, that which is on\nthe right, is not on the right intrinsically and by nature, but it is\nlooked upon as such in consequence of its relation to something else;\nand if that other thing be transposed, then it will no longer be on the\nright. In the same way, a man is spoken of as a father, or brother, or\nrelation to some one else; and day is called so in relation to the sun:\nand everything has its distinctive name in relation to human thought:\ntherefore, those things which are known in relation to others, are\nunknown of themselves.\n\nAnd these are the ten modes.\n\nX. But Agrippa adds five other modes to them. One derived from the\ndisagreement of opinions; another from the necessity of proceeding _ad\ninfinitum_ from one reasoning to another; a third from relation; a fourth\nfrom hypothesis; and the last from the reciprocal nature of proofs.\n\nThat which refers to the disagreement of opinions, shows that all the\nquestions which philosophers propose to themselves, or which people in\ngeneral discuss, are full of uncertainty and contradiction.\n\nThat which is derived from the necessity of proceeding incessantly from\none reasoning to another, demonstrates that it is impossible for a man\never, in his researches, to arrive at undeniable truth; since one truth\nis only to be established by another truth; and so on, _ad infinitum_.\n\nThe mode which is derived from relation rests on the doctrine that no\nobject is ever perceived independently and entirely by itself, but always\nin its relation to something else; so that it is impossible to know its\nnature correctly.\n\nThat which depends on hypothesis is directed against those arguers who\npretend that it is necessary to accept the principles of things taken\nabsolutely, and that one must place one\u2019s faith in them without any\nexamination, which is an absurdity, for one may just as well lay down the\nopposite principles.\n\nThe fifth mode, that one namely which arises from the reciprocal nature\nof proofs, is capable of application whenever the proof of the truth\nwhich we are looking for supposes, as a necessary preliminary, our belief\nin that truth; for instance, if, after we have proved the porosity of\nbodies by their evaporations, we return and prove the evaporations by the\nporosity.\n\nXI. These Sceptics then deny the existence of any demonstration, of\nany test of truth, of any signs, or causes, or motion, or learning,\nand of anything as intrinsically or naturally good or bad. For every\ndemonstration, say they, depends either on things which demonstrate\nthemselves, or on principles which are indemonstrable. If on things\nwhich demonstrate themselves, then these things themselves require\ndemonstration; and so on _ad infinitum_. If on principles which are\nindemonstrable, then, the very moment that either the sum total of these\nprinciples, or even one single one of them, is incorrectly urged, the\nwhole demonstration falls instantly to pieces. But if any one supposes,\nthey add, that there are principles which require no demonstration, that\nman deceives himself strangely, not seeing that it is necessary for him\nin the first place to establish this point, that they contain their proof\nin themselves. For a man cannot prove that there are four elements,\nbecause there are four elements.\n\nBesides, if particular proofs are denied in a complex demonstration, it\nmust follow that the whole demonstration is also incorrect. Again, if we\nare to know that an argument is really a demonstrative proof, we must\nhave a test of truth; and in order to establish a test, we require a\ndemonstrative proof; and these two things must be devoid of every kind of\ncertainty, since they bear reciprocally the one on the other.\n\nHow then is any one to arrive at certainty about obscure matters, if one\nis ignorant even how one ought to attempt to prove them? For what one is\ndesirous to understand is not what the appearance of things is, but what\ntheir nature and essence is.\n\nThey show, too, that the dogmatic philosophers act with great simplicity;\nfor that the conclusions which they draw from their hypothetical\nprinciples, are not scientific truths but mere suppositions; and\nthat, in the same manner, one might establish the most improbable\npropositions. They also say that those who pretend that one ought not to\njudge of things by the circumstances which surround them, or by their\naccessories, but that one ought to take their nature itself as one\u2019s\nguide, do not perceive that, while they pretend to give the precise\nmeasure and definition of everything, if the objects present such and\nsuch an appearance, that depends solely on their position and relative\narrangement. They conclude from thence, that it is necessary to say that\neverything is true, or that everything is false. For if certain things\nonly are true, how is one to recognize them. Evidently it will not be\nthe senses which judge in that case of the objects of sensation, for\nall appearances are equal to the senses; nor will it be the intellect,\nfor the same reason. But besides these two faculties, there does not\nappear to be any other test or criterion at all. So, say they, if we\ndesire to arrive at any certainty with respect to any object which comes\nunder either sense or intellect, we must first establish those opinions\nwhich are laid down previously as bearing on those objects. For some\npeople have denied this doctrine, and others have overturned that; it\nis therefore indispensable that they should be judged of either by the\nsenses or by the intellect. And the authority of each of these faculties\nis contested; it is therefore impossible to form a positive judgment of\nthe operations of the senses and of the intellect; and if the contest\nbetween the different opinions, compels us to a neutrality, then the\nmeasure which appeared proper to apply to the appreciation of all those\nobjects is at the same time put an end to, and one must fix a similar\nvaluation on everything.\n\nPerhaps our opponent will say, \u201cAre then appearances trustworthy or\ndeceitful?\u201d[136] We answer that, if they are trustworthy, the other side\nhas nothing to object to those to whom the contrary appearance presents\nitself. For, as he who says that such and such a thing appears to him is\ntrustworthy, so also is he who says that the contrary appears to him. And\nif appearances are deceitful, then they do not deserve any confidence\nwhen they assert what appears to them to be true. We are not bound then\nto believe that a thing is true, merely because it obtains assent. For\nall men do not yield to the same reasons; and even the same individual\ndoes not always see things in the same light. Persuasion often depends on\nexternal circumstances, on the authority of the speaker, on his ability,\non the elegance of his language, on habit, or even on pleasure.\n\nThey also, by this train of reasoning, suppress the criterion of truth.\nEither the criterion has been decided on, or it has not. And if it has\nnot, it does not deserve any confidence, and it cannot be of any use at\nall in aiding us to discern truth from falsehood. If, on the other hand,\nit has been decided on, it then enters into the class of particular\nthings which require a criterion, and in that case to judge and to be\njudged amount to the same thing; the criterion which judges is itself\njudged of by something else, that again by a third criterion, and so on\n_ad infinitum_. Add to this, say they, the fact that people are not even\nagreed as to the nature of the criterion of truth; some say that man is\nthe criterion, others that it is the senses which are so: one set places\nreason in the van, another class rely upon cataleptic perception.\n\nAs to man himself, he disagrees both with himself and with others, as\nthe diversity of laws and customs proves. The senses are deceivers, and\nreason disagrees with itself. Cataleptic perception is judged of by the\nintellect, and the intellect changes in various manners; accordingly, we\ncan never find any positive criterion, and in consequence, truth itself\nwholly eludes our search.\n\nThey also affirm that there are no such things as signs; for if there\nare signs, they argue they must be such as are apprehended either by the\nsenses or by the intellect. Now, there are none which are apprehended by\nthe senses, for everything which is apprehended by the senses is general,\nwhile a sign is something particular. Moreover, any object which is\napprehended by the senses has an existence of its own, while signs are\nonly relative. Again, signs are not apprehended by the intellect, for\nin that case they would be either the visible manifestation of a visible\nthing, or the invisible manifestation of an invisible thing, or the\ninvisible sign of a visible thing; or the visible sign of an invisible\nthing. But none of all these cases are possible; there are therefore no\nsuch things as signs at all.\n\nThere is therefore no such thing as a visible sign of a visible thing;\nfor that which is visible has no need of a sign. Nor, again, is there any\ninvisible sign of an invisible thing; for when anything is manifested by\nmeans of another thing, it must become visible. On the same principle\nthere is no invisible sign of a visible object; for that which aids in\nthe perception of something else must be visible. Lastly, there is no\nvisible manifestation of an invisible thing; for as a sign is something\nwholly relative, it must be perceived in that of which it is the sign;\nand that is not the case. It follows, therefore, that none of those\nthings which are not visible in themselves admit of being perceived; for\none considers signs as things which aid in the perception of that which\nis not evident by itself.\n\nThey also wholly discard, and, as far as depends on them, overturn the\nidea of any cause, by means of this same train of reasoning. Cause is\nsomething relative. It is relative to that of which it is the cause. But\nthat which is relative is only conceived, and has no real existence.\nThe idea of a cause then is a pure conception; for, inasmuch as it is a\ncause, it must be a cause of something; otherwise it would be no cause\nat all. In the same way as a father cannot be a father, unless there\nexists some being in respect of whom one gives him the title of father;\nso too a cause stands on the same ground. For, supposing that nothing\nexists relatively to which a cause can be spoken of; then, as there is no\nproduction, or destruction, or anything of that sort, there can likewise\nbe no cause. However, let us admit that there are such things as causes.\nIn that case then, either a body must be the cause of a body, or that\nwhich is incorporeal must be the cause of that which is incorporeal. Now,\nneither of these cases is possible, therefore, there is no such thing\nas cause. In fact, one body cannot be the cause of another body, since\nboth bodies must have the same nature; and if it be said that one is the\ncause, inasmuch as it is a body, then the other must be a cause for the\nsame reason. And in that case one would have two reciprocal causes; two\nagents without any passive subject.\n\nAgain, one incorporeal thing cannot be the cause of another incorporeal\nthing for the same reason. Also, an incorporeal thing cannot be the\ncause of a body, because nothing that is incorporeal can produce a body.\nNor, on the other hand, can a body be the cause of anything incorporeal,\nbecause in every production there must be some passive subject matter;\nbut, as what is incorporeal is by its own nature protected from being\na passive subject, it cannot be the object of any productive power.\nThere is, therefore, no such thing as any cause at all. From all which\nit follows, that the first principles of all things have no reality;\nfor such a principle, if it did exist, must be both the agent and the\nefficient cause.\n\nAgain, there is no such thing as motion. For whatever is moved, is moved\neither in the place in which it is, or in that in which it is not. It\ncertainly is not moved in the place in which it is, and it is impossible\nthat it should be moved in the place in which it is not; therefore, there\nis no such thing as motion at all.\n\nThey also denied the existence of all learning. If, said they, anything\nis taught, then either that which does exist is taught in its existence\nor that which does not exist is taught in its non-existence; but that\nwhich does exist is not taught in its existence (for the nature of all\nexistent things is visible to all men, and is known by all men); nor is\nthat which does not exist taught in its non-existence, for nothing can\nhappen to that which does not exist, so that to be taught cannot happen\nto it.\n\nNor again, say they, is there any such thing as production. For that\nwhich is, is not produced, for it exists already; nor that which is not,\nfor that does not exist at all. And that which has no being nor existence\nat all, cannot be produced.\n\nAnother of their doctrines is, that there is no such thing as any natural\ngood, or natural evil. For if there be any natural good, or natural evil,\nthen it must be good to everyone, or evil to everyone; just as snow is\ncold to everyone. But there is no such thing as one general good or evil\nwhich is common to all beings; therefore, there is no such thing as any\nnatural good, or natural evil. For either one must pronounce everything\ngood which is thought so by anyone whatever, or one must say that it does\nnot follow that everything which is thought good is good. Now, we cannot\nsay that everything which is thought good is good, since the same thing\nis thought good by one person (as, for instance, pleasure is thought good\nby Epicurus) and evil by another (as it is thought evil by Antisthenes);\nand on this principle the same thing will be both good and evil. If,\nagain, we assert that it does not follow that everything which is thought\ngood is good, then we must distinguish between the different opinions;\nwhich it is not possible to do by reason of the equality of the reasons\nadduced in support of them. It follows that we cannot recognize anything\nas good by nature.\n\nAnd we may also take a view of the whole of their system by the\nwritings which some of them have left behind them. Pyrrho himself has\nleft nothing; but his friends Timon, and \u00c6nesidemus, and Numenius, and\nNausiphanes, and others of that class have left books. And the dogmatical\nphilosophers arguing against them, say that they also adopt spurious and\npronounce positive dogmas. For where they think that they are refuting\nothers they are convicted, for in the very act of refutation, they assert\npositively and dogmatize. For when they say that they define nothing,\nand that every argument has an opposite argument; they do here give a\npositive definition, and assert a positive dogma. But they reply to these\nobjectors; as to the things which happen to us as men, we admit the truth\nof what you say; for we certainly do know that it is day, and that we are\nalive; and we admit that we know many other of the ph\u00e6nomena of life.\nBut with respect to those things as to which the dogmatic philosophers\nmake positive assertions, saying that they are comprehended, we suspend\nour judgment on the ground of their being uncertain; and we know nothing\nbut the passions; for we confess that we see, and we are aware that we\ncomprehend that such a thing is the fact; but we do not know how we see,\nor how we comprehend. Also, we state in the way of narrative, that this\nappears white, without asserting positively that it really is so. And\nwith respect to the assertion, \u201cWe define nothing,\u201d and other sentences\nof that sort, we do not pronounce them as dogmas. For to say that is a\ndifferent kind of statement from saying that the world is spherical;\nfor the one fact is not evident, while the other statements are mere\nadmissions.\n\nWhile, therefore, we say that we define nothing, we do not even say that\nas a definition.\n\nAgain, the dogmatic philosophers say that the Sceptics overthrow all\nlife, when they deny everything of which life consists. But the Sceptics\nsay that they are mistaken; for they do not deny that they see, but that\nthey do not know how it is that they see. For, say they, we assert what\nis actually the fact, but we do not describe its character. Again, we\nfeel that fire burns, but we suspend our judgment as to whether it has\na burning nature. Also, we see whether a person moves, and that a man\ndies; but how these things happen we know not. Therefore, say they, we\nonly resist the uncertain deductions which are put by the side of evident\nfacts. For when we say that an image has projections, we only state\nplainly what is evident; but when we say that it has not projections, we\nno longer say what appears evident, but something else. On which account\nTimon, in his Python, says that Pyrrho does not destroy the authority of\ncustom. And in his Images he speaks thus:\u2014\n\n But what is evidently seen prevails,\n Wherever it may be.\n\nAnd in his treatise on the Senses, he says, \u201cThe reason why a thing\nis sweet I do not declare, but I confess that the fact of sweetness\nis evident.\u201d So too, \u00c6nesidemus, in the first book of his Pyrrhonean\nDiscourses, says that Pyrrho defines nothing dogmatically, on account\nof the possibility of contradiction, but that he is guided by what is\nevident. And he says the same thing in his book against Wisdom, and in\nhis treatise on Investigation.\n\nIn like manner, Zeuxis, a friend of \u00c6nesidemus, in his treatise on\nTwofold Arguments, and Antiochus, of Laodicea, and Apellas, in his\nAgrippa, all declare nothing beyond what is evident. The criterion\ntherefore, among the Sceptics, is that which is evident; as \u00c6nesidemus\nalso says; and Epicurus says the same thing.\n\nBut Democritus says, that there is no test whatever of appearances,\nand also that they are not criteria of truth. Moreover, the dogmatic\nphilosophers attack the criterion derived from appearances, and say that\nthe same objects present at times different appearances; so that a town\npresents at one time a square, and at another a round appearance; and\nthat consequently, if the Sceptic does not discriminate between different\nappearances, he does nothing at all. If, on the contrary, he determines\nin favour of either, then, say they, he no longer attaches equal value\nto all appearances. The Sceptics reply to this, that in the presence of\ndifferent appearances, they content themselves with saying that there\nare many appearances, and that it is precisely because things present\nthemselves under different characters, that they affirm the existence of\nappearances.\n\nLastly, the Sceptics say, that the chief good is the suspension of the\njudgment which tranquillity of mind follows, like its shadow, as Timon\nand \u00c6nesidemus say; for that we need not choose these things, or avoid\nthose, which all depend on ourselves: but as to those things which do not\ndepend upon us, but upon necessity, such as hunger, thirst, and pain,\nthose we cannot avoid; for it is not possible to put an end to them by\nreason.\n\nBut when the dogmatic philosophers object that the Sceptic, on his\nprinciples, will not refuse to kill his own father, if he is ordered\nto do so; so that they answer, that they can live very well without\ndisquieting themselves about the speculations of the dogmatic\nphilosophers; but, suspending their judgment in all matters which do not\nrefer to living and the preservation of life. Accordingly, say they, we\navoid some things, and we seek others, following custom in that; and we\nobey the laws.\n\nSome authors have asserted, that the chief good of the Stoics is\nimpassibility; others say that it is mildness and tranquillity.\n\n\nLIFE OF TIMON.\n\nI. Apollonides, of Nic\u00e6a, a philosopher of our school, in the first\nbook of his Commentaries on the Silli, which he dedicated to Tiberius\nC\u00e6sar, says that Timon was the son of Timarchus, and a Phliasian by\nbirth. And then, when he was young, he studied dancing, and afterwards\nhe renounced that study, and went to Megara to Stilpo. And having spent\nsome time there, he returned home again and married. Then he came\nwith his wife to Elis, to see Pyrrho, and there he remained while his\nchildren were born; the elder of whom, he called Xanthus, and taught him\nmedicine, and left him his successor in his sect of philosophy. And he\nwas a man of considerable eminence, as Sotion tells us in his eleventh\nbook. Afterwards, being in difficulty as to his means, he departed to\nthe Hellespont and the Propontis; and living at Chalcedon as a Sophist,\nhe earned a very high reputation and great popularity; from thence he\ndeparted, after having made a considerable fortune, and went to Athens,\nand remained there till his death, going across once for a short time\nto Thebes. He was also acquainted with king Antigonus, and with Ptolemy\nPhiladelphus, as he himself testifies in his Iambics.\n\nII. He was, says Antigonus, fond of drinking, and he at times occupied\nhimself with works quite inconsistent with philosophy; for he wrote lyric\nand epic poems, and tragedies and satiric dramas, and thirty comedies,\nand sixty tragedies and Silli, and amatory poems.\n\nThere are works of his also enumerated in a regular catalogue, extending\nto twenty thousand verses, which are mentioned by Antigonus, of Carystos,\nwho also wrote his life. Of the Silli, there are three volumes; in which\nhe attacks every one as if he were a Sceptic, and especially he lampoons\nthe dogmatic philosophers under the form of parodies. The first volume\nof these Silli contains a long uninterrupted narration; but the second\nand third are in the form of dialogues. He is represented in them, as\ninterrogating Xenophanes, the Colophonian, about every thing, and he\nutters a long continued discourse; in his second book he speaks of the\nmore ancient philosophers; and in his third of the more modern ones;\non which account some people have given the last book the name of the\nepilogue.\n\nBut the first book contains the same subjects, with this difference, that\nin that it is all confined to one single person and its first line begins\nthus:\u2014\n\n Come hither, all you over-busy Sophists\n\nIII. He died when he was nearly ninety years old, as Antigonus tells us;\nand Sotion, in his eleventh book, makes the same statement. I have heard\nit said that he had only one eye, and, indeed, he used to call himself\nCyclops.\n\nIV. There was also another Timon, the misanthrope.\n\nV. Now this philosopher was very fond of a garden, and also of solitude,\nas we are told by Antigonus. Accordingly it is reported, that Hieronymus,\nthe Peripatetic, said of him, as among the Scythians, both they who\nfly, and they who pursue shoot with the bow, so in the case of the\nphilosophers, those who pursue and those who fly both hunt for pupils, as\nTimon for instance.\n\nVI. He was a man of very acute perceptions, and very quick at seeing\nthe ridiculous side of any question: he was also very fond of learning,\nand a very clever man at devising plots for poets, and at composing\ndramas. And he used to associate with himself, in the composition of his\ntragedies, two other poets, named Alexander and Homer; and whenever he\nwas disturbed by his maid-servants or by the dogs, he paid no attention\nto them, studying above all things to live in tranquillity. They tell a\nstory, that Aratus asked him how he could procure an entire and correct\ncopy of Homer\u2019s poetry, and he answered, \u201cIf he could fall in with an old\nmanuscript which had never been corrected.\u201d And all his works used to\nlie about at random, and at times half eaten by mice; so that once when\nhe was reading them to Zopyrus, the orator, and unrolling a volume, he\nread whatever passages came first, and when he got to the middle of the\nbook he found a great gap, which he had not previously perceived, so very\nindifferent was he about such matters.\n\nHis constitution was so vigorous, that he could easily go without his\ndinner. And they say, that once when he saw Arcesilaus passing through\nthe forum of the Cercopes, he said, \u201cWhat are you doing here, where we\nfreemen are?\u201d And he used constantly to quote to those who invoked the\ntestimony of their intellects to judge of the senses:\u2014\n\n Attagas and Numenius are met.[137]\n\nAnd this jesting manner was habitual with him. Accordingly he once said\nto a man, who was surprised at everything, \u201cWhy do you not wonder that\nwe three men have only four eyes between us?\u201d for he himself had only\none eye, no more had Dioscorides, his pupil; but the man to whom he was\nspeaking had his sight unimpaired. On another occasion, he was asked by\nArcesilaus, why he had come from Thebes, and he said, \u201cTo laugh at you\nall when I see you face to face.\u201d But though he attacked Arcesilaus in\nhis Silli, he has praised him in the book entitled the Funeral Banquet of\nArcesilaus.\n\nVII. He had no successor, as Menodotus tells us; but his school ceased,\ntill Ptolemy the Cyrenean re-established it. According to the account\ngiven to us by Hippobotus and Sotion, he had as pupils, Dioscorides\nof Cyprus, and Nicolochus of Rhodes, and Euphranor of Seleucia, and\nPraylus of the Troas, who was a man of such constancy of mind that, as\nPhylarchus relates in his History, he allowed himself to be punished\nas a traitor wholly undeservedly, not uttering one word of complaint\nagainst his fellow citizens; and Euphranor had for his pupil, Eubulus, of\nAlexandria, who was the master of Ptolemy, who was the master of Sarpedon\nand Heraclides. And Heraclides was the master of \u00c6nesidemus, of Cnossus,\nwho wrote eight books of Pyrrhonean discourses; he was also the master\nof Zeuxippus Polites, who was the master of Zeuxis Goniopus, who was the\nmaster of Antiochus, of Laodicea, in Lycia. Antiochus again, was the\nmaster of Menodotus, of Nicomedia, a skilful physician, and of Theodas,\nof Laodicea; and Menodotus was the master of Herodotus, of Tarsus, the\nson of Arieus; Herodotus was the master of Sextus Empiricus, who left ten\nbooks of Sceptic Maxims, and other excellent works; and Sextus was the\nmaster of Saturninus Cythenas, who was also an empiric.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK X.\n\n\nLIFE OF EPICURUS.\n\nI. Epicurus was an Athenian, and the son of Neocles and Ch\u00e6restrate, of\nthe burgh of Gargettus, and of the family of the Philaid\u00e6, as Metrodorus\ntells us in his treatise on Nobility of Birth. Some writers, and among\nthem Heraclides, in his Abridgment of Sotion, say, that as the Athenians\nhad colonised Samos, he was brought up there, and came to Athens in his\neighteenth year, while Xenocrates was president of the Academy, and\nAristotle at Chalcis. But after the death of Alexander, the Macedonian,\nwhen the Athenians were driven out of Samos by Perdiccas, Epicurus went\nto Colophon to his father.\n\nII. And when he had spent some time there, and collected some disciples,\nhe again returned to Athens, in the time of Anaxicrates, and for some\ntime studied philosophy, mingling with the rest of the philosophers;\nbut subsequently, he some how or other established the school which\nwas called after his name; and he used to say, that he began to study\nphilosophy, when he was fourteen years of age; but Apollodorus, the\nEpicurean, in the first book of his account of the life of Epicurus,\nsays, that he came to the study of philosophy, having conceived a great\ncontempt for the grammarians, because they could not explain to him the\nstatements in Hesiod respecting Chaos.\n\nBut Hermippus tells us, that he himself was a teacher of grammar, and\nthat afterwards, having met with the books of Democritus, he applied\nhimself with zeal to philosophy, on which account Timon says of him:\u2014\n\n The last of all the natural philosophers,\n And the most shameless too, did come from Samos,\n A grammar teacher, and the most ill-bred\n And most unmanageable of mankind.\n\nAnd he had for his companions in his philosophical studies, his three\nbrothers, Neocles, Ch\u00e6redemus, and Aristobulus, who were excited by his\nexhortations, as Philodemus, the Epicurean, relates in the tenth book of\nthe Classification of Philosophers. He had also a slave, whose name was\nMus, as Myronianus tells us in his Similar Historical Chapters.\n\nIII. But Diotimus, the Stoic, was very hostile to him, and calumniated\nhim in a most bitter manner, publishing fifty obscene letters, and\nattributing them to Epicurus, and also giving him the credit of the\nletters, which generally go under the name of Chrysippus. And Posidonius,\nthe Stoic, and Nicolaus, and Sotion, in the twelfth of these books, which\nare entitled the Refutations of Diocles, of which there are altogether\ntwenty-four volumes, and Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, have also attacked\nhim with great severity; for they say that he used to accompany his\nmother when she went about the small cottages, performing purifications,\nand that he used to read the formula, and that he used also to keep a\nschool with his father at very low terms. Also, that he, as well as one\nof his brothers, was a most profligate man in his morals, and that he\nused to live with Leontium, the courtesan. Moreover, that he claimed the\nbooks of Democritus on Atoms, and that of Aristippus on Pleasure, as his\nown; and that he was not a legitimate citizen; and this last fact is\nasserted also by Timocrates, and by Herodotus, in his treatise on the\nYouth of Epicurus.\n\nThey also say that he used to flatter Mithras, the steward of Lysimachus,\nin a disgraceful manner, calling him in his letters P\u00e6an, and King; and\nalso that he flattered Idomeneus, and Herodotus, and Timocrates who had\nrevealed all his secret practices, and that he flattered them on this\nvery account. And in his letters to Leontium, he says, \u201cO king Apollo,\nmy dear Leontium, what transports of joy did I feel when I read your\ncharming letter.\u201d And to Themista, the wife of Leonteus, he writes, \u201cI am\nready and prepared, if you do not come to me, to roll myself to wherever\nyou and Themista invite me.\u201d And he addresses Pythocles, a beautiful\nyouth, thus, \u201cI will sit quiet,\u201d says he, \u201cawaiting your longed for and\ngod-like approach.\u201d And at another time, writing to Themista, he says,\n\u201cThat he had determined to make his way with her,\u201d as Theodorus tells us\nin the fourth book of his treatises against Epicurus.\n\nHe also wrote to many other courtesans, and especially to Leontium,\nwith whom Metrodorus also was in love. And in his treatise on the Chief\nGood, he writes thus, \u201cFor I do not know what I can consider good, if\nI put out of sight the pleasures which arise from favours, and those\nwhich are derived from amatory pleasures, and from music, and from the\ncontemplation of beauty.\u201d And in his letter to Pythocles, he writes,\n\u201cAnd, my dear boy, avoid all sorts of education.\u201d\n\nEpictetus also attacks him as a most debauched man, and reproaches him\nmost vehemently, and so does Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, in\nhis treatise entitled the Merry Guests, and this Timocrates had been a\ndisciple in his school, though he afterwards abandoned it; and he says\nthat he used to vomit twice a day, in consequence of his intemperance;\nand that he himself had great difficulty in escaping from this nocturnal\nphilosophy, and that mystic kind of re-union. He also accuses Epicurus\nof shameful ignorance in his reasoning, and still more especially in\nall matters relating to the conduct of life. And says that he was in a\npitiable state of health, so that he could not for many years rise up\nfrom his sofa; and that he used to spend a min\u00e6 a day on his eating,\nas he himself states in his letter to Leontium, and in that to the\nphilosophers at Mitylene. He also says that many courtesans used to\nlive with him and Metrodorus; and among them Marmarium, and Hedea, and\nErotium, and Nicidium.\n\nIV. And in the thirty-seven books which he wrote about natural\nphilosophy, they say that he says a great many things of the same kind\nover and over again, and that in them he writes in contradiction of other\nphilosophers, and especially of Nausiphanes, and speaks as follows, word\nfor word: \u201cBut if any one else ever was afflicted in such a manner,\nthen certainly this man had a continual labour, striving to bring forth\nthe sophistical boastfulness of his mouth, like many other slaves.\u201d And\nEpicurus also speaks of Nausiphanes in his letters, in the following\nterms: \u201cThese things led him on to such arrogance of mind, that he\nabused me and called me a schoolmaster.\u201d He used also to call him Lungs,\nand Blockhead, and Humbug, and Fornicator. And he used to call Plato\u2019s\nfollowers Flatterers of Dionysius, but Plato himself he called Golden.\nAristotle he called a debauchee and a glutton, saying that he joined the\narmy after he had squandered his patrimony, and sold drugs. He used\nalso to call Protagoras a porter, and the secretary of Democritus, and\nto say that he taught boys their letters in the streets. Heraclitus,\nhe called a disturber; Democritus, he nicknamed Lerocritus;[138] and\nAntidorus, S\u00e6nidorus;[139] the Cynics he called enemies of Greece; and\nthe Dialecticians he charged with being eaten up with envy. Pyrrho, he\nsaid, was ignorant and unlearned.\n\nV. But these men who say this are all wrong, for there are plenty of\nwitnesses of the unsurpassable kindness of the man to every body; both\nhis own country which honoured him with brazen statues, and his friends\nwho were so numerous that they could not be contained in whole cities;\nand all his acquaintances who were bound to him by nothing but the charms\nof his doctrine, none of whom ever deserted him, except Metrodorus, the\nson of Stratoniceus, who went over to Carneades, probably because he\nwas not able to bear with equanimity the unapproachable excellence of\nEpicurus. Also, the perpetual succession of his school, which, when every\nother school decayed, continued without any falling off, and produced\na countless number of philosophers, succeeding one another without\nany interruption. We may also speak here of his gratitude towards his\nparents, and his beneficence to his brothers, and his gentleness to his\nservants (as is plain from his will, and from the fact too, that they\nunited with him in his philosophical studies, and the most eminent of\nthem was the one whom I have mentioned already, named Mus); and his\nuniversal philanthropy towards all men.\n\nHis piety towards the Gods, and his affection for his country was quite\nunspeakable; though, from an excess of modesty, he avoided affairs of\nstate. And though he lived when very difficult times oppressed Greece, he\nstill remained in his own country, only going two or three times across\nto Ionia to see his friends, who used to throng to him from all quarters,\nand to live with him in his garden, as we are told by Apollodorus. (This\ngarden he bought for eighty min\u00e6.)\n\nVI. And Diocles, in the third book of his Excursion, says that they all\nlived in the most simple and economical manner; \u201cThey were content,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cwith a small cup of light wine, and all the rest of their drink was\nwater.\u201d He also tells us that Epicurus would not allow his followers to\nthrow their property into a common stock, as Pythagoras did, who said\nthat the possessions of friends were held in common. For he said that\nsuch a doctrine as that was suited rather for those who distrusted one\nanother; and that those who distrusted one another were not friends. But\nhe himself in his letters, says that he is content with water and plain\nbread, and adds, \u201cSend me some Cytherean cheese, that if I wish to have a\nfeast, I may have the means.\u201d This was the real character of the man who\nlaid down the doctrine that pleasure was the chief good; whom Athen\u00e6us\nthus mentions in an epigram:\u2014\n\n O men, you labour for pernicious ends;\n And out of eager avarice, begin\n Quarrels and wars. And yet the wealth of nature\n Fixes a narrow limit for desires,\n Though empty judgment is insatiable.\n This lesson the wise child of Neocles\n Had learnt by heart, instructed by the Muses,\n Or at the sacred shrine of Delphi\u2019s God.\n\nAnd as we advance further, we shall learn this fact from his dogmas, and\nhis apophthegms.\n\nVII. Of all the ancient philosophers he was, as we are told by Diocles,\nmost attached to Anaxagoras (although in some points he argued against\nhim); and to Archelaus, the master of Socrates. And he used, Diocles\nadds, to accustom his pupils to preserve his writings in their memory.\nApollodorus, in his Chronicles, asserts that he was a pupil of\nNausiphanes, and Praxiphanes; but he himself does not mention this; but\nsays in his letter to Euridicus, that he had been his own instructor. He\nalso agreed with Hermarchus in not admitting that Leucippus deserved to\nbe called a philosopher; though some authors, among whom is Apollodorus,\nspeak of him as the master of Democritus. Demetrius, the Magnesian, says\nthat he was a pupil of Xenocrates also.\n\nVIII. He uses in his works plain language with respect to anything he\nis speaking of, for which Aristophanes, the grammarian, blames him,\non the ground of that style being vulgar. But he was such an admirer\nof perspicuity, that even in his treatise on Rhetoric, he aims at and\nrecommends nothing but clearness of expression. And in his letters,\ninstead of the usual civil expressions, \u201cGreeting,\u201d \u201cFarewell,\u201d and so\non, he substitutes, \u201cMay you act well,\u201d \u201cMay you live virtuously,\u201d and\nexpressions of that sort. Some of his biographers assert that it was he\nwho composed the treatise entitled the Canon, in imitation of the Tripod\nof Nausiphanes, whose pupil they say that he was, and add that he was\nalso a pupil of Pamphilus, the Platonist, at Samos.\n\nIX. They further tell us that he began to study philosophy at twelve\nyears of age, and that he presided over his school thirty-two years.\nAnd he was born as we are told by Apollodorus, in his Chronicles, in\nthe third year of the hundred and ninth olympiad, in the archonship of\nSosigenes, on the seventh day of the month Gamelion, seven years after\nthe death of Plato. And when he was thirty-two years of age, he first\nset up his school at Mitylene, and after that at Lampsacus; and when he\nhad spent five years in these two cities, he came to Athens; and he died\nthere in the second year of the hundred and twenty-seventh olympiad, in\nthe archonship of Pytharatus, when he had lived seventy-two years. And\nHermarchus, the son of Agemarchus, and a citizen of Mitylene, succeeded\nhim in his school.\n\nHe died of the stone, as Hermarchus mentions in his letters, after having\nbeen ill a fortnight; and at the end of the fortnight, Hermippus says\nthat he went into a brazen bath, properly tempered with warm water, and\nasked for a cup of pure wine and drank it; and having recommended his\nfriends to remember his doctrines, he expired. And there is an epigram of\nours on him, couched in the following language:\u2014\n\n Now, fare-ye-well, remember all my words;\n This was the dying charge of Epicurus:\n Then to the bath he went, and drank some wine,\n And sank beneath the cold embrace of Pluto.\n\nSuch was the life of the man, and such was his death.\n\nX. And he made his will in the following terms:\u2014\n\n\u201cAccording to this my will, I give all my possessions to Amynomachus, of\nBate, the son of Philocrates, and to Timocrates, of Potamos, the son of\nDemetrius; according to the deed of gift to each, which is deposited\nin the temple of Cybele; on condition that they make over my garden\nand all that is attached to it to Hermarchus, of Mitylene, the son of\nAgemarchus; and to those who study philosophy with him, and to whomsoever\nHermarchus leaves as his successors in his school, that they may abide\nand dwell in it, in the study and practice of philosophy; and I give it\nalso to all those who philosophize according to my doctrines, that they\nmay, to the best of their ability, maintain my school which exists in my\ngarden, in concert with Amynomachus and Timocrates; and I enjoin their\nheirs to do the same in the most perfect and secure manner that they can;\nso that they also may maintain my garden, as those also shall to whom\nmy immediate successors hand it down. As for the house in Melita, that\nAmynomachus and Timocrates shall allow Hermarchus that he may live in it\nduring his life, together with all his companions in philosophy.\n\n\u201cOut of the income which is derived from that property, which is here\nbequeathed by me to Amynomachus and Timocrates, I will that they,\nconsulting with Hermarchus, shall arrange in the best manner possible\nthe offerings to the manes in honour of the memory of my father, and\nmother, and brothers, and myself, and that my birth-day may be kept as\nit has been in the habit of being kept, on the tenth day of the month\nGamelion; and that the re-union of all the philosophers of our school,\nestablished in honour of Metrodorus and myself, may take place on the\ntwentieth day of every month. They shall also celebrate, as I have been\nin the habit of doing myself, the day consecrated to my brothers, in the\nmonth Poseideon; and the day consecrated to the memory of Poly\u00e6nus, in\nthe month Metageitnion.\n\n\u201cAmynomachus and Timocrates, shall be the guardians of Epicurus, the\nson of Metrodorus, and of the son of Poly\u00e6nus, as long as they study\nphilosophy under, and live with, Hermarchus. In the same way also, they\nshall be the guardians of the daughter of Metrodorus, and when she is\nof marriageable age, they shall give her to whomsoever Hermarchus shall\nselect of his companions in philosophy, provided she is well behaved\nand obedient to Hermarchus. And Amynomachus and Timocrates shall, out\nof my income, give them such a sum for their support as shall appear\nsufficient year by year, after due consultation with Hermarchus. And\nthey shall associate Hermarchus with themselves in the management of my\nrevenues, in order that everything may be done with the approval of that\nman who has grown old with me in the study of philosophy, and who is\nnow left as the president of all those who have studied philosophy with\nus. And as for the dowry for the girl when she is come to marriageable\nage, let Amynomachus and Timocrates arrange that, taking for the purpose\nsuch a sum from my property as shall seem to them, in conjunction with\nHermarchus, to be reasonable. And let them also take care of Nicanor,\nas we ourselves have done; in order that all those who have studied\nphilosophy with us, and who have assisted us with their means, and who\nhave shown great friendship for us, and who have chosen to grow old with\nus in the study of philosophy, may never be in want of anything as far as\nour power to prevent it may extend.\n\n\u201cI further enjoin them to give all my books to Hermarchus; and, if\nanything should happen to Hermarchus before the children of Metrodorus\nare grown up, then I desire that Amynomachus and Timocrates, shall take\ncare that, provided they are well behaved, they shall have everything\nthat is necessary for them, as far as the estate which I leave behind me\nshall allow such things to be furnished to them. And the same men shall\nalso take care of everything else that I have enjoined; so that it may\nall be fulfilled, as far as the case may permit.\n\n\u201cOf my slaves, I hereby emancipate Mus, and Nicias, and Lycon: I also\ngive Ph\u00e6drium her freedom.\u201d\n\nAnd when he was at the point of death, he wrote the following letter to\nIdomeneus:\u2014\n\n\u201cWe have written this letter to you on a happy day to us, which is\nalso the last day of our life. For strangury has attacked me, and also\na dysentery, so violent that nothing can be added to the violence of\nmy sufferings. But the cheerfulness of my mind, which arises from the\nrecollection of all my philosophical contemplations, counterbalances\nall these afflictions. And I beg you to take care of the children of\nMetrodorus, in a manner worthy of the devotion shown by the youth to me,\nand to philosophy.\u201d\n\nSuch then as I have given it, was his will.\n\nXI. He had a great number of pupils, of whom the most eminent were\nMetrodorus, the Athenian, and Timocrates, and Sandes, of Lampsacus; who,\nfrom the time that he first became acquainted with him, never left him,\nexcept once when he went home for six months; after which he returned to\nhim. And he was a virtuous man in every respect, as Epicurus tells us\nin his Fundamental Principles. And he also bears witness to his virtue\nin the third book of his Timocrates. And being a man of this character,\nhe gave his sister Batis in marriage to Idomeneus; and he himself had\nLeontium, the Attic courtesan, for his concubine. He was very unmoved\nat all disturbances, and even at death; as Epicurus tells us, in the\nfirst book of his Metrodorus. He is said to have died seven years before\nEpicurus himself, in the fifty-third year of his age. And Epicurus\nhimself, in the will which I have given above, gives many charges about\nthe guardianship of his children, showing by this that he had been dead\nsome time. He also had a brother whom I have mentioned before, of the\nname of Timocrates, a trifling, silly man.\n\nThe writings of Metrodorus are these. Three books addressed to the\nPhysicians; one essay on the Sensations; one addressed to Timocrates;\none on Magnanimity; one on the Illness of Epicurus; one addressed to the\nDialecticians; one against the Nine Sophists; one on the Road to Wisdom;\none on Change; one on Riches; one against Democritus; one on Nobility of\nBirth.\n\nXII. Likewise Poly\u00e6nus, of Lampsacus, the son of Athenodorus, was a man\nof mild and friendly manners, as Philodemus particularly assures us.\n\nXIII. And his successor was Hermarchus, of Mitylene, the son of\nAgemarchus, a poor man; and his favourite pursuit was rhetoric. And the\nfollowing excellent works of his are extant. Twenty-two books of letters\nabout Empedocles; an essay on Mathematics; A treatise against Plato;\nanother against Aristotle. And he died of paralysis, being a most eminent\nman.\n\nXIV. There was also Leonteus, of Lampsacus, and his wife Themista, to\nwhom Epicurus wrote.\n\nXV. There were also Colotes and Idomeneus; and these also were natives\nof Lampsacus. And among the most eminent philosophers of the school of\nEpicurus, were Polystratus, who succeeded Hermarchus, and Dionysius who\nsucceeded him, and Basilides who succeeded him. Likewise Apollodorus,\nwho was nicknamed the tyrant of the gardens (\u03ba\u03b7\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), was a very\neminent man, and wrote more than four hundred books. And there were the\ntwo Ptolemies of Alexandria, Ptolemy the Black, and Ptolemy the Fair. And\nZeno, of Sidon, a pupil of Apollodorus, a very voluminous author; and\nDemetrius, who was surnamed the Laced\u00e6monian; and Diogenes, of Tarsus,\nwho wrote the Select Dialogues; and Orion, and others whom the genuine\nEpicureans call Sophists.\n\nXVI. There were also three other persons of the name of Epicurus; first,\nthe son of Leonteus and Themista; secondly, a native of Magnesia; and\nlastly, a Gladiator.\n\nXVII. And Epicurus was a most voluminous author, exceeding all men in\nthe number of his books; for there are more than three hundred volumes\nof them; and in the whole of them there is not one citation from other\nsources, but they are filled wholly with the sentiments of Epicurus\nhimself. In the quantity of his writings he was rivalled by Chrysippus,\nas Carneades asserts, who calls him a parasite of the books of Epicurus;\nfor if ever this latter wrote anything, Chrysippus immediately set his\nheart on writing a book of equal size; and in this way he often wrote\nthe same thing over again; putting down whatever came into his head; and\nhe published it all without any corrections, by reason of his haste. And\nhe quotes such numbers of testimonies from other authors, that his books\nare entirely filled with them alone; as one may find also in the works of\nAristotle and Zeno.\n\nSuch then, and so numerous are the works of Epicurus; the chief of which\nare the following. Thirty-seven treatises on Natural Philosophy; one\non Atoms, and the Vacuum; one on Love; an abridgment of the Arguments\nemployed against the Natural Philosophers; Doubts in Contradiction of\nthe Doctrines of the Megarians; Fundamental Propositions; a treatise\non Choice and Avoidance; another on the Chief Good; another on the\nCriterion, called also the Canon; the Ch\u00e6redemus, a treatise on the\nGods; one on Piety; the Hegesianax; four essays on Lives; one on Just\nDealing; the Neocles; one essay addressed to Themista; the Banquet; the\nEurylochus; one essay addressed to Metrodorus; one on Seeing; one on the\nAngle in an Atom; one on Touch; one on Fate; Opinions on the Passions;\none treatise addressed to Timocrates; Prognostics; Exhortations; a\ntreatise on Spectres; one on Perceptions; the Aristobulus; an essay on\nMusic; one on Justice and the other Virtues; one on Gifts and Gratitude;\nthe Polymedes; the Timocrates, a treatise in three books; the Metrodorus,\nin five books; the Antidorus, in two books; Opinions about the South\nWinds; a treatise addressed to Mithras; the Callistolas; an essay on\nKingly Power; the Anaximenes; Letters.\n\nXVIII. And I will endeavour to give an abridgment of the doctrines\ncontained in these works, as it may be agreeable, quoting three letters\nof his, in which he has made a sort of epitome of all his philosophy. I\nwill also give his fundamental and peculiar opinions, and any apophthegms\nwhich he uttered which appear worthy of being selected. So that you\nmay be thoroughly acquainted with the man, and may also judge that I\nunderstand him.\n\nNow the first letter is one that he wrote to Herodotus, on the subject of\nNatural Philosophy; the second is one that he wrote to Pythocles, which\nis about the Heavenly Bodies; the third is addressed to Men\u0153ceus, and in\nthat there are contained the discussions about lives.\n\nWe must now begin with the first, after having said a little by way of\npreface concerning the divisions of philosophy which he adopted.\n\nXIX. Now he divides philosophy into three parts. The canonical, the\nphysical, and the ethical. The canonical, which serves as an introduction\nto science, is contained in the single treatise which is called the\nCanon. The physical embraces the whole range of speculation on subjects\nof natural philosophy, and is contained in the thirty-seven books on\nnature, and in the letters again it is discussed in an elementary manner.\nThe ethical contains the discussions on Choice and Avoidance; and is\ncomprised in the books about lives, and in some of the Letters, and in\nthe treatise on the Chief Good. Accordingly, most people are in the habit\nof combining the canonical division with the physical; and then they\ndesignate the whole under the names of the criterion of the truth, and a\ndiscussion on principles, and elements. And they say that the physical\ndivision is conversant about production, and destruction, and nature;\nand that the ethical division has reference to the objects of choice and\navoidance, and lives, and the chief good of mankind.\n\nXX. Dialectics they wholly reject as superfluous. For they say that\nthe correspondence of words with things is sufficient for the natural\nphilosopher, so as to enable him to advance with certainty in the study\nof nature.\n\nNow, in the Canon, Epicurus says that the criteria of truth are the\nsenses, and the preconceptions, and the passions. But the Epicureans, in\ngeneral, add also the perceptive impressions of the intellect. And he\nsays the same thing in his Abridgment, which he addresses to Herodotus,\nand also in his Fundamental Principles. For, says he, the senses are\ndevoid of reason, nor are they capable of receiving any impressions of\nmemory. For they are not by themselves the cause of any motion, and when\nthey have received any impression from any external cause, then they can\nadd nothing to it, nor can they subtract anything from it. Moreover, they\nare out of the reach of any control; for one sensation cannot judge of\nanother which resembles itself; for they have all an equal value. Nor can\none judge of another which is different from itself; since their objects\nare not identical. In a word, one sensation cannot control another, since\nthe effects of all of them influence us equally. Again, the reason cannot\npronounce on the senses; for we have already said that all reasoning has\nthe senses for its foundation. Reality and the evidence of sensation\nestablish the certainty of the senses; for the impressions of sight and\nhearing are just as real, just as evident, as pain.\n\nIt follows from these considerations that we ought to judge of things\nwhich are obscure by their analogy to those which we perceive directly.\nIn fact, every notion proceeds from the senses, either directly, or in\nconsequence of some analogy, or proportion, or combination. Reasoning\nhaving always a share in these last operations. The visions of insanity\nand of sleep have a real object, for they act upon us; and that which has\nno reality can produce no action.\n\nXXI. By preconception, the Epicureans mean a sort of comprehension as\nit were, or right opinion, or notion, or general idea which exists in\nus; or, in other words, the recollection of an external object often\nperceived anteriorly. Such for instance, is this idea: \u201cMan is a being\nof such and such a nature.\u201d At the same moment that we utter the word\nman, we conceive the figure of a man, in virtue of a preconception which\nwe owe to the preceding operations of the senses. Therefore, the first\nnotion which each word awakens in us is a correct one; in fact, we could\nnot seek for anything if we had not previously some notion of it. To\nenable us to affirm that what we see at a distance is a horse or an ox,\nwe must have some preconception in our minds which makes us acquainted\nwith the form of a horse and an ox. We could not give names to things, if\nwe had not a preliminary notion of what the things were.\n\nXXII. These preconceptions then furnish us with certainty. And with\nrespect to judgments, their certainty depends on our referring them to\nsome previous notion, of itself certain, in virtue of which we affirm\nsuch and such a judgment; for instance, \u201cHow do we know whether this\nthing is a man?\u201d\n\nThe Epicureans call opinion (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1) also supposition (\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2). And\nsay that it is at times true, and at times false; for that, if it is\nsupported by testimony, and not contradicted by testimony, then it is\ntrue; but if it is not supported by testimony, and is contradicted by\ntestimony, then it is false. On which account they have introduced the\nexpression of \u201cwaiting,\u201d as if, before pronouncing that a thing seen is a\ntower, we must wait till we come near, and learn what it looks like when\nwe are near it.\n\nXXIII. They say that there are two passions, pleasure and pain, which\naffect everything alive. And that the one is natural, and the other\nforeign to our nature; with reference to which all objects of choice\nand avoidance are judged of. They say also, that there are two kinds of\ninvestigation; the one about facts, the other about mere words. And this\nis as far as an elementary sketch can go\u2014their doctrine about division,\nand about the criterion.\n\nXXIV. Let us now go to the letter:\u2014\n\nEPICURUS TO HERODOTUS, WISHING HE MAY DO WELL.\n\n\u201cFor those, O Herodotus, who are not able accurately to comprehend\nall the things which I have written about nature, nor to investigate\nthose larger books which I have composed on the subject, I have made an\nabridgment of the whole discussion on this question, as far as I thought\nsufficient to enable them to recollect accurately the most fundamental\npoints; that so, on all grave occasions, they might be able to assist\nthemselves on the most important and undeniable principles; in proportion\nas they devoted themselves to speculations on natural philosophy. And\nhere it is necessary for those who have made sufficient progress in\ntheir view of the general question, to recollect the principles laid\ndown as elements of the whole discussion; for we have still greater\nneed of a correct notion of the whole, than we have even of an accurate\nunderstanding of the details. We must, therefore, give preference to the\nformer knowledge, and lay up in our memory those principles on which we\nmay rest, in order to arrive at an exact perception of things, and at a\ncertain knowledge of particular objects.\n\n\u201cNow one has arrived at that point when one has thoroughly embraced the\nconceptions, and, if I may so express myself, the most essential forms,\nand when one has impressed them adequately on one\u2019s senses. For this\nclear and precise knowledge of the whole, taken together, necessarily\nfacilitates one\u2019s particular perceptions, when one has brought one\u2019s\nideas back to the elements and simple terms. In short, a veritable\nsynthesis, comprising the entire circle of the ph\u00e6nomena of the universe,\nought to be able to resume in itself, and in a few words, all the\nparticular facts which have been previously studied. This method being\nuseful even to those who are already familiarised with the laws of the\nuniverse, I recommend them, while still pursuing without intermission\nthe study of nature, which contributes more than anything else to the\ntranquillity and happiness of life, to make a concise statement or\nsummary of their opinions.\n\n\u201cFirst of all, then, Herodotus, one must determine with exactness the\nnotion comprehended under each separate word, in order to be able to\nrefer to it, as to a certain criterion, the conceptions which emanate\nfrom ourselves, the ulterior researches and the difficulties; otherwise\nthe judgment has no foundation. One goes on from demonstration to\ndemonstration _ad infinitum_; or else one gains nothing beyond mere\nwords. In fact, it is absolutely necessary that in every word we should\nperceive directly, and without the assistance of any demonstration, the\nfundamental notion which it expresses, if we wish to have any foundation\nto which we may refer our researches, our difficulties, and our personal\njudgments, whatever in other respects may be the criterion which we\nadopt, whether we take as our standard the impressions produced on our\nsenses, or the actual impression in general; or whether we cling to the\nidea by itself, or to any other criterion.\n\n\u201cWe must also note carefully the impressions which we receive in the\npresence of objects, in order to bring ourselves back to that point in\nthe circumstances in which it is necessary to suspend the judgment, or\neven when the question is about things, the evidence of which is not\nimmediately perceived.\n\n\u201cWhen these foundations are once laid we may pass to the study of those\nthings, the evidence of which is not immediate. And, first of all, we\nmust admit that nothing can come of that which does not exist; for, were\nthe fact otherwise, then every thing would be produced from everything,\nand there would be no need of any seed. And if that which disappeared\nwere so absolutely destroyed as to become non-existent, then every thing\nwould soon perish, as the things with which they would be dissolved would\nhave no existence. But, in truth, the universal whole always was such as\nit now is, and always will be such. For there is nothing into which it\ncan change; for there is nothing beyond this universal whole which can\npenetrate into it, and produce any change in it.\u201d\n\n(And Epicurus establishes the same principles at the beginning of the\ngreat Abridgment; and in the first book of his treatise on Nature.)[140]\n\u201cNow the universal whole is a body; for our senses bear us witness in\nevery case that bodies have a real existence; and the evidence of the\nsenses, as I have said before, ought to be the rule of our reasonings\nabout everything which is not directly perceived. Otherwise, if that\nwhich we call the vacuum, or space, or intangible nature, had not a real\nexistence, there would be nothing on which the bodies could be contained,\nor across which they could move, as we see that they really do move. Let\nus add to this reflection that one cannot conceive, either in virtue of\nperception, or of any analogy founded on perception, any general quality\npeculiar to all beings which is not either an attribute, or an accident\nof the body, or of the vacuum.\u201d\n\n(The same principles are laid down in the first, and fourteenth,\nand fifteenth book of the treatise on Nature; and also in the Great\nAbridgment.)\n\n\u201cNow, of bodies, some are combinations, and some the elements out of\nwhich these combinations are formed. These last are indivisible, and\nprotected from every kind of transformation; otherwise everything would\nbe resolved into non-existence. They exist by their own force, in the\nmidst of the dissolution of the combined bodies, being absolutely\nfull, and as such offering no handle for destruction to take hold of.\nIt follows, therefore, as a matter of absolute necessity, that the\nprinciples of things must be corporeal, indivisible elements.\n\n\u201cThe universe is infinite. For that which is finite has an extreme, and\nthat which has an extreme is looked at in relation to something else.\nConsequently, that which has not an extreme, has no boundary; and if it\nhas no boundary, it must be infinite, and not terminated by any limit.\nThe universe then is infinite, both with reference to the quantity of\nbodies of which it is made up, and to the magnitude of the vacuum; for\nif the vacuum were infinite, the bodies being finite, then, the bodies\nwould not be able to rest in any place; they would be transported about,\nscattered across the infinite vacuum for want of any power to steady\nthemselves, or to keep one another in their places by mutual repulsion.\nIf, on the other hand, the vacuum were finite, the bodies being infinite,\nthen the bodies clearly could never be contained in the vacuum.\n\n\u201cAgain: the atoms which form the bodies, these full elements from which\nthe combined bodies come, and into which they resolve themselves, assume\nan incalculable variety of forms, for the numerous differences which\nthe bodies present cannot possibly result from an aggregate of the same\nforms. Each variety of forms contains an infinity of atoms, but there is\nnot for that reason an infinity of atoms; it is only the number of them\nwhich is beyond all calculation.\u201d\n\n(Epicurus adds, a little lower down, that divisibility, _ad infinitum_,\nis impossible; for, says he, the only things which change are the\nqualities; unless, indeed, one wishes to proceed from division to\ndivision, till one arrives absolutely at infinite littleness.)\n\n\u201cThe atoms are in a continual state of motion.\u201d\n\n(He says, farther on, that they move with an equal rapidity from all\neternity, since the vacuum offers no more resistance to the lightest than\nit does to the heaviest.)\n\n\u201cAmong the atoms, some are separated by great distances, others come very\nnear to one another in the formation of combined bodies, or at times are\nenveloped by others which are combining; but in this latter case they,\nnevertheless, preserve their own peculiar motion, thanks to the nature\nof the vacuum, which separates the one from the other, and yet offers\nthem no resistance. The solidity which they possess causes them, while\nknocking against one another, to re-act the one upon the other; till at\nlast the repeated shocks bring on the dissolution of the combined body;\nand for all this there is no external cause, the atoms and the vacuum\nbeing the only causes.\u201d\n\n(He says, further on, that the atoms have no peculiar quality of their\nown, except from magnitude and weight. As to colour, he says in the\ntwelfth book of his Principia, that it varies according to the position\nof the atoms. Moreover, he does not attribute to the atoms any kind of\ndimensions; and, accordingly, no atom has ever been perceived by the\nsenses; but this expression, if people only recollect what is here said,\nwill by itself offer to the thoughts a sufficient image of the nature of\nthings.)\n\n\u201cBut, again, the worlds also are infinite, whether they resemble this one\nof ours or whether they are different from it. For, as the atoms are,\nas to their number, infinite, as I have proved above, they necessarily\nmove about at immense distances; for besides, this infinite multitude of\natoms, of which the world is formed, or by which it is produced, could\nnot be entirely absorbed by one single world, nor even by any worlds,\nthe number of which was limited, whether we suppose them like this world\nof ours, or different from it. There is, therefore, no fact inconsistent\nwith an infinity of worlds.\n\n\u201cMoreover, there are images resembling, as far as their form goes, the\nsolid bodies which we see, but which differ materially from them in\nthe thinness of their substance. In fact it is not impossible but that\nthere may be in space some secretions of this kind, and an aptitude to\nform surfaces without depth, and of an extreme thinness; or else that\nfrom the solids there may emanate some particles which preserve the\nconnection, the disposition, and the motion which they had in the body.\nI give the name of images to these representations; and, indeed, their\nmovement through the vacuum taking place, without meeting any obstacle or\nhindrance, perfects all imaginable extent in an inconceivable moment of\ntime; for it is the meeting of obstacles, or the absence of obstacles,\nwhich produces the rapidity or the slowness of their motion. At all\nevents, a body in motion does not find itself, at any moment imaginable,\nin two places at the same time; that is quite inconceivable. From\nwhatever point of infinity it arrives at some appreciable moment, and\nwhatever may be the spot in its course in which we perceive its motion,\nit has evidently quitted that spot at the moment of our thought; for\nthis motion which, as we have admitted up to this point, encounters no\nobstacle to its rapidity, is wholly in the same condition as that the\nrapidity of which is diminished by the shock of some resistance.\n\n\u201cIt is useful, also, to retain this principle, and to know that the\nimages have an incomparable thinness; which fact indeed is in no respect\ncontradicted by sensible appearances. From which it follows that their\nrapidity also is incomparable; for they find everywhere an easy passage,\nand besides, their infinite smallness causes them to experience no shock,\nor at all events to experience but a very slight one, while an infinite\nmultitude of elements very soon encounter some resistance.\n\n\u201cOne must not forget that the production of images is simultaneous with\nthe thought; for from the surface of the bodies images of this kind are\ncontinually flowing off in an insensible manner indeed, because they are\nimmediately replaced. They preserve for a long time the same disposition,\nand the same arrangement that the atoms do in the solid body, although,\nnotwithstanding, their form may be sometimes altered. The direct\nproduction of images in space is equally instantaneous, because these\nimages are only light substances destitute of depth.\n\n\u201cBut there are other manners in which natures of this kind are produced;\nfor there is nothing in all this which at all contradicts the senses, if\none only considers in what way the senses are exercised, and if one is\ninclined to explain the relation which is established between external\nobjects and ourselves. Also, one must admit that something passes\nfrom external objects into us in order to produce in us sight and the\nknowledge of forms; for it is difficult to conceive that external objects\ncan affect us through the medium of the air which is between us and them,\nor by means of rays, whatever emissions proceed from us to them, so as\nto give us an impression of their form and colour. This phenomenon, on\nthe contrary, is perfectly explained, if we admit that certain images of\nthe same colour, of the same shape, and of a proportionate magnitude pass\nfrom these objects to us, and so arrive at being seen and comprehended.\nThese images are animated by an exceeding rapidity, and, as on the other\nside, the solid object forming a compact mass, and comprising a vast\nquantity of atoms, emits always the same quantity of particles, the\nvision is continued, and only produces in us one single perception which\npreserves always the same relation to the object. Every conception, every\nsensible perception which bears upon the form or the other attributes\nof these images, is only the same form of the solid perceived directly,\neither in virtue of a sort of actual and continued condensation of the\nimage, or in consequence of the traces which it has left in us.\n\n\u201cError and false judgments always depend upon the supposition that\na preconceived idea will be confirmed, or at all events will not be\noverturned, by evidence. Then, when it is not confirmed, we form our\njudgment in virtue of a sort of initiation of the thoughts connected,\nit is true with the perception, and with a direct representation; but\nstill connected also with a conception peculiar to ourselves, which is\nthe parent of error. In fact the representations which intelligence\nreflects like a mirror, whether one perceives them in a dream, or by any\nother conceptions of the intellect, or of any other of the criteria, can\nnever resemble the objects that one calls real and true, unless there\nwere objects of this kind perceived directly. And, on the other side,\nerror could not be possible if we did not receive some other motion\nalso, a sort of initiative of intelligence connected; it is true with\ndirect representation, but going beyond that representative. These\nconceptions being connected with the direct perception which produces the\nrepresentation, but going beyond it, in consequence of a motion peculiar\nto the individual thought, produces error when it is not confirmed\nby evidence, or when it is contradicted by evidence; but when it is\nconfirmed, or when it is not contradicted by evidence, then it produces\ntruth.\n\n\u201cWe must carefully preserve these principles in order not to reject the\nauthority of the faculties which perceive truth directly; and not, on the\nother hand, to allow what is false to be established with equal firmness,\nso as to throw everything into confusion.\n\n\u201cMoreover, hearing is produced by some sort of current proceeding from\nsomething that speaks, or sounds, or roars, or in any manner causes\nany sort of audible circumstance. And this current is diffused into\nsmall bodies resembling one another in their parts; which, preserving\nnot only some kind of relation between one another, but even a sort\nof particular identity with the object from which they emanate, puts\nus, very frequently, into a communication of sentiments with this\nobject, or at least causes us to become aware of the existence of some\nexternal circumstance. If these currents did not carry with them some\nsort of sympathy, then there would be no such perception. We must not\ntherefore think that it is the air which receives a certain form, under\nthe action of the voice or of some other sound. For it is utterly\nimpossible that the voice should act in this manner on the air. But the\npercussion produced in us when we, by the utterance of a voice, cause a\ndisengagement of certain particles, constitutes a current resembling a\nlight whisper, and prepares an acoustic feeling for us.\n\n\u201cWe must admit that the case of smelling is the same as that of hearing.\nThere would be no sense of smell if there did not emanate from most\nobjects certain particles capable of producing an impression on the\nsmell. One class being ill-suited to the organ, and consequently\nproducing a disordered state of it, the other being suited to it, and\ncausing it no distress.\n\n\u201cOne must also allow, that the atoms possess no one of the qualities of\nsensible objects, except form, weight, magnitude and anything else is\nunavoidably inherent in form; in fact, every quality is changeable, but\nthe atoms are necessarily unchangeable; for it is impossible but that\nin the dissolution of combined bodies, there must be something which\ncontinues solid and indestructible, of such a kind, that it will not\nchange either into what does not exist, or out of what does not exist;\nbut that it results either from a simple displacement of parts, which\nis the most usual case, or from the addition or subtraction of certain\nparticles. It follows from that, that that which does not admit of any\nchange in itself, is imperishable, participates in no respect in the\nnature of changeable things, and in a word, has its dimensions and forms\nimmutably determined. And this is proved plainly enough, because even in\nthe transformations which take place under our eyes, in consequence of\nthe retrenchment of certain parts, we can still recognise the form of\nthese constituent parts; while those qualities, which are not constituent\nparts, do not remain like the form, but perish in the dissolution of the\ncombination. The attributes which we have indicated, suffice to explain\nall the differences of combined bodies; for we must inevitably leave\nsomething indestructible, lest everything should resolve itself into\nnon-existence.\n\n\u201cHowever, one must not believe that every kind of magnitude exists in\natoms, lest we find ourselves contradicted by ph\u00e6nomena. But we must\nadmit that there are atoms of different magnitude, because, as that is\nthe case, it is then more easy to explain the impressions and sensations;\nat all events, I repeat, it is not necessary for the purpose of\nexplaining the differences of the qualities, to attribute to atoms every\nkind of magnitude.\n\n\u201cWe must not suppose either, that an atom can become visible to us;\nfor, first of all, one does not see that that is the case, and besides,\none cannot even conceive, how an atom is to become visible; besides, we\nmust not believe, that in a finite body there are particles of every\nsort, infinite in number; consequently, one must not only reject the\ndoctrine of infinite divisibility in parcels smaller and smaller, lest\nwe should be reducing everything to nothing, and find ourselves forced\nto admit, that in a mass composed of a crowd of elements, existence can\nreduce itself to non-existence. But one cannot even suppose that a finite\nobject can be susceptible of transformations _ad infinitum_, or even of\ntransformation into smaller objects than itself; for when once one has\nsaid that there are in an object particles of every kind, infinite in\nnumber, there is absolutely no means whatever of imagining that this\nobject can have only a finite magnitude; in fact, it is evident that\nthese particles, infinite in number, have some kind of dimension or\nother, and whatever this dimension may be in other respects, the objects\nwhich are composed of it will have an infinite magnitude; in presenting\nforms which are determined, and limits which are perceived by the senses,\none conceives, easily, without its being necessary to study this last\nquestion directly, that this would be the consequence of the contrary\nsupposition, and that consequently, one must come to look at every object\nas infinite.\n\n\u201cOne must also admit, that the most minute particle perceptible to the\nsense, is neither absolutely like the objects which are susceptible\nof transformation, nor absolutely different from them. It has some\ncharacteristics in common with the object which admit of transformation,\nbut it also differs from them, inasmuch as it does not allow any distinct\nparts to be discerned in it. When then, in virtue of these common\ncharacteristics, and of this resemblance, we wish to form an idea of the\nsmallest particle perceptible by the senses, in taking the objects which\nchange for our terms of comparison, it is necessary that we should seize\non some characteristic common to these different objects. In this way, we\nexamine them successively, from the first to the last, not by themselves,\nnor as composed of parts in juxtaposition, but only in their extent; in\nother words, we consider the magnitudes by themselves, and in an abstract\nmanner, inasmuch as they measure, the greater a greater extent, and the\nsmaller a smaller extent. This analogy applies to the atom, as far as we\nconsider it as having the smallest dimensions possible. Evidently by its\nminuteness, it differs from all sensible objects, still this analogy is\napplicable to it; in a word, we establish by this comparison, that the\natom really has some extent, but we exclude all considerable dimensions,\nfor the sake of only investing it with the smallest proportions.[141]\n\n\u201cWe must also admit, in taking for our guide, the reasoning which\ndiscourses to us things which are invisible to the senses, that the most\nminute magnitudes, those which are not compound magnitudes, and which\nfrom the limit of sensible extent, are the first measure of the other\nmagnitudes which are only called greater or less in their relation to the\nothers. For these relations which they maintain with these particles,\nwhich are not subject to transformation, suffice to give them this\ncharacteristic of first measure. But they cannot, like atoms, combine\nthemselves, and form compound bodies in virtue of any motion belonging to\nthemselves.\n\n\u201cMoreover, we must not say (while speaking of the infinite), that such\nor such a point is the highest point of it, or the lowest. For height\nand lowness must not be predicated of the infinite. We know, in reality,\nthat if, wishing to determine the infinite, we conceive a point above our\nhead, this point, whatever it may be, will never appear to us to have the\ncharacter in question: otherwise, that which would be situated above the\npoint so conceived as the limit of the infinite, would be at the same\nmoment, and by virtue of its relation to the same point, both high and\nlow; and this is impossible to imagine.\n\n\u201cIt follows that thought can only conceive that one single movement of\ntransference, from low to high, _ad infinitum_; and one single movement\nfrom high to low. From low to high, when even the object in motion, going\nfrom us to the places situated above our heads, meets ten thousand times\nwith the feet of those who are above us; and from high to low, when in\nthe same way it advances towards the heads of those who are below us.\nFor these two movements, looked at by themselves and in their whole,\nare conceived as really opposed the one to the other, in their progress\ntowards the infinite.\n\n\u201cMoreover, all the atoms are necessarily animated by the same rapidity,\nwhen they move across the vacuum, or when no obstacle thwarts them. For\nwhy should heavy atoms have a more rapid movement than those which are\nsmall and light, since in no quarter do they encounter any obstacle? Why,\non the other hand, should the small atoms have a rapidity superior to\nthat of the large ones, since both the one and the other find everywhere\nan easy passage, from the very moment that no obstacle intervenes to\nthwart their movements? Movement from low to high, horizontal movement to\nand fro, in virtue of the reciprocal percussion of the atoms, movement\ndownwards, in virtue of their weight, will be all equal, for in whatever\nsense the atom moves, it must have a movement as rapid as the thought,\ntill the moment when it is repelled, in virtue of some external cause, or\nof its own proper weight, by the shock of some object which resists it.\n\n\u201cAgain, even in the compound bodies, one atom does not move more rapidly\nthan another. In fact, if one only looks at the continued movement of an\natom which takes place in an indivisible moment of time, the briefest\npossible, they all have a movement equally rapid. At the same time, an\natom has not, in any moment perceptible to the intelligence, a continued\nmovement in the same direction; but rather a series of oscillating\nmovements from which there results, in the last analysis, a continued\nmovement perceptible to the senses. If then, one were to suppose, in\nvirtue of a reasoning on things invisible, that, in the intervals of time\naccessible to thought, the atoms have a continued movement one would\ndeceive one\u2019s self, for that which is conceived by the thought is true as\nwell as that which is directly perceived.\n\n\u201cLet us now return to the study of the affections, and of the sensations;\nfor this will be the best method of proving that the soul is a bodily\nsubstance composed of slight particles, diffused over all the members\nof the body, and presenting a great analogy to a sort of spirit, having\nan admixture of heat, resembling at one time one, and at another time\nthe other of those two principles. There exists in it a special part,\nendowed with an extreme mobility, in consequence of the exceeding\nslightness of the elements which compose it, and also in reference to\nits more immediate sympathy with the rest of the body. That it is which\nthe faculties of the soul sufficiently prove, and the passions, and the\nmobility of its nature, and the thoughts, and, in a word, everything, the\nprivation of which is death. We must admit that it is in the soul most\nespecially that the principle of sensation resides. At the same time, it\nwould not possess this power if it were not enveloped by the rest of the\nbody which communicates it to it, and in its turn receives it from it,\nbut only in a certain measure; for there are certain affections of the\nsoul of which it is not capable.\n\n\u201cIt is on that account that, when the soul departs, the body is no longer\npossessed of sensation; for it has not this power, (that of sensation\nnamely) in itself; but, on the other hand, this power can only manifest\nitself in the soul through the medium of the body. The soul, reflecting\nthe manifestations which are accomplished in the substance which environs\nit, realises in itself, in a virtue or power which belongs to it, the\nsensible affections, and immediately communicates them to the body in\nvirtue of the reciprocal bonds of sympathy which unite it to the body;\nthat is the reason why the destruction of a part of the body does not\ndraw after it a cessation of all feeling in the soul while it resides in\nthe body, provided that the senses still preserve some energy; although,\nnevertheless, the dissolution of the corporeal covering, or even of any\none of its portions, may sometimes bring on with it the destruction of\nthe soul.\n\n\u201cThe rest of the body, on the other hand, even when it remains, either\nas a whole, or in any part, loses all feeling by the dispersion of\nthat aggregate of atoms, whatever it may be, that forms the soul. When\nthe entire combination of the body is dissolved, then the soul too is\ndissolved, and ceases to retain those faculties which were previously\ninherent in it, and especially the power of motion; so that sensation\nperishes equally as far as the soul is concerned; for it is impossible to\nimagine that it still feels, from the moment when it is no longer in the\nsame conditions of existence, and no longer possesses the same movements\nof existence in reference to the same organic system; from the moment, in\nshort, when the things which cover and surround it are no longer such,\nthat it retains in them the same movements as before.\n\n(Epicurus expresses the same ideas in other works, and adds that the\nsoul is composed of atoms of the most perfect lightness and roundness;\natoms wholly different from those of fire. He distinguishes in it the\nirrational part which is diffused over the whole body, from the rational\npart which has its seat in the chest, as is proved by the emotions of\nfear and joy. He adds that sleep is produced when the parts of the soul\ndiffused over the whole of the body concentre themselves, or when they\ndisperse and escape by the pores of the body; for particles emanate from\nall bodies.)\n\n\u201cIt must also be observed, that I use the word incorporeal (\u1f00\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) in\nthe usual acceptation of the word, to express that which is in itself\nconceived as such. Now, nothing can be conceived in itself as incorporeal\nexcept the vacuum; but the vacuum cannot be either passive or active; it\nis only the condition and the place of movement. Accordingly, they who\npretend that the soul is incorporeal, utter words destitute of sense;\nfor, if it had this character, it would not be able either to do or to\nsuffer anything; but, as it is, we see plainly enough that it is liable\nto both these circumstances.\n\n\u201cLet us then apply all these reasonings to the affections and sensations,\nrecollecting the ideas which we laid down at the beginning, and then we\nshall see clearly that these general principles contain an exact solution\nof all the particular cases.\n\n\u201cAs to forms, and hues, and magnitudes, and weight, and the other\nqualities which one looks upon as attributes, whether it be of every\nbody, or of those bodies only which are visible and perceived by\nthe senses, this is the point of view under which they ought to be\nconsidered: they are not particular substances, having a peculiar\nexistence of their own, for that cannot be conceived; nor can one say\nany more that they have no reality at all. They are not incorporeal\nsubstances inherent in the body, nor are they parts of the body. But\nthey constitute by their union the eternal substance and the essence\nof the entire body. We must not fancy, however, that the body is\ncomposed of them, as an aggregate is formed of particles of the smallest\ndimensions of atoms or magnitudes, whatever they may be, smaller than\nthe compound body itself; they only constitute by their union, I repeat,\nthe eternal substance of the body. Each of these attributes has ideas\nand particular perceptions which correspond to it; but they cannot be\nperceived independently of the whole subject taken entirely; the union of\nall these perceptions forms the idea of the body. Bodies often possess\nother attributes which are not eternally inherent in them, but which,\nnevertheless, cannot be ranged among the incorporeal and invisible\nthings. Accordingly, it is sufficient to express the general idea of the\nmovement of transference to enable us to conceive in a moment certain\ndistinct qualities, and those combined beings, which, being taken in\ntheir totality, receive the name of bodies; and the necessary and eternal\nattributes without which the body cannot be conceived.\n\n\u201cThere are certain conceptions corresponding to these attributes; but,\nnevertheless, they cannot be known abstractedly, and independently\nof some subjects; and further, inasmuch as they are not attributes\nnecessarily inherent in the idea of a body, one can only conceive them in\nthe moment in which they are visible; they are realities nevertheless;\nand one must not refuse them being an existence merely because they\nhave neither the characteristic of the compound beings to which we give\nthe name of bodies, nor that of the eternal attributes. We should be\nequally deceived if we were to suppose that they have a separate and\nindependent existence; for that is true neither of them nor of the\neternal attributes. They are, as one sees plainly, accidents of the body;\naccidents which do not of necessity make any part of its nature; which\ncannot be considered as independent substances, but still to each of\nwhich sensation gives the peculiar character under which it appears to us.\n\n\u201cAnother important question is that of time. Here we cannot apply any\nmore the method of examination to which we submit other objects, which\nwe study with reference to a given subject; and which we refer to the\npreconceptions which exist in ourselves. We must seize, by analogy, and\ngoing round the whole circle of things comprised under this general\ndenomination of time\u2014we must seize, I say\u2014that essential character which\ncauses us to say that a time is long or short. It is not necessary for\nthat purpose to seek for any new forms of expression as preferable to\nthose which are in common use; we may content ourselves with those by\nwhich time is usually indicated. Nor need we, as certain philosophers do,\naffirm any particular attribute of time, for that would be to suppose\nthat its essence is the same as that of this attribute. It is sufficient\ntoo seek for the ingredients of which this particular nature which we\ncall time is composed, and for the means by which it is measured. For\nthis we have no need of demonstration; a simple exposition is sufficient.\nIt is, in fact, evident, that we speak of time as composed of days and\nnights, and parts of days and nights; passiveness and impassibility,\nmovement and repose, are equally comprised in time. In short, it is\nevident that in connection with these different states, we conceive a\nparticular property to which we give the name of time.\n\n(Epicurus lays down the same principles in the second book of his\ntreatise on Nature, and in his great Abridgment.)\n\n\u201cIt is from the infinite that the worlds are derived, and all the finite\naggregates which present numerous analogies with the things which we\nobserve under our own eyes. Each of these objects, great and small, has\nbeen separated from the infinite by a movement peculiar to itself. On\nthe other hand, all these bodies will be successively destroyed, some\nmore, and others less rapidly; some under the influence of one cause, and\nothers because of the agency of some other.\n\n(It is evident, after this, that Epicurus regards the worlds\nas perishable, since he admits that their parts are capable of\ntransformation. He also says in other places, that the earth rests\nsuspended in the air.)\n\n\u201cWe must not believe that the worlds have of necessity all one identical\nform.\n\n(He says, in fact, in the twelfth book of his treatise on the World,\nthat the worlds differ from one another; some being spherical, other\nelliptical, and others of other shapes.)\n\n\u201cNevertheless, there are not worlds of every possible form and shape.\n\n\u201cLet us also beware of thinking that animals are derived from the\ninfinite; for there is no one who can prove that the germs from which\nanimals are born, and plants, and all the other objects which we\ncontemplate, have been brought from the exterior in such a world, and\nthat this same world would not have been able to produce them of itself.\nThis remark applies particularly to the earth.\n\n\u201cAgain, we must admit that in many and various respects, nature is both\ninstructed and constrained by circumstances themselves; and that reason\nsubsequently makes perfect and enriches with additional discoveries\nthe things which it has borrowed from nature; in some cases rapidly,\nand in others more slowly. And in some cases according to periods and\ntimes greater than those which proceed from the infinite; in other\ncases according to those which are smaller. So, originally it was only\nin virtue of express agreements that one gave names to things. But men\nwhose ideas and passions varied according to their respective nations,\nformed these names of their own accord, uttering divers sounds produced\nby each passion, or by each idea, following the differences of the\nsituations and of the peoples. At a later period one established in each\nnation, in a uniform manner, particular terms intended to render the\nrelations more easy, and language more concise. Educated men introduced\nthe notion of things not discoverable by the senses, and appropriated\nwords to them when they found themselves under the necessity of uttering\ntheir thoughts; after this, other men, guided in every point by reason,\ninterpreted these words in the same sense.\n\n\u201cAs to the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena, such as the motion and course of the\nstars, the eclipses, their rising and setting, and all other appearances\nof the same kind, we must beware of thinking that they are produced by\nany particular being which has regulated, or whose business it is to\nregulate, for the future, the order of the world, a being immortal and\nperfectly happy; for the cares and anxieties, the benevolence and the\nanger, far from being compatible with felicity, are, on the contrary,\nthe consequence of weakness, of fear, and of the want which a thing has\nof something else. We must not fancy either that these globes of fire,\nwhich roll on in space, enjoy a perfect happiness, and give themselves,\nwith reflection and wisdom, the motions which they possess. But we must\nrespect the established notions on this subject, provided, nevertheless,\nthat they do not all contradict the respect due to truth; for nothing is\nmore calculated to trouble the soul than this strife of contradictory\nnotions and principles. We must therefore admit that from the first\nmovement impressed on the heavenly bodies since the organization of the\nworld there is derived a sort of necessity which regulates their course\nto this day.\n\n\u201cLet us be well assured that it is to physiology that it belongs to\ndetermine the causes of the most elevated ph\u00e6nomena, and that happiness\nconsists, above all things, in the science of the heavenly things and\ntheir nature, and in the knowledge of analogous ph\u00e6nomena which may aid\nus in the comprehension of the ethics. These heavenly ph\u00e6nomena admit\nof several explanations; they have no reason of a necessary character,\nand one may explain them in different manners. In a word, they have no\nrelation\u2014a moment\u2019s consideration will prove this by itself\u2014with those\nimperishable and happy natures which admit of no division and of no\nconfusion. As for the theoretical knowledge of the rising and setting\nof the stars, of the movement of the sun between the tropics, of the\neclipses, and all other similar ph\u00e6nomena, that is utterly useless, as\nfar as any influence upon happiness that it can have. Moreover, those\nwho, though possessed of this knowledge, are ignorant of nature, and\nof the most probable causes of the ph\u00e6nomena, are no more protected\nfrom fear than if they were in the most complete ignorance; they even\nexperience the most lively fears, for the trouble, with which the\nknowledge of which they are possessed inspires them, can find no issue,\nand is not dissipated by a clear perception of the reasons of these\nph\u00e6nomena.\n\n\u201cAs to us, we find many explanations of the motions of the sun, of the\nrising and setting of the stars, of the eclipses and similar ph\u00e6nomena,\njust as well as of the more particular ph\u00e6nomena. And one must not think\nthat this method of explanation is not sufficient to procure happiness\nand tranquillity. Let us content ourselves with examining how it is that\nsimilar ph\u00e6nomena are brought about under our own eyes, and let us apply\nthese observations to the heavenly objects and to everything which is\nnot known but indirectly. Let us despise those people who are unable\nto distinguish facts susceptible of different explanations from others\nwhich can only exist and be explained in one single way. Let us disdain\nthose men who do not know, by means of the different images which result\nfrom distance, how to give an account of the different appearances of\nthings; who, in a word, are ignorant what are the objects which can\nexcite any trouble in us. If, then, we know that such a ph\u00e6nomenon can be\nbrought about in the same manner as another given ph\u00e6nomenon of the same\ncharacter which does not inspire us with any apprehension; and if, on the\nother hand, we know that it can take place in many different manners, we\nshall not be more troubled at the sight of it than if we knew the real\ncause of it.\n\n\u201cWe must also recollect that that which principally contributes to\ntrouble the spirit of men is the persuasion which they cherish that the\nstars are beings imperishable and perfectly happy, and that then one\u2019s\nthoughts and actions are in contradiction to the will of these superior\nbeings; they also, being deluded by these fables, apprehend an eternity\nof evils, they fear the insensibility of death, as that could affect\nthem. What do I say? It is not even belief, but inconsiderateness and\nblindness which govern them in every thing, to such a degree that, not\ncalculating these fears, they are just as much troubled as if they had\nreally faith in these vain phantoms. And the real freedom from this\nkind of trouble consists in being emancipated from all these things,\nand in preserving the recollection of all the principles which we have\nestablished, especially of the most essential of them. Accordingly, it\nis well to pay a scrupulous attention to existing ph\u00e6nomena and to the\nsensations, to the general sensations for general things, and to the\nparticular sensations for particular things. In a word, we must take\nnote of this, the immediate evidence with which each of these judicial\nfaculties furnishes us; for, if we attend to these points, namely,\nwhence confusion and fear arise, we shall divine the causes correctly,\nand we shall deliver ourselves from those feelings, tracing back the\nheavenly ph\u00e6nomena to their causes, and also all the others which present\nthemselves at every step, and inspire the common people with extreme\nterror.\n\n\u201cThis, Herodotus, is a kind of summary and abridgment of the whole\nquestion of natural philosophy. So that, if this reasoning be allowed to\nbe valid, and be preserved carefully in the memory, the man who allows\nhimself to be influenced by it, even though he may not descend to a\nprofound study of its details, will have a great superiority of character\nover other men. He will personally discover a great number of truths\nwhich I have myself set forth in my entire work; and these truths being\nstored in his memory, will be a constant assistance to him. By means of\nthese principles, those who have descended into the details, and have\nstudied the question sufficiently, will be able, in bringing in all\ntheir particular knowledge to bear on the general subject, to run over\nwithout difficulty almost the entire circle of the natural philosophy;\nthose, on the other hand, who are not yet arrived at perfection, and who\nhave not been able to hear me lecture on these subjects, will be able in\ntheir minds to run over the main of the essential notions, and to derive\nassistance from them for the tranquillity and happiness of life.\u201d\n\nThis then is his letter on physics.\n\nXXV. About the heavenly bodies he writes thus:\u2014\n\nEPICURUS TO PYTHOCLES, WISHING HE MAY DO WELL.\n\n\u201cCleon has brought me your letter, in which you continue to evince\ntowards me an affection worthy of the friendship which I have for you.\nYou devote all your care, you tell me, to engraving in your memory those\nideas which contribute to the happiness of life; and you entreat me at\nthe same time to send you a simple abridgment and abstract of my ideas on\nthe heavenly ph\u00e6nomena, in order that you may without difficulty preserve\nthe recollection of them. For, say you, what I have written on this\nsubject in my other works is difficult to recollect, even with continual\nstudy.\n\n\u201cI willingly yield to your desire, and I have good hope, that in\nfulfilling what you ask, I shall be useful too to many others, especially\nto those who are as yet novices in the real knowledge of nature, and to\nthose to whom the perplexities and the ordinary affairs of life leave but\nlittle leisure. Be careful then to seize on those precepts thoroughly,\nengrave them deeply in your memory, and meditate on them with the\nabridgment addressed to Herodotus, which I also send you.\n\n\u201cKnow then, that it is with the knowledge of the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena, both\nwith those which are spoken of in contact with one another, and of those\nwhich have a spontaneous existence, as with every other science; it has\nno other aim but that freedom from anxiety, and that calmness which is\nderived from a firm belief.\n\n\u201cIt is not good to desire what is impossible, and to endeavour to\nenunciate a uniform theory about everything; accordingly, we ought not\nhere to adopt the method, which we have followed in our researches into\nEthics, or in the solution of problems of natural philosophy. We there\nsaid, for instance, that there are no other things, except bodies and\nthe vacuum, that the atoms are the principles of things, and so of the\nrest. In a word, we gave a precise and simple explanation of every fact,\nconformable to appearances.\n\n\u201cWe cannot act in the same way with respect to the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena:\nthese productions may depend upon several different causes, and we may\ngive many different explanations on this subject, equally agreeing with\nthe impressions of the senses. Besides, it is not here a question about\nreasoning on new principles, and of laying down, _\u00e0 priori_, rules for\nthe interpretation of nature; the only guides for us to follow are the\nappearances themselves; for that which we have in view is not a set of\nsystems and vain opinions, but much rather a life exempt from every kind\nof disquietude.\n\n\u201cThe heavenly ph\u00e6nomena do not inspire those who give different\nexplanations of them, conformable with appearances, instead of explaining\nthem by hypothesis, with any alarm. But if, abandoning hypothesis, one at\nthe same time renounces the attempt to explain them by means of analogies\nfounded on appearances, then one is placing one\u2019s self altogether at a\ndistance from the science of nature, in order to fall into fables.\n\n\u201cIt is possible that the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena may present some apparent\ncharacters which appear to assimilate them to those ph\u00e6nomena which we\nsee taking place around ourselves, without there being any real analogy\nat the bottom. For the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena may depend for their production\non many different causes; nevertheless, we must observe the appearances\npresented by each, and we must distinguish the different circumstances\nwhich attach to them, and which can be explained in different manners by\nmeans of analogous ph\u00e6nomena which arise under our eyes.\n\n\u201cThe world is a collection of things embraced by the heaven, containing\nthe stars, the earth, and all visible objects. This collection, separated\nfrom the infinite, is terminated by an extremity, which is either rare,\nor dense, or revolving, or in a state of repose, or of a round, or\ntriangular, or of some shape or other in fact, for it may be of any\nshape, the dissolution of which must bring the destruction of everything\nwhich they embrace. In fact, it can take place in every sort of way,\nsince there is not one of those things which are seen which testifies\nagainst this world in which we cannot detect any extremity; and that\nsuch worlds are infinite in number is easily seen, and also that such\na world can exist both in the world and in the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, as we call\nthe space between the worlds, being a huge space made up of plenum and\nvacuum, but not, as some philosophers pretend, an immensity of space\nabsolutely empty. This production of a world may be explained thus: seeds\nsuitably appropriated to such an end may emanate either from one or from\nseveral worlds, or from the space that separates them; they flow towards\na particular point where they become collected together and organized;\nafter that, other germs come to unite them together in such a way as\nto form a durable whole, a basis, a nucleus to which all successive\nadditions unite themselves.\n\n\u201cOne must not content one\u2019s self in this question with saying, as one\nof the natural philosophers has done, that there is a re-union of the\nelements, or a violent motion in the vacuum under the influence of\nnecessity, and that the body which is thus produced increases until it\ncomes to crash against some other; for this doctrine is contrary to\nappearances.\n\n\u201cThe sun, the moon, and the other stars, were originally formed\nseparately, and were afterwards comprehended in the entire total of the\nworld. All the other objects which our world comprises, for instance,\nthe earth and the sea, were also formed spontaneously, and subsequently\ngained size by the addition and violent movement of light substances,\ncomposed of elements of fire and air, or even of these two principles at\nonce. This explanation, moreover, is in accordance with the impressions\nof the senses.\n\n\u201cAs to the magnitude of the sun and of the other stars, it is as far as\nwe are concerned, such as it appears to us to be.\u201d\n\n(This same doctrine is reproduced, and occurs again in the eleventh book\nof his treatise on Nature; where he says, \u201cIf the distance has made it\nlose its size, _\u00e0 fortiori_, it would take away its brilliancy; for\ncolour has not, any more than size, the property of traversing distance\nwithout alteration.\u201d)\n\n\u201cBut, considered by itself, the sun may be a little greater or a little\nsmaller than it appears; or it may be just such as it looks; for that is\nexactly the case with the fires of common occurrence among men, which\nare perceived by the senses at a distance. Besides, all the difficulties\non this subject will be easily explained if one attends to the clear\nevidence of the perceptions, as I have shown in my books about Nature.\n\n\u201cThe rising and setting of the sun, of the moon, and of the stars,\nmay depend on the fact of their becoming lighted up, and extinguished\nalternately, and in the order which we behold. One may also give other\nreasons for this ph\u00e6nomenon, which are not contradicted by any sensible\nappearances; accordingly, one might explain them by the passage of the\nstars above and below the earth, for the impressions of the senses agree\nalso with this supposition.\n\n\u201cAs to their motion, one may make that depend on the circular movement\nof the entire heaven. One may also suppose that the stars move, while\nthe heaven itself is immoveable; for there is nothing to prevent the\nidea that originally, before the formation of the world, they may have\nreceived, by the appointment of fate, an impulse from east to west, and\nthat now their movement continues in consequence of their heat, as the\nfire naturally proceeds onwards in order to seek the aliment which suits\nit.\n\n\u201cThe intertropical movements of the sun and moon may depend, either on\nthe obliquity impressed by fate on the heaven at certain determined\nepochs, or on the resistance of the air, or on the fact that these\nignited bodies stand in need of being nourished by a matter suitable\nto their nature, and that this matter fails them; or finally, they\nmay depend on the fact of their having originally received an impulse\nwhich compels them to move as they do describing a sort of spiral\nfigure. The sensible evidence does not in the least contradict these\ndifferent suppositions, and all those of the same kind which one can\nform, having always a due regard to what is possible, and bringing\nback each ph\u00e6nomenon to its analogous appearances in sensible facts,\nwithout disquieting one\u2019s self about the miserable speculations of the\nastronomers.\n\n\u201cThe evacuations and subsequent replenishings of the moon may depend\neither on a conversion of this body, or on the different forms which the\nair when in a fiery state can adopt, or perhaps to the interposition of\nanother body, or lastly, to some one of the causes by which one gives\naccount of the analogous ph\u00e6nomena which pass under our eyes. Provided,\nhowever, that one does not obstinately adopt an exclusive mode of\nexplanation; and that, for want of knowing what is possible for a man to\nexplain, and what is inaccessible to his intelligence; one does not throw\none\u2019s self into interminable speculations.\n\n\u201cIt may also be possibly the case that the moon has a light of her own,\nor that she reflects that of the sun. For we see around us many objects\nwhich are luminous of themselves, and many others which have only a\nborrowed light. In a word, one will not be arrested by any of the\ncelestial ph\u00e6nomena, provided that one always recollects that there are\nmany explanations possible; that one examines the principles and reasons\nwhich agree with this mode of explanation, and that one does not proceed\nin accounting for the facts which do not agree with this method, to\nsuffer one\u2019s self to be foolishly carried away, and to propose a separate\nexplanation for each ph\u00e6nomenon, sometimes in one way, and sometimes in\nanother.\n\n\u201cThe appearance of a face in the orb of the moon, may depend either on a\ndisplacement of its parts, or on the interposition of some obstacle, or\non any other cause capable of accounting for such an appearance. For one\nmust not neglect to apply this same method to all the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena;\nfor, from the moment when one comes to any point of contradiction to\nthe evidence of the senses, it will be impossible to possess perfect\ntranquillity and happiness.\n\n\u201cThe eclipses of the sun and moon may depend either on the fact that\nthese stars extinguish themselves, a ph\u00e6nomenon which we often see\nproduced under our eyes, or on the fact of other bodies, the earth, the\nheaven, or something else of the same kind interposing, between them\nand us. Besides, we must compare the different modes of explanation\nappropriate to ph\u00e6nomena, and recollect that it is not impossible that\nmany causes may at one and the same time concur in their production.\n\n(He says the same thing in the twelfth book of his treatise on Nature;\nand adds that the eclipses of the sun arise from the fact that it\npenetrates into the shade of the moon, to quit it again presently; and\nthe eclipses of the moon from the fact of its entering into the shade\nof the earth. We also find the same doctrine asserted by Diogenes, the\nEpicurean, in the first book of his Select Opinions.)\n\n\u201cThe regular and periodical march of these ph\u00e6nomena has nothing in it\nthat ought to surprise us, if we only attend to the analogous facts which\ntake place under our eyes. Above all things let us beware of making the\nDeity interpose here, for that being we ought to suppose exempt from all\noccupation and perfectly happy; otherwise we shall be only giving vain\nexplanations of the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena, as has happened already to a\ncrowd of authors. Not being able to recognize what is really possible,\nthey have fallen into vain theories, in supposing that for all ph\u00e6nomena\nthere was but one single mode of production, and in rejecting all other\nexplanations which are founded on probability; they have adopted the most\nunreasonable opinions, for want of placing in the front the study of\nthe heavenly ph\u00e6nomena, and of sensible facts, which ought to serve to\nexplain the first.\n\n\u201cThe differences in the length of nights and days may arise from the fact\nthat the passage of the sun above the earth is more or less rapid; and\nmore or less slow, according to the length of the regions which it has\nto pass through. Or, again, to the fact that certain regions are passed\nthrough more rapidly than others, as is seen to be the case by our own\neyes, in those things to which we can compare the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena. As\nto those who on this point admit only one explanation as possible, they\nput themselves in opposition to facts, and lose sight of the bounds set\nto human knowledge.\n\n\u201cThe prognostics which are derived from the stars may, like those which\nwe borrow from animals, arise from a simple coincidence. They may also\nhave other causes, for example, some change in the air; for these two\nsuppositions both harmonize equally with facts; but it is impossible to\ndistinguish in what case one is to attribute them to the one cause or to\nthe other.\n\n\u201cThe clouds may be formed either by the air condensed under the pressure\nof the winds, or by the agency of atoms set apart for that end, or by\nemanations from the earth and waters, or by other causes. For there are\na great number which are all equally able to produce this effect. When\nthe clouds clash with one another, or undergo any transformation, they\nproduce showers; and the long rains are caused by the motion of the\nclouds when moved from places suitable to them through the air, when a\nmore violent inundation than usual takes place, from collections of some\nmasses calculated to produce these effects.\n\n\u201cThunder possibly arises from the movement of the winds revolving in the\ncavities of the clouds; of which we may see an image in vessels in our\nown daily use. It may also arise from the noise of fire acted upon by the\nwind in them, and from the tearings and ruptures of the clouds when they\nhave received a sort of crystaline consistency. In a word, experience\ndrawn from our senses, teaches us that all these ph\u00e6nomena, and that one\nin particular, may be produced in many different manners.\n\n\u201cOne may also assign different causes to the lightning; either the shock\nand collision of the clouds produce a fiery appearance, which is followed\nby lightning; or the lighting up of the clouds by the winds, produces\nthis luminous appearance; or the mutual pressure of the clouds, or that\nof the wind against them, disengages the lightning. Or, one might say,\nthat the interception of the light diffused from the stars, arrested for\na time in the bosom of the clouds, is driven from them subsequently by\ntheir own movements, and by those of the winds, and so escapes from their\nsides; that the lightning is an extremely subtile light that evaporates\nfrom the clouds; that the clouds which carry the thunder are collected\nmasses of fire; that the lightning arises from the motion of the fire,\nor from the conflagration of the wind, in consequence of the rapidity\nand continuousness of its motion. One may also attribute the luminous\nappearance of lightning to the rupture of the clouds under the action of\nthe winds, or to the fall of inflammable atoms. Lastly, one may easily\nfind a number of other explanations, if one applies to sensible facts,\nin order to search out the analogies which they present to the heavenly\nph\u00e6nomena.\n\n\u201cLightning precedes thunder, either because it is produced at the same\nmoment that the wind falls on the cloud, while the noise is only heard\nat the instant when the wind has penetrated into the bosom of the cloud;\nor, perhaps, the two ph\u00e6nomena being simultaneous, the lightning arrives\namong us more rapidly than the noise of the thunder-bolt, as is in fact\nremarked in other cases when we see at a distance the clash of two\nobjects.\n\n\u201cThe thunderbolt may be produced either by a violent condensation of\nthe winds, or by their rapid motion and conflagration. It may arise\nfrom the fact of the winds meeting in places which are too dense, in\nconsequence of the accumulation of clouds, and then a portion of the\ncurrent detaches itself and proceeds towards the lower situations; or\nelse it may be caused by the fire which is contained in the bosom of the\nclouds precipitating itself downwards. As one may suppose that an immense\nquantity of fire being accumulated in the clouds dilates, violently\nbursting the substance which envelops it, because the resistance of the\ncentre hinders it from proceeding further. This effect is especially\nproduced in the neighbourhood of high mountains; and, accordingly, they\nare very frequently struck with the thunderbolts. In short, one may give\na number of explanations of the thunderbolt; but we ought, above all\nthings, to be on our guard against fables, and this one will easily be,\nif one follows faithfully the sensible ph\u00e6nomena in the explanation of\nthese things, which are not perceived, except indirectly.\n\n\u201cHurricanes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2) may be caused either by the presence of a\ncloud, which a violent wind sets in motion and precipitates with a\nspiral movement towards the lower regions, or by a violent gust which\nbears a cloud into the neighbourhood of some other current, or else by\nthe mere agitation of the wind by itself, when air is brought together\nfrom the higher regions and compressed without being able to escape on\neither side, in consequence of the resistance of the air which surrounds\nit; when the hurricane descends towards the earth, then there result\nwhirlwinds in proportion to the rapidity of the wind that has produced\nthem; and this ph\u00e6nomenon extends over the sea also.\n\n\u201cEarthquakes may arise from the wind penetrating into the interior of the\nearth, or from the earth itself receiving incessantly the addition of\nexterior particles, and being in incessant motion as to its constituent\natoms, being in consequence disposed to a general vibration. That which\npermits the wind to penetrate is the fact that falls take place in the\ninterior, or that the air being impressed by the winds insinuates itself\ninto the subterraneous caverns. The movement which numberless falls and\nthe re-action of the earth communicate to the earth, when this motion\nmeets bodies of greater resistance and solidity, is sufficient to explain\nthe earthquakes. One might, however, give an account of them in several\nother ways.\n\n\u201cWinds are caused, either by the successive and regular addition of some\nforeign matter, or else by the re-union of a great quantity of water; and\nthe differences of the winds may arise from the fact that some portions\nof this same matter fall into the numerous cavities of the earth, and are\ndivided there.\n\n\u201cHail is produced by an energetic condensation acting on the ethereal\nparticles which the cold embraces in every direction; or, in consequence\nof a less violent condensation acting however on aqueous particles, and\naccompanied by division, in such a manner as to produce, at the same\ntime, the re-union of certain elements and of the collective masses; or\nby the rupture of some dense and compact mass which would explain at\nthe same time, the numerousness of the particles and their individual\nhardness. As to the spherical form of the hail, one may easily account\nfor that by admitting that the shocks which it receives in every\ndirection make all the angles disappear, or else that at the moment when\nthe different fragments are formed, each of them is equally embraced on\nall sides by aqueous or ethereal particles.\n\n\u201cSnow may be produced by a light vapour full of moisture which the clouds\nallow to escape by passages intended for that end, when they are pressed,\nin a corresponding manner, by other clouds, and set in motion by the\nwind. Subsequently, these vapours become condensed in their progress\nunder the action of the cold which surrounds the clouds in the lower\nregions. It may also be the case that this ph\u00e6nomenon is produced by\nclouds of a slight density as they become condensed. In this case the\nsnow which escapes from the clouds would be the result of the contact, or\napproximation of the aqueous particles, which in a still more condensed\nstate produce hail. This effect is most especially produced in the\nair. Snow, again, may result from the collection of clouds previously\ncondensed and solidified; or from a whole army of other causes.\n\n\u201cDew proceeds from a re-union of particles contained in the air\ncalculated to produce this moist substance. These particles may be\nalso brought from places which are moist or covered with water (for\nin those places, above all others, it is that dew is abundant). These\nthen re-unite, again resume their aqueous form, and fall down. The same\nph\u00e6nomenon takes place in other cases before our own eyes under many\nanalogies.\n\n\u201cHoar-frost is dew congealed by the influence of the cold air that\nsurrounds it.\n\n\u201cIce is formed either by the detrition of round atoms contained in the\nwater, and the re-union at scalene and acute angles of the atoms which\nexist in the water, or by an addition from without of these latter\nparticles, which penetrating into the water, solidify it by driving away\nan equal amount of round atoms.\n\n\u201cThe rainbow may be produced by the reflection of the solar rays on the\nmoist air; or it may arise from a particular property of light and air,\nin virtue of which these particular appearances of colour are formed,\neither because the shades which we perceive result directly from this\nproperty, or because, on the contrary, it only produces one single shade,\nwhich, reflecting itself on the nearest portions of the air, communicates\nto them the tints which we observe. As to the circular form of the\nrainbow, that depends either on the fact of the sight perceiving an equal\ndistance in every direction, or the fact of the atoms taking this form\nwhen re-uniting in the air; or it may be caused by its detaching from the\nair which moves towards the moon, certain atoms which, being re-united in\nthe clouds, give rise to this circular appearance.\n\n\u201cThe lunar halo arises from the fact of the air, which moves towards the\nmoon from all quarters, uniformly intercepting the rays emitted by this\nstar, in such a way as to form around it a sort of circular cloud which\npartially veils it. It may also arise from the fact of the moon uniformly\nrejecting from all quarters, the air which surrounds it, in such a\nmanner as to produce this circular and opaque covering. And perhaps this\nopaqueness may be caused by some particles which some current brings from\nwithout; perhaps also, the heat communicates to the moon the property of\nemitting by the pores in its surface, the particles by which this effect\nis produced.\n\n\u201cComets arise either from the fact, that in the circumstances already\nstated, there are partial conflagrations in certain points of the heaven;\nor, that at certain periods, the heaven has above our heads a particular\nmovement which causes them to appear. It may also be the case, that being\nthemselves endowed with a peculiar movement, they advance at the end of\ncertain periods of time, and in consequence of particular circumstances,\ntowards the places which we inhabit. The opposite reasons explain their\ndisappearance.\n\n\u201cCertain stars return to the same point in accomplishing their\nrevolutions; and this arises, not only as has been sometimes believed,\nfrom the fact of the pole of the world, around which they move, being\nimmoveable, but also from the fact that the gyrations of the air which\nsurrounds them, hinder them from deviations like the wandering stars.\nPerhaps also, this may be caused by the fact, that except in the route\nin which they move, and in which we perceive them, they do not find any\nmaterial suitable to their nature. One may also explain this ph\u00e6nomenon\nin many other manners, reasoning according to sensible facts; thus, it is\npossible that certain stars may be wandering because that is the nature\nof their movements, and, for the same reason, others may be immoveable.\nIt is also possible, that the same necessity which has originally given\nthem their circular movement, may have compelled some to follow their\norbit regularly, and have subjected others to an irregular progress; we\nmay also suppose that the uniform character of the centre which certain\nstars traverse favour their regular march, and their return to a certain;\nand that in the case of others, on the contrary, the differences of the\ncentre produce the changes which we observe. Besides, to assign one\nsingle cause to all these ph\u00e6nomena, when the experience of our senses\nsuggests us several, is folly. It is the conduct of ignorant astronomers\ncovetous of a vain knowledge, who, assigning imaginary causes to facts,\nwish to leave wholly to the Deity the care of the government of the\nuniverse.\n\n\u201cSome stars appear to be left behind by others in their progress; this\narises either from the fact of their having a slower motion, though\ntraversing the same circle; or, because, though they are drawn on by the\nsame propelling power, they have, nevertheless, a movement proper to\nthemselves in a contrary direction; or it may be caused by the fact that,\nthough all are placed in the same sphere of movement, still some have\nmore space to traverse, and others less. To give one uniform and positive\nexplanation of all these facts, is not consistent with the conduct of any\npeople but those who love to flash prodigies in the eyes of the multitude.\n\n\u201cFalling stars may be particles detached from the stars, or fragments\nresulting from their collision; they may also be produced by the fall\nof substances which are set on fire by the action of the wind; by the\nre-union of inflammable atoms which are made to come together so as to\nproduce this effect by a sort of reciprocal attraction; or else by the\nmovement which is produced in consequence of the re-union of atoms in the\nvery place where they meet. It may also happen that the light vapours\nre-unite and become condensed under the form of clouds, that they then\ntake fire in consequence of their rotatory motion, and that, bursting\nthe obstacles which surround them, they proceed towards the places\nwhither the force by which they are animated drags them. In short, this\nph\u00e6nomenon also may admit of a great number of explanations.\n\n\u201cThe presages which are drawn from certain animals arise from a\nfortuitous concourse of circumstances; for there is no necessary\nconnection between certain animals and winter. They do not produce it;\nnor is there any divine nature sitting aloft watching the exits of these\nanimals, and then accomplishing signs of this kind. Nor can such folly as\nthis occur to any being who is even moderately comfortable, much less to\none which is possessed of perfect happiness.\n\n\u201cImprint all these precepts in your memory, O Pythocles, and so you will\neasily escape fables, and it will be easy for you to discover other\ntruths analogous to these. Above all, apply yourself to the study of\ngeneral principles, of the infinite, and of questions of this kind, and\nto the investigation of the different criteria and of the passions, and\nto the study of the chief good, with a view to which we prosecute all\nour researches. When these questions are once resolved, all particular\ndifficulties will be made plain to you. As to those who will not apply\nthemselves to these principles, they will neither be able to give a good\nexplanation of these same questions, nor to reach that end to which all\nour researches tend.\u201d\n\nXXVI. Such are his sentiments on the heavenly ph\u00e6nomena. But concerning\nthe rules of life, and how we ought to choose some things, and avoid\nothers, he writes thus. But first of all, let us go through the opinions\nwhich he held, and his disciples held about the wise man.\n\nHe said that injuries existed among men, either in consequence of hatred,\nor of envy, or of contempt, all which the wise man overcomes by reason.\nAlso, that a man who has once been wise can never receive the contrary\ndisposition, nor can he of his own accord invent such a state of things\nas that he should be subjected to the dominion of the passions; nor can\nhe hinder himself in his progress towards wisdom. That the wise man,\nhowever, cannot exist in every state of body, nor in every nation. That\neven if the wise man were to be put to the torture, he would still be\nhappy. That the wise man will only feel gratitude to his friends, but\nto them equally whether they are present or absent. Nor will he groan\nand howl when he is put to the torture. Nor will he marry a wife whom\nthe laws forbid, as Diogenes says, in his epitome of the Ethical Maxims\nof Epicurus. He will punish his servants, but also pity them, and show\nindulgence to any that are virtuous. They do not think that the wise\nman will ever be in love, nor that he will be anxious about his burial,\nnor that love is a passion inspired by the Gods, as Diogenes says in\nhis twelfth book. They also assert that he will be indifferent to the\nstudy of oratory. Marriage, say they, is never any good to a man, and we\nmust be quite content if it does no harm; and the wise man will never\nmarry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays it down, in his Doubts\nand in his treatises on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances of\nlife, he will forsake these rules and marry. Nor will he ever indulge in\ndrunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet, nor will he entangle himself\nin affairs of state (as he says in his first book on Lives). Nor will he\nbecome a tyrant. Nor will he become a Cynic (as he says in his second\nbook about Lives). Nor a beggar. And even, though he should lose his\neyes, he will still partake of life (as he says in the same book).\n\nThe wise man will be subject to grief, as Diogenes says, in the fifth\nbook of his Select Opinions; he will also not object to go to law. He\nwill leave books and memorials of himself behind him, but he will not be\nfond of frequenting assemblies. He will take care of his property, and\nprovide for the future. He will like being in the country, he will resist\nfortune, and will grieve none of his friends. He will show a regard for a\nfair reputation to such an extent as to avoid being despised; and he will\nfind more pleasure than other men in speculations.\n\nAll faults are not equal. Health is good for some people, but a matter\nof indifference to others. Courage is a quality which does not exist by\nnature, but which is engendered by a consideration of what is suitable.\nFriendship is caused by one\u2019s wants; but it must be begun on our side.\nFor we sow the earth; and friendship arises from a community of, and\nparticipation in, pleasures. Happiness must be understood in two senses;\nthe highest happiness, such as is that of God, which admits of no\nincrease; and another kind, which admits of the addition or abstraction\nof pleasures. The wise man may raise statues if it suits his inclination,\nif it does not it does not signify. The wise man is the only person who\ncan converse correctly about music and poetry; and he can realise poems,\nbut not become a poet.\n\nIt is possible for one wise man to be wiser than another. The wise man\nwill also, if he is in need, earn money, but only by his wisdom; he will\npropitiate an absolute ruler when occasion requires, and will humour him\nfor the sake of correcting his habits; he will have a school, but not\non such a system as to draw a crowd about him; he will also recite in a\nmultitude, but that will be against his inclination; he will pronounce\ndogmas, and will express no doubts; he will be the same man asleep and\nawake; and he will be willing even to die for a friend.\n\nThese are the Epicurean doctrines.\n\nXXVII. We must now proceed to his letter:\u2014\n\nEPICURUS TO MEN\u0152CEUS, GREETING\n\n\u201cLet no one delay to study philosophy while he is young, and when he is\nold let him not become weary of the study; for no man can ever find the\ntime unsuitable or too late to study the health of his soul. And he who\nasserts either that it is not yet time to philosophize, or that the hour\nis passed, is like a man who should say that the time is not yet come\nto be happy, or that it is too late. So that both young and old should\nstudy philosophy, the one in order that, when he is old, he may be young\nin good things through the pleasing recollection of the past, and the\nother in order that he may be at the same time both young and old, in\nconsequence of his absence of fear for the future.\n\n\u201cIt is right then for a man to consider the things which produce\nhappiness, since, if happiness is present, we have everything, and when\nit is absent, we do everything with a view to possess it. Now, what I\nhave constantly recommended to you, these things I would have you do and\npractise, considering them to be the elements of living well. First of\nall, believe that God is a being incorruptible and happy, as the common\nopinion of the world about God dictates; and attach to your idea of him\nnothing which is inconsistent with incorruptibility or with happiness;\nand think that he is invested with everything which is able to preserve\nto him this happiness, in conjunction with incorruptibility. For there\nare Gods; for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of\nthe character which people in general attribute to them; for they do not\npay a respect to them which accords with the ideas that they entertain\nof them. And that man is not impious who discards the Gods believed in\nby the many, but he who applies to the Gods the opinions entertained\nof them by the many. For the assertions of the many about the Gods are\nnot anticipations (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), but false opinions (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2). And in\nconsequence of these, the greatest evils which befall wicked men, and\nthe benefits which are conferred on the good, are all attributed to the\nGods; for they connect all their ideas of them with a comparison of human\nvirtues, and everything which is different from human qualities, they\nregard as incompatible with the divine nature.\n\n\u201cAccustom yourself also to think death a matter with which we are not\nat all concerned, since all good and all evil is in sensation, and\nsince death is only the privation of sensation. On which account, the\ncorrect knowledge of the fact that death is no concern of ours, makes\nthe mortality of life pleasant to us, inasmuch as it sets forth no\nillimitable time, but relieves us for the longing for immortality. For\nthere is nothing terrible in living to a man who rightly comprehends that\nthere is nothing terrible in ceasing to live; so that he was a silly man\nwho said that he feared death, not because it would grieve him when it\nwas present, but because it did grieve him while it was future. For it is\nvery absurd that that which does not distress a man when it is present,\nshould afflict him when only expected. Therefore, the most formidable of\nall evils, death, is nothing to us, since, when we exist, death is not\npresent to us; and when death is present, then we have no existence. It\nis no concern then either of the living or of the dead; since to the one\nit has no existence, and the other class has no existence itself. But\npeople in general, at times flee from death as the greatest of evils,\nand at times wish for it as a rest from the evils in life. Nor is the\nnot living a thing feared, since living is not connected with it: nor\ndoes the wise man think not living an evil; but, just as he chooses food,\nnot preferring that which is most abundant, but that which is nicest; so\ntoo, he enjoys time, not measuring it as to whether it is of the greatest\nlength, but as to whether it is most agreeable. And he who enjoins a\nyoung man to live well, and an old man to die well, is a simpleton,\nnot only because of the constantly delightful nature of life, but also\nbecause the care to live well is identical with the care to die well. And\nhe was still more wrong who said:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u2019Tis well to taste of life, and then when born\n To pass with quickness to the shades below.[142]\n\n\u201cFor if this really was his opinion why did he not quit life? for it was\neasily in his power to do so, if it really was his belief. But if he was\njoking, then he was talking foolishly in a case where it ought not to be\nallowed; and, we must recollect, that the future is not our own, nor, on\nthe other hand, is it wholly not our own, I mean so that we can never\naltogether await it with a feeling of certainty that it will be, nor\naltogether despair of it as what will never be. And we must consider that\nsome of the passions are natural, and some empty; and of the natural ones\nsome are necessary, and some merely natural. And of the necessary ones\nsome are necessary to happiness, and others, with regard to the exemption\nof the body, from trouble; and others with respect to living itself; for\na correct theory, with regard to these things, can refer all choice and\navoidance to the health of the body and the freedom from disquietude of\nthe soul. Since this is the end of living happily; for it is for the sake\nof this that we do everything, wishing to avoid grief and fear; and when\nonce this is the case, with respect to us, then the storm of the soul is,\nas I may say, put an end to; since the animal is unable to go as if to\nsomething deficient, and to seek something different from that by which\nthe good of the soul and body will be perfected.\n\n\u201cFor then we have need of pleasure when we grieve, because pleasure is\nnot present; but when we do not grieve, then we have no need of pleasure;\nand on this account, we affirm, that pleasure is the beginning and end\nof living happily; for we have recognized this as the first good, being\nconnate with us; and with reference to it, it is that we begin every\nchoice and avoidance; and to this we come as if we judged of all good by\npassion as the standard; and, since this is the first good and connate\nwith us, on this account we do not choose every pleasure, but at times\nwe pass over many pleasures when any difficulty is likely to ensue from\nthem; and we think many pains better than pleasures, when a greater\npleasure follows them, if we endure the pain for a time.\n\n\u201cEvery pleasure is therefore a good on account of its own nature, but\nit does not follow that every pleasure is worthy of being chosen; just\nas every pain is an evil, and yet every pain must not be avoided. But\nit is right to estimate all these things by the measurement and view of\nwhat is suitable and unsuitable; for at times we may feel the good as an\nevil, and at times, on the contrary, we may feel the evil as good. And,\nwe think, contentment a great good, not in order that we may never have\nbut a little, but in order that, if we have not much, we may make use\nof a little, being genuinely persuaded that those men enjoy luxury most\ncompletely who are the best able to do without it; and that everything\nwhich is natural is easily provided, and what is useless is not easily\nprocured. And simple flavours give as much pleasure as costly fare, when\neverything that can give pain, and every feeling of want, is removed;\nand corn and water give the most extreme pleasure when any one in need\neats them. To accustom one\u2019s self, therefore, to simple and inexpensive\nhabits is a great ingredient in the perfecting of health, and makes a\nman free from hesitation with respect to the necessary uses of life.\nAnd when we, on certain occasions, fall in with more sumptuous fare, it\nmakes us in a better disposition towards it, and renders us fearless\nwith respect to fortune. When, therefore, we say that pleasure is a\nchief good, we are not speaking of the pleasures of the debauched man,\nor those which lie in sensual enjoyment, as some think who are ignorant,\nand who do not entertain our opinions, or else interpret them perversely;\nbut we mean the freedom of the body from pain, and of the soul from\nconfusion. For it is not continued drinkings and revels, or the enjoyment\nof female society, or feasts of fish and other such things, as a costly\ntable supplies, that make life pleasant, but sober contemplation, which\nexamines into the reasons for all choice and avoidance, and which puts\nto flight the vain opinions from which the greater part of the confusion\narises which troubles the soul.\n\n\u201cNow, the beginning and the greatest good of all these things is\nprudence, on which account prudence is something more valuable than\neven philosophy, inasmuch as all the other virtues spring from it,\nteaching us that it is not possible to live pleasantly unless one also\nlives prudently, and honourably, and justly; and that one cannot live\nprudently, and honestly, and justly, without living pleasantly; for\nthe virtues are connate with living agreeably, and living agreeably\nis inseparable from the virtues. Since, who can you think better than\nthat man who has holy opinions respecting the Gods, and who is utterly\nfearless with respect to death, and who has properly contemplated the end\nof nature, and who comprehends that the chief good is easily perfected\nand easily provided; and the greatest evil lasts but a short period, and\ncauses but brief pain. And who has no belief in necessity, which is set\nup by some as the mistress of all things, but he refers some things to\nfortune, some to ourselves, because necessity is an irresponsible power,\nand because he sees that fortune is unstable, while our own will is\nfree; and this freedom constitutes, in our case, a responsibility which\nmakes us encounter blame and praise. Since it would be better to follow\nthe fables about the Gods than to be a slave to the fate of the natural\nphilosopher; for the fables which are told give us a sketch, as if we\ncould avert the wrath of God by paying him honour; but the other presents\nus with necessity who is inexorable.\n\n\u201cAnd he, not thinking fortune a goddess, as the generality esteem her\n(for nothing is done at random by a God), nor a cause which no man can\nrely on, for he thinks that good or evil is not given by her to men so\nas to make them live happily, but that the principles of great goods or\ngreat evils are supplied by her; thinking it better to be unfortunate in\naccordance with reason, than to be fortunate irrationally; for that those\nactions which are judged to be the best, are rightly done in consequence\nof reason.\n\n\u201cDo you then study these precepts, and those which are akin to them, by\nall means day and night, pondering on them by yourself, and discussing\nthem with any one like yourself, and then you will never be disturbed by\neither sleeping or waking fancies, but you will live like a God among\nmen; for a man living amid immortal Gods, is in no respect like a mortal\nbeing.\u201d\n\nIn other works, he discards divination; and also in his Little Epitome.\nAnd he says divination has no existence; but, if it has any, still we\nshould think that what happens according to it is nothing to us.\n\nThese are his sentiments about the things which concern the life of man,\nand he has discussed them at greater length elsewhere.\n\nXXVIII. Now, he differs with the Cyrenaics about pleasure. For they do\nnot admit that to be pleasure which exists as a condition, but place it\nwholly in motion. He, however, admits both kinds to be pleasure, namely,\nthat of the soul, and that of the body, as he says in his treatise on\nChoice and Avoidance; and also in his work on the Chief Good; and in\nthe first book of his treatise on Lives, and in his Letter against\nthe Mitylenian Philosophers. And in the same spirit, Diogenes, in the\nseventeenth book of his Select Discourses, and Metrodorus, in his\nTimocrates, speak thus. \u201cBut when pleasure is understood, I mean both\nthat which exists in motion, and that which is a state.\u2026\u201d And Epicurus,\nin his treatise on Choice, speaks thus: \u201cNow, freedom from disquietude,\nand freedom from pain, are states of pleasure; but joy and cheerfulness\nare beheld in motion and energy.\u201d\n\nXXIX. For they make out the pains of the body to be worse than those of\nthe mind; accordingly, those who do wrong, are punished in the body.\nBut he considers the pains of the soul the worst; for that the flesh is\nonly sensible to present affliction, but the soul feels the past, the\npresent, and the future. Therefore, in the same manner, he contends that\nthe pleasures of the soul are greater than those of the body; and he uses\nas a proof that pleasure is the chief good, the fact that all animals\nfrom the moment of their birth are delighted with pleasure, and are\noffended with pain by their natural instinct, and without the employment\nof reason. Therefore, too, we, of our own inclination, flee from pain; so\nthat Hercules, when devoured by his poisoned tunic, cries out:\u2014\n\n Shouting and groaning, and the rocks around\n Re-echoed his sad wails, the mountain heights\n Of Locrian lands, and sad Eub\u0153a\u2019s hills.[143]\n\nXXX. And we choose the virtues for the sake of pleasure, and not on\ntheir own account; just as we seek the skill of the physician for the\nsake of health, as Diogenes says, in the twentieth book of his Select\nDiscourses, where he also calls virtue a way of passing one\u2019s life\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae). But Epicurus says, that virtue alone is inseparable from\npleasure, but that every thing else may be separated from it as mortal.\n\nXXXI. Let us, however, now add the finishing stroke, as one may say, to\nthis whole treatise, and to the life of the philosopher; giving some of\nhis fundamental maxims, and closing the whole work with them, taking that\nfor our end which is the beginning of happiness.\n\n1. \u201cThat which is happy and imperishable, neither has trouble itself, nor\ndoes it cause it to anything; so that it is not subject to the feelings\nof either anger or gratitude; for these feelings only exist in what is\nweak.\n\n(In other passages he says that the Gods are speculated on by reason,\nsome existing according to number, and others according to some\nsimilarity of form, arising from the continual flowing on of similar\nimages, perfected for this very purpose in human form.)\n\n2. \u201cDeath is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved is devoid of\nsensation, and that which is devoid of sensation is nothing to us.\n\n3. \u201cThe limit of the greatness of the pleasures is the removal of\neverything which can give pain. And where pleasure is, as long as it\nlasts, that which gives pain, or that which feels pain, or both of them,\nare absent.\n\n4. \u201cPain does not abide continuously in the flesh, but in its extremity\nit is present only a very short time. That pain which only just exceeds\nthe pleasure in the flesh, does not last many days. But long diseases\nhave in them more that is pleasant than painful to the flesh.\n\n5. \u201cIt is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently,\nand honourably, and justly; nor to live prudently, and honourably, and\njustly, without living pleasantly. But he to whom it does not happen to\nlive prudently, honourably, and justly, cannot possibly live pleasantly.\n\n6. \u201cFor the sake of feeling confidence and security with regard to men,\nand not with reference to the nature of government and kingly power being\na good, some men have wished to be eminent and powerful, in order that\nothers might attain this feeling by their means; thinking that so they\nwould secure safety as far as men are concerned. So that, if the life of\nsuch men is safe, they have attained to the nature of good; but if it is\nnot safe, then they have failed in obtaining that for the sake of which\nthey originally desired power according to the order of nature.[144]\n\n7. \u201cNo pleasure is intrinsically bad: but the efficient causes of some\npleasures bring with them a great many perturbations of pleasure.\n\n8. \u201cIf every pleasure were condensed, if one may so say, and if each\nlasted long, and affected the whole body, or the essential parts of it,\nthen there would be no difference between one pleasure and another.\n\n9. \u201cIf those things which make the pleasures of debauched men, put an end\nto the fears of the mind, and to those which arise about the heavenly\nbodies, and death, and pain; and if they taught us what ought to be the\nlimit of our desires, we should have no pretence for blaming those who\nwholly devote themselves to pleasure, and who never feel any pain or\ngrief (which is the chief evil) from any quarter.\n\n10. \u201cIf apprehensions relating to the heavenly bodies did not disturb\nus, and if the terrors of death have no concern with us, and if we had\nthe courage to contemplate the boundaries of pain and of the desires, we\nshould have no need of physiological studies.\n\n11. \u201cIt would not be possible for a person to banish all fear about those\nthings which are called most essential, unless he knew what is the nature\nof the universe, or if he had any idea that the fables told about it\ncould be true; and therefore, it is, that a person cannot enjoy unmixed\npleasure without physiological knowledge.\n\n12. \u201cIt would be no good for a man to secure himself safety as far as men\nare concerned, while in a state of apprehension as to all the heavenly\nbodies, and those under the earth, and in short, all those in the\ninfinite.\n\n13. \u201cIrresistible power and great wealth may, up to a certain point,\ngive us security as far as men are concerned; but the security of men in\ngeneral depends upon the tranquillity of their souls, and their freedom\nfrom ambition.\n\n14. \u201cThe riches of nature are defined and easily procurable; but vain\ndesires are insatiable.\n\n15. \u201cThe wise man is but little favoured by fortune; but his reason\nprocures him the greatest and most valuable goods, and these he does\nenjoy, and will enjoy the whole of his life.\n\n16. \u201cThe just man is the freest of all men from disquietude; but the\nunjust man is a perpetual prey to it.\n\n17. \u201cPleasure in the flesh is not increased, when once the pain arising\nfrom want is removed; it is only diversified.\n\n18. \u201cThe most perfect happiness of the soul depends on these reflections,\nand on opinions of a similar character on all those questions which cause\nthe greatest alarm to the mind.\n\n19. \u201cInfinite and finite time both have equal pleasure, if any one\nmeasures its limits by reason.\n\n20. \u201cIf the flesh could experience boundless pleasure, it would want to\ndispose of eternity.[145]\n\n21. \u201cBut reason, enabling us to conceive the end and dissolution of the\nbody, and liberating us from the fears relative to eternity, procures\nfor us all the happiness of which life is capable, so completely that\nwe have no further occasion to include eternity in our desires. In this\ndisposition of mind, man is happy even when his troubles engage him\nto quit life; and to die thus, is for him only to interrupt a life of\nhappiness.\n\n22. \u201cHe who is acquainted with the limits of life knows, that that which\nremoves the pain which arises from want, and which makes the whole of\nlife perfect, is easily procurable; so that he has no need of those\nthings which can only be attained with trouble.\n\n23. \u201cBut as to the subsisting end, we ought to consider it with all the\nclearness and evidence which we refer to whatever we think and believe;\notherwise, all things will be full of confusion and uncertainty of\njudgment.\n\n24. \u201cIf you resist all the senses, you will not even have anything left\nto which you can refer, or by which you may be able to judge of the\nfalsehood of the senses which you condemn.\n\n25. \u201cIf you simply discard one sense, and do not distinguish between the\ndifferent elements of the judgment, so as to know on the one hand, the\ninduction which goes beyond the actual sensation, or, on the other, the\nactual and immediate notion; the affections, and all the conceptions of\nthe mind which lean directly on the sensible representation, you will be\nimputing trouble into the other sense, and destroying in that quarter\nevery species of criterion.\n\n26. \u201cIf you allow equal authority to the ideas, which, being only\ninductive, require to be verified, and to those which bear about them\nan immediate certainty, you will not escape error; for you will be\nconfounding doubtful opinions with those which are not doubtful, and true\njudgments with those of a different character.\n\n27. \u201cIf, on every occasion, we do not refer every one of our actions to\nthe chief end of nature, if we turn aside from that to seek or avoid some\nother object, there will be a want of agreement between our words and our\nactions.\n\n28. \u201cOf all the things which wisdom provides for the happiness of the\nwhole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friendship.\n\n29. \u201cThe same opinion encourages man to trust that no evil will be\neverlasting, or even of long duration; as it sees that, in the space\nof life allotted to us, the protection of friendship is most sure and\ntrustworthy.\n\n30. \u201cOf the desires, some are natural and necessary, some natural, but\nnot necessary, and some are neither natural nor necessary, but owe their\nexistence to vain opinions.\u201d\n\n(Epicurus thinks that those are natural and necessary which put an end to\npains, as drink when one is thirsty; and that those are natural but not\nnecessary which only diversify pleasure, but do not remove pain, such as\nexpensive food; and that these are neither natural nor necessary, which\nare such as crowns, or the erection of statues.)\n\n31. \u201cThose desires which do not lead to pain, if they are not satisfied,\nare not necessary. It is easy to impose silence on them when they appear\ndifficult to gratify, or likely to produce injury.\n\n32. \u201cWhen the natural desires, the failing to satisfy which is,\nnevertheless, not painful, are violent and obstinate, it is a proof that\nthere is an admixture of vain opinion in them; for then energy does not\narise from their own nature, but from the vain opinions of men.\n\n33. \u201cNatural justice is a covenant of what is suitable, leading men to\navoid injuring one another, and being injured.\n\n34. \u201cThose animals which are unable to enter into an argument of this\nnature, or to guard against doing or sustaining mutual injury, have no\nsuch thing as justice or injustice. And the case is the same with those\nnations, the members of which are either unwilling or unable to enter\ninto a covenant to respect their mutual interests.\n\n35. \u201cJustice has no independent existence; it results from mutual\ncontracts, and establishes itself wherever there is a mutual engagement\nto guard against doing or sustaining mutual injury.\n\n36. \u201cInjustice is not intrinsically bad; it has this character only\nbecause there is joined with it a fear of not escaping those who are\nappointed to punish actions marked with that character.\n\n37. \u201cIt is not possible for a man who secretly does anything in\ncontravention of the agreement which men have made with one another, to\nguard against doing, or sustaining mutual injury, to believe that he\nshall always escape notice, even if he have escaped notice already ten\nthousand times; for, till his death, it is uncertain whether he will not\nbe detected.\n\n38. \u201cIn a general point of view, justice is the same thing to every one;\nfor there is something advantageous in mutual society. Nevertheless, the\ndifference of place, and divers other circumstances, make justice vary.\n\n39. \u201cFrom the moment that a thing declared just by the law is generally\nrecognized as useful for the mutual relations of men, it becomes really\njust, whether it is universally regarded as such or not.\n\n40. \u201cBut if, on the contrary, a thing established by law is not really\nuseful for the social relations, then it is not just; and if that which\nwas just, inasmuch as it was useful, loses this character, after having\nbeen for some time considered so, it is not less true that, during\nthat time, it was really just, at least for those who do not perplex\nthemselves about vain words, but who prefer, in every case, examining and\njudging for themselves.\n\n41. \u201cWhen, without any fresh circumstances arising, a thing which has\nbeen declared just in practice does not agree with the impressions of\nreason, that is a proof that the thing was not really just. In the same\nway, when in consequence of new circumstances, a thing which has been\npronounced just does not any longer appear to agree with utility, the\nthing which was just, inasmuch as it was useful to the social relations\nand intercourse of mankind, ceases to be just the moment when it ceases\nto be useful.\n\n42. \u201cHe who desires to live tranquilly without having any thing to fear\nfrom other men, ought to make himself friends; those whom he cannot make\nfriends of, he should, at least, avoid rendering enemies; and if that is\nnot in his power, he should, as far as possible, avoid all intercourse\nwith them, and keep them aloof, as far as it is for his interest to do so.\n\n43. \u201cThe happiest men are they who have arrived at the point of having\nnothing to fear from those who surround them. Such men live with one\nanother most agreeably, having the firmest grounds of confidence in one\nanother, enjoying the advantages of friendship in all their fulness, and\nnot lamenting, as a pitiable circumstance, the premature death of their\nfriends.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] \u201cThe religion of the ancient Persians was the worship of fire or\nof the elements, in which fire was symbolical of the Deity. At a later\nperiod, in the time of the Greeks, the ancient worship was changed into\nthe adoration of the stars (Sab\u00e6ism), especially of the sun and of the\nmorning star. This religion was distinguished by a simple and majestic\ncharacter. Its priests were called Magi.\u201d\u2014_Tenneman\u2019s Manual of the\nHistory of Philosophy, Introd._ \u00a7 70.\n\n[2] \u201cThe Chald\u00e6ans were devoted to the worship of the stars and to\nastrology; the nature of their climate and country disposing them to it.\nThe worship of the stars was revived by them and widely disseminated even\nsubsequently to the Christian era.\u201d\u2014_Ibid._ \u00a7 71.\n\n[3] \u201cCicero speaks of those who in India are accounted philosophers,\nliving naked and enduring the greatest severity of winter without\nbetraying any feeling of pain, and displaying the same insensibility when\nexposed to the flames.\u201d\u2014_Tusc. Qu\u00e6st._ v. 27.\n\n[4] \u201cThe religion of the Britons was one of the most considerable parts\nof their government, and the Druids who were their priests, possessed\ngreat authority among them. Besides ministering at the altar, and\ndirecting all religious duties, they presided over the education of\nyouth; they possessed both the civil and criminal jurisdiction, they\ndecided all controversies among states as well as among private persons,\nand whoever refused to submit to their decree was exposed to the most\nsevere penalties. The sentence of excommunication was pronounced against\nhim; he was forbidden access to the sacrifices of public worship; he was\ndebarred all intercourse with his fellow citizens even in the common\naffairs of life: his company was universally shunned as profane and\ndangerous, he was refused the protection of law, and death itself became\nan acceptable relief from the misery and infamy to which he was exposed.\nThus the bonds of government, which were naturally loose among that rude\nand turbulent people, were happily corroborated by the terrors of their\nsuperstition.\n\n\u201cNo species of superstition was ever more terrible than that of the\nDruids; besides the several penalties which it was in the power of the\necclesiastics to inflict in this world, they inculcated the eternal\ntransmigration of souls, and thereby extended their authority as far\nas the fears of their timorous votaries. They practised their rites in\ndark groves or other secret recesses, and in order to throw a greater\nmystery over their religion, they communicated their doctrines only to\nthe initiated, and strictly forbade the committing of them to writing,\nlest they should at any time be exposed to the examination of the profane\nand vulgar. Human sacrifices were practised among them; the spoils of\nwar were often devoted to their divinities, and they punished with the\nseverest tortures whoever dared to secrete any part of the consecrated\noffering. These treasures they kept secreted in woods and forests,\nsecured by no other guard than the terrors of their religion; and their\nsteady conquest over human avidity may be regarded as more signal than\ntheir prompting men to the most extraordinary and most violent efforts.\nNo idolatrous worship ever attained such an ascendant over mankind\nas that of the ancient Gauls and Britons. And the Romans after their\nconquest, finding it impossible to reconcile those nations to the laws\nand institutions of their masters while it maintained its authority,\nwere at last obliged to abolish it by penal statutes, a violence which\nhad never in any other instance been resorted to by those tolerating\nconquerors.\u201d\u2014_Hume\u2019s History of England_, chap. 1. \u00a7 1.\n\n[5] \u201cZamolxis, or Zalmoxis, so called from the bear-skin (\u03b6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) in\nwhich he was wrapped as soon as he was born, was a Getan, and a slave of\nPythagoras at Samos; having been emancipated by his master, he travelled\ninto Egypt; and on his return to his own country he introduced the ideas\nwhich he had acquired in his travels on the subject of civilisation,\nreligion, and the immortality of the soul. He was made priest of the\nchief deity among the Get\u00e6, and was afterwards himself worshipped as a\ndivine person. He was said to have lived in a subterraneous cavern for\nthree years, and after that to have re-appeared among his countrymen.\u201d\nHerodotus, however, who records these stories (iv. 95), expresses his\ndisbelief of them, placing him before the time of Pythagoras by many\nyears, and seems to incline to the belief that he was an indigenous Getan\ndeity.\n\n[6] The real time of Zoroaster is, as may be supposed, very uncertain,\nbut he is said by some eminent writers to have lived in the time of\nDarius Hystaspes; though others, apparently on better grounds, place\nhim at a very far earlier date. He is not mentioned by Herodotus at\nall. His native country too is very uncertain. Some writers, among whom\nare Ctesias and Ammian, call him a Bactrian, while Porphyry speaks\nof him as a Chald\u00e6an, and Pliny as a native of Proconnesus;\u2014Niebuhr\nconsiders him a purely mythical personage. The great and fundamental\narticle of the system (of the Persian theology) was the celebrated\ndoctrine of the two principles; a bold and injudicious attempt of Eastern\nphilosophy to reconcile the existence of moral and physical evil with\nthe attributes of a beneficent Creator and governor of the world. The\nfirst and original being, in whom, or by whom the universe exists, is\ndenominated, in the writings of Zoroaster, _Time without bounds_.\u2026 From\neither the blind or the intelligent operation of this infinite Time,\nwhich bears but too near an affinity to the Chaos of the Greeks, the two\nsecondary but active principles of the universe were from all eternity\nproduced; Ormusd and Ahriman, each of them possessed of the powers of\ncreation, but each disposed by his invariable nature to exercise them\nwith different designs; the principle of good is eternally absorbed\nin light, the principle of evil is eternally buried in darkness. The\nwise benevolence of Ormusd formed man capable of virtue, and abundantly\nprovided his fair habitation with the materials of happiness. By his\nvigilant providence the motion of the planets, the order of the seasons,\nand the temperate mixture of the elements are preserved. But the maker\nof Ahriman has long since pierced _Ormusd\u2019s Egg_, or in other words,\nhas violated the harmony of his works. Since that fatal irruption, the\nmost minute articles of good and evil are intimately intermingled and\nagitated together; the rankest poisons spring up among the most salutary\nplants; deluges, earthquakes, and conflagrations attest the conflict\nof nature, and the little world of man is perpetually shaken by vice\nand misfortune. While the rest of mankind are led away captives in the\nchains of their infernal enemy, the faithful Persian alone reserves his\nreligious adoration for his friend and protector Ormusd, and fights\nunder his banner of light, in the full confidence that he shall, in the\nlast day, share the glory of his triumph. At that decisive period, the\nenlightened wisdom of goodness will render the power of Ormusd superior\nto the furious malice of his rival; Ahriman and his followers, disarmed\nand subdued, will sink into their native darkness, and virtue will\nmaintain the eternal peace and harmony of the universe.\u2026 As a legislator,\nZoroaster \u201cdiscovered a liberal concern for the public and private\nhappiness seldom to be found among the visionary schemes of superstition.\nFasting and celibacy, the common means of purchasing the divine favour,\nhe condemns with abhorrence, as a criminal rejection of the best gifts of\nProvidence.\u201d\u2014_Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, c. viii.\n\n[7] This is the account given by Virgil\u2014\n\n Spret\u00e6 Ciconum quo munere matres\n Inter sacra De\u00fbm nocturnique orgia Bacchi,\n Discerptum latos juvenem sparsere per agros.\u2014GEORG. iv. 520.\n\nWhich Dryden translates\u2014\n\n The Thracian matrons who the youth accus\u2019d,\n Of love disdain\u2019d and marriage rites refus\u2019d;\n With furies and nocturnal orgies fir\u2019d,\n At length against his sacred life conspir\u2019d;\n Whom ev\u2019n the savage beasts had spar\u2019d they kill\u2019d,\n And strew\u2019d his mangled limbs about the field.\n\n[8] This was the temple of the national deity of the Ionians, Neptune\nHeliconius, on Mount Mycale.\u2014Vide _Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Antiq._\n\n[9] Vide Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, ii. p. 34.\n\n[10] One of the Sporades.\n\n[11] An island near Crete.\n\n[12] Hom. Il. 2. 671. Dryden\u2019s Version.\n\n[13] Vide Herod. lib. 1. c. 30-33.\n\n[14] A drachma was something less than ten pence.\n\n[15] \u201c\u1f1c\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 the last day of the month: elsewhere \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2. So\ncalled for this reason. The old Greek year was lunar; now the moon\u2019s\nmonthly orbit is twenty-nine and a half days. So that if the first month\nbegan with the sun and moon together at sunrise, at the month\u2019s end it\nwould be sunset; and the second month would begin at sunset. To prevent\nthis irregularity, Solon made the latter half day belong to the first\nmonth; so that this thirtieth day consisted of two halves, one belonging\nto the old, the other to the new moon. And when the lunar month fell\ninto disuse, the last day of the calendar month was still called \u1f1c\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1.\u201d\u2014_L. & S. Greek Lexicon_, in v. \u1f14\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[16] Herodotus mentions the case of Periander\u2019s children, iii. 50, and\nthe death of his wife, and his burning the clothes of all the Corinthian\nwomen, v. 92.\n\n[17] Some propose to read \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd, _fruit_, instead of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd, _smoke_,\nhere; others explain this saying as meaning that the Greeks avoided\nhouses on the hills in order not to be annoyed with the smoke from the\nlow cottage, and yet did not use coal, but wood, which would make more\nsmoke.\n\n[18] This refers to the result of the war which Antipater, who became\nregent of Macedonia on the death of Alexander the Great, carried on\nagainst the confederacy of Greek states, of which Athens was the head;\nand in which, after having defeated them at Cranon, he compelled the\nAthenians to abolish the democracy, and to admit a garrison into Munychia.\n\n[19] \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1, sticks or faggots.\n\n[20] After the battle of Arginus\u00e6.\n\n[21] \u201cThis is not quite correct. Socrates believed that the d\u00e6mon which\nattended him, limited his warnings to his own conduct; preventing him\nfrom doing what was wrong, but not prompting him to do right.\u201d\u2014_See\nGrote\u2019s admirable chapter on Socrates. Hist. of Greece_, vol. v.\n\n[22] Grote gives good reasons for disbelieving this.\n\n[23] The Greek is, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u2014\u201c\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7,\nan action against a freedman for having forsaken or slighted his\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\u201d\u2014_L. & S._\n\n[24] This is exactly the character that Horace gives of him:\u2014\n\n Omnis Aristippum decuit color et status et res;\n Tentantem majora, fere pr\u00e6sentibus \u00e6equum.\u2014\n _Ep._ i. 23, 24.\n\n[25] Plutarch, in his life of Pompey, attributes these lines to\nSophocles, but does not mention the play in which they occurred.\n\n[26] The French translator gives the following examples, to show what is\nmeant by these several kinds of quibbling arguments:\u2014\n\nThe _lying_ one is this:\u2014Is the man a liar who says that he tells lies.\nIf he is, then he does not tell lies; and if he does not tell lies, is he\na liar?\n\nThe _concealed_ one:\u2014Do you know this man who is concealed? If you do\nnot, you do not know your own father; for he it is who is concealed.\n\nThe _veiled_ one is much the same as the preceding.\n\nThe _electra_ is a quibble of the same kind as the two preceding ones:\nElectra sees Orestes: she knows that Orestes is her brother, but does not\nknow that the man she sees is Orestes; therefore she does know, and does\nnot know, her brother at the same time.\n\nThe _Sorites_ is universally known.\n\nThe _bald_ one is a kind of Sorites; pulling one hair out of a man\u2019s head\nwill not make him bald, nor two, nor three, and so on till every hair in\nhis head is pulled out.\n\nThe _horned_ one:\u2014You have what you have not lost. You have not lost\nhorns, therefore you have horns.\n\n[27] From \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9, to confute.\n\n[28] \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, take away \u039a. \u03c1., leaves \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, an ass.\n\n[29] The quibble here is that \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 is properly only masculine, though it\nis sometimes used as feminine.\n\n[30] The Greek is a parody on the descriptions of Tantalus and Sisyphus.\nHom. Od. ii. 581, 592. See also, Dryden\u2019s Version, B. ii. 719.\n\n[31] The Greek is \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5. \u201cA _mime_ was a kind of prose drama,\nintended as a familiar representation of life and character, without any\ndistinct plot. It was divided into \u03bc\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, also\ninto \u03bc\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd and \u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\u201d\u2014_L. &. S. in voc._ \u03bc\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[32] The Greek is, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2.\n\n[33] This figure was like a barbed arrow, according to Zevort.\n\n[34] Herophilus was one of the most celebrated physicians of antiquity,\nwho founded the Medical School at Alexandria, in the time of the first\nPtolemy.\n\n[35] Hom. Od. x. 387. Pope\u2019s Version, 450.\n\n[36] Perhaps there is a pun here; \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 means not only a knout\ncomposed of small bones strung together, but also a die.\n\n[37] This is a quotation from some lost play of Euripides, slightly\naltered, the line, as printed in the Variorum Edition, vol. vii., Mc.\nTrag. cxxx. is\u2014\n\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n[38] There is a pun here which is untranslateable. The Greek is \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc7, meaning usury, and also offspring or delivery.\n\n[39] Hom. Od. x. 335. Pope\u2019s Version, 387.\n\n[40] Hom. Il. vi. 211. Pope\u2019s Version, 254.\n\n[41] This is a quotation from the Hippolytus of Euripides, v. 424.\n\n[42] I doubt if the wit of these parodies will be appreciated by the\nmodern reader. The lines of Homer, which they are intended to parody,\nare:\u2014\n\n \u1f6e \u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1 \u0391\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u0390\u03b4\u03b7, \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2, \u1f40\u03bb\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\u2014_Il._ 3, 182.\n\n \u1f20\u03ad \u03c3\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u0390\u03b4\u03b7, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2014_Il._ v. 146.\n\nThe first of which is translated by Pope:\u2014\n\n Oh, blest Atrides, born of prosperous fate,\n Successful monarch of a mighty state!\n\nThe Greek parody in the text is:\u2014\n\n \u1f6e \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2, \u1f40\u03bb\u03b2\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03b5\n \u03a4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[43] From \u03bb\u03cd\u03c9, _solvo_, to relax or weaken the limbs.\n\n[44] From \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9, \u201cto walk about.\u201d\n\n[45] Il. 18, 95.\n\n[46] This very spirited version I owe to the kindness of my brother, the\nRev. J. E. Yonge, of Eton College.\n\n[47] \u201c\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, the actuality of a thing, as opposed to simple\ncapability or potentiality (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2); a philosophic word invented by\nAristotle.\u2014 \u2026 quite distinct from \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, though Cicero (Tusc. i.\n10,) confounded them.\u201d\u2014_L. & S. in voc._\n\n[48] From \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 divine, and \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 diction.\n\n[49] This was a temple of the Muses which he had built for a school.\n\n[50] So as to make it appear connected with \u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f7a\u03c2, sweet.\n\n[51] \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, means an earthenware jar for wine.\n\n[52] The foregoing account hardly does justice to Demetrius, who was a\nman of real ability, and of a very different class to the generality\nof those whom the ancients dignified with the title of philosophers.\nHe was called Phalereus, to distinguish him from his contemporary\nDemetrius Poliorcetes. His administration of the affairs of Athens was\nso successful, that Cicero gives him the praise of having re-established\nthe sinking and almost prostrate power of the republic. (Cic. de Rep. ii.\n1.) As an orator, he is spoken of by the same great authority with the\nhighest admiration. Cicero calls him \u201ca subtle disputer, not vehement,\nbut very sweet, as a pupil of Theophrastus might be expected to be.\u201d\n(de Off. i. 3.) In another place he praises him as possessed of great\nlearning, and as one who \u201crather delighted than inflamed the Athenians.\u201d\n(de Clav. Orat. \u00a7 37.) And says, \u201cthat he was the first person who\nendeavoured to soften eloquence, and who made it tender and gentle;\npreferring to appear sweet, as indeed he was, rather than vehement.\u201d\n(Ibid. \u00a7 38.) In another place he says, \u201cDemetrius Phalereus the most\npolished of all those orators\u201d (he has been mentioning Demosthenes,\nHyperides, Lycurgus, \u00c6schines, and Dinarchus) \u201cin my opinion.\u201d (de\nOrat. ii. 23.) And he praises him for not confining his learning to the\nschools, but for bringing it into daily use, and employing it as one\nof his ordinary weapons. (de Leg. iii. 14.) And asks who can be found\nbesides him who excelled in both ways, so as to be pre-eminent at the\nsame time as a scholar, and a governor of a state. (Ibid.) He mentions\nhis death in the oration for Rabirius Postumus, \u00a7 9. He appears to have\ndied about B.C. 282.\n\n[53] From \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u1f74, a procession.\n\n[54] There is a play on the similarity of the two sounds, \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74, common,\nand \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, punishment.\n\n[55] The Greek is, \u1f10\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, which was a proverb for utter destruction.\n\n[56] The passage is not free from difficulty; but the thing which misled\nDiogenes appears to have been that \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, the word here used, meant\nboth \u201ca coin, or coinage,\u201d and \u201ca custom.\u201d\n\n[57] This line is from Euripides, Medea, 411.\n\n[58] The saperda was the coracinus (a kind of fish) when salted.\n\n[59] This is probably an allusion to a prosecution instituted by\nDemosthenes against Midias, which was afterwards compromised by Midias\npaying Demosthenes thirty min\u00e6, or three thousand drachm\u00e6. See Dem. Or.\ncont. Midias.\n\n[60] This is a pun upon the similarity of Athlias\u2019s name to the Greek\nadjective \u1f04\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, which signifies miserable.\n\n[61] The \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 were the sacred secretaries or recorders sent by\neach Amphictyonic state to the council along with their \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, (the\nactual deputy or minister). _L. & S._ Gr. & Eng. Lex., _in voc._\n\n[62] There is a pun here. \u03a7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd is the word used for worse. Chiron was\nalso the most celebrated of the Centaurs, the tutor of Achilles.\n\n[63] There is a pun intended here; as Diogenes proposed Didymus a fate\nsomewhat similar to that of the beaver.\n\n Cupiens evadere damno\n Testiculorum.\n\n[64] This is taken from Homer, Il. \u03ba. 387. Pope\u2019s Version, 455.\n\n[65] This is also from Homer, Il. \u03b8. 95. Pope\u2019s Version, 120.\n\n[66] This is a parody on Homer, Il. \u03be. 95, where the line ends \u03bf\u1f37\u2019\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u2014\u201cif such is your language,\u201d which Diogenes here changes to \u03bf\u1f37\u2019\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, if you buy such things.\n\n[67] This is a line of the Ph\u0153niss\u00e6 of Euripides, v. 40.\n\n[68] The pun here is on the similarity of the noun \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b1\u03bd, an olive, to\nthe verb \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u1fb6\u03bd, to drive; the words \u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u1fb6\u03bd are of frequent\noccurrence in Homer.\n\n[69] This line occurs, Hom. Il. \u03b5. 83.\n\n[70] The Samothracian Gods were Gods of the sea, and it was customary for\nthose who had been saved from shipwreck to make them an offering of some\npart of what they had saved; and of their hair, if they had saved nothing\nbut their lives.\n\n[71] Eurytion was another of the Centaurs, who was killed by Hercules.\n\n[72] This is a pun on the similarity of the sound, Tegea, to \u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, a\nbrothel.\n\n[73] The Greek is \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7,\u2014\u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 was\nnot only a subscription or contribution for the support of the poor, but\nalso a club or society of subscribers to a common fund for any purpose,\nsocial, commercial, or charitable, or especially political.\u2026 On the\nvarious \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, v. B\u00f6ckh, P. E. i. 328. Att. Process. p. 540, s. 99. _L.\n& S. in voc._ \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[74] Hom. Il. \u0393. 65.\n\n[75] There is a pun here; \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7 means both \u201ca girl\u201d and \u201cthe pupil of the\neye.\u201d And \u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9, \u201cto destroy,\u201d is also especially used for \u201cto seduce.\u201d\n\n[76] This is a parody on Homer. Il. 591. Pope\u2019s Version, 760.\n\n[77] Hom. Il. \u03a3. 395. Pope\u2019s version, 460.\n\n[78] This line is from the Bacch\u00e6 of Euripides, v. 1228.\n\n[79] From this last paragraph it is inferred by some critics, that\noriginally the preceding memoirs of Crates, Metrocles, and Hipparchia\nformed only one chapter or book.\n\n[80] This a parody on two lines in the Antiope of Euripides:\n\n \u0393\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u0395\u1f56 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1.\n\nWhich may be translated:\u2014\n\n Wisdom it is which regulates both cities,\n And private citizens, and makes their lot\n Secure and happy; nor is her influence\n Of less account in war.\n\n[81] A sort of guitar or violin.\n\n[82] The Greek is, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3, a species of argument so called,\nbecause he who used it mowed or knocked down his adversaries.\u2014Aldob.\n\n[83] The Greek in the text is:\u2014\n\n \u039a\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u1f18\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\nThe lines in Hesiod are:\u2014\n\n \u039a\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3\n \u1f18\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014Op. E. Di. 293.\n\n That man is best, whose unassisted wit\n Perceives at once what in each case is fit.\n And next to him, he surely is most wise,\n Who willingly submits to good advice.\n\n[84] Huerner thinks (as indeed is evident) that something is lost here;\nand proposes to read the sentence thus:\u2014\u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. With reference to which passage, Liddell and Scott,\nGr. Eng. Lex. _voc._ \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1, thus speak: \u201c\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 \u2026 as a philosophical\nterm of the Stoics = \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, a complete predicament such as is an\nintransitive verb: _e.g._ \u03a3\u03c9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6; while an imperfect verb was\nregarded as an incomplete predicament; _e.g._ \u03a3\u03c9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, and called\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1, or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\u201d\n\n[85] This line is from the Inachus of Sophocles (one of his lost plays).\n\n[86] Homer, Iliad II. 484.\n\n[87] This line is from the Citharista of Menander.\n\n[88] It would appear that there is a considerable hiatus here; for\nthe instance following is a sorites, and not a specimen of the veiled\nargument. And there is no instance given of the concealed, or of the\nhorned one. Still, the mere fact of the text being unintelligible,\nis far from proving that we have not got it as Diogenes wrote it; as\nthough in the language of the writer in Smith\u2019s Biographical Dictionary,\nvol. i. pp. 1022, 1023, \u201cthe work contains a rich store of living\nfeatures, which serve to illustrate the private life of the Greeks,\u201d it\nis equally clear that the author \u201cwas unequal to writing a history of\nGreek philosophy. His work in reality is nothing but a compilation of\nthe most heterogeneous and often contradictory accounts.\u2026 The traces\nof carelessness and mistakes are very numerous; much in the work is\nconfused, and there is also much that is quite absurd. And as far\nas philosophy itself is concerned, Diogenes very frequently did not\nknow what he was talking about when he abridged the theories of the\nphilosophers.\u201d\n\n[89] The third point of view is wanting; and those that are given appear\nto be ill selected. The French translator, following the hint of Huebner,\ngives the following passage from Sextus Empiricus (a physician of the\nSceptic school, about B.C. 250), in his work against the Philosophers,\nwhich he says may serve to rectify and complete the statement of\nDiogenes La\u00ebrtius. \u201cGood is said in one sense of that which produces\nthe useful, or from which the useful results; that is, the good _par\nexcellence_, virtue. For virtue is as it were the source from which all\nutility naturally flows. In another sense it is said of that which is\naccidentally the cause of utility; under this point of view we call good\nnot only virtue, but also those actions which are conformable to virtue,\nfor they are accidentally useful. In the third and last place, we call\ngood everything that possibly can be useful, comprehending under this\ndefinition virtue, virtuous actions, friends, good men, the Gods, &c.,\n&c.\u201d\n\n[90] Hom. Il. I. 81. Pope\u2019s Version, l. 105.\n\n[91] It is hardly necessary to remark that \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6 is the name of Minerva,\nnot of Jupiter; \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1, of Juno; \u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, of Vulcan; \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd, of Neptune,\nand \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, of Ceres. \u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is properly derived from \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, to\nshine; \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd has some affinity with \u03c0\u03cc\u03c9, to drink. \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 is only a\ndialectic variation of \u03a4\u1fc6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1.\n\n[92] There is a hiatus in the text here. Casaubon supplies the meaning by\na reference to Plutarch\u2019s Treatise on the opinions of the Philosophers,\niii. 7, \u201cthat the winds are a flowing of the air, and that they have\nvarious names with reference to the countries from which they flow.\u201d\n\n[93] Something is evidently wanting here; probably some mention of an\nearthquake.\n\n[94] This is similar to Virgil\u2019s description.\n\n Quinque tenent c\u0153lum zon\u00e6, quarum una corusco\n Semper Sole rubens, et torrida semper ab igni:\n Quam circum extrem\u00e6 dextr\u00e0 l\u00e6v\u00e0que trahuntur.\n C\u0153rule\u00e2 glacie concret\u00e6 atque imbribus atris.\n Has inter mediamque du\u00e6 mortalibus \u00e6gris\n Munere concess\u00e6 Div\u00fbm, et via secta per ambas,\n Obliquus qua se signorum verteret ordo.\u2014GEORG. I. 233.\n\nThere is no part of Dryden\u2019s translation superior to that of this passage.\n\n Five girdles bind the skies; the torrid zone\n Glows with the passing and repassing sun;\n Far on the right and left, th\u2019 extremes of heaven,\n To frosts, and snows, and bitter blasts are given;\n Betwixt the midst. And there the Gods assigned\n Four habitable seats for human kind,\n And, cross their limits cut a sloping way,\n Which the twelve signs in beauteous order sway. l. 322.\n\n[95] \u201c\u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1f76\u03c2, a name given by Herillus in Diogenes La\u00ebrtius to a man\u2019s\nnatural talents, &c., which ought all to be subordinate to the attainment\nof the chief good.\u201d\u2014L. & S. _in voc._\n\n[96] From \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1, a well, and \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 to draw water.\n\n[97] The Greek used is \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70; which was a term especially applied to\nthe money which slaves let out to hire paid to their master.\n\n[98] This is a parody on Hom. Il. iii. 196. Pope\u2019s version, i. 260. The\nword \u1f45\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 means the mouth piece of a flute.\n\n[99] Taken from the Orestes of Euripides, i. 140.\n\n[100] This is parodied from Hom. Od. iv. 611. Pope\u2019s version, l. 831.\n\n[101] This is referring to the Stoic doctrine ridiculed by Horace:\n\n Si dives qui sapiens est,\n Et sutor bonus, et solus formosus, et est Rex\n Cur optas quod habes?\u2014Hor. Sat. i. 130.\n\nWhich may be translated:\u2014\n\n If every man is rich who\u2019s wise,\n A cobbler too beyond all price;\n A handsome man, and eke a king;\n Why thus your vows at random fling?\n\n[102] From \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, to hide, and \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, a horse.\n\n[103] These lines are from the Erestes of Euripides, v. 247.\n\n[104] This is a quotation from Homer, Od. x. 495. Pope\u2019s Version, 586.\nThe Greek here is, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. The line in Homer stands:\n\n \u03bf\u1f35\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\u2014sc: \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n[105] The argument by progression is the sorites. \u201cThe arrest\u201d is the\nmethod of encountering the sorites, by taking some particular point at\nwhich to stop the admissions required by the sorites.\n\n[106] The remainder of the life of Chrysippus is lost.\n\n[107] See Herod. iv. 93.\n\n[108] This resembles the account which Ovid puts into the mouth of\nPythagoras, in the last book of his Metamorphoses, where he makes him\nsay:\u2014\n\n Morte carent anim\u00e6, semperque priore relicta\n Sede, novis domibus habitant vivuntque recept\u00e6;\n Ipse ego, nam memini, Trojani tempora belli,\n Panthorides Euphorbus eram, cui pectore quondam\n H\u00e6sit in adverso gravis hasta minoris Atrid\u00e6:\n Agnovi Clypeum l\u00e6v\u00e6 gestamina nostr\u00e6\n Nuper Abante\u00efs templo Junonis in Argis.\n\nWhich may be translated:\u2014\n\n Death has no pow\u2019r th\u2019 immortal soul to slay;\n That, when its present body turns to clay,\n Seeks a fresh home, and with unminish\u2019d might\n Inspires another frame with life and light.\n So I myself, (well I the past recall)\n When the fierce Greeks begirt Troy\u2019s holy wall,\n Was brave Euphorbus; and in conflict drear,\n Poured forth my blood beneath Atrides\u2019 spear:\n The shield this arm did bear I lately saw\n In Juno\u2019s shrine, a trophy of that war.\n\n[109] This passage has been interpreted in more ways than one. Casaubon\nthinks with great probability that there is a hiatus in the text. I have\nendeavoured to extract a meaning out of what remains. Compare Samuel ii.\n16, 23. \u201cAnd the counsel of Ahitophel, which he counselled in those days,\nwas as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God; so was all the counsel\nof Ahitophel both with David and with Absalom.\u201d\n\n[110] Zaleucus was the celebrated lawgiver of the Epizephyrian Locrians,\nand is said to have been originally a slave employed by a shepherd, and\nto have been set free and appointed lawgiver by the direction of an\noracle, in consequence of his announcing some excellent laws, which he\nrepresented Minerva as having communicated to him in a dream. Diogenes,\nis wrong however, in calling him a disciple of Pythagoras (see Bentley on\nPhalaris), as he lived about a hundred years before his time; his true\ndate being 660 B.C. The code of Zaleucus is stated to have been the first\ncollection of written laws that the Greeks possessed. Their character\nwas that of great severity. They have not come down to us. His death is\nsaid to have occurred thus. Among his laws was one forbidding any citizen\nto enter the senate house in arms, under the penalty of death. But in\na sudden emergency, Zaleucus himself, in a moment of forgetfulness,\ntransgressed his own law: on which he slew himself, declaring that he\nwould vindicate his law. (Eustath. ad. Il. i. p. 60). Diodorus, however,\ntells the same story of Charondas.\n\n[111] Charondas was a lawgiver of Catana, who legislated for his own city\nand the other towns of Chalcidian origin in Magna Grecia, such as Zancle,\nNaxos, Leontini, Eub\u0153a, Myl\u00e6, Himera, Callipolis, and Rhegium. His laws\nhave not been preserved to us, with the exception of a few judgments.\nThey were probably in verse, for Athen\u00e6us says that they were sung in\nAthens at banquets. Aristotle tells us that they were adapted to an\naristocracy. It is much doubted whether it is really true that he was a\ndisciple of Pythagoras, though we are not sure of his exact time, so that\nwe cannot pronounce it as impossible as in the preceding case. He must\nhave lived before the time of Anaxilaus, tyrant of Rhegium, who reigned\nfrom B.C. 494 to B.C. 476, because he abolished the laws of Charondas,\nwhich had previously been in force in that city. Diodorus gives a code of\nlaws which he states that Charondas gave to the city of Thurii, which was\nnot founded till B.C. 443, when he must certainly have been dead a long\ntime. There is one law of his preserved by Stob\u00e6us, which is probably\nauthentic, since it is found in a fragment of Theophrastus; enacting that\nall buying and selling shall be transacted by ready money only.\n\n[112] This doctrine is alluded to doubtfully by Virgil, Georg. i. 247.\n\n Illic, ut perhibent, aut intempesta silet nox\n Semper, et obduct\u00e2 densantur nocte tenebr\u00e6;\n Aut redit a nobis Aurora, diemque reducit;\n Nosque ubi primus equis oriens afflavit anhelis,\n Illic sera rubens accendit lumina Vesper.\n\nThus translated by Dryden, l. 338:\u2014\n\n There, as they say, perpetual night is found,\n In silence brooding o\u2019er th\u2019 unhappy ground.\n Or when Aurora leaves our northern sphere,\n She lights the downward heav\u2019n and rises there;\n And when on us she breathes the living light\n Red Vesper kindles there the tapers of the night.\n\n[113] \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 appears, in a division like this, to be the deliberative part\nof the mind; \u03c6\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd, the rational part of the intellect: \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, that part\nwith which the passions are concerned.\n\n[114] There is a great variety of suggestions as to the proper reading\nhere. There is evidently some corruption in the text.\n\n[115] From \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c9, to cause to cease, \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, sorrow.\n\n[116] It is impossible to give the force of this epigram in any other\nlanguage. It is a pun on \u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 and \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. The last word meaning\nnot only _high_, _lofty_, but also _eminent_, _very skilful_. The plain\nEnglish would be:\u2014\u201cThe lofty height of a most eminent country conceals\nAcron, a skilful physician of Acragas, the son of a skilful father.\u201d The\nvariation would be:\u2014\u201cA high tomb on a very high summit, conceals,\u201d &c.\n\n[117] This story is mentioned by Horace:\u2014\n\n Siculique poet\u00e6,\n Narrabo interitum; deus immortalis haberi,\n Dum cupit Empedocles ardentem frigidus \u00c6tnam,\n Insiluit. A. P. 466.\n\n[118] This is slightly parodied from Homer. Od. xi. 278. Pope\u2019s Version,\n337.\n\n[119] There were three festivals of Bacchus at Athens at which dramatic\ncontests took place, the \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, or, \u201cin the fields;\u201d the\n\u039b\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 or \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, or \u201cthe marshes,\u201d a part of the city near the\nAcropolis, in which was situated the \u039b\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, an enclosure dedicated to\nBacchus; and the \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9, \u201cin the city,\u201d or \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1. The\ncomic contests usually took place at the second or Len\u00e6an festivals.\nSometimes also at the Great Dionysia.\n\n[120] \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c2, glorious.\n\n[121] According to Strabo, the descendants of Androclus, the founder of\nEphesus (of which family Heraclitus came), bore the title of king, and\nhad certain prerogatives and privileges attached to the title.\n\n[122] There is probably some corruption in the text here.\n\n[123] There is great obscurity and uncertainty of the text here. The\nreading translated is that of Huebner, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Some read \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n_he_ seems to have abandoned the Pythagoreans. Others propose \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\nThe French translator renders,\u2014He had for enemies the Pythagoreans.\n\n[124] See the account of Zeno the Citti\u00e6an.\n\n[125] See the life of Parmenides.\n\n[126] There is evidently a considerable gap in the text here.\n\n[127] As there is no such passage in Herodotus, Valcken\u00e6r conjectures\nthat we ought here to read Metrodorus.\n\n[128] The Thesmophoria was a festival in honour of Ceres, celebrated\nin various parts of Greece; and only by married women; though girls\nmight perform some of the ceremonies. Herodotus says, that it was\nintroduced into Greece from Egypt, by the daughters of Danaus. The Attic\nThesmophoria lasted probably three days, and began on the eleventh day of\nthe month Pyanession; the first day was called \u1f04\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, or \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, from\nthe women going in procession to Eleusis; the second \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, or fasting;\nthe third was called \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, as on that day Ceres was invoked under\nthat name, and it was the day of merriment of the festival.\n\n[129] Namely, reasoning well, expressing one\u2019s self well, and acting well.\n\n[130] This is thus embodied by Lucretius:\u2014\n\n Nam nihil e nihilo, in nihilum n\u00eel posse reverti.\n\n[131] Hom. Il. v. 340. Pope\u2019s version, 422.\n\n[132] Il. vi. 146.\n\n[133] Il. xxi. 106. Pope\u2019s version, 115.\n\n[134] Homer, Il. xx. 248. Pope\u2019s version, 294.\n\n[135] There is too remarkable a similarity in this to Campbell\u2019s lines:\u2014\n\n \u2019Tis distance lends enchantment to the view,\n And robes the mountains in their azure hue:\n\nto allow one to pass it over without pointing it out.\n\n[136] \u201cDiogenes here appears (though, he gives no intimation of his doing\nso,) to be transcribing the reasonings of some one of the Sceptics.\u201d\n_French Transl._\n\n[137] That is to say, the harmony between intellect and the senses will\nnot last long. Attagas and Numenius were two notorious brigands.\n\n[138] That is, \u201ctrifler,\u201d from \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, to judge; and \u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, nonsensical\ntalk.\n\n[139] That is, flattering for gifts; from \u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, to wag the tail as a\ndog, to caress; and \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, a gift.\n\n[140] This sentence is a remark of Diogenes himself. There are several\nmore of his observations in parentheses as we proceed.\n\n[141] This is the argument in its completed form: \u201cWe can only form an\nidea of an atom by analogy, and analogy demonstrates to us that it is\nnot of infinite littleness. In fact, let us compare it to the smallest\nparticles recognisable by sense, and then let us endeavour to form an\nidea of these last. To do this we must take a term of comparison in\ncomplex objects, which are composed of various parts. Abstracting from\nthese all other characteristics but that of extent, we see that these\nobjects have dimensions, some greater and some less, measuring an extent\nwhich is greater or less as the case may be. The smallest sensible\nparticle will then have its dimensions; it will measure the smallest\npossible sensible extent, that is to say, it will not be infinitely\nsmall. Applying this analogy to an atom, one comes to conceive it as\nmeasuring the smallest extent possible, but not as having no extent at\nall, which was what Epicurus wished to prove.\u201d\u2014_French Translator._\n\n[142] This is a quotation from Theognis.\n\n[143] From the Trachini\u00e6 of Sophocles, 1784.\n\n[144] There is some hopeless corruption in the text here. Nor has any one\nsucceeded in making it intelligible. The French translator divides it\ninto two maxims.\n\n[145] There in some great corruption here again. The French translator\ntakes 19, 20, and 21 all as one.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n\u2042 The Roman numerals refer to the sections, the Arabic figures to the\npages.\n\n \u00c6SCHINES, a rhetorician, vii. 80.\n calumniated, iii. 79.\n lectured at Athens, iv. 80.\n son of a sausage seller, i. 79.\n\n ALCM\u00c6ON, Crotona, his view of the soul, 371.\n\n ANACHARSIS, inventions of, ii. 48.\n letter to Cr\u0153sus, 49.\n received by Solon, iii. 47.\n return to Scythia, iv. 47.\n sayings of, v. 47.\n one of the wise, 46.\n\n ANAXAGORAS, called MIND, i. 59.\n epigrams on, x. 62.\n first prose writer, viii. 61.\n opinions of, iii. 59.\n prosecuted for impiety, ix. 61.\n\n ANAXARCHUS, called HAPPY, iii. 401.\n intimate with Alexander, 400.\n Nicocreon, his enemy, 401.\n\n ANAXIMANDER, the astronomer, 57.\n\n ANAXIMENES, letters to Pythagoras, 58.\n\n Annicereans, their opinions, x. 92.\n\n ANTISTHENES, doctrines of, v. 220.\n founds a manly Stoic school, viii. 221.\n love of life, x. 223.\n pupil of Gorgias, ii. 217.\n sayings of, iv. 218.\n writings of, ix. 222.\n\n ARCESILAUS, a favourite of Eumenes and Hierocles, xiv. 168.\n an admirer of Plato, viii. 165.\n a poet, iv. 164.\n axiomatic and free-spoken, x. 165.\n death from excess, x. 170.\n disliked talkativeness, 166.\n founder of the Middle Academy, ii. 163.\n goes to Crantor, iii. 163.\n letter to Thaumasias, xix. 170.\n liberal with money, xiii. 167.\n vices of, xvi. 168.\n\n ARCHELAUS, 62.\n a natural philosopher, ii. 62.\n opinions on heat and cold, &c. iii. 63.\n \u2014\u2014 production of animals, iii. 63.\n\n ARCHYTAS, general at Tarentum, 369.\n letter to Plato and reply, iv. 369.\n mathematician, vii. 370.\n\n ARISTIPPUS, a favourite of Dionysius, iii. 81.\n opinions of, on pain and pleasure, 90.\n retorts, iv. 82.\n school of philosophy, viii. 89.\n sycophancy, iv. 82.\n teaches for money, ii. 81.\n wealth, iv. 82.\n writings, vi. 88.\n\n ARISTON, the bald, called SIREN, i. 318.\n an eloquent philosopher, vi. 319.\n his writings, vii. 319.\n\n ARISTOTLE, apophthegms, xi. 187.\n death from poison, vii. 182.\n hymn to Hermias, 183.\n leaves Plato, iv. 181.\n lived in Philip\u2019s court, vi. 182.\n opinions, criterion of truth, 192.\n \u2014\u2014 friendship, 192.\n \u2014\u2014 God, 193.\n \u2014\u2014 philosophy, 191.\n Plato\u2019s most eminent pupil, ii. 181.\n peripatetic, why so called, iv. 181.\n scheme for early waking, x. 186.\n school at Athens, vii. 182.\n will of, ix. 185.\n writings, many, xii. 189.\n\n\n BIAS, the wise, 38.\n declines the tripod, i. 38.\n death of, in court, iv. 39.\n eloquent and just as a lawyer, iii. 39.\n a poet, v. 39.\n sayings of, v. 39.\n stratagem to save Priene, his native city, ii. 39.\n\n BION, apophthegms of, iii. 172.\n change of schools, iv. 173.\n fear of death, x. 175.\n fond of theatre, v. 174.\n poverty of, i. 171.\n selfishness of, ix. 174.\n\n\n CARNEADES, his letters, viii. 178.\n well read in Stoic lore, ii. 177.\n industry of, iii. 178.\n his fear of death, vii. 178.\n\n CEBES, the Theban, 105.\n\n CHARONDAS, account of, _note_, 345.\n\n CHILO, the wise one of, 32.\n brief in speech, v. 34.\n death of, through joy, v. 34.\n letter to Periander, v. 34.\n opinion as to Cythera, iv. 33.\n saying about suretyship, v. 34.\n sayings of, ii. 33.\n\n CHRYSIPPUS, his abilities, ii. 327.\n his books, xii. 331.\n his industry, iii. 328.\n his questions, xi. 330.\n a pupil of Cleanthes, i. 327.\n his self-esteem, iv. 329.\n said to be an indecent writer, xii. 331.\n\n CLEANTHES, a boxer, 322.\n books of, ii. 325.\n called an ass, iv. 323.\n poor and industrious, ii. 322.\n slow of intellect, iii. 323.\n starved himself, vii. 326.\n wrote on oyster shells, &c. for want of paper, iv. 323.\n\n CLEOBULUS, one of the wise men, 41.\n apophthegms of, iv. 42.\n letter to Solon, vi. 43.\n\n CLITOMACHUS, disciple and successor of Carneades, 179.\n\n CRANTOR, a poet, vi. 162.\n a pupil of Polemo, iii. 161.\n retires to temple of \u00c6sculapius, iv. 161.\n\n CRATES, a pupil of Polemo, 160.\n lived with Crantor, iii. 160.\n writings of, and disciples, iv. 161.\n\n CRATES, a Theban cynic, 249.\n his disposal of property, iv. 250.\n his jesting with death, x. 252.\n his indifference to public opinion, viii. 252.\n his sayings, ix. 282.\n\n CRITO, the Athenian, 103.\n\n Cynics, doctrines of, iii. 257.\n discard liberal studies, 257.\n prefer ethics to logic, 257.\n simplicity in living, 258.\n virtue, the chief good, 258.\n \u2014\u2014 may be taught, 258.\n\n Cyrenaics, a sect of the school of Aristippus, viii. 89.\n\n\n DEMETRIUS, governor of Athens, ii. 209.\n honoured and envied, viii. 209.\n his reported blindness and restoration of sight, vii. 209.\n statues erected to him, ii. 209.\n sayings of, x. 211.\n writings of, ix. 210.\n\n DEMOCRITUS, pupil of the magi, 390.\n death, xi. 390.\n disregard of glory, v. 391.\n \u2014\u2014 of wealth, vii. 392.\n doctrines of, xii. 394.\n lowly life, vii. 392.\n Plato\u2019s dislike of him, viii. 393.\n sagacity, stories of, x. 394.\n writings of, xiii. 395.\n\n Dialectics, the Stoics\u2019 doctrine of, xxxv. 275.\n\n DIOGENES, accounts of his death, xi. 246.\n anecdotes of him, vi. 228.\n cynical sayings, 226.\n lived in a cask, 225.\n money changer, 224.\n \u2014\u2014 corrupted by him, i. 224.\n neglect of music, vii. 245.\n persuader, a skilful, x. 245.\n poverty of, reconciled to, iii. 224.\n pride and haughtiness of, iv. 225.\n pupil of Antisthenes, ii. 224.\n sold as a slave, ix. 245.\n writings of, xii. 247.\n\n DIOGENES of Apollonia, 400.\n his chief doctrines, ii. 400.\n\n DIONYSIUS, a pupil of Zeno, 321.\n writings of, v. 321.\n\n Druids, account of, _note_ 3.\n\n\n Egyptian philosophy, vii. 9.\n\n EMPEDOCLES, accused of pride, xi. 366.\n doctrines of, xii. 368.\n inventor of rhetoric, iii. 361.\n liberality of, ix. 363.\n pacifies the Agrigentines, xi. 366.\n political career, ix. 363.\n retires to Peloponnesus, x. 364.\n story of his wonder working, xi. 365.\n why called, wind-forbidder, v. 362.\n\n EPICHARMUS, inscription on his statue, 368.\n\n EPICURUS, an Athenian, 424.\n his character, v. 427.\n criteria of truth, 435.\n said to be debauched, iii. 426.\n rejected dialectics, 435.\n Diotimus, a Stoic, opposes him, iii. 425.\n doctrines, his, on affections, 447.\n \u2014\u2014 atoms, 439.\n \u2014\u2014 clouds, thunder, &c. 460.\n \u2014\u2014 comets, 464.\n \u2014\u2014 faults among men, 467.\n \u2014\u2014 forms and attributes, 449.\n \u2014\u2014 grief, 467.\n \u2014\u2014 heaven\u2019s phenomena, 452, 458.\n \u2014\u2014 injuries among men, 466.\n \u2014\u2014 meteorological, 461.\n \u2014\u2014 opinion and supposition, 436.\n \u2014\u2014 passions, pleasure, and pain, 436.\n \u2014\u2014 pleasure, 471, 473.\n \u2014\u2014 production of things, 441.\n \u2014\u2014 self-production, 451.\n \u2014\u2014 stars, 464.\n \u2014\u2014 study of philosophy, 468.\n \u2014\u2014 universe, 439.\n flattered Mithras, iii. 425.\n fundamental maxims of, xxxi. 474.\n letter of, to Herodotus, xxiv. 436.\n \u2014\u2014 Men\u0153ceus, xxvii. 468.\n \u2014\u2014 Pythocles, xxv. 455.\n manner of his death, ix. 429.\n plain language, his, viii. 428.\n pupils, his, xi. 431.\n virtue, why to be chosen, xxx. 473.\n voluminous writings, xvii. 483.\n will, his last, x. 429.\n writings on natural philosophy, iv. 426.\n youthful student, a, ix. 429.\n\n EPIMENIDES, one of the wise men, 50.\n built a temple at Athens, vi. 52.\n honoured as a deity, xi. 53.\n letter to Solon, ix. 52.\n long life, his, story of, iv. 51.\n long sleep, his, story of, ii. 50.\n poems, and other writings, v. 51.\n stays the plague at Athens, iii. 51.\n\n Ethical philosophy, what, xiii. 12.\n subdivisions, xiii. 12.\n\n EUCLIDES, his followers, iv. 97.\n opinions, ii. 97.\n protector of Socrates, i. 97.\n\n EUDOXUS, astronomer, geometrician, and lawgiver, 373.\n inventor of theory of crooked lines, vi. 374.\n writings of, iii. 373.\n\n\n Fate, Stoics\u2019 view of, lxxiv. 318.\n\n\n Gymnosophist\u00e6, what and who, i. 3.\n\n GOD, Stoics\u2019 view of, lxxii. 312.\n\n\n Hegesiaci, a sect of the school of Aristippus, their opinions, ix. 91.\n\n HERACLIDES, a Peripatetic, Pythagorean, and Platonist, by turns, ii. 213.\n remarkable attempt to deceive at his death, ii. 215.\n surnamed Pompicus from his dress and size, iii. 213.\n writings of, iv. 213.\n\n HERACLITUS, book on nature, v. 377.\n epigrams on him, xii. 381.\n esteemed by Darius Hystaspes, letters between them, ix. 380.\n lofty and arrogant, 376.\n misanthropic, iii. 376.\n\n HIPPARCHIA, a female philosopher, in love with Crates the Cynic, 254.\n Her contest with Theodorus, iii. 255.\n\n HIPPASUS, a disciple of Pythagoras, 371.\n\n\n Ionian school of philosophy, x. 10.\n\n Italian school of philosophy, x. 10.\n\n\n \u201cKnow thyself,\u201d the apophthegm, xiii. 21.\n\n\n LACYDES, founder of the New Academy, i. 176.\n his death from excess, vi. 177.\n his industry, ii. 176.\n\n LEUCIPPUS, his chief doctrines, ii. 388.\n pupil of Zeno the Eleatic, 388.\n\n LYCON, an eloquent instructor of youth, i. 205.\n delicacy in dress, iii. 206.\n favourite of Eumenes and Attalus, iv. 206.\n his will, ix. 206.\n\n\n Magi, what and who, _note_, 3.\n\n MELISSUS, his doctrine of universe, 386.\n\n MENEDEMUS, his banquets, xv. 110.\n his character, vi. 107.\n his death, xviii. 112.\n despised Plato, &c., xi. 109.\n disciple of Ph\u00e6do, 105.\n endangered by his free speech, iv. 107.\n friend of Antigonus, xvii. 111.\n invention and readiness, xii. 109.\n regardlessness of appearances, v. 107.\n severe and rigid, iii. 106.\n sent to Megara, but deserts, ii. 105.\n thought highly of by his countrymen, xvi. 111.\n\n MENEDEMUS, a superstitious Cynic, 267.\n\n MENIPPUS, a Cynic, 253.\n hangs himself, iii. 256.\n writer of low ridicule, ii. 256.\n writings, vi. 256.\n\n METROCLES, pupil of Crates the Cynic, 253.\n destroys himself, 254.\n\n Mind, Stoics, doctrine of, lxxiii. 299.\n\n MONIMUS, feigned madness, i. 248.\n a pupil of Diogenes, 248.\n\n MYSON, one of the wise men, 49.\n\n\n Natural philosophy, what so called, xiii. 11.\n Stoics\u2019 account of, lxvii. 307.\n\n\n ORPHEUS, not a philosopher, iv. 7.\n\n ONESICRITUS, a pupil of Diogenes, 249.\n\n\n PARMENIDES, first to speak of the earth as a sphere, ii. 384.\n philosophized in poems, iii. 385.\n\n PERIANDER, one of the wise men, his domestic crimes, 43.\n his letter to Procles, viii. 46.\n \u2014\u2014 to the wise men, vii. 45.\n \u2014\u2014 from Thrasybulus, ix. 46.\n sayings of, v. 45.\n wish to conceal his grave, iii. 44.\n\n PH\u00c6DO, founder of the Eliac school, 96.\n\n PHERECYDES, one of the wise men, 53.\n epigrams on, vii. 55.\n first writer on natural philosophy, ii. 54.\n grave of, at Ephesus, iv. 54.\n letter to Thales, viii. 56.\n makes a sun-dial, vi. 55.\n\n PHILOLAUS, a pupil of Pythagoras, 372.\n aims at regal power, ii. 372.\n book, his one, iv. 372.\n first to describe the earth\u2019s movement in a circle, iii. 372.\n\n Philosophers, names of their sects, xii. 11.\n who did not write, xi. 11.\n\n Philosophy, arose among Greeks, iii. 6.\n divisions of, xiii. 11.\n earliest study of, i. 3.\n two schools of, x. 10.\n various kinds of, xi. 11.\n\n PISISTRATUS, his letter to Solon, vi. 20.\n\n PITTACUS, one of the wise men, 35.\n advice about marrying, viii. 37.\n death of, vi. 36.\n forbearance of, iii. 35.\n a general and soldier, i. 35.\n honoured by his country, ii. 35.\n lameness of, ix. 38.\n letter to Cr\u0153sus, x. 38.\n a poet, v. 36.\n sayings of, iv. 36.\n\n PLATO, academy, his, ix. 115.\n account of his opinions, by Alcimus, 117.\n aided by Epicharmus, a comic poet, xii. 116.\n attachments, xxiii. 123.\n \u2014\u2014 to writings of Sophron, 119.\n birth and early abode, ii. 113.\n danger from Dionysius, xv. 120.\n defends Chabrias, xviii. 121.\n descent of, i. 113.\n dialogues of, xxxv. 133.\n disciples of, xxxi. 129.\n disliked Aristippus, 126.\n disliked by Xenophon, xxiv. 125.\n education, his, v. 114.\n epigrams on his tomb, 128.\n epistles, his, xxxvi. 134.\n marks in his books, xxxix. 136.\n method of his argument, xxxii. 129.\n opinions on arts, beauty, 144.\n beneficence, 146.\n contraries, 149.\n discourse, 143.\n entities divisible and undivisible, 150.\n \u2014\u2014 independent and relative, 150.\n end of affairs, 146.\n friendships, 141.\n God and matter, 137.\n good and evil, 140.\n good counsel, 150.\n good laws and lawlessness, 148.\n the good, 148.\n good things, 149.\n happiness, 147.\n justice, 142.\n knowledge, 142.\n law, 143.\n medical science, 143.\n music, 143.\n noble birth, 144.\n philanthropy, 147.\n political constitutions, 141.\n power, 147.\n rhetoric, 145.\n rule, 145.\n the soul, 144.\n things existing, 148.\n virtue perfect, 144.\n voice, 150.\n opinions on his writings, xxv. 126.\n refuses appointments from Arcadia and Thebes, xvii. 121.\n ridiculed, xxii. 121.\n Socrates\u2019 dream of him, vii. 114.\n system, his, made difficult on purpose, xxxviii. 135.\n theory of ideas, 118.\n valiant soldier, a, x. 115.\n visits Sicily, volcanoes, xiv. 119.\n what he taught, xix. 122.\n where he first taught, viii. 114.\n will, his last, xxx. 127.\n\n POLEMO, his calmness, iv. 158.\n epigram, viii. 160.\n fond, of Sophocles, vii. 159.\n imitated Xenocrates, vi. 159.\n intemperate and profligate, 158.\n much honoured, iv. 158.\n rigorous system of morals, iv. 158.\n\n POTAMO and his school, xiv. 13.\n\n Potter\u2019s wheel, invented by Anacharsis, viii. 48.\n\n PROTAGORAS, method of arguing, his, iii. 397.\n taught at a fixed price, 398.\n works, his, v. 398.\n wrecked in his way to Sicily, vii. 399.\n\n PYRRHO, originally a painter, 402.\n account of him, by Antigonus, 402.\n arguing, ten modes of, ix. 409.\n arguing, five others added by Agrippa, x. 412.\n attached to Anaxarchus, ii. 402.\n certainty not attainable, 414.\n disciples, vii. 405.\n \u2014\u2014 called Sceptics from their doubting every thing, viii. 405.\n eloquent, 403.\n fortitude and economy, vi. 404.\n good, natural, or natural evil, none, 417.\n honoured by his country, 403.\n impassiveness, vi. 404.\n learning, no such thing, 417.\n left no writings, 418.\n motion, none, 417.\n production, none, 417.\n signs, invisible of visible things, 416.\n signs, visible of visible things, none, 415.\n system learned from his disciples, 418.\n travelled to India, 402.\n\n PYTHAGORAS, accounted a son of Mercury, iv. 339.\n his works, v. 340.\n community of property with friends, viii. 342.\n division of life, vii. 342.\n doctrine of monads, xix. 348.\n founder of Italian philosophy, i. 338.\n geometrician, xi. 342.\n greatly admired, xv. 342.\n initiated into mysteries, iii. 338.\n introduced weights and measures to Greece, xiii. 344.\n letter to Anaximenes, xxvi. 358.\n manner of his death, xxi. 354.\n opinions on nature, xix. 349.\n practised divination, xviii. 346.\n precepts, vi. 341.\n \u2014\u2014 as to worship, xix. 347.\n prohibition as to food, xviii. 346.\n ridiculed by Timon, xv. 353.\n symbols, his, xvii. 345.\n wife and son, xxii. 355.\n worship of Apollo, xii. 343.\n\n\n Schools of philosophy, xiii. 12.\n\n Seven wise men, the, xiv. 21.\n\n SIMIAS, the Theban, 105.\n\n SIMON, the Athenian leather cutter, 104.\n\n SOCRATES, an artificer, 64.\n character, his, viii. 66.\n contests, his, xxv. 74.\n counsels and sayings, xvi. 69.\n d\u00e6mon warnings, xvi. 69.\n executed for opinions, the first philosopher who was, v. 64.\n lamented by the Athenians, xxiii. 73.\n persuasive power, xii. 68.\n ransoms Ph\u00e6do and teaches him philosophy, xiv. 68.\n school, his, xxvi. 74.\n saves Xenophon\u2019s life, vii. 65.\n serves in Xenophon\u2019s army, vii. 65.\n slaves, would not have, xiii. 68.\n wives, his, xvii. 70.\n\n SOLON, the wise, life of, 23.\n apophthegms, his, xvi. 30.\n counsels, his, xii. 29.\n death of, xv. 29.\n escapes from Athens, iv. 25.\n excites Athens against Salamis, ii. 23.\n inscription on his statue, xv. 29.\n laws as to debts, i. 23.\n laws, vii. 26.\n letter to Cr\u0153sus, xx. 52.\n \u2014\u2014 Epimenides, xviii. 30.\n \u2014\u2014 Periander, xvii. 30.\n \u2014\u2014 Pisistratus, xix. 31.\n means of preventing injustice, x. 28.\n opposes Pisistratus, iii. 24.\n poems, his, xiii. 29.\n taught time by moon, xi. 28.\n\n SPEUSIPPUS, a basket-maker, vi. 152.\n commentaries, his, xi. 153.\n passionate and voluptuous, 152.\n Plato\u2019s successor, 152.\n puts an end to his life, ix. 153.\n\n SPH\u00c6RUS, at Alexandria, 326.\n his books, iii. 327.\n\n Stars, Stoics, doctrine of, lxxi. 311.\n\n STILPO, his acuteness, ii. 100.\n his dialogues, viii. 102.\n his end, x. 103.\n opinions on statues, v. 101.\n politician, a, iii. 100.\n rejects theory of species, vii. 102.\n his simplicity, vi. 101.\n visits Ptolemy Soter, iv. 101.\n\n Stoics, doctrines of, xxxiii. 274.\n\n STRATO, the natural philosopher, ii. 202.\n Ptolemy Philadelphus, his pupil, iii. 202.\n successor of Theophrastus, 202.\n will, his last, vii. 203.\n writings, his, iv. 203.\n\n\n THALES, the wise, astronomical science studied and taught by him, ii. 14.\n death of, xii. 20.\n letter to Pherecydes, xv. 22.\n \u2014\u2014 Solon, xvi. 22.\n sayings of, ix. 18.\n star-gazing and falling into the ditch, viii. 18.\n tripod awarded to him, vii. 16.\n views of the soul, his, iii. 15.\n\n Theodoreans, their opinions, xi. 93.\n\n THEODORUS, a disciple of Aristippus, xv. 94.\n banished for his opinions, xvi. 95.\n\n THEOPHRASTUS, Aristotle\u2019s pupil and friend, 194.\n character of, iv. 194.\n name, symbolic, vi. 195.\n will, his last, xiv. 200.\n writings, his, xiii. 196.\n\n Thesmophoria, what, _note_, 394.\n\n TIMON, of Phliasis, 420.\n acuteness of, ii. 422.\n delighted in a garden, v. 422.\n fond of drinking, ii. 421.\n a jester, vi. 422.\n his pupils, vii. 423.\n\n\n Virtue and vice, Stoics\u2019 doctrine of, lxv. 304.\n\n\n Water, the principle of all things, vi. 15.\n\n Wise man, the Stoics\u2019, lxiv. 301.\n\n Wise men, the, who, ix. 10.\n\n\n XENOCRATES, accidental death, xii. 157.\n a grave and solemn man, iii. 154.\n habit of meditation, viii. 156.\n kind to a sparrow, vi. 156.\n pupil of Plato, 154.\n self-denial of, v. 155.\n sold for his taxes, x. 157.\n writings, his, ix. 156.\n\n XENOPHANES, banished, 382.\n buried his sons with his own hands, iv. 384.\n doctrines, his, iii. 383.\n wrote poems, iii. 383.\n\n XENOPHON, banished by the Athenians, vii. 76.\n called the Attic muse, xiv. 78.\n conduct on death of his son, x. 77.\n escape to Corinth, ix. 77.\n first writer of memorabilia, iii. 75.\n follower of Socrates, ii. 75.\n friend of Cyrus, v. 75.\n love of Clinias, iv. 75.\n writings, his, xiii. 78.\n\n\n ZALEUCUS, account of, _note_, 345.\n\n ZENO, the Stoic, his abstinence, &c. xxiii. 269.\n admires Diodorus, xx. 266.\n anecdotes of him, xix. 266.\n Antigonus respects him, viii. 261.\n Athenians crown him, ix. 263.\n disciples and works, xxxi. 273.\n doctrines, xxxii. 273.\n kills himself, xxvi. 270.\n lectures in the Stoa or porch, vii. 261.\n manner of reproving, xix. 265.\n personal appearance, ii. 259.\n pupil of Crates, iii. 259.\n retiring disposition, xv. 264.\n republic, his, xxviii. 271.\n turn for investigation, xvii. 264.\n his vices, xiii. 263.\n writes about duty, xxi. 269.\n writings, iv. 260.\n\n ZENO, the Eleatic, adopted son of Parmenides, 386.\n arrested for treason against Nearches, v. 387.\n chief doctrines, viii. 388.\n invented dialectics, iv. 387.\n pounded to death in a mortar, v. 387.\n\n ZOROASTER, his philosophy, _note_, 5.\n\nLONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, DUKE STREET,\nSTAMFORD STREET, S.E., AND GREAT WINDMILL STREET, W.\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note\n\n\nThe original of this text was not edited as carefully as it could have\nbeen. As a result, for this e-text quite a number of changes have been\nmade. These are based on comparison with other editions of the same work\nand with the original Greek text.\n\nList of changes made:\n\nTable of Contents, swapped positions of \u201cPreface\u201d and \u201cIntroduction\u201d\n\nTable of Contents, \u201cZenophon\u201d changed to \u201cXenophon\u201d\n\nPage 7, \u201capophthegmns\u201d changed to \u201capophthegms\u201d (apophthegms in\nenigmatical language)\n\nPage 12, \u201cPyhrronean\u201d changed to \u201cPyrrhonean\u201d (the Pyrrhonean is\nrepudiated by many writers)\n\nPage 14, \u201cFocus\u201d changed to \u201cPhocus\u201d (Phocus the Samian)\n\nPage 16, \u201cBathydes\u201d changed to \u201cBathycles\u201d twice (of the name of\nBathycles / the son of Bathycles)\n\nPage 31, \u201cursurping\u201d changed to \u201cusurping\u201d (from usurping the tyranny)\n\nPage 35, \u201chis\u201d changed to \u201cher\u201d (Pamphila says, in the second book of her\nCommentaries)\n\nPage 37, \u201cFavorinus\u201d changed to \u201cPhavorinus\u201d (as Phavorinus tells us)\n\nPage 46, \u201cAnacharis\u201d changed to \u201cAnacharsis\u201d (Anacharsis the Scythian was\nthe son of Gnurus)\n\nPage 51, \u201cCtesilius\u201d changed to \u201cCtesibius\u201d (Cratinus and Ctesibius)\n\nPage 51, \u201cRhodamanthus\u201d changed to \u201cRhadamanthus\u201d (on Minos and\nRhadamanthus)\n\nPage 53, \u201cSosilius\u201d changed to \u201cSosibius\u201d (as Sosibius the Laced\u00e6monian\nsays)\n\nPage 55, \u201cwiih\u201d changed to \u201cwith\u201d (Adorned with valour while alive)\n\nPage 57, plus in 22 other places throughout the book, \u201cPharorinus\u201d\nchanged to \u201cPhavorinus\u201d\n\nPage 57, missing words \u201cIonic dialect.\u201d added (and wrote in the Ionic\ndialect.)\n\nPage 60, \u201cPhalerius\u201d changed to \u201cPhalereus\u201d (as Demetrius Phalereus tells\nus)\n\nPage 61, \u201cMetro\u201d changed to \u201cMetrodorus\u201d (and Metrodorus, of Lampsacus)\n\nPage 61, \u201cMedison\u201d changed to \u201cMedism\u201d (but also for Medism)\n\nPage 63, \u201cbecaused\u201d changed to \u201cbecause\u201d (because he enlarged his\nprinciples)\n\nPage 63, \u201cMe\u00e6tetus\u201d changed to \u201cThe\u00e6tetus\u201d (as Plato records in his\nThe\u00e6tetus)\n\nPage 63, \u201cMoresimachus\u201d changed to \u201cMnesimachus\u201d (to which idea,\nMnesimachus speaks)\n\nPage 65, \u201cDelian\u201d changed to \u201cDelium\u201d (saved Xenophon in the battle of\nDelium)\n\nPage 66, \u201cCrononian\u201d changed to \u201cCranonian\u201d (Scopas the Cranonian)\n\nPage 67, repeated word \u201cand\u201d removed (and all such kind of follies)\n\nPage 68, \u201cGlauson\u201d changed to \u201cGlaucon\u201d (he wrought upon Glaucon)\n\nPage 68, \u201cGlauernides\u201d changed to \u201cGlauconides\u201d (and Glauconides said,\nthat)\n\nPage 69, repeated word \u201cit\u201d removed (that it was not absurd to learn)\n\nPage 69, \u201cAugur\u201d changed to \u201cAuge\u201d (Euripides, in his Auge)\n\nPage 71 and following pages, \u201cMelitus\u201d changed to \u201cMeletus\u201d 7 times\n\nPage 72, \u201cPittea\u201d changed to \u201cPithus\u201d (the son of Meletus, of Pithus)\n\nPage 73, \u201cIyst\u00e6us\u201d changed to \u201cTyrt\u00e6us\u201d (they said that Tyrt\u00e6us was out\nof his wits)\n\nPage 74, \u201cCereops\u201d changed to \u201cCercops\u201d (in his lifetime with Cercops)\n\nPage 74, \u201cAphimenes\u201d changed to \u201cAmphimenes\u201d (Amphimenes of Cos)\n\nPage 74, \u201cSalamis\u201d changed to \u201cSalarus\u201d (Salarus of Priene)\n\nPage 74, \u201cCell\u00e6us\u201d changed to \u201cAlc\u00e6us\u201d (Alc\u00e6us and Anaxagoras)\n\nPage 74, \u201cSosibrius\u201d changed to \u201cSosibius\u201d (Anaxagoras with Sosibius)\n\nPage 74, \u201cTimocrea\u201d changed to \u201cTimocreon\u201d (Simonides with Timocreon)\n\nPage 80, \u201cJelanges\u201d changed to \u201cTelauges\u201d (the Telauges, and the Rhino)\n\nPage 80, \u201cCaramis\u201d changed to \u201cCarcinus\u201d (Carcinus, the tragedian)\n\nPage 82, \u201cprefering\u201d changed to \u201cpreferring\u201d (by preferring one beauty to\nthe rest)\n\nPage 84, \u201cAretes\u201d changed to \u201cArete\u201d (his daughter Arete)\n\nPage 84, repeated word \u201ca\u201d removed (whether one takes a house)\n\nPage 85, \u201creproched\u201d changed to \u201creproached\u201d (when some one reproached\nhim)\n\nPage 89, \u201cAnnicerci\u201d changed to \u201cAnnicerei\u201d (some Annicerei, others\nTheodorei)\n\nPage 89, \u201cPyr\u00e6bates\u201d changed to \u201cPar\u00e6bates\u201d (the master of Par\u00e6bates)\n\nPage 89, \u201cPar\u00e6tius\u201d changed to \u201cPan\u00e6tius\u201d (as Pan\u00e6tius also tells us)\n\nPage 93, \u201cTheodereans\u201d changed to \u201cTheodoreans\u201d (The Theodoreans, as they\nare called)\n\nPage 95, \u201cso\u201d changed to \u201cto\u201d (Metrocles the Cynic, who was washing\nleeks, said to him)\n\nPage 95, \u201cRh\u0153us\u201d changed to \u201cRh\u0153cus\u201d (a Samian, the son of Rh\u0153cus)\n\nPage 95, \u201cMusicial\u201d changed to \u201cMusical\u201d (a treatise on Musical Composers)\n\nPage 96, \u201cAthen\u00e6as\u201d changed to \u201cAthen\u00e6us\u201d (a physician, a pupil of\nAthen\u00e6us)\n\nPage 96, \u201cPhistamus\u201d changed to \u201cPlistanus\u201d (his successor was Plistanus\nof Elis)\n\nPage 96, \u201cPhilias\u201d changed to \u201cPhlius\u201d (Asclepiades of Phlius)\n\nPage 97, \u201cmay\u201d changed to \u201cmany\u201d (a great many arguments)\n\nPage 98, \u201cpreplexing\u201d changed to \u201cperplexing\u201d (Asking his horned\nquibbles, and perplexing)\n\nPage 98, \u201cC\u201d changed to \u201cR\u201d (unable to pronounce the R)\n\nPage 100, \u201cTherium\u201d changed to \u201cThurii\u201d (Clinomachus of Thurii)\n\nPage 100, \u201cDippilus\u201d changed to \u201cDiphilus\u201d (Diphilus of the Bosphorus)\n\nPage 100, \u201cVenites\u201d changed to \u201cVenetes\u201d (Myrmex of the Venetes)\n\nPage 102, \u201cSyphon\u201d changed to \u201cTyphon\u201d (where Typhon\u2019s voice resounds)\n\nPage 102, \u201cCnistippus\u201d changed to \u201cAristippus\u201d (the Aristippus or Callias)\n\nPage 103, \u201cSophibus\u201d changed to \u201cSophilus\u201d (Sophilus the comic poet)\n\nPage 103, \u201cdicourse\u201d changed to \u201cdiscourse\u201d (the whole discourse of this\nCharinus)\n\nPage 103, \u201cPolititical\u201d changed to \u201cPolitical\u201d (on Political Science)\n\nPage 104, \u201cMinexenus\u201d changed to \u201cMenexenus\u201d (the Cephalus; the\nAnaxiphemus; the Menexenus)\n\nPage 105, \u201cSimeas\u201d changed to \u201cSimias\u201d (Simias was a Theban)\n\nPage 105, \u201cTheoprobid\u00e6\u201d changed to \u201cTheopropid\u00e6\u201d (one of those who are\ncalled Theopropid\u00e6)\n\nPage 106, \u201cCassandra\u201d changed to \u201cCassandrea\u201d (Eurylochus, of Cassandrea)\n\nPage 107, \u201cNicorreon\u201d changed to \u201cNicocreon\u201d (at the court of Nicocreon)\n\nPage 110, \u201cHyporicus\u201d changed to \u201cHipponicus\u201d (Hipponicus the Macedonian)\n\nPage 110, \u201cHipporicus\u201d changed to \u201cHipponicus\u201d (Hipponicus gave Menedemus\ntwo thousand drachmas)\n\nPage 113, \u201cPetone\u201d changed to \u201cPotone\u201d (the son of Ariston and Perictione\nor Potone)\n\nPage 113, \u201cDiopidas\u201d changed to \u201cDropidas\u201d (had a brother named Dropidas)\n\nPage 114, \u201cConservations\u201d changed to \u201cConversations\u201d (the eighth book of\nhis Philosophical Conversations)\n\nPage 114, \u201cPetone\u201d changed to \u201cPotone\u201d (a sister called Potone)\n\nPage 116, \u201cAlcinus\u201d changed to \u201cAlcimus\u201d (as Alcimus says in his essays)\n\nPage 117, \u201cAlcinus\u201d changed to \u201cAlcimus\u201d (And Alcimus speaks as follows)\n\nPage 119, \u201cAlcinus\u201d changed to \u201cAlcimus\u201d (compared by Alcimus through\nfour books)\n\nPage 120, \u201cDeni\u201d changed to \u201cDion\u201d twice (being appeased by Dion / it was\nDion who sent the money)\n\nPage 120, \u201cAristimenes\u201d changed to \u201cAristomenes\u201d (being appeased by Dion\nand Aristomenes)\n\nPage 120, \u201cHelia\u201d changed to \u201cHelice\u201d (drowned in Helice)\n\nPage 121, \u201cThetas\u201d changed to \u201cTheotas\u201d (suspected of exciting Dion and\nTheotas)\n\nPage 123, \u201cMesopis\u201d changed to \u201cMeropis\u201d (Alexis says in his Meropis)\n\nPage 123, \u201cAnalion\u201d changed to \u201cAncylion\u201d (And in his Ancylion, he says)\n\nPage 123, \u201cPseudripobolim\u00e6us\u201d changed to \u201cPseudypobolim\u00e6us\u201d (Cratinas in\nhis Pseudypobolim\u00e6us, says)\n\nPage 126, \u201cSothon\u201d changed to \u201cSathon\u201d (which he entitled Sathon)\n\nPage 127, \u201cMysonianus\u201d changed to \u201cMyronianus\u201d (But Myronianus, in his\nResemblances)\n\nPage 128, \u201cCephiciades\u201d changed to \u201cCephisiades\u201d (the temple of the\nCephisiades)\n\nPage 128, \u201cPhreanian\u201d changed to \u201cPhrearrian\u201d (Archestratus the\nPhrearrian)\n\nPage 128, \u201cChallidian\u201d changed to \u201cChollidian\u201d (Philip the Chollidian)\n\nPage 128, \u201cAdemantus\u201d changed to \u201cAdimantus\u201d (shall belong to my son\nAdimantus)\n\nPage 128, \u201cSychon\u201d changed to \u201cTychon\u201d (My slaves Tychon, Bictas)\n\nPage 128, \u201cTozthenes\u201d changed to \u201cSosthenes\u201d (My executors shall be\nSosthenes)\n\nPage 130, \u201cAlexander\u201d changed to \u201cAlexamenus\u201d (Alexamenus, a native of\nStyra)\n\nPage 130, \u201cat\u201d changed to \u201cas\u201d (the other is as it were tentative)\n\nPage 131, \u201cClitiphon\u201d changed to \u201cClitophon\u201d (the Menexenus, the\nClitophon, the Epistles)\n\nPage 131, \u201cHippiastro\u201d changed to \u201cHippias too\u201d (and Protagoras, Hippias\ntoo)\n\nPage 134, \u201cMe\u00e6tetus\u201d changed to \u201cThe\u00e6tetus\u201d (The The\u00e6tetus, or Knowledge)\n\nPage 135, \u201cAristodemns\u201d changed to \u201cAristodemus\u201d (one letter to\nAristodemus)\n\nPage 135, \u201cChilidon\u201d changed to \u201cChelidon\u201d (the Demodorus; the Chelidon;\nthe Seventh;)\n\nPage 139, \u201clives\u201d changed to \u201clive\u201d (those which live in the water)\n\nPage 142, \u201cLac\u00e6demon\u201d changed to \u201cLaced\u00e6mon\u201d (in Laced\u00e6mon and Macedonia)\n\nPage 152, \u201caud\u201d changed to \u201cand\u201d (paralysis, and sent to)\n\nPage 153, \u201cAmartynus\u201d changed to \u201cAmartyrus\u201d (an Essay addressed to\nAmartyrus)\n\nPage 155, \u201cMyornianus\u201d changed to \u201cMyronianus\u201d (as Myronianus tells us in\nhis Similitudes)\n\nPage 156, \u201cArchidemus\u201d changed to \u201cArchedemus\u201d (the Archedemus, or an\nessay on Justice)\n\nPage 157, \u201cSpuesippus\u201d changed to \u201cSpeusippus\u201d (He succeeded Speusippus)\n\nPage 162, \u201cMe\u00e6tetus\u201d changed to \u201cThe\u00e6tetus the poet wrote thus about him\u201d\n(The\u00e6tetus the poet wrote thus about him)\n\nPage 167, \u201cAleximes\u201d changed to \u201cAlexinus\u201d (a certain dialectician, a\npupil of Alexinus)\n\nPage 167, \u201cCallecrates\u201d changed to \u201cCallicrates\u201d (that of Archecrates and\nCallicrates)\n\nPage 168, \u201cAristi\u201d changed to \u201cAristo\u201d (Aristo, the Chian)\n\nPage 168, \u201cMydea\u201d changed to \u201cMyrlea\u201d (Cleochares of Myrlea)\n\nPage 169, \u201cAlcymeus\u201d changed to \u201cAlcyoneus\u201d (the birthday of Alcyoneus)\n\nPage 174, \u201cEretosthenes\u201d changed to \u201cEratosthenes\u201d (they relate that\nEratosthenes said)\n\nPage 176, \u201cProconnesas\u201d changed to \u201cProconnesus\u201d (he was a native of\nProconnesus)\n\nPage 179, \u201clogo\u00e6dical\u201d changed to \u201cloga\u0153dical\u201d (lines in loga\u0153dical\nArchebulian metre)\n\nPage 183, \u201cDemophelus\u201d changed to \u201cDemophilus\u201d (his prosecutor was\nDemophilus)\n\nPage 184, \u201cCalumia\u201d changed to \u201cCalauria\u201d (Demosthenes died in Calauria)\n\nPage 184, \u201cCalisthenes\u201d changed to \u201cCallisthenes\u201d (the conspiracy of\nCallisthenes against Alexander)\n\nPage 186, \u201cAubracis\u201d changed to \u201cAmbracis\u201d (Ambracis shall have her\nliberty)\n\nPage 186, \u201cwhere-ever\u201d changed to \u201cwherever\u201d (wherever else they think\nfit)\n\nPage 188, \u201cis\u201d changed to \u201chis\u201d (and his answer was)\n\nPage 193, \u201cincoporeal\u201d changed to \u201cincorporeal\u201d (something which has an\nincorporeal species)\n\nPage 194, \u201chis\u201d changed to \u201cher\u201d (as Pamphila asserts in the\nthirty-second book of her Commentaries)\n\nPage 194, \u201cMenandar\u201d changed to \u201cMenander\u201d (he was the tutor of Menander)\n\nPage 195, \u201cTyrtanius\u201d changed to \u201cTyrtamus\u201d (His name had originally been\nTyrtamus)\n\nPage 196, \u201cPhalerius\u201d changed to \u201cPhalereus\u201d (by the assistance of\nDemetrius Phalereus)\n\nPage 199, repeated word \u201cNatural\u201d removed (Problems in Natural History)\n\nPage 199, \u201cAstyceron\u201d changed to \u201cAstycreon\u201d (Letters to Astycreon,\nPhanias, and Nicanor)\n\nPage 200, \u201cCallenus\u201d changed to \u201cCallinus\u201d (Neleus, Strato, Callinus,\nDemotimus)\n\nPage 201, \u201cDonar\u201d changed to \u201cDonax\u201d (and Donax to Neleus)\n\nPage 201, \u201cEulius\u201d changed to \u201cEubius\u201d (I order Eubius to be sold)\n\nPage 202, \u201cThrasos\u201d changed to \u201cThasos\u201d (Lysistratus of Thasos)\n\nPage 202, \u201cdilligence\u201d changed to \u201cdiligence\u201d (in the diligence with\nwhich he applied himself)\n\nPage 204, \u201cInnesigenes\u201d changed to \u201cMnesigenes\u201d (Aristides, Mnesigenes,\nHippocrates)\n\nPage 204, \u201cOlympicus\u201d changed to \u201cOlympichus\u201d (let Ir\u00e6us calculate with\nOlympichus)\n\nPage 204, \u201cAusinias\u201d changed to \u201cAminias\u201d (with Olympichus and Aminias)\n\nPage 204, \u201cPhiloreatos\u201d changed to \u201cPhilocrates\u201d (Philocrates, the son of\nTisamenus)\n\nPage 205, \u201csaying\u201d changed to \u201csayings\u201d (Another of his sayings was)\n\nPage 206, repeated word \u201cin\u201d removed (all that I have in the city)\n\nPage 207, \u201cAmplicon\u201d changed to \u201cAmphion\u201d (and Ariston, and Amphion, and\nLycon)\n\nPage 208, \u201cMicras\u201d changed to \u201cMicrus\u201d twice (Micrus I hereby present\nwith his freedom / I also hereby emancipate the mother of Micrus)\n\nPage 208, \u201cMenedora\u201d changed to \u201cMenodora\u201d (four min\u00e6, and Menodora)\n\nPage 208, \u201cto\u201d changed to \u201ctoo\u201d (in this respect too he deserves)\n\nPage 211, \u201cAntiphones\u201d changed to \u201cAntiphanes\u201d (on Antiphanes, one;)\n\nPage 212, \u201cColatia\u201d changed to \u201cCalatia\u201d (the sixth was a native of\nCalatia)\n\nPage 212, \u201cEuthyr\u00e6\u201d changed to \u201cErythr\u00e6\u201d (the twelfth was a grammarian of\nErythr\u00e6)\n\nPage 212, \u201cBythinian\u201d changed to \u201cBithynian\u201d (the thirteenth was a\nBithynian)\n\nPage 212, \u201cPamotus\u201d changed to \u201cPan\u00e6tius\u201d (Pan\u00e6tius of Rhodes)\n\nPage 212, \u201cunsubtantial\u201d changed to \u201cunsubstantial\u201d (Fought o\u2019er a tomb\nand unsubstantial shade)\n\nPage 215, \u201cAretodorus\u201d changed to \u201cAutodorus\u201d (Autodorus the Epicurean\nreproaches him)\n\nPage 215, \u201cSpentharus\u201d changed to \u201cSpintharus\u201d (as some say Spintharus)\n\nPage 216, \u201cPanculus\u201d changed to \u201cPancalus\u201d (they formed the name of\nPancalus)\n\nPage 216, \u201cNisius\u201d changed to \u201cHicesius\u201d (a physician, a pupil of\nHicesius)\n\nPage 219, \u201cPhilosphers\u201d changed to \u201cPhilosophers\u201d (his treatise on the\nPhilosophers)\n\nPage 223, missing word \u201can\u201d added (an essay on Telemachus)\n\nPage 224, \u201cTresius\u201d changed to \u201cHicesius\u201d (the son of Hicesius, a\nmoney-changer)\n\nPage 224, \u201cPerdalus\u201d changed to \u201cPordalus\u201d (he himself, in his Pordalus)\n\nPage 225, \u201cPolymeter\u201d changed to \u201cPolyeuctus\u201d (Polyeuctus, the orator)\n\nPage 225, \u201c\u00c6schorion\u201d changed to \u201c\u00c6schrion\u201d (Lysanias, the son of\n\u00c6schrion)\n\nPage 231, \u201c\u00c6gesilaus\u201d changed to \u201cAgesilaus\u201d (if Agesilaus and\nEpaminondas are)\n\nPage 233, \u201cCalisthenes\u201d changed to \u201cCallisthenes\u201d (the happiness of\nCallisthenes)\n\nPage 239, \u201cThelian\u201d changed to \u201cMelian\u201d (Diagoras the Melian)\n\nPage 244, \u201cbelong\u201d changed to \u201cbelongs\u201d (everything belongs to the wise)\n\nPage 245, \u201cPhilistus\u201d changed to \u201cPhiliscus\u201d (not rather the work of\nPhiliscus)\n\nPage 245, \u201cCirce\u201d changed to \u201ccrier\u201d (when the crier asked him)\n\nPage 247, missing word \u201cart\u201d added (Since you alone did teach to men the\nart)\n\nPage 247, \u201c\u0152dippus\u201d changed to \u201c\u0152dipus\u201d (the Chrysippus, and the \u0152dipus)\n\nPage 247, \u201cSolm\u00e6us\u201d changed to \u201cTolm\u00e6us\u201d (the Beggar; the Tolm\u00e6us; the\nLeopard)\n\nPage 248, \u201cSicymian\u201d changed to \u201cSicyonian\u201d (The second was a Sicyonian)\n\nPage 249, \u201cOsnesicritus\u201d changed to \u201cOnesicritus\u201d (Onesicritus is called\nby some authors)\n\nPage 249, \u201cClocus\u201d changed to \u201cCl\u0153us\u201d (Heges\u00e6us of Sinope, who was\nnicknamed Cl\u0153us)\n\nPage 254, \u201cTheomentus\u201d changed to \u201cTheombrotus\u201d (His pupils were\nTheombrotus and Cleomenes)\n\nPage 257, \u201cCelotes\u201d changed to \u201cColotes\u201d (a disciple of Colotes of\nLampsacus)\n\nPage 259, \u201cInnaseas\u201d changed to \u201cMnaseas\u201d (Zeno was the son of Mnaseas)\n\nPage 260, \u201cPriscanactium\u201d changed to \u201cPeisianactium\u201d (colonnade which is\ncalled the Peisianactium)\n\nPage 262, \u201cInnaseas\u201d changed to \u201cMnaseas\u201d (Since Zeno the son of Mnaseas)\n\nPage 263, \u201cInnaseas\u201d changed to \u201cMnaseas\u201d (Zeno, the son of Mnaseas, the\nCitti\u00e6an)\n\nPage 263, \u201cAcharn\u00e6s\u201d changed to \u201cAcharn\u00e6\u201d (Medon of Acharn\u00e6)\n\nPage 263, \u201cMecythus of Sypalyttas\u201d changed to \u201cMicythus of Sypalettus\u201d\n(Micythus of Sypalettus, and Dion)\n\nPage 264, \u201csimdapsus\u201d changed to \u201cskindapsus\u201d (Likewise her mind was less\nthan a skindapsus.)\n\nPage 265, \u201cconi\u201d changed to \u201ccoin\u201d (well-formed like the coin)\n\nPage 265, \u201ctessedrachmas\u201d changed to \u201ctetradrachmas\u201d (he likened to the\nAttic tetradrachmas)\n\nPage 268, \u201cperssn\u201d changed to \u201cperson\u201d (why he was the only person)\n\nPage 269, \u201centertaiments\u201d changed to \u201centertainments\u201d (in entertainments\nof that kind)\n\nPage 270, \u201csumits\u201d changed to \u201csummits\u201d (The summits of Olympus)\n\nPage 271, \u201cInnaseas\u201d changed to \u201cMnaseas\u201d (his father Mnaseas often came\nto Athens)\n\nPage 272, \u201cHesophila\u201d changed to \u201cHerophila\u201d (the sixth was a physician\nof Herophila), although it is possible \u201ca Herophilean physician\u201d, i.e. a\nfollower of Herophilus, is intended here.\n\nPage 273, \u201cHalcymeus\u201d changed to \u201cHalcyoneus\u201d (to whose son, Halcyoneus,\nhe also acted)\n\nPage 273, \u201cTheles\u201d changed to \u201cThebes\u201d (Philonides, of Thebes)\n\nPage 274, \u201cPosidorus\u201d changed to \u201cPosidonius\u201d (Diogenes, the Babylonian;\nand Posidonius)\n\nPage 274, \u201cArchidemus\u201d changed to \u201cArchedemus\u201d (Chrysippus, and\nArchedemus, and Eudromus)\n\nPage 275, \u201ccoversant\u201d changed to \u201cconversant\u201d (which is conversant with\nrules and tests)\n\nPage 279, \u201cBoethius\u201d changed to \u201cBoethus\u201d (For Boethus leaves a great\nmany criteria)\n\nPage 279, \u201cArchidemus\u201d changed to \u201cArchedemus\u201d (so it is laid down by\nArchedemus)\n\nPage 282, \u201cdeificiences\u201d changed to \u201cdeficiencies\u201d (of attributes and\ndeficiencies)\n\nPage 291, \u201cArchidemus\u201d changed to \u201cArchedemus\u201d (And Archedemus defines it)\n\nPage 297, \u201cexite\u201d changed to \u201cexcite\u201d (do not excite any inclination)\n\nPage 306, \u201cChrysyppus\u201d changed to \u201cChrysippus\u201d (Another doctrine of\nChrysippus)\n\nPage 306, \u201cThrasmides\u201d changed to \u201cThrasonides\u201d (Accordingly, that\nThrasonides)\n\nPage 316, \u201csone\u201d changed to \u201csome\u201d (some of them are shakings)\n\nPage 318, \u201cScion\u201d changed to \u201cSiren\u201d (surnamed the Siren)\n\nPage 320, \u201cScayon\u201d changed to \u201cScazon\u201d (a jesting epigram on him in\nScazon iambics)\n\nPage 326, \u201cInnesistratus\u201d changed to \u201cMnesistratus\u201d (Once, when\nMnesistratus accused him)\n\nPage 328, \u201cDioles\u201d changed to \u201cDiocles\u201d (as Diocles reports)\n\nPage 328, \u201cCryxippus\u201d changed to \u201cCrypsippus\u201d (Carneades called him\nCrypsippus)\n\nPage 330, \u201cAristocrea\u201d changed to \u201cAristocreon\u201d (the sons of his sister,\nAristocreon and Philocrates)\n\nPage 330, \u201cheirophant\u201d changed to \u201chierophant\u201d (the hierophant reveals\nthem)\n\nPage 331, repeated word \u201ca\u201d removed (there is then a head that you have\nnot got)\n\nPage 333, \u201cSosigines\u201d changed to \u201cSosigenes\u201d (addressed to Sosigenes and\nAlexander)\n\nPage 333, \u201cPanthorides\u201d changed to \u201cPanthoides\u201d (Ambiguous Expressions,\nby Panthoides)\n\nPage 333, \u201cAgatha\u201d changed to \u201cAgathon\u201d (an essay to Agathon)\n\nPage 334, \u201cMeliager\u201d changed to \u201cMeleager\u201d twice (addressed to Meleager /\naddressed also to Meleager)\n\nPage 334, \u201chyopthethical\u201d changed to \u201chypothetical\u201d (of hypothetical\nreasoning to serve as an Introduction)\n\nPage 334, missing word \u201cto\u201d added (an introduction to Fallacy, addressed\nto Aristocreon)\n\nPage 335, \u201cOretis\u201d changed to \u201cOutis\u201d (an essay on the Argument Outis)\n\nPage 340, \u201cmaner\u201d changed to \u201cmanner\u201d (writes in the following manner)\n\nPage 341, \u201cScopead\u00e6\u201d changed to \u201cScopiad\u00e6\u201d (the poem called the Scopiad\u00e6)\n\nPage 343, \u201cthen\u201d changed to \u201cthem\u201d (allowed his disciples to eat them)\n\nPage 353, \u201cInnesimachus\u201d changed to \u201cMnesimachus\u201d (And Mnesimachus says\nin his Alcm\u00e6on)\n\nPage 353, \u201cAustophon\u201d changed to \u201cAristophon\u201d (Aristophon says in his\nPythagorean)\n\nPage 354, \u201cCortona\u201d changed to \u201cCrotona\u201d (at the house of Milo, of\nCrotona)\n\nPage 356, \u201cSarapian\u201d changed to \u201cSarapion\u201d (Heraclides, the son of\nSarapion)\n\nPage 356, \u201cPhythagoras\u201d changed to \u201cPythagoras\u201d (Should you Pythagoras\u2019\ndoctrine wish to know)\n\nPage 357, \u201cEchurates\u201d changed to \u201cEchecrates\u201d (and Echecrates, and Diodes)\n\nPage 359, \u201cJelanges\u201d changed to \u201cTelauges\u201d (Now Telauges and Theano we\nhave mentioned)\n\nPage 360, \u201cJelanges\u201d changed to \u201cTelauges\u201d twice (But Telauges, the son\nof Pythagoras / the letter of Telauges)\n\nPage 362, missing section number \u201cVI.\u201d added in what seemed to be the\nappropriate place for it (VI. The case of the dead woman)\n\nPage 364, \u201c\u03ba\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2\u201d changed to \u201c\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2\u201d (\u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.)\n\nPage 369, \u201cInnesagoras\u201d changed to \u201cMnesagoras\u201d (the son of Mnesagoras)\n\nPage 369, \u201cOrellus\u201d changed to \u201cOcellus\u201d (the descendants of Ocellus)\n\nPage 373, \u201cOctacteris\u201d changed to \u201cOctaeteris\u201d (the treatise called the\nOctaeteris)\n\nPage 373, \u201cMansolus\u201d changed to \u201cMausolus\u201d (he also went to the court of\nMausolus)\n\nPage 373, \u201cNichomachus\u201d changed to \u201cNicomachus\u201d (Nicomachus, the son of\nAristotle)\n\nPage 374, \u201cSicilist\u201d changed to \u201cSiciliot\u201d (the third, a Siciliot, a son\nof Agathocles)\n\nPage 376, \u201cHeraceon\u201d changed to \u201cHeracion\u201d (the son of Blyson, or, as\nsome say, of Heracion)\n\nPage 381, \u201cPhaleruus\u201d changed to \u201cPhalereus\u201d (Demetrius Phalereus also\nmentions him)\n\nPage 381, \u201cScythenus\u201d changed to \u201cScythinus\u201d (Scythinus, an iambic poet)\n\nPage 382, \u201cZande\u201d changed to \u201cZancle\u201d (lived at Zancle, in Sicily)\n\nPage 383, \u201cAnaxemander\u201d changed to \u201cAnaximander\u201d (a contemporary of\nAnaximander)\n\nPage 384, \u201cDiochartes\u201d changed to \u201cDiochaetes\u201d (and Diochaetes the\nPythagorean)\n\nPage 386, \u201cIthageses\u201d changed to \u201cIthagenes\u201d (a Samian, and the son of\nIthagenes)\n\nPage 386, \u201cTelentagoras\u201d changed to \u201cTeleutagoras\u201d (he was by nature the\nson of Teleutagoras)\n\nPage 396, \u201cArtmography\u201d changed to \u201cActinography\u201d (Actinography, or a\ndiscussion on Rays of Light)\n\nPage 389, \u201cresistence\u201d changed to \u201cresistance\u201d (according to the\nresistance of the centre)\n\nPage 396, \u201cRythm\u201d changed to \u201cRhythm\u201d (A treatise on Rhythm and Harmony)\n\nPage 397, \u201cProdicas\u201d changed to \u201cProdicus\u201d twice (He, and Prodicus of\nCeos / Prodicus had a very powerful voice)\n\nPage 398, \u201cAllidomas\u201d changed to \u201cAlcidamas\u201d (but Alcidamas says that)\n\nPage 405, \u201cMemenius\u201d changed to \u201cNumenius\u201d (Numenius is the only writer\nwho asserts)\n\nPage 405, \u201cEpianus\u201d changed to \u201cEpicurus\u201d (was the master of Epicurus)\n\nPage 407, \u201cantethetical\u201d changed to \u201cantithetical\u201d (antithetical force of\nwords)\n\nPage 409, \u201cPhyrrho\u201d changed to \u201cPyrrho\u201d (Pyrrho lays down in the\nfollowing manner)\n\nPage 414, \u201ciotellect\u201d changed to \u201cintellect\u201d (either sense or intellect)\n\nPage 414, \u201cdawn\u201d changed to \u201cdown\u201d (those opinions which are laid down\npreviously)\n\nPage 422, \u201cCercipes\u201d changed to \u201cCercopes\u201d (through the forum of the\nCercopes)\n\nPage 423, \u201cNilolochus\u201d changed to \u201cNicolochus\u201d (Nicolochus of Rhodes)\n\nPage 423, \u201cPracylus\u201d changed to \u201cPraylus\u201d (Praylus of the Troas)\n\nPage 423, \u201cXeuxippus\u201d changed to \u201cZeuxippus\u201d (Zeuxippus Polites)\n\nPage 423, \u201cGonicpus\u201d changed to \u201cGoniopus\u201d (Zeuxis Goniopus)\n\nPage 423, \u201cTheodos\u201d changed to \u201cTheodas\u201d (Theodas, of Laodicea)\n\nPage 424, \u201chad Colonis and\u201d changed to \u201chad colonised\u201d (as the Athenians\nhad colonised Samos)\n\nPage 425, \u201cInus\u201d changed to \u201cMus\u201d (a slave, whose name was Mus)\n\nPage 425, repeated word \u201cas\u201d removed (well as one of his brothers)\n\nPage 425, \u201cLeontius\u201d changed to \u201cLeonteus\u201d (Themista, the wife of\nLeonteus)\n\nPage 426, \u201cMarmaricem\u201d changed to \u201cMarmarium\u201d (and among them Marmarium)\n\nPage 427, \u201cnicnamed Lerocrates\u201d changed to \u201cnicknamed Lerocritus\u201d\n(Democritus, he nicknamed Lerocritus)\n\nPage 427, \u201cfriend\u201d changed to \u201cfriends\u201d (his friends who were so numerous)\n\nPage 427, \u201cInus\u201d changed to \u201cMus\u201d (the one whom I have mentioned already,\nnamed Mus)\n\nPage 428, \u201chis\u201d changed to \u201cis\u201d (among whom is Apollodorus)\n\nPage 430, \u201csucessors\u201d changed to \u201csuccessors\u201d (my immediate successors\nhand it down)\n\nPage 431, \u201cInus\u201d changed to \u201cMus\u201d (Of my slaves, I hereby emancipate Mus)\n\nPage 432, \u201cBates\u201d changed to \u201cBatis\u201d (he gave his sister Batis in\nmarriage)\n\nPage 432, \u201cLeontius\u201d changed to \u201cLeonteus\u201d (There was also Leonteus, of\nLampsacus)\n\nPage 433, \u201cCh\u00e6ridemus\u201d changed to \u201cCh\u00e6redemus\u201d (the Ch\u00e6redemus, a\ntreatise on the Gods)\n\nPage 433, \u201cHegesiana\u201d changed to \u201cHegesianax\u201d (the Hegesianax; four\nessays on Lives)\n\nFootnote 8, \u201cdiety\u201d changed to \u201cdeity\u201d (the national deity of the Ionians)\n\nFootnote 31, \u201c\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u201d changed to \u201c\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u201d (The Greek is \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5.)\n\nFootnote 31, \u201c\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u201d changed to \u201c\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u201d (\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd)\n\nFootnote 80, \u201cEuripid\u201d changed to \u201cEuripides\u201d (the Antiope of Euripides)\n\nFootnote 82, \u201cadversariese\u201d changed to \u201cadversaries\u201d (knocked down his\nadversaries)\n\nFootnote 108, missing word \u201cof\u201d added (which Ovid puts into the mouth of\nPythagoras); \u201cJononis\u201d changed to \u201cJunonis\u201d (templo Junonis in Argis)\n\nFootnote 111, \u201cChallidian\u201d changed to \u201cChalcidian\u201d (towns of Chalcidian\norigin)\n\nFootnote 119, \u201cLin\u00e6an\u201d changed to \u201cLen\u00e6an\u201d (the second or Len\u00e6an\nfestivals)\n\nFootnote 127, \u201cValchen\u00e6r\u201d changed to \u201cValcken\u00e6r\u201d (Valcken\u00e6r conjectures)\n\nFootnote 143, \u201cTrachin\u00e6\u201d changed to \u201cTrachini\u00e6\u201d (the Trachini\u00e6 of\nSophocles)\n\nIndex entry, \u201cAlem\u00e6on\u201d changed to \u201cAlcm\u00e6on\u201d\n\nIndex entry under Ariston, \u201cScion\u201d changed to \u201cSiren\u201d\n\nIndex entry, \u201cArnicereans\u201d changed to \u201cAnnicereans\u201d and moved to the\ncorrect alphabetical position\n\nIndex entry under Bias, \u201cPriam\u201d changed to \u201cPriene\u201d\n\nIndex entry, \u201cClido\u201d changed to \u201cChilo\u201d\n\nIndex entry, \u201cEndoxus\u201d changed to \u201cEudoxus\u201d\n\nIndex entry, \u201cGynosophist\u00e6\u201d changed to \u201cGymnosophist\u00e6\u201d\n\nIndex entry under Plato, \u201cAlcinus\u201d changed to \u201cAlcimus\u201d\n\nIndex entry, \u201cThesmopheria\u201d changed to \u201cThesmophoria\u201d\n\nIndex entry, \u201cZaleneus\u201d changed to \u201cZaleucus\u201d\n\nGreek \u03c2, when not at the end of a word, has been normalised to \u03c3.\nPunctuation and accents have been amended without note as have \u00e6/\u0153\nligature substitutions. Where there was any doubt the text is left as\nprinted; any remaining errors are as they appeared in the original.","title":"The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":193004}