{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60831/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60831","id":"gutenberg_60831","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60831","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Ethics -- Greece","Ethics -- History","Stoics"],"text":"Between Heathenism and Christianity\n\n                  Between Heathenism and Christianity:\n\n     Being a Translation of Seneca\u2019s De Providentia, and Plutarch\u2019s\n       De Sera Numinis Vindicta, together with Notes, Additional\n                  Extracts from these writers and Two\n                   Essays on Graeco-Roman Life in the\n                      First Century after Christ.\n\n\n                                   BY\n                   CHARLES W. SUPER, Ph. D., LL. D.,\n\n  Ex-President of the Ohio University, and Professor of Greek, ibidem;\n                               translator\n               of Weil\u2019s Order of Words, and author of a\n                    History of the German Language.\n\n    \u201cHe who distrusts the light of reason will be the first to follow a\n    more luminous guide; and if with an ardent love for truth he has\n    sought her in vain through the ways of this life, he will but turn\n    with the more hope to that better world where all is simple, true,\n    and everlasting: for there is no parallax at the zenith; it is only\n    near our troubled horizon that objects deceive us into vague and\n    erroneous calculations.\u201d\n\n                       FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY\n                       Chicago, New York, Toronto\n                                  1899\n\n\n\n\n_Copyrighted 1899, by Fleming H. Revell Company_\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nIt is admitted by students of history of every shade of belief that the\norigin of Christianity and its rapid spread over the ancient world is\nthe most remarkable fact in the recorded annals of the human race. When\nwe remember that it was, from the first, more or less closely identified\nwith the despised religion of the despised Jews; that largely for this\nreason it had to make its way against a united front, presented by the\nlearned and intelligent in the whole gentile world, while the Jews\nthemselves almost unanimously repudiated it; that the most efficiently\norganized government that had existed until then, was indifferent or\nhostile; that it set before the heathen world a condition of society in\nwhich all current economic ideas were transformed, and that it demanded\na complete renunciation of its time-honored creeds, we may well ask in\namazement, \u201cHow came these things to pass?\u201d\n\nSecond in order among the great facts of ancient history is the growth\nof the Roman Empire. Here we see a people at first occupying a few\nsquare miles of territory, compelled for nearly fifteen generations to\nexert themselves to the utmost to keep their enemies at bay, suddenly\nbursting the barriers that confined them and in less than half this time\nbringing under their scepter almost the whole of the then known world.\nRome\u2019s conquests have been exceeded in rapidity, but they have never\nbeen equalled in permanence.\n\nThe triumphs of Christianity and those of Roman arms stand in a certain\nrelation to each other, notwithstanding the fact that the latter were\ngained with material, the former with spiritual, weapons. When the\nconquests of the one were ended, the other began. When material forces\nhad spent themselves, men began to turn, reluctantly indeed, to\nspiritual agencies and undertook to subdue the powers of darkness that\nhad so long held sway in the human breast. While the arms of Rome were\nengaged in overcoming the martial opposition of her enemies, Greece was\noccupied with the effort to subjugate the passions of men by the weapons\nof the intellect. By the time Roman conquests had reached their limits\nit had been demonstrated that Greece, too, could go no farther. But\nGreece did not fail because there were no more worlds to conquer: it was\nbecause men had learned that her weapons were powerless to compass the\nend in view. \u201cHe that ruleth his own spirit is mightier than he that\ntaketh a city,\u201d was the lesson that the best of the Greek philosophers\nstrove to impress upon men, but strove in vain.\n\nIt will always remain a matter of interest to study the intellectual\nsphere in which the old doctrines and the new faith conflict. What was\nthe best that Greek thought had to offer to the world, and for what\nreasons did the world reject it?\n\nIn the following pages I have attempted to put before my readers a\nsolution of some of the problems to which this question gives rise. No\none will deny that Seneca stood on the threshold of Christianity, while\nin the opinion of many he had already passed within; yet all will admit\nthat, at best, he fell far short of the standard Christianity sets up\nfor its converts. Plutarch is not claimed by Christians, but he\nexemplifies many of their virtues, and commends many of the precepts\nthey endeavored to put in practice. These two men best represent the\nstrong and the weak points of characters formed under the stimulus of\nearnest effort to lead upright lives and to discharge faithfully their\nduties to themselves, their fellow men, and the higher power that\ncontrolled their destinies. I have selected a typical work from the\nwritings of both as a nucleus around which to group such reflections and\nfacts as seem best fitted to illustrate the environment in which they\nlived and the intellectual inheritance to which they had fallen heir,\nwhile I have allowed each to speak for himself on one of the profoundest\nproblems that has ever engaged the serious attention of man.\n\nSurely, it cannot be a merely accidental coincidence that a Greek at\nDelphi, a Roman in his adopted city, a Jew in Alexandria, and another\nJew in Palestine, who had been converted to Christianity and had adopted\nthe profession of a traveling evangelist, should at the same time, yet\nalmost or quite independently of each other, maintain the doctrine of a\ndivine Providence or preach a gospel that recognized it as a fundamental\ndogma. The treatise of Philo, though no longer extant in the original\nGreek, is more extensive than the tracts here brought together. The\nthree united in a single volume would make a remarkable trinity in the\nhistory of human thought. The feeling was evidently widespread, both\nconsciously and unconsciously, that God had never before been so near to\nmen, though but a few had learned that the Word had become flesh and\ndwelt among them, full of grace and truth.\n\nC. W. S.\n\n_Athens, O., Thanksgiving Day, 1898._\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\nPREFACE 5\n\nLIST OF THE PRINCIPAL WORKS USED OR CONSULTED ON SENECA 10\n\nSENECA: HIS CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENT 11\n\nLIST OF SENECA\u2019S EXTANT WORKS 60\n\nSELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF SENECA 63\n\nCONCERNING PROVIDENCE 78\n\nNOTES 104\n\nPLUTARCH AND THE GREECE OF HIS AGE 108\n\nLIST OF THE PRINCIPAL WORKS USED OR CONSULTED IN THE STUDY OF PLUTARCH\n160\n\nCONCERNING THE DELAY OF THE DEITY IN PUNISHING THE WICKED 162\n\nNOTES 214\n\nAPPENDIX. LIST OF PLUTARCH\u2019S WORKS 218\n\n\n\n\n            THE PRINCIPAL WORKS USED OR CONSULTED ON SENECA.\n\n\nThe following are the principal works used or consulted in preparing the\nmatter relating to Seneca:\n\n    _Oeuvres compl\u00e8tes de Sen\u00e8que. Par Charpentier et Lemaistre. 4\n    tomes. Paris, 1885._\n\n    _Oeuvres compl\u00e8tes de Sen\u00e8que. Publi\u00e9es sous la direction de M.\n    Nisard. Paris, 1877._\n\n    _L. Annaeus Seneca des Philosophen Werke \u00fcbersetzt von Pauly und\n    Moser. Stuttgard, 1828-32._\n\n    _Christliche Kl\u00e4nge aus den griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Klassikern.\n    Von R. Schneider. Leipzig, 1877._\n\n    _Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christenthum. Von Michael Baumgarten.\n    Rostock, 1895._\n\n    _La Religion romaine. Par Gaston Boissier, 2 tomes. Paris. 1892._\n\n    _History of the Romans under the Empire. By Charles Merivale. 7\n    vols. New York, 1863-5._\n\n    _L. Annaei Senecae opera quae supersunt. Ed. Frid. Haase. Voll. I,\n    II, III. Lipsiae, 1871-62-53._\n\nThe two Paris editions have the Latin text and the French translation on\nthe same page. Both translations are characteristically French, and\nconsequently very smooth and agreeable to read. But they preserve few of\nthe salient features of the original, and render the thoughts rather\nthan the style of Seneca. To the translation is accorded the place of\nhonor both in type and position. The German version holds very close to\nthe text and errs, perhaps, somewhat at the other extreme as compared\nwith the French. The work of Baumgarten is thorough and painstaking. It\nis not endorsing all the author\u2019s views to say that it is the best\nrecent book on Seneca and his times.\n\n\n\n\n                 SENECA: HIS CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENT.\n\n\nLucius Annaeus Seneca, surnamed the Philosopher to distinguish him from\nhis father the Rhetorician, was born in Corduba,[1] in Spain, about 4 B.\nC.\u2014authorities differ by several years as to the precise date. When\nquite young he was brought to Rome by his father. He devoted himself\nwith great zeal and brilliant success to rhetorical and philosophical\nstudies. In the reign of Claudius he attained the office of quaestor and\nsubsequently rose to the rank of senator. In the year 41 he was banished\nto the island of Corsica on a charge that is admitted to have been\nfalse, but the nature of which is not clearly understood.\n\nIn this barren and inhospitable island he was compelled to remain eight\nyears. He was then recalled to Rome and entrusted with the education of\nthe young Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, who afterwards became emperor of\nRome, and notorious as the monster Nero. For five years after his\naccession to the principate, the young emperor treated his former\nteacher with much deference, consulted him on all important matters, and\nseems to have been largely guided by his advice. He also testified his\nregard for him by raising him to the rank of consul. In course of time,\nhowever, the feelings and conduct of the prince underwent a change. The\npossession of unlimited power by a character that was both weak and\nvain; the adulation of the conscienceless favorites with whom he\nsurrounded himself; the intrigues or cabals to whom the high morality of\nthe philosopher was a standing rebuke; and the naturally vicious temper\nof Nero, all conspired to prepare the way for the downfall of Seneca.\nWhen the conspiracy of Calpurnius Piso against the monarch was\ndiscovered, the charge of participation, or at least of criminal\nknowledge, was brought against Seneca, and he was condemned to die.\nAllowed to choose the means of ending his life, he caused a vein to be\nopened and thus slowly bled to death. It was his destiny to be compelled\nto take his departure from this world in the way he had so often\ncommended to others; indeed it is probable that his reiterated encomiums\nupon suicide as an effectual remedy against the ills of this life, was\nnot without its influence upon his executioners. They probably wanted to\ngive him the opportunity to prove by his works the sincerity of his\nfaith.\n\nDuring the closing scene he told his disconsolate friends that the only\nbequest he was permitted to leave to them was the example of an\nhonorable life; and this he besought them to keep in faithful\nremembrance. He implored his weeping wife to restrain the expression of\nher grief, and bade her seek in the recollection of the life and virtues\nof her husband a solace for her loss.\n\nIt was the fortune of Seneca not only to be well born, but also to be\nwell brought up and carefully educated. That he appreciated the high\nworth of his mother is evident from the words, \u201cbest of mothers,\u201d with\nwhich he addressed her in the Consolation to Helvia. His father, though\nwealthy, was a man of rigid morality, of temperate habits, of great\nindustry, and possessed very unusual literary attainments. His older\nbrother, better known as Junius Gallio from the name of the family into\nwhich he was adopted, was for some time proconsul of Achaia, in which\ncapacity he is mentioned in the Acts, xviii, 12-17. Seneca\u2019s younger\nbrother was the father of Lucan, the well-known author of the poem,\nPharsalia. Both his mother and his aunt,\u2014he was an especial favorite of\nthe latter\u2014were not only women of exalted character, but they had\nacquired an intellectual culture that was very uncommon for their sex in\ntheir day.\n\nOur authorities for a life of Seneca and for an estimate of his\ncharacter are fairly ample and have been variously interpreted. Nothing\ncan be gained by taking up the controversy anew. To some of his\ncontemporaries even, he was more or less of an enigma. Others, again,\nregarded him as a time-server, a hypocrite, a man whose professions were\nbelied by his actions. Still others,\u2014and they are largely in the\nmajority\u2014are more lenient in their judgment; though they cannot\nexculpate him from inconsistencies, they excuse them by pointing to the\nextremely difficult position in which he was placed during the greater\npart of his life. He has strong partisans who are attracted and charmed\nby the sublime sentiments scattered so profusely through his writings;\nhis enemies, in forming their opinions, lay the chief stress on what\nthey regard as the inexcusable deeds of his life. It is too late to add\nanything to the evidence either pro or contra. All that it is proposed\nto do in this essay is to place before the reader a picture of the man,\nmainly from his own writings, as the chief exponent of the highest\nphilosophy reached by the ancient world before this philosophy was\nsupplanted by the new religion that was destined to take its place in\nthe thought of mankind. Seneca was next to Cicero, or rather along with\nCicero, the most distinguished Roman philosopher; but as a philosopher\nhe has received the far greater share of attention. Both were Romans at\nheart; both were earnestly engaged in the search for the supreme good;\nboth were guilty of conduct inconsistent with their professions; both\ntried and tried in vain to combine a life devoted to reflection with\nwith an active career in the service of the state; and both failed. But\nSeneca not only had a higher ideal than Cicero; he also came nearer\nattaining it. He was less vain, less hungry for public honors and\napplause, and attached less importance to mere outward display. As a\nthinker Seneca has more originality than Cicero, is less dependent upon\nbooks, knows better the motives that underlie human conduct. Both were\nessentially Roman in their views of life, and it is only by keeping this\nin mind that we are able to explain, if not to excuse, the lack of\nharmony between what they said and what they did; between what they\npreached and what they practised.\n\nLike that of Cicero, Seneca\u2019s was no adamantine soul, no unyielding\nbarrier against which the vices of his time beat in vain. He had the\nRoman liking for what is practical. He tried to be a statesman and was\nsomewhat of a courtier when to be a courtier and an upright man was\nimpossible. He was no Socrates to whom virtue, the fundamentally and\nintrinsically right, was more important than anything else, than all\nelse, even abstention from the political turmoil of his time.\n\nWhen a long and acrimonious strife is carried on over a man it is\nevidence that he is no ordinary person. This has been the fate of Seneca\nin an eminent degree. During the Middle Ages, and even after their\nclose, a great deal of attention was paid to his reputed correspondence\nwith St. Paul. The National Library in Paris contains more than sixty\nMSS. of this pseudo-correspondence. That he was claimed as a Christian\nneed surprise no one. The poet Virgil shared a similar fate; yet there\nis far less in the writings of Virgil to mark him a Christian, or rather\nas a writer who was in a sense divinely inspired, than there is in\nSeneca to stamp him as a man who had accepted the new faith. The rise\nand persistence of such a literature is not an anomaly in the history of\nthought. It is not out of harmony with the spirit of an age when the\nchurch was supreme in everything; when all questions were viewed from\nthe theological standpoint, and when every means were employed to gain\nsupport for the existing ecclesiastical organization. It was honestly\nbelieved that the practice or profession of a high morality, except\nunder the sanction and guidance of the church, was impossible. It was\ntaken as a matter of course, that a good man, one who eloquently\npreached righteousness, who seemed to be conscious of a struggle within\nhimself between the flesh[2] and the spirit, must have been enlightened\nfrom on high. Given the internal evidence of Seneca\u2019s own writings, it\nwas not difficult to supply the complementary external testimony.\n\nThis all-embracing and all-absorbing power of the church lasted about a\nthousand years and ended with the Reformation, though it had begun to\ndecline some two centuries earlier. For this condition of things the\nRoman empire had prepared the way. It was the prototype to which, in\npart unconsciously and in part consciously, ecclesiastical authority was\nmade to conform. Notwithstanding the fact that the Gospel was first\nwidely proclaimed in Greek lands and the body of its doctrine formulated\nin the Greek tongue, when the church began to aspire to universal\ndominion it naturally assumed the garb of Roman secular authority. The\nEastern Empire was regarded as an offshoot from, rather than as a\ncontinuation of, the empire that had so long ruled the world from the\ngreat city on the banks of the Tiber. The natural consequence was that\nthe Latin language in time supplanted the Greek, and ecclesiastical\nthought flowed in the channels worn by the political thought that had\npreceded it. The struggle in later times for the supremacy of the state\nas against the church was merely the effort to return to a condition of\nthings that had existed before the establishment of the church. The\nGreeks were not less patriotic than the Romans. The state occupied just\nas prominent a place in their minds as it did in the minds of the\nRomans. But it was their misfortune to appear upon the scene of history,\nbroken up into a large number of small polities of nearly equal\nstrength, and the Greek mind never got beyond the particularism thus\ninherited. It was their fundamental concept of government. Rome\nrepresented a more advanced type of political development than Greece,\nand if it had been permitted to work out its own salvation without\nexternal interference,\u2014for the city at its worst was hardly more corrupt\nthan many a modern capital\u2014it might be in existence to-day. The Roman\nempire endured so long because it was upheld by the patriotism of its\ncitizens. This was often narrowly selfish, and frequently grossly unjust\nto foreigners, but it was effectual in maintaining the supremacy of Rome\nagainst all attempts from within or without to subvert it. The Romans\nthat were drawn toward philosophy pursued it in a half-hearted manner\nbecause the state occupied the first place in their minds. To serve the\nstate was the ultimate goal of their ambition. The emperors, even the\nmost corrupt, still represented the government and as such received the\nhomage of good men. If we keep this fact in mind we shall be able to\nunderstand the bravery and devotion to duty of many of the officers and\neven soldiers in the imperial forces. More or less out of reach of the\ncontaminating influences that were so powerful in the capital, they\nperformed the services expected of them as became Romans.\n\nLong, long afterward, and when Rome was nominally a Christian city, a\nGerman monk left its walls as he was returning to his northern home, a\nfar less zealous churchman than he had entered it. Strange coincidence!\nThe city that had become the head of a spiritual empire was no less\ncorrupt and corrupting than it had been as the head of a temporal\nempire. More than sixteen centuries of experience, some of it of the\nbitterest kind, had wrought no perceptible change. The Christian\nfollowed in the footsteps of the heathen.\n\nFor us who have been brought up in the belief that morality and right\nand justice have a claim to our services for their own sake, without\naccessory support and under all circumstances, the devotion of the Roman\nto his government, even the most unworthy, is not easy to understand.\nRome owed her greatness more to the bravery of her citizens in war than\nto any other cause. To this virtue they always accorded the foremost\nplace, and to those who displayed it, the highest honors the state could\nbestow.\n\nBut Seneca was a man of peace. This fact had without doubt something to\ndo in producing the unfavorable estimate some of his contemporaries\nformed of him. Tacitus, too, was not a military man; yet he looks with a\ncertain disdain upon those who devoted themselves to the arts of peace\nrather than to the profession of arms. He regards with less favor the\nman who has wisely administered a province than him who had extended the\nboundaries of the empire.\n\nWe naturally incline to the opinion that no man who respected himself\ncould accept service under such a ruler as Nero, or Caligula, or\nDomitian, unless it were in the hope that he might mitigate a ferocious\ntemper or avert calamity from personal friends. And yet, many tyrants\nsince the dissolution of the Roman empire have been served by honorable\nmen; and they have usually requited their services in the same way, with\nexile, or confiscation of goods, or an ignominious death.\n\nThe readiness with which many of the best Romans resorted to\nself-destruction as a release from misfortune strikes us with surprise.\nSuicide is often mentioned in the writings of Seneca, and always with\napproval. It is not hard to understand this attitude of mind if we\nrecollect the relation the Roman regarded as existing between himself\nand the state. The government was in a sense a part of himself, and an\nessential part. To the Greek there was still something worth living for\nafter the loss of country and citizenship. He could devote himself to\nliterature, or philosophy, or to some more ignoble means of gaining a\nlivelihood. To the Roman such a thing was well-nigh impossible,\nespecially if he was a member of one of the ruling families. Exile,\nexclusion from service in the state, was to him the end of every thing.\nMany Romans of whom one would have expected better things are\ninconsolable so long as they are compelled to live away from the capital\nwith no certain prospect of return. Need we wonder that to many others\nlife was no longer worth living, and that they freely put an end to it\nwith their own hand. Often the best men sought surcease of sorrow in\nthis unnatural way. Those in whom the moral sense was weak, plunged\nrecklessly into debauchery and sensual gratification. Literature, too,\nwas corrupted to minister to their corrupt tastes. We know little of the\nlife of the average Roman citizen; but there is sufficient evidence\nwithin reach of the modern reader to prove that the ruling class had few\nredeeming traits. The downward tendency is plainly discernible in the\nlast days of the Republic. Julius and Augustus C\u00e6sar were men of\ndepraved appetites and low morals. Their talents as military captains\nand administrators, their patronage of letters, and their tastes as\nliterary men, have somewhat put their moral delinquencies into the\nbackground. There is no doubt that the example of these and such men,\naccelerated the evil propensities to which the Roman people were only\ntoo prone. When the lowest depth of moral degradation was reached, as in\nthe declining years of Seneca, crime and debauchery held high carnival\nin the imperial household. There was no wickedness so flagrant, no\nspecies of immorality so bestial, no deed so horrible, that men shrank\nfrom it. For, had they not more than once the example of the prince\nhimself? It is sometimes charitably said that Nero was insane. There are\nmen who think it too degrading to human nature to hold it responsible\nfor his crimes and indecencies. Yet Nero\u2019s excesses were the natural\nresults of unlimited power in irresponsible hands, when the hands were\nservants of a heart that was thoroughly corrupt, and a character that\nwas weak, and vain as it was weak. The same things have often been\nrepeated within the last eighteen hundred years; but never was vice so\nrampant and so unblushing, on such a large scale, as it was in Rome in\nthe days of Seneca.\n\nWe must not believe, however, that there was no decency, no regard for\nmorality, no love of culture, to be found in the Roman empire even in\nits worst estate. There were always groups and coteries of noble men and\nwomen who kept themselves free from the prevailing corruption. There was\nalways a saving remnant that remained uncontaminated. Quintillian was\nthe center of such a group, and what he was in Rome, Plutarch was in\nanother part of the empire, for they were almost exactly contemporaries.\nThe belief in God, in the immortality of the human soul, and in man\u2019s\npersonal responsibility to a higher power, kept some, perhaps many, who\nwere not directly under the degrading influence of the court, or who had\nthe moral strength to resist it, from deviating very far from the path\nof rectitude. There were slaves of whom better things could be said than\nof their masters. But what were these among so many?\n\nSeneca and other writers of his time frequently express contempt for\nthose men who professed to be philosophers, and whose lives brought only\ndisgrace upon the fair name of philosophy. He does not seem to be aware\nthat, in a measure at least, he is recording an unfavorable verdict upon\nhimself. Does he think that his abstemiousness, his untiring industry,\nhis devotion to study ought to cover his shortcomings? It looks so. He\ncommends solitude, yet always remained in the noonday of publicity. He\ninveighs against riches, yet was the possessor of vast estates, and was\nnot above lending money at usurious rates of interest. He teaches men to\nbear with fortitude the inevitable ills of life, and ends by commending\nsuicide as a final resort. Compared with Socrates, to cite but a single\nname, Seneca was a very unworthy exponent of practical philosophy. The\nformer took philosophy seriously, so seriously that he not only wanted\nto live for it but was willing to die for it. He kept aloof from\npolitics because he felt that a public career would interfere with a\nduty he owed to a higher power. He, too, believed in a Providence, but\nwith him this belief amounted to a conviction. All his reported words\nand deeds testify to this, while Seneca acts and writes as if trying to\nconvince himself quite as much as others. Socrates had an abiding faith\nin a personal God who not only watched over his life, but cared for him\nin death. Duty was to him a thing of such supreme importance that he\nnever hesitated to perform it, no matter what the consequences to\nhimself might be. Socrates taught nothing he did not himself practice;\nSeneca, much. Socrates feared neither God nor man; Seneca was afraid of\nboth. Socrates expected nothing of others that he did not exact of\nhimself; Seneca sets up a higher standard of morals than he, under all\ncircumstances, attained. His precepts are better than his practice. His\nfatal mistake lay in trying to do two things that have always been found\nincompatible: to be a successful politician and an upright man. There\nwere others besides Socrates, before the days of Seneca, in whose life\nand character philosophy had had more consistent exponents and faithful\ndevotees than in him. But when they found that philosophy and a career\nin the service of the state were incompatible and reciprocally\nexclusive, they unhesitatingly gave up the latter. Seneca can always\nadmire high ideals, but he cannot always imitate them. He is fascinated\nwhen he gazes on the lofty heights to which virtue had sometimes\nattained, and he often makes heroic efforts to follow after; but he is\nonly now and then successful. It is no wonder, then, that Socrates had\neven in his lifetime many ardent admirers and enthusiastic disciples\nthat remained true to his memory, while Seneca had none.\n\nCanon Farrar is mistaken when he calls Seneca a \u201cseeker after God.\u201d God\nwas in no man\u2019s thoughts oftener than in his. Nor has any uninspired\nwriter given utterance to a larger number of noble sentiments and lofty\nprecepts than he. It is easy to extract from his writings a complete\ncode of morals, a breviary of human conduct, that would differ but\nlittle from that contained in the New Testament. He is a conspicuous\nexample of the heathen of whom Paul says, they are without excuse. But\nwhile Seneca is not a seeker after God he can with justice be called a\nseeker after Christ. He is an earnest inquirer after the peace that\npasseth understanding; after that serene confidence that sustained the\ngreatest and the least of the Apostles, and the noble army of martyrs no\nless. He lacks that Christian enthusiasm that comes only through faith\nin a living Christ and in His atonement.\n\nSeneca now and then caught a glimpse of that universal kingdom which the\ncompany of believers expected would one day be established upon the\nearth. He says, \u201cNo one can lead a happy life who thinks only of himself\nand turns everything to his own use. If you would live for yourself, you\nmust live for others. This bond of fellowship must be diligently and\nsacredly guarded,\u2014the bond that unites us all to all and shows to us\nthat there is a right common to all nations which ought to be the more\nsacredly cherished because it leads to that intimate friendship of which\nwe were speaking.\u201d\n\nIt is hard to see how he could write the following striking passage\nwithout thinking of himself; for, though guiltless of some of the vices\nhe condemns, there are others of which he cannot be acquitted. After\ndefining philosophy as nothing else than the right way of living, or the\nscience of living honorably, or the art of passing a good life, and\ndenouncing the fraudulent professors of it, he proceeds: \u201cMany of the\nphilosophers are of this description, eloquent to their own\ncondemnation; for if you hear them arguing against avarice, against lust\nand ambition, you would think they were making a public disclosure of\ntheir own character, so entirely do the censures which they utter in\npublic flow back upon themselves; so that it is right to regard them in\nno other light than as physicians whose advertisements contain medicine,\nbut their medicine-chests, poison. Some are not ashamed of their vices;\nbut they invent defenses for their own baseness, so that they may even\nappear to sin with honor.\u201d\n\nTo the same effect is the testimony of Nepos: \u201cSo far am I from thinking\nthat philosophy is the teacher of life and the completer of happiness,\nthat I consider that none have greater need of teachers of living than\nmany who are engaged in the discussion of this subject. For I see that a\ngreat part of those who give most elaborate precepts in their school\nrespecting modesty and self-restraint, live at the same time in the\nunrestrained desires of all lusts.\u201d\n\nBoth Seneca and Plutarch are firmly convinced that man is the arbiter of\nhis own happiness; but the former found great difficulty in making a\npractical application of the doctrine to his own case. Notwithstanding\nthe sorry spectacle presented to the world by many professed\nphilosophers, neither lost faith in philosophy. It was the court of last\nresort. For the man to whom philosophy will not bring happiness there is\nno happiness in this world. To the importance and benign influence of\nthis culture of mind, Seneca reverts again and again. He contends that\n\u201cHe who frequents the school of a philosopher ought every day to carry\naway with him something that will be to his profit: he ought to return\nhome a wiser man. And he will so return, for such is the power of\nphilosophy that it not only benefits those who devote themselves to it,\nbut even those who talk about it.\u201d \u201cYou must change yourself, not your\nabode. You may cross the sea, or as our Virgil says, \u2018Lands and cities\nmay vanish from sight, yet wherever you go your vices will follow you.\u2019\nWhen a certain person made the same complaint to Socrates that you make,\nhe answered, \u2018Why are you surprised that your travels do you no good,\nwhen you take yourself with you everywhere?\u2019 If we could look into the\nmind of a good man, what a beautiful vision, what purity, we should\nbehold beaming forth from its placid depths! Here justice, there\nfortitude; here self-control, there prudence. Besides these, sobriety,\ncontinence, frankness and kindliness, and (who would believe it?)\nhumaneness, that rare trait in man, shed their luster over him.\u201d\n\nThough Seneca\u2019s life was full of contradictions and inconsistencies when\nmeasured by the standard of his own writings, it would be unjust to\ncharge him with hypocrisy. He was, within certain limits, a man of\nmoods; a man in whose mind conflicting desires were continually striving\nfor the mastery. It seems to have been a hard matter for him to attain\nsettled convictions on a number of important questions. Even the\nimmortality of the soul, a subject upon which he has much to say, and\nwhich to Plutarch is an incontestable dogma, is to Seneca hardly more\nthan a hope. His mind matured early and there is almost no evidence of\ndevelopment or change of views or of style in his writings. He was such\na man as nature made him, and he was on the whole pretty well satisfied\nwith the product. Though he now and then seems to be conscious of a\ncertain lack of constancy, and on the point of confessing his sins, he\ngenerally ends by excusing them or by trying to show that they are\nvenial. Yet the fact that he at times acknowledges a kind of moral\nweakness is perhaps the chief reason why Seneca has been so often\nclaimed as a Christian, while no such claim has ever been made for\nPlutarch who sees no defects either in himself or his doctrine.\n\nThe chief problem of philosophy has at all times been, how to make the\njudgment supreme in all matters that present themselves before the mind\nand how to make the will carry out the decisions of the critical\nfaculty. When the poet says, \u201cVideo meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor,\u201d\nhe is thinking of this irrepressible conflict. Paul himself was not a\nstranger to it, for he exclaims in a moment of self-abasement when\nwriting to Seneca\u2019s fellow citizens, \u201cThe good which I would, I do not;\nbut the evil which I would not, that I practice.\u201d He, too, finds within\nhimself a \u201claw,\u201d a fact of human experience, that the flesh wars against\nthe spirit; that the appetencies are hard to reconcile with the\njudgment. Seneca\u2019s own writings furnish abundant evidence that many who\nprofessed to be philosophers used their intellects solely, or chiefly,\nin devising means for gratifying their desires. To men of his way of\nthinking the Epicureans were a constant object of attack; yet the\nEpicureans were generally consistent from their point of view and in\naccordance with the postulates of their system. The all-important\nquestion with every man who is in the habit of giving an account to\nhimself of his life is how to get the most out of it,\u2014how to formulate a\nsystem of complete living. If the individual is the goal, considered\nsolely from the standpoint of his earthly life, it is evident that he\nwill act differently in the same circumstances from him whose aim is the\ngood of society considered as an undying entity, or the happiness of the\nindividual regarded as an immortal soul. The disagreements of\nphilosophers have always hinged on these fundamental problems and it is\nstrange that so little note has been made of them. It is too often taken\nfor granted that the mere use of the reasoning faculties, that is,\nphilosophy _per se_, and without reference to the highest good, is able\nto make men as nearly perfect as they can become in this life, both as\nindividuals and as members of the community. It was the conviction that\nphilosophy had run its course; that it was \u201cplayed out,\u201d\u2014to use a phrase\nmore expressive than elegant\u2014that made so many of the best men, in the\nfirst Christian centuries, turn from it and seek refuge in Christianity.\nThey had become weary of the ceaseless and acrimonious discussions of\nthe different philosophical schools. Disgusted with contradictions and\ninconsistencies, they turned to the Gospel as offering a solution of\nproblems at which so many acute thinkers had labored for centuries in\nvain.\n\nIt has often been remarked that the Roman world had grown old. Every\nexperiment had been tried, every theory had been suggested that might\nlead to complete living; all had ended in failure and disappointment for\nthose who had the good of their fellow men at heart. He who would\nperform a successful experiment in physics or chemistry must see to it\nthat all the necessary conditions have been provided. If this is not\ndone, no amount of care in manipulation will bring about the desired\nresult. The mere presence of the proper ingredients, however pure, will\nnot insure success. So in society, the existence and vitality of social\nforces will avail the reformer in no wise unless he knows how to put a\nmotive force into men\u2019s minds and hearts that will induce them to aid\nhim in bringing about the changes he proposes. Some good men have been\nmade so by a noble system of philosophy, to the practical\nexemplification of which they have devoted their lives. Both Greece and\nRome furnished not a few such. On the other hand there have been many\nbad men who were made so by following the tenets of a vicious\nphilosophy.\n\nThere are two reasons why Seneca has, for more than eighteen hundred\nyears, engaged the attention of thinking men. No doubt the most\nimportant is his extraordinary ability. The world will not willingly\nforget the words of a great man, nor suffer his life to pass into\noblivion. It clings to thoughts and deeds that are worthy to survive.\nSeneca not only had something to say that men wanted to hear, but he\nknew how to say it in such a way that they were glad to listen. Great as\nhas been the evil in the world at all times it has never lacked many men\nwho felt that they were made for something better than the daily\nconcerns that occupied their time and labor. In their better moments\nthey found pleasure in listening to the voices that spoke to them of\nsomething more abiding than the fleeting affairs of this transitory\nlife.\n\nSeneca, too, was intensely human. He frequently furnishes evidence of\nextraordinary mental strength while now and then he sinks down in sheer\nexhaustion. His mind ranges freely along the whole scale of mental\nexperiences; and though he dwell, longest on the higher parts, he does\nnot always do so. The record of such an experience has an attraction for\nmany men. They see in it a counterpart of their own struggles, and are\nrarely without hope that its triumphs may be an earnest of their own.\n\nThe scholar in politics is a character of whom we hear a good deal, but\nas a matter of fact, scholarship, in the true sense of the word, and\nsuccessful politics, as the world understands success, are a combination\nthat has rarely been made. Again, an ecclesiastical statesman, strictly\nspeaking, is an equally rare phenomenon and has been since the days of\nthe supremacy of the Romish church. The greater the success of the\necclesiastic in statecraft, the farther he departed from the\nprescriptions of the church, or at least of the Gospel. How often has\nthe experience of Wolsey been anticipated or repeated; and many men,\nboth laics and priests, have felt the truth of Shakespeare\u2019s thoughts,\nif they have not expressed them in his words:\n\n                \u201cHad I but served my God with half the zeal\n                I served my king, he would not in mine age\n                Have left me naked to mine enemies.\u201d\n\nWe still hope to find a place for the scholar in politics, but we have\ngiven up the search so far as the ecclesiastic is concerned. Yet in\nSeneca we have a man who had mastered all the knowledge of his time; who\nwas by no means an unsuccessful preacher of righteousness, and who,\nnevertheless, was a successful courtier and statesman during part of his\nlife. He might have been both to the ending of his days in peace, had it\nnot been his fate to serve one of the worst rulers that ever lived. The\nsecret of his undying fame then is his ability and his whilom position\nat the court that ruled the greatest empire of the world. It is probable\nthat the cause of his exile, at an age when he had as yet not written\nvery much, so far as we know, was his prominence in a way that was\ndistasteful to the emperor Claudius. While there was nothing in his past\nlife or present conduct to justify putting him to death, his removal\nfrom Rome seemed desirable to the reigning monarch and his most\ninfluential advisers. But even in exile Seneca was not a man calmly to\npermit his enemies to forget him; nor would his friends suffer him to be\nforgotten.\n\nNotwithstanding his sudden elevation to a position of great importance\nin the empire, he seems never to have lost sight of the fact that he was\nstanding on the edge of a precipice from which he might be thrust at any\nmoment, and that he still had need of all the consolation his philosophy\ncould afford. Boissier rightly says, \u201cThough praetor and consul he\nremained not the less a sage who gives instruction to his age; while he\nwas governing the Romans he preached virtue to them.\u201d And he might have\nadded, \u201cto himself,\u201d for it is evident from many passages in his works\nthat he had himself in view no less than others. He strove to fortify\nhis own soul against temptations by giving expression to the tenets of\nhis philosophy, just as men find relief in sorrow by recording the\nthoughts that pass through their minds. We may be certain, too, that to\nhis contemporaries his speech often sounded bolder and freer than to us\nwith our inadequate knowledge of the inner life of the Roman\ncourt-circle, and accustomed as we are to the freedom of criticism to\nwhich all our public characters, not excepting sovereigns, are subject.\nThey doubtless saw in many of his pithy sayings, allusions, whether\nalways intentional or not, does not matter, to occurrences to which we\nno longer have the key. And we may be sure that he was not without an\nabundance of enemies and detractors. A few of these have left themselves\non record for us. There were, doubtless, also many persons who were wont\nto sneer at the man who professed to find the highest good in a\ncontemplative life; in devotion to an ideal that differed so widely from\nthe reality in which he lived; and who could yet maintain his influence\nat a court of which little that was good could be said. Every society\ncontains a certain number of members who regard all who endeavor to lead\na better life than they themselves do, or whose ideals are higher than\ntheir own, as offering a sort of personal challenge or directing a\nrebuke at them which they must needs resent. Seneca was himself\nconscious that his life and professions were sometimes irreconcilable.\nHe says: \u201cTo the student who professes his wish and hope to rise to a\nloftier grade of virtue, I would answer that this is my wish also, but I\ndare not hope it. I am preoccupied with vices. All I require of myself\nis, not to be equal to the best, but only to be better than the bad.\u201d\n\nOn the much-debated question of Seneca\u2019s responsibility for the vices of\nNero, Merivale is probably right in saying that he must soon have become\naware that it was impossible to make even a reasonably virtuous man out\nof his pupil. Under such circumstances it was natural for him to\nconclude that the best thing to be done was to allow the youth to\nindulge in private vices in order to keep him from injuring others. The\nmorality he impressed upon Nero, the modern writer sums up in these\nwords: \u201cBe courteous and moderate; shun cruelty and rapine; abstain from\nblood; compensate yourself with the pleasures of youth without\ncompunction; amuse yourself, but hurt no man.\u201d This principle was a\ndangerous one, as we now know; but it is easy to be wise after the\nevent. A philosopher ought to have known that it is never safe to make a\ncompromise with vice. Our philosopher did not know it, or, knowing it,\nwas willing to take the risk.\n\nIt is doubtless some of his detractors that he has in mind in his\ndefense of riches. He can see no harm in large possessions when they\nhave been honestly, or at least lawfully, acquired and are properly\nused. It may help us to understand his attitude in this matter if we\ncompare it with that of some of the ministers of our own day, and with\nsome of the ecclesiastical dignitaries of the past. Seneca\u2019s philosophy\ndid not come to him as a divine command. It was the fruit of his own\ncogitation in the search for the supreme good. But there are men in our\nday, as there have always been, who are not only members of the church\nbut preachers of the Gospel, who are both rich themselves and apologists\nof the rich. Yet they profess to be followers of the Son of God; of Him\nwho taught that it is exceedingly difficult for a rich man to enter the\nkingdom of heaven. Seneca did not profess to seek this kingdom. His\nsearch was after the kingdom of earthly felicity, and he could not see\nwhy riches should be an obstacle to his entering it.\n\nSeneca was a good exemplar of the truth of a saying quoted by Xenophon\nin his Memorabilia of Socrates to the effect that even an upright man is\nsometimes good, sometimes bad. His writings convey the impression that\ntheir author is always under stress. The philosophical composure of\nwhich he has much to say, is an aspiration and a hope, not a fruition.\nWhen he speaks of the passions he sees them in their intensity. He seems\nto regard all men as either very good or very bad, and finds the latter\nclass to include the great body of mankind. He fails to realize that the\nmajority belong to neither extreme. The theater on which he saw the game\nof life played probably never had its counterpart in the world. He\nstands at one extreme and Plutarch at the other, just as the social\ncircle in which each moved and knew best is the antipode of the other.\nBoth looked too intently and exclusively upon the merely external.\nThough Plutarch judges the average man more correctly, neither possessed\nsufficient penetration of intellect to fathom all the passions that\ndominate or agitate the soul. Plutarch was most familiar with the man\nwho is concerned with the ordinary affairs of life; Seneca knew best the\ncorrupt crowd that sought to ingratiate itself into the favor of those\nwho controlled the destinies of all about them, and, in a measure, of\nthe entire world. Both were much in the public eye, but the public was a\nwidely different one. Plutarch sought to make an impression by the arts\nof persuasion alone; Seneca, by all the arts that are within the power\nof a resourceful intellect. How much he was in the public eye is evident\nfrom the statement of Tacitus that his last words were written down and\nat once made public. His friends no less than his enemies desired this:\nhis enemies, because they were eagerly watching for a final opportunity\nto prove that this famous preacher of an exalted philosophy would, after\nall, prove to be nothing more than a maker of fine phrases when the\ncrucial test came; his friends, in order to furnish indubitable evidence\nthat he had been true to his teachings to the end.\n\nIt is a noteworthy fact that should always be kept in mind in the study\nof the writings of the ancients, and the career of their statesmen, that\nthere existed no universal conscience to which men could appeal. Even\nthe separate states were without any considerable party among their\ncitizens who shared the conviction that there exist eternal principles\nof justice that demand the recognition of rights for all living beings,\nfor slaves as well as for brutes, whether they are in position to\nenforce these rights or not. There was an interminable struggle of class\nwith class, each striving to wrest from the other the privileges they\nwithheld as long as they could, and finally granted only so far as they\ncould no longer be withheld. The political economy of the ancients did\nnot concern itself with making the public burdens bear as lightly as\npossible on each member of the body politic, and compelling even the\nmost refractory to contribute their share; the problem was almost\ninvariably how to raise the largest amount of public revenue. Only a\npart,\u2014often but a small part, especially under the later republic\u2014found\nits way into the imperial fisc. Most of it flowed into the coffers of\nthe farmers of the revenue, and for this reason their representatives,\nthe publicans or tax-gatherers, were so thoroughly detested. Their\nrelation to the citizens was entirely different from the modern officers\nof the government who perform the same functions. Every privilege or\nalleviation granted by the governing class was usually wrung from it by\nforce or threats on the part of the subject. Generally speaking, the\nempire was more lenient than the republic because the emperors needed\nthe support of the mass of their subjects against the turbulent and\navaricious nobility. The spirit of altruism that is such a powerful\nforce in our day is of very modern growth. It was introduced into the\nworld by Christianity, but its development was not rapid. Sociology as a\nscientific term is but little older than the present generation; nor\ndoes the study of political economy as a science extend far into the\nlast century. That remarkable people, the Jews, have from time\nimmemorial recognized the claims of a brother in the faith, upon every\nother, for aid and sympathy. Their voluntary contributions for the\nmaintenance of the temple at Jerusalem and its ritual, no matter how\nwidely scattered they might be, is the earliest indication of a spirit\nof altruism, the recognition of an obligation that was coextensive with\nthe faith. The Jews, however, made but a faint impression upon the\nthought of antiquity. This is evident from the way they are treated by\nGreek writers without exception. They were perhaps never more numerous\nor more influential than during the last two or three centuries B. C.\nand the first century after Christ, until the destruction of Jerusalem.\nYet Plutarch, who was the most widely read man of his time, and who\nmight easily have obtained his knowledge of their doctrines almost at\nfirst hand from the Septuagint, does not show in a single line that he\never thought this knowledge worth the trouble. When he mentions the Jews\nit is only to disparage them, and to betray the grossest ignorance of\ntheir religion and their nationality. The same is true of Seneca and the\nother Roman writers. Tacitus, who professes to give an account of their\norigin and of some of the tenets of their religion, shamefully\nmisrepresents both, while he holds the people up to the scorn of his\ncountrymen. So little are the most intelligent men often aware of the\noccult forces at work in the world, and so ready are they to pour\ncontempt upon everything that does not accord with their preconceived\nopinions!\n\nThe early Christians, as is well known, were reluctant to believe that\nthe new doctrines were intended for Gentiles as well as Jews. Both the\nNew Testament and some of the church fathers testify to this fact.\nMerivale makes it clear that Tertullian believed that Christianity must\nalways, to some extent, stand apart from the ordinary march of events,\nand that the true faith could only be held by a chosen few. He does not\nintend his words to be understood in their spiritual significance, that\nmany are called but few chosen, and he makes this plain by adding that\nthe Roman emperors might themselves have been Christians, if governments\ncould become Christian; in other words \u201cmankind in general were equally\nincapable of moral renovation and spiritual conversion.\u201d\n\nThough Seneca was, during almost his whole life in the public eye and\nlived amid the toil and turbulence of the busiest city in the world, he\nprofessed a distaste for crowds. He tries to dissuade those who value\ntheir peace of mind, but especially those who are truly devoted to\nphilosophy, from seeking popular applause. He loves to be the center of\na circle of choice spirits, to associate on intimate terms with men of\nlike aims and tastes with his own. It is almost exclusively against the\nvices of the rich and the great that he declaims. Only in \u201cgood society\u201d\nis he at home; in fact he seems to know no other, has nothing in common\nwith any other. He is profoundly ignorant, with Plutarch, of the fact\nthat society cannot be reformed from the top or from within. Yet the\nrefinements of luxury are hateful to him, and from boyhood to the end of\nhis days he lived a frugal life.\n\nHow easy it is for Seneca to talk, to express himself in words whether\nwith tongue or pen, becomes evident not only from a glance at the\nsubjects upon which he writes, some of which are of the same tenor with\nthose discussed by his equally fluent predecessor, Cicero, but from his\nown direct testimony. At the beginning of the Fifth Book on Benefits he\ntells his readers that he has virtually exhausted the subject. Yet he\nruns on through three more Books, apparently for no other reason than\nbecause he finds pleasure in discussing every question that has the\nremotest connection with the main theme. The result is that the portion\nwhich he considers irrelevant is almost as long as the treatise proper.\n\nI have once or twice in the present essay, touched upon the most\nprominent feature of the Roman character, but the phenomenon is so\nimportant, contributes so much to a proper estimate of the career of\nSeneca, and goes so far toward reconciling the apparent or real\ninconsistencies between his life and his doctrines, between his words\nand his deeds, that it is necessary to dwell upon the point at greater\nlength. The Romans were, above everything else, men of the world; men\nwho laid the greatest possible stress on practical activity in the\nservice of the state; men who were wholly out of their sphere when this\noutlet for their energies was closed to them. Greece gave birth to many\nindividuals who lived entirely, or at least chiefly, in the realm of\ntheir thoughts; or as Jean Paul says of the Germans, the air was their\ndomain. The precincts of abstract speculation lay in a region never\nentered by a Roman. A few trod the outer courts under the guidance of\nGreeks, but not one ever penetrated farther. The Romans had no\nliterature of their own, no music, no pictorial or plastic arts, no\narchitecture. Though so long under the intellectual tutelage of Greece,\ntheir taste was not refined, nor was a genuine love of culture inherent\nin the nation. It saw no use for these things because they were not\npractical; could not be employed in the service of the government. The\noccasional efforts of the emperors and of some of the leading families\nto elevate the national taste produced but meager results. Such being\nthe case, what was there for the average Roman to do when he had become\nrich, or had no public duty to perform, and wanted to \u201chave a good\ntime\u201d? There is abundant evidence within our reach to enable us to\nanswer this question. He plunged headlong into debaucheries so shameful\nthat the modern pen shrinks from describing them, and the mind from\ncontemplating them. Fortunes were sometimes spent on a single banquet.\nThe Roman baths ministered equally to luxury and licentiousness. In\nshort, it seems as if all the ingenuity of the empire had at times been\nexerted to the utmost to devise new methods of sensual gratification.\n\nBut he could not indulge incessantly in bacchanalian orgies; the jaded\nbody needed some relaxative that could be found neither in sleep nor in\nsuch business that could not be delegated to a subordinate. There he\nregaled himself with the sight of blood. The huge structures erected for\nthe gladiatorial combats testify to the Roman passion for these cruel\nsports. Every living creature that could be induced to fight was\nexhibited in the arena where men and women took equal delight in the\nbloody spectacle. Lecky, in his History of European Morals, sets forth\nin graphic colors the pomp and circumstance with which these horrible\nexhibitions were given. I cannot do better than to transcribe his words:\n\u201cThe gladiatorial games form, indeed, the one feature of Roman society\nwhich to a modern mind is almost inconceivable in its atrocity. That not\nonly men, but women, in an advanced period of civilization\u2014men and women\nwho not only professed, but very frequently acted upon, a high code of\nmorals\u2014should have made the carnage of men their habitual amusement;\nthat all this should have continued for centuries, with scarcely a\nprotest, is one of the most startling facts in moral history. It is,\nhowever, perfectly normal, and in no degree inconsistent with the\ndoctrine of natural moral perceptions, while it opens out fields of\nethical enquiry of a very deep, though painful interest.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe mere desire for novelty impelled the people to every excess or\nrefinement of barbarity. The simple combat became at last insipid, and\nevery variety of atrocity was devised to stimulate the flagging\ninterest. At one time a bear and a bull, chained together, rolled in\nfierce contest along the sand; at another, criminals dressed in the\nskins of wild beasts, were thrown to bulls, which were maddened by\nred-hot irons, or by darts tipped with burning pitch. Four hundred bears\nwere killed in a single day under Caligula; three hundred on another day\nunder Claudius. Under Nero, four hundred tigers fought with bulls and\nelephants; four hundred bears and three hundred lions were slaughtered\nby his soldiers. In a single day, at the dedication of the Colosseum by\nTitus, five thousand animals perished. Under Trajan, the games continued\nfor one hundred and twenty-three successive days. Lions, tigers,\nelephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, giraffes, bulls, stags, even\ncrocodiles and serpents, were employed to give novelty to the spectacle.\nNor was any form of human suffering wanting. The first Gordian, when\nedile, gave twelve spectacles, in each of which from one hundred and\nfifty to five hundred pair of gladiators appeared. Eight hundred pair\nfought at the triumph of Aurelian. Ten thousand men fought during the\ngames of Trajan. Nero illumined his gardens during the night by\nChristians burning in their pitchy shirts. Under Domitian, an army of\nfeeble dwarfs was compelled to fight, and more than once female\ngladiators descended to perish in the arena.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo intense was the craving for blood, that a prince was less unpopular\nif he neglected the distribution of corn than if he neglected the games;\nand Nero himself, on account of his munificence in this respect, was\nprobably the sovereign who was most beloved by the Roman multitude.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is well for us to look steadily on such facts as these. They display\nmore vividly than any mere philosophical disquisition the abyss of\ndepravity into which it is possible for human nature to sink. They\nfurnish us with striking proofs of the reality of the moral progress we\nhave attained, and they enable us in some degree to estimate the\nregenerating influence that Christianity has exercised in the world. For\nthe destruction of the gladiatorial games is all its work. Philosophers,\nindeed, might deplore them, gentle natures might shrink from their\ncontagion, but to the multitude they possessed a fascination which\nnothing but the new religion could overcome.\u201d\n\nHow deeply the virulent poison of inhumanity and the insatiable thirst\nfor blood had infected the Roman people is further evident, not only\nfrom the means employed to make these sanguinary spectacles as\nfascinating as possible, but also from the impress they made upon the\ncurrent phraseology. Lecky says further: \u201cNo pageant has ever combined\nmore powerful elements of attraction. The magnificent circus, the\ngorgeous dresses of the assembled court, the contagion of a passionate\nenthusiasm thrilling almost visibly through the mighty throng, the\nbreathless silence of expectation, the wild cheers bursting\nsimultaneously from eighty thousand tongues, and echoing to the\nfartherest outskirts of the city, the rapid alternations of the fray,\nthe deeds of splendid courage that were manifested, were all well fitted\nto entrance the imagination. The crimes and servitude of the gladiator\nwere for a time forgotten in the blaze of glory that surrounded him.\nRepresenting to the highest degree that courage which the Romans deemed\nthe first of virtues, the cynosure of countless eyes, the chief object\nof conversation in the metropolis of the universe, destined, if\nvictorious, to be immortalized in the mosaic and the sculpture, he not\nunfrequently rose to heroic grandeur.... Beautiful eyes, trembling with\npassion, looked down upon the fight, and the noblest ladies of Rome,\neven the empress herself, had been known to crave the victor\u2019s love. We\nread of gladiators lamenting that the games occurred so seldom,\ncomplaining bitterly if they were not permitted to descend into the\narena, scorning to fight except with the most powerful antagonists,\nlaughing aloud at their wounds when dressed, and at last, when prostrate\nin the dust, calmly turning their throats to the sword of the conqueror.\nThe enthusiasm that gathered round them was so intense that special laws\nwere found necessary, and were sometime insufficient, to prevent\npatricians from enlisting in their ranks, while the tranquil courage\nwith which they never failed to die, supplied the philosopher with his\nmost striking examples. The severe continence that was required before\nthe combat, contrasting vividly with the licentiousness of Roman life,\nhad even invested them with something of a moral dignity; and it is a\nsingularly suggestive fact, that, of all pagan characters, the gladiator\nwas selected by the fathers as the closest approximation to a Christian\nmodel. St. Augustine tells us how one of his friends, being drawn to the\nspectacle, endeavored by closing his eyes to guard against a fascination\nthat he knew to be sinful. A sudden cry caused him to break his\nresolution, and he never could withdraw his gaze again.\u201d\n\nThe Roman people clung with amazing tenacity to this gruesome sport.\nNero instituted, in a private way, games after the Grecian model, and\nHadrian made a similar effort on a larger scale; but the public took\nlittle interest in them while sturdy Romans protested against these\nHellenic corruptions.\n\nI have dwelt somewhat at length on this singular institution, both\nbecause it was peculiar to ancient Rome and because, above everything\nelse, it throws light on the character of its populace. It is true that\nmen of kindly natures like Virgil and Cicero condemned these atrocious\npastimes, or at least took no pleasure in them, but their influence\nproduced no effect on public opinion. Nothing that Seneca has written is\nmore to his credit than the vigorous language he employs in denunciation\nof the gladiatorial combats.\n\nA life devoted to study and speculation was to a Roman citizen\nimpossible. Cicero, who did more than any of his countrymen to\nnaturalize Greek philosophy on Roman soil through the medium of the\nLatin language, was a practical statesman. When forced to retire from\nthe service of the state he longed to return to its labors,\nnotwithstanding the dangers to be incurred. Livy and Virgil devoted\ntheir lives almost exclusively to the glorification of the past in\nextolling the heroes by whose toil, endurance, and self-sacrifice, the\nRome of their day had become what it was. Though in a sense living in\nretirement, their thoughts were none the less upon the state; their time\nand talents not the less devoted to its service. To a Roman the state\nembodied almost everything worth living for; asceticism was impossible\nfor him. Even when not actively engaged in public affairs he found\npleasure in observing, at close range, the machinery of government in\naction. He longed to live and move in the strife and turmoil of the\ncapital. We need not wonder that Ovid, in exile, was ready to submit\nwith cheerful alacrity to any moral indignity, and to humiliate himself\nin the dust before his emperor, would he but permit him to return to the\ncity which his spirit had never left. Seneca\u2019s conduct, when in\nbanishment, was even less to his credit than that of Ovid, inasmuch as\nhe professed to be governed by far higher principles. He thought he was\na philosopher, yet when compelled to live in Corsica where he had all\nhis time to devote to study and meditation, he was wretched in the\nextreme; belittled himself by the most degrading exhibition of\nservility; did not scruple to stoop to the most shameful falsehoods and\nthe most disgusting flattery in order to bring about his recall. His\nencomium on solitude, and his aversion to crowds, if they are anything\nmore than mere theory, are the result of larger experience and of deeper\ninsight into the human heart. Yet it is hardly open to doubt that he\ncould have gone into voluntary retirement at any period of his life,\nexcept perhaps near its close.\n\nIt has been said of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, that his mind was more\nGreek than Roman. While it is true that he loved philosophy, and studied\nit daily, he did so in the belief that in this way he could the better\nprepare his mind and heart to perform the duties which his exalted\nstation imposed upon him. He seems never to have seriously entertained\nthe thought that it was in his power at all times to lay down his\nofficial burdens in order to follow his natural inclinations. His\nhighest ideal of virtue was to cultivate and strengthen his sense of\nduty; but this duty was primarily political.\n\nThere is little doubt that the conspicuous place occupied by the state\nin the mind of every Roman citizen prepared the way for the deification\nof the emperors, a form of adulation that in the course of time wrought\nuntold mischief, and led to the most abject servility on the part of men\nof whom one would have expected better things. Baumgarten devotes many\npages to a discussion of this curious feature of Roman politics. In the\nnature of the case this deification had no regard whatever to the\npersonal character of the sovereign. It elevated him to the skies,\nsolely as the personification of the largest possible power entrusted to\na mortal. When in the course of time all the functions of the government\nwere concentrated in the hands of a single individual, it was natural\nthat he should become an object of worship, at least in a sense, even\nduring his lifetime, and as a matter of course placed among the gods at\nhis death. We shall find this transition easy if we consider further the\ncharacter of the gods of antiquity. They were not distinguished from\nmortals by higher attributes, but only by the possession of greater\npower. A god, in the popular estimation, was not necessarily any better\nthan a man\u2014he was only stronger. His good-will was to be gained and his\nill-will averted by precisely the same means that were employed in the\ncase of men. The Roman gods were, in a far larger measure than those of\nthe Greeks, personifications of abstract qualities. There was thus a\nwide scope for projecting into their character the salient traits of the\nworshiper.\n\nThe gods, then, being an abstraction, and the state being the mightiest\nvisible representation of human power, it required no great effort of\nthe imagination to regard its head as divine, in the sense which the\nRomans attached to the term. The unthinking multitude naturally fell in\nwith the ideas of their leaders, and even the better class of men rarely\nprotested because they considered the ceremony of little moment, or\nbecause protests would have been unavailing.\n\nStrangely, too, the belief in fate, in an inevitable destiny, did much\nto paralize the free action of many of the bravest men. The fate of the\nrepublic, the destiny of the Roman people, regarded as an immutable law\nof nature, the utter insignificance of the individual either expressed\nor implied, are ideas that figure prominently in the literature of\nancient Rome. It has been truly said that Rome attained its greatness\nwithout great men. Almost from its remotest beginnings it was like an\norganism in which each separate cell, though incapable of life by\nitself, performs its function as part of a whole and contributes to its\nlife and growth. In this case the cell, as we may designate each\nindividual moral entity, though conscious in a sense of a life apart,\nwas powerless to modify the whole organism.\n\nTo what extent the Roman emperors took their apotheosis seriously we\nhave scant means of knowing. It is well established that a few of them\nregarded it as a huge joke. But it is beyond question that on the great\nmass of the people it had a most deleterious effect. How could it be\notherwise, when some of them reached the lowest depths of degradation to\nwhich human nature could sink? When the monarch in his official capacity\nwas recognized not only as the political and military head of the\ngovernment but also its divine head, it is easy to imagine what the\neffect of such a recognition must be upon the average Roman, in\ncontracting his spiritual outlook. As long as the gods were mere\nabstract qualities, or even to some extent personal beings like those of\nthe Greeks, there was a sort of indistinctness in which they were veiled\nthat did not invite imitation. But a deified emperor was, or had been, a\ncreature of flesh and blood; no matter what he might do, there would be\nmany ready to tread in his footsteps, so far as they could. The\npernicious influence of the ancient mythology engaged the attention of\nthoughtful men from the remotest times. How much worse, then, would this\ninfluence be when the vilest that tradition reported of the gods was\nactually done by men in flesh and blood. \u201cLike priest, like people,\u201d is\na true saying even when both priest and people are pagans.\n\nAside from the restraints of religion, there is, in modern times, in all\ncivilized countries, a certain restraining influence exercised by public\nopinion that keeps the rich, who are inclined to a lax personal\nmorality, within reasonable bounds. But so far as we can discover, the\ninhibitive force of public opinion in Rome upon the individual in the\nmatter of ethics was very slight, especially under the empire. It is\nplain then where a debauched public sentiment placed no check upon any\nform of vice from without, and but few individuals yielded to moral\nrestraints from within, the condition of society was such that it could\nhardly have been worse.\n\nWe are sometimes inclined to wonder that so few protests were made by\nenlightened Romans against the deification of the emperors. The\nexplanation may be found in the prevailing rationalism of the age. To\nthe majority of those men one religion was just as good as another, and\nall religions were but forms of superstition. The persecutions directed\nagainst the early Christians were urged on the general ground that the\nfailure to follow the multitude was a mark of treason against the\ngovernment, and for this reason the best men were naturally the\ninstigators. To perform the religious functions enjoined by the state\nwas regarded as a mark of loyalty; to refuse, the badge of disloyalty.\nIt is not necessary to go back to ancient Rome and to heathen religions\nto find parallels for treating the externals of worship as matters of\nindifference, or for requiring the subject, under penalties, to conform\nto the creed of the sovereign.\n\nWhen we come to speak of the relation of Seneca to Christianity, but\nespecially of his conversion by St. Paul, a thesis laboriously defended\nby more than one modern writer, we cannot do better than to transcribe a\npassage from Merivale setting forth clearly the courses that led men\ninto a very natural error. After calling attention to the fact that both\nSeneca and Paul were moral reformers, he proceeds: \u201cThere is so much in\ntheir principles, so much even in their language, which agrees together,\nso that one has been thought, though it must be allowed without adequate\nreason, to have borrowed directly from the other. But the philosopher,\nbe it remembered, discoursed to a large and not inattentive audience,\nand surely the soil was not all unfruitful on which this seed was\nscattered, when he proclaimed that _God dwells not in temples of wood or\nstone, nor wants the ministration of human hands; that He has no delight\nin the blood of victims; that He is near to all His creatures; that His\nspirit resides in men\u2019s hearts; that all men are truly His offspring;\nthat we are members of one body, which is God or nature; that men must\nbelieve in God before they can approach Him; that the true service of\nGod is to be like unto Him; that all men have sinned, and none performed\nall the works of the law; that God is no respecter of nations, ranks, or\nconditions, but all, barbarian and Roman, bond and free, are alike under\nHis all-seeing providence._ St. Paul enjoined submission and obedience\neven to the tyranny of Nero, and Seneca fosters no ideas subversive of\npolitical subjection. Endurance is the paramount virtue of the Stoic. To\nforms of government the wise man was wholly indifferent; they were among\nthe external circumstances above which his spirit soared in serene\nself-contemplation. We trace in Seneca no yearning for a restoration of\npolitical freedom, nor does he ever point to the senate, after the\nmanner of the patriots of the day, as a legitimate check to the\nautocracy of the despot. The only mode, in his view, of tempering\ntyranny is to educate the tyrant himself in virtue. His was the\nself-denial of the Christians, but without their anticipated\ncompensation. It seems impossible to doubt that in his highest flights\nof rhetoric\u2014and no man ever recommended the unattainable with a finer\ngrace\u2014Seneca must have felt that he was laboring to build up a house\nwithout foundations; that his system, as Caius said of his style, was\nsand without lime. He was surely not unconscious of the inconsistency of\nhis own position, as a public man and a minister, with the theories to\nwhich he had wedded himself; and of the impossibility of preserving in\nit the purity of his character as a philosopher or a man. He was aware\nthat in the existing state of society at Rome, wealth was necessary to\nmen high in station; wealth alone could retain influence, and a poor\nminister became at once contemptible. Both Cicero and Seneca were men of\nmany weaknesses, and we remark them the more because both were\npretenders to unusual strength of character: but while Cicero lapsed\ninto political errors, Seneca cannot be absolved of actual crime.\nNevertheless, if we may compare the greatest masters of Roman wisdom\ntogether, the Stoic will appear, I think, the more earnest of the two,\nthe more anxious to do his duty for its own sake, the more sensible of\nthe claims of mankind upon him for such precepts of virtuous living as\nhe had to give. In an age of unbelief and compromise, he taught that\nTruth was positive and Virtue objective. He conceived, what never\nentered Cicero\u2019s mind, the idea of improving his fellow creatures; he\nhad, what Cicero had not, a heart for conversion to Christianity.\u201d\n\nNotwithstanding the many points of contact between the doctrines of the\nNew Testament and the teachings of Seneca, no competent judge now holds\nthat he was a Christian. The wonder is that there should ever have\narisen any serious controversy on the subject. The very fact that\nSeneca\u2019s faith underwent no change from first to last ought to be\ndecisive. He did not pass through the experience of conversion; he shows\nno vicissitudes of intellectual or moral growth; he never wavered in his\nfaith in philosophy, and in the power of man to attain the supreme good\nby mere force of will. Yet Seneca is, to the Christian, unquestionably,\nthe most interesting personality that heathen antiquity has produced.\nHis philosophy and his morality show, in a striking way, that a man may\napproach very close to the boundary line of Christianity without\ncrossing it; without even knowing what is before him. The best thought\nof the age clearly proves that Greek philosophy had, in a sense,\nprepared a few noble minds for the reception of the ethical and\naltruistic precepts of the Gospel; but it was in no sense the harbinger\nof its spiritual doctrines.\n\nIt remains yet to consider briefly an institution which, while not\npeculiar to Rome, was, nevertheless, here characterized by some features\nthat were unique in their influences for evil. Slavery rested like a\nhorrible incubus upon the ancient world, though few persons seem to have\nbeen aware of it. It placed a curse upon labor and almost prevented the\ndevelopment of the mechanic arts. It seriously impeded the growth of the\nmoral sentiments by the hindrances it placed in the way of free\ndiscussion, and by the opportunities it afforded the basely inclined for\nthe gratification of carnal lusts. It placed a large part of the\npopulation virtually beyond the range of human sympathy by branding the\nexpression of such sympathy as a symptom of treason. While it did these\nthings everywhere, in Rome it made a people that were naturally coarse\nand brutal still more so, by placing within the easy reach of every\nslave-owner helpless objects upon which he could vent his rage, and\nwhose services he could exploit in the most unfeeling manner. A lurid\nlight is thrown on the barbarity of the Romans toward their slaves by an\noccurrence that took place in the later years of Seneca. A plain\nstatement of the facts is more impressive than many pages of theory. A\nprefect of the city, Pedanius Secundus by name, was murdered by one of\nhis slaves and the criminal could not be apprehended. According to law,\nall the bondmen of the murdered man, four hundred in number, were to be\nput to death. The populace, to their honor be it said, more humane than\nthe senators, raised a tumult of protest against the execution of the\nsentence. Their sympathy availed nothing; the unhappy victims were led\naway to die. One of the senators even proposed a decree that all the\nfreedmen belonging to the household of the late prefect should be\ntransported beyond the confines of Italy. But the emperor, and that\nemperor was Nero, more humane than the optimates, alleged that the laws\nwere already severe enough, and that it would be cruel to add to their\nseverity by fresh enactments. The decree of expulsion was not passed.\nYet Tacitus, from whom this narrative is taken, a writer who never tires\nof lamenting the degeneracy of his age, has not a word of compassion for\nthe unfortunate sufferers, nor a syllable of condemnation for an\natrocious law.\n\nStill it must be said that some of the Roman philosophers, especially\nCicero and Seneca, lay stress in their writings, upon the universal\nbrotherhood of man. They have much to say about the intrinsic worth of\nthe human soul. While these ideas are largely borrowed from the Greeks,\nor at least suggested by Greek philosophers, the Romans are singularly\neloquent in proclaiming them. But slavery is never attacked by name. It\nis doubtful whether a passage can be found in any Greek or Roman writer\nexplicitly asserting that it is wrong for one man to hold another in\nbondage. This may be due to the conviction that such a doctrine would be\nextremely dangerous among a large servile population, even if the\ngovernment allowed entire freedom of speech. The New Testament is almost\nsilent about slavery. Its authors did not wish to give utterance to any\nviews that could be used by their enemies as the basis for a charge of\ndisaffection with the \u201cpowers that be.\u201d\n\nAgain, slavery in some form was universal. Servitude was held to be the\nproper condition of a large part of the human race. No man who lived\nduring the existence of the Roman empire would have ventured to predict\nthe ultimate downfall of slavery. It is interesting to note in this\nconnection that Basil Hall, writing as late as 1828, while admitting\neverything that could be alleged on the evils of slavery, thought that\nto do away with it seemed \u201cso completely beyond the reach of any human\nexertions that I consider the abolition of slavery as one of the most\nprofitless of all possible subjects of discussion.\u201d\n\nOn the supposition, then, that slavery must continue indefinitely, if it\ncould ever be abolished, it was the duty of the philanthropist to do\nwhat he could to ameliorate the condition of the servile class by\neducating their masters in the principles of a humane philosophy, rather\nthan to incur the risk of making it worse by the suggestion of\nemancipation. If the good man is kind to his beast, he cannot fail to\ntreat kindly his bondman. It does not seem inconsistent with the general\ntenor of Seneca\u2019s writings to assume that he thought the best way to\nmitigate the condition of the slaves was to indoctrinate their owners\nwith a philosophy that would accord to them kind treatment, rather than\nto seek to bring about their liberation.\n\nBesides, the slaves themselves were not often conscious of their\nunfortunate legal status. The best they desired for themselves was that\nthey might fall into the hands of a good master. That such men were not\naltogether wanting, even among the Romans, is evident from the many\ninstances of rare devotion shown by their slaves.\n\nIt is one of the surprising things in the history of mankind that the\nprogress of the anti-slavery sentiment was so rapid when the cause of\nthe slave had obtained a hearing before the bar of public conscience.\nSlavery had existed from time immemorial. The wrongs it condoned, the\nevils entailed upon its victims, attracted but little attention until\nthe close of the last century. Within less than a hundred years after\nthe agitation had begun there was not a slave recognized as such by law\nin Christendom. The contemplation of this fact may well teach political\nprophets to be careful in their predictions as to what will or will not\nhappen in the future.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the foregoing essay I have, for the most part omitted such\nbiographical data as may be found in any encyclopedia, and have confined\nmyself chiefly to a study of the society in which Seneca moved, and to a\nconsideration of some of the leading characteristics of the age in which\nhe lived. Every man should be judged by his times, for no man is\nuninfluenced by them. It is only men of the strongest character that\nrise far above the manners and thoughts of their contemporaries. Seneca\nwas not one of these. Though endowed with a penetrating intellect and\nstrong moral convictions he sometimes yielded to temptations against the\nprotest of his better judgment. He compelled his intellect to sanction\nor at least to excuse conduct that he felt to be unworthy of the\nphilosophy he professed and taught. Yet after making all due allowance\nfor his shortcomings, I am persuaded that one cannot long study his\nwritings and his career without reaching the conviction that among the\ngreat men of Rome none towered above him in moral grandeur and but few\nsurpassed him in intellectual stature. If I may be allowed to express a\npersonal opinion I do not hesitate to affirm that in the first thousand\nyears of its history no more interesting and attractive character lived\nand died in the City of the Seven Hills than the philosopher Seneca.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  It is a noteworthy fact that many of Rome\u2019s great men were Spaniards,\n  while many others were not natives of the city. Among the former were\n  the emperors Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius. The two\n  Senecas, Lucan, Martial and Quintillian were also Spaniards. Vespasian\n  was born at Reate; Livy, in Padua; Horace, at Venusia; Virgil, in\n  Mantua; Cicero, at Arpinum; the emperor Claudius, at Lugdunum; the two\n  Plinys, at Comum, etc.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Seneca is generally regarded as the first Roman writer who used\n  _caro_, flesh, as distinct from, and opposed to, spirit.\n\n\n\n\nThe following is a list of Seneca\u2019s extant works:\n\n    _De Providentia_, (On Providence).\n\n    _De Constantia Sapientis_, (On the Constancy of the Sage).\n\n    _De Ira_, (On Anger).\n\n    _De Vita beata_, (On a happy life).\n\n    _De Otio_, (On Leisure).\n\n    _De Tranquillitate Animi_, (On Peace of Mind).\n\n    _De Brevitate Vitae_, (On the Shortness of Life).\n\n    _De Beneficiis_, (On Beneficence).\n\n    _De Clementia_, (On Clemency).\n\n    _Ad Marciam de Consolatione_, (A Letter of Condolence to Marcia).\n\n    _Ad Polybium de Consolatione_, (A Letter of Condolence to Polybius).\n\n    _Ad Helviam matrem de Consolatione._ (A Letter of Condolence to his\n    mother Helvia).\n\n    _Apocolocynthosis_, (Pumpkinfication, as it may be translated by a\n    parody on Deification; or we may call it Pumpkinosis to correspond\n    with Apotheosis).\n\n    _Epistolae Morales ad Lucilium_, (Letters to Lucilius on the Conduct\n    of Life).\n\n    _Quaestiones Naturales_, (Questions relating to Physical Phenomena).\n    This is the only work of the kind belonging to Latin literature.\n    During the Middle Ages it was much used as a text-book.\n\nIn the Charpentier-Lemaistre edition the letters to Lucilius fill the\nfirst volume and a little more than half of the second. The first Book\non Beneficence is in the third volume; the remainder with the Problems\nin Physics fill the fourth and last. The smaller treatises occupy the\nrest of the four volumes. A number of Tragedies with Greek titles are\nalso attributed to our Seneca, probably with justice.\n\n    Note:\u2014To translate Seneca adequately is not an easy task. While his\n    meaning is usually plain, the modern reader is not in all cases\n    certain that he clearly apprehends the exact signification of his\n    words when taken separately. He is thus in danger of reading into\n    them ideas that savor more of modern theology than the author\n    intended,\u2014a common fault of interpreters. It has been demonstrated\n    that Seneca knew nothing of the Gospels directly, yet he has often\n    been claimed as a Christian. Evidently, then, there must be a good\n    deal in his writings that can be used to support such a claim.\n    Attention has already been called to his use of _caro_. He seems\n    also to be the first Roman who uses Providentia to designate an\n    intelligent guide and guardian of the affairs of the world. There\n    are other terms to which he gives a signification not found in the\n    profane writers of ancient Rome.\n\n    But the chief obstacle the translator has to contend against is his\n    diction. This is highly rhetorical and very difficult to transfer\n    into another language, unless the translator has at command all the\n    resources of his mother tongue. Such a wealth of resources, I do not\n    hesitate to confess, is not within my reach. If a translation is to\n    make the same impression on the reader or hearer that is made by the\n    original, it is as important to preserve the peculiarities of a\n    writer\u2019s style as to render accurately the meaning of the separate\n    words. While I flatter myself that I have been fairly successful in\n    the interpretation of Seneca\u2019s words, I am not equally sanguine as\n    to his diction. I believe, however, that I have in no case strayed\n    very far afield and that the reading of the following pages will\n    convey not only a fairly correct idea of what Seneca thought on many\n    important problems, but also of the manner in which he expressed\n    himself. I hope at some future time, if life and health are\n    vouchsafed to me, to prepare a complete translation of Seneca\u2019s\n    moral writings.\n\n\n\n\n SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF SENECA, TO WHICH PASSAGES MORE OR LESS\n                 CLOSELY AKIN OCCUR IN THE SCRIPTURES.\n\n\n                     FROM THE LETTERS TO LUCILIUS.\n\n\nA holy spirit dwells within us, the observer and keeper of the evil and\nthe good; it treats us just as it is treated by us.\n\nIf you do what is right, let all men know it; if what is wrong, does it\nmatter that no one knows it, since you know it yourself? O what a\nwretched man you are if you disregard such a witness!\n\nThe human mind has come down from the spirit that dwells on high.\n\nFortune exempts many from punishment; from fear, no one.\n\nIt is natural for those who have done wrong to be afraid.\n\nThe light is irksome to a bad conscience.\n\nThe guilty have sometimes the good fortune not to be found out; never\nthe certainty of it.\n\nGood precepts, if you often reflect upon them, will profit you equally\nwith good examples.\n\nIf thou wouldst gain the favor of the gods, be good.\n\nHe adequately worships the gods who imitates them.\n\nIt suffices God that he be worshiped and loved; love cannot be mixed\nwith fear.\n\nWhat thou hast learned, confirm by doing.\n\nA great and holy spirit, it is true, holds converse with us, but it\ncleaves to its origin.\n\nLet the young reverence and look up to their teachers.\n\nHow wisely you live is an important matter: not, how long.\n\nIt is not a good thing to live; it is, to live wisely.\n\nHe who would live for himself must live for others.\n\nHe who has much covets more.\n\nNo one is worthy of God save him who contemns riches.\n\nDare to contemn riches and thus to make thyself worthy of God.\n\nThe shortest road to riches is to contemn riches.\n\nNot he who has little but he who covets more is poor.\n\nThin is the texture of a lie; it is easily seen through if closely\nexamined.\n\nThe praise is not in the deed but in the way it is done.\n\nTo be master of one\u2019s self is the greatest mastery.\n\nOne cause of the evils of our time is that we live after the example of\nothers. We are not guided by reason but led astray by custom.\n\nMoney never made anybody rich.\n\nWhy did God create the world? He is good; a good being feels no aversion\nto anything that is good. Therefore He made the world as good as\npossible. _Quoted from Plato._\n\nSome of our time is filched from us, some is stolen outright, some\npasses unnoticed. But most reprehensible of all things is to lose it by\nmere negligence; and if you will note carefully, men spend a great part\nof life in doing evil, the greatest part in doing nothing the whole of\nit doing something else than they ought. Whom will you name that places\nany value on time? Who prizes a day? Who realizes that he is dying\ndaily? For we err when we regard death as something in the future; a\ngreat part of it has already passed; the portion of our life that is\nbehind us, death holds. Do, therefore, Lucilius, what you write that you\nare doing, husband every hour; you will be less dependent upon to-morrow\nif you seize to-day. Everything else belongs to others, time only is\nours.\n\nThere is a great difference between not wanting to sin and not knowing\nhow.\n\nIf thou wouldst get rid of thy vices keep out of bad company.\n\nHe worships God who knows Him.\n\nNo one commits wrongs for himself alone; he communicates them to others\nand is in turn led astray by others.\n\nOur minds are dazzled when they look upon truth.\n\nNo virtue remains hidden, and it suffers no damage by having been\nhidden.\n\nNature has given to all the fundamental principles and seeds of virtue.\n\nNature does not make us virtuous; it is an art to become good.\n\nIf what you are doing is right, all men may know it.\n\nThe reward of all the virtues is in the virtues themselves. The\nrecompense of a good deed is to have done it.\n\nVirtue alone brings lasting and sure happiness.\n\nHe errs who thinks the gods intentionally inflict injuries on any one;\nthey cannot do so; they can neither receive nor do injury.\n\nSo live with men as if God saw thee; so talk with God as if men heard\nthee.\n\nGod has no need of ministering servants: He Himself ministers to men; is\npresent everywhere and in everything.\n\nThe gods extend a helping hand to those who would rise. Do you wonder\nthat man goes to the gods? God comes to men, and what is more, He comes\ninto men. No mind is good without God.\n\nAll men, if they are traced to their first origin, are from the gods.\n\nEvery day, every hour, reminds us of our nothingness and, by some fresh\nadmonition, warns those of their frailty who are prone to forget it.\n\nGive heed to each day as if it were your whole life. Nothing will so\nmuch enable you to exercise control over yourself in all things as to\nthink often of the uncertainty and brevity of life.\n\nYou will grant that the greatest piety toward the gods is a\ncharacteristic of a good man; and so whatever may befall him he will\nbear with equanimity, for he will know that it has happened in harmony\nwith that divine law by which all things are governed.\n\nNo one is strong enough to rise by his own strength; every man needs\nsome one to extend a hand, some one to lead him.\n\nSo let us live, so let us talk, that our destiny may find us prepared\nand ready to follow it. Great is the soul that has yielded itself to\nGod; on the other hand, that one is cowardly and degenerate that\nresists, that finds fault with the order of the world, and is more ready\nto set the the gods right than itself.\n\nWe ought to have before our minds some one whom we revere; some one\nwhose influence makes even our most secret thoughts holier.\n\nLong is a way by precepts; short and effectual, by examples.\n\nWeaker minds, however, have need of some one to go before who shall say,\n\u201cThis avoid, this do.\u201d\n\nThe community of which we form a part is very much like an arch built of\nstone; it would at once fall down if one did not support another.\n\nWe are members of an immense body. Nature begat us as kinsmen, since it\nformed us of the same elements and for the same end.\n\nWhat is it that draws us in one direction when we would go in another,\nthat urges us on when we want to resist, that strives against our\ndesires and does not permit us to do what we purpose?\n\nIf thou wishest to be loved, love!\n\nNo one is free that is the slave of his body.\n\nWe ought to live in this thought: I was not born for a corner only; my\ncountry is this entire world.\n\nThe beginning of salvation is the knowledge of sin. _Quoted from\nEpicurus._\n\nPhilosophy sheds its light upon all men.\n\nIt is so difficult for us to get well because we do not know that we are\nsick.\n\nIt is the strongest evidence that our mind is directed toward its own\nimprovement when we see faults that we had not before observed.\n\nIt is an infirmity of mind not to be able to bear riches.\n\nTo live right is in the power of everybody.\n\nThe acknowledgement of a fault is the beginning of a better life.\n\nHe who does not admit his proneness to do wrong has no desire to be\ncorrected. You must recognize your errors before you can correct them.\n\nThe ancients held the first requisite of repentance to be an examination\nof one\u2019s self, especially since without this, life would not be worth\nliving.\n\nThere is no vice without some excuse.\n\nYou ask me what you should particularly avoid. (I answer,) a crowd. You\ncannot with safety to yourself mingle in a large company. I must verily\nconfess my own weakness. I never bring back the same character that I\ntook with me; something which I had banished, returns; something else\nthat I had quieted, is aroused.... But nothing is so damaging to a good\ncharacter as to spend much time at public spectacles, for with the\npleasure we receive vices the more easily creep in unawares.\n\nIt is a large part of goodness to desire to become good.\n\nThere is a certain fitness in the feeling of sorrow; this the sage ought\nto heed, and just as in everything else so in grief there is a proper\nmean.\n\nWhat fate did not give it did not take away.\n\nTo obey God is liberty.\n\nNo one is out of the reach of the temptation of vice unless he has\nbanished it wholly from his breast; and no one has banished it wholly\nuntil he has put wisdom in its stead.\n\nGreat is the praise if man is helpful to man. We admonish you to extend\na hand to the shipwrecked; to point out the way to the lost; to share\nyour bread with the hungry.\n\nNo one ever renders a service to another without also rendering a\nservice to himself.\n\nOften what is given is a small matter; what follows from it, a great\none.\n\nWhen we reason upon the immortality of the soul, we do not regard as of\nlittle weight the universal belief of men who either fear or revere the\ngods of the lower world.\n\nThat day which thou dreadest as if it were thy last is the day of the\nbirth into eternity.\n\nA time will come that shall unite us and bring us into each other\u2019s\ncompany.\n\nThen shall our soul have reason to rejoice because, freed from this\ndarkness in which it is involved, it shall see the light, no longer with\nfeeble vision, but in all the brightness of day, and it will have\nreturned to its own heaven since it will again occupy the place which\nbelongs to it by right of birth. Its origin calls it on high.\n\nLet another begin a quarrel, but let reconciliation begin with thee.\n\nWhat else is nature than God and the divine reason that permeates the\nwhole world and all its parts. Whithersoever thou turnest thou wilt see\nHim before thee; there is no place where He is not; He Himself fills all\nHis work.\n\nEvery crime is committed before the deed is done.\n\nThe human mind has come down from the spirit that dwells on high.\n\nBelieve me, the creator of this vast universe, whoever he may have been,\nwhether it was a god, master of everything, whether it was an\nincorporeal intelligence able to bring forth the most brilliant marvels,\nwhether it was a divine spirit diffused with equal energy in the\nsmallest and the largest things, whether it was destiny and an immutable\nconcatenation of causes linked together: this sovereign potentate did\nnot wish to leave us dependent upon any one else even in the smallest\nmatters.\n\nStars shall impinge upon stars and all matter that now delights us with\nits beautiful order will burn in one huge conflagration.\n\nHow often he who refuses pardon to others begs it for himself!\n\nIt is base to say one thing and mean another; it is baser to write one\nthing and mean another.\n\nA wise man will pardon an injury, though it be great, and if he can do\nit without breach of piety and fidelity, that is, if the whole injury\npertains to himself.\n\nAs far as thou canst, accuse thyself, try thyself, discharge the office,\nfirst of a prosecutor, then of a judge, lastly of an intercessor.\n\nWe can never quarrel enough with our vices, which, I beseech thee,\npersecute perpetually. Cast from thee everything that corrupts the\nheart; and if thou canst not otherwise get rid of it, spare not the\nheart itself.\n\n\n\n\n                          FROM DE BENEFICIIS.\n\n\nNature is not without God nor is God without nature. Both are the same\nand their functions are the same. So, too, nature, destiny, fortune, are\nall the names of the same God.\n\nIt is the mark of a noble and generous soul to be helpful, to do good;\nhe who confers favors, imitates the gods.\n\nBeneficence always makes haste; what one does willingly one does\nquickly.\n\nWe owe no thanks for a favor that has for a long time adhered to the\nhands of the giver, as it were; which he seems to have let go with\nreluctance and which one might almost say had been wrested from him.\n\nThose favors are most gratifying to us that are deliberately and\nwillingly offered, and in connection with which the only hesitancy is on\nthe part of the recipient.\n\nI do not make the favors I confer a matter of public record.\n\nHe who intends to be grateful ought to think about requiting a favor as\nsoon as he receives it.\n\nThis is the law of beneficence between two persons: the one should\nforthwith forget that he has given; the other should never forget that\nhe has received.\n\nYou buy from the physician a thing that is above price, life and health;\nfrom the teacher of belles-lettres, acquaintance with the liberal arts.\nYet it is not the value of these things that you pay for but their\npains, because when they are serving us they give up their private\nbusiness to devote themselves to us.\n\nThe sun rises for the evil also.\n\nGod has given certain benefactions to all men, and from which none are\nexcluded.\n\nWho is so wretched, so despised, who born to so hard and sorrowful a\ndestiny that he has never perceived the munificence of the gods? Seek\nout even those who bewail their fate and who are always complaining, you\nwill not find among the entire number one who has not experienced the\nbeneficence of heaven; there is not one for whom there has not flowed\nsomething from the most inexhaustible of all fountains.\n\nAdd, now, that external circumstances do not coerce the gods, but their\nsempiternal will is their law. They have established an order of events\nwhich they do not change. The gods never repent of their first purpose.\n\nBeneficence consists not in what is done or given, but in the spirit of\nthe doer or giver.\n\nIt is a most glorious work to save even the unwilling and refractory.\n\nThe door to virtue is closed to no one; it is open to all, admits all;\nvirtue invites everybody, free-born, freedmen, slaves, kings and exiles.\nIt selects neither class nor condition, it seeks the man only.\n\nNature directs us to do good to all men whether bond or free, free-born\nor emancipated slaves. Wherever there is a human being, there is a place\nfor beneficence.\n\nHe who reasons thus (like Epicurus), does not hear the voices of\nsupplicants and the prayers offered everywhere, in public and private,\nwith hands outstretched toward heaven. This could not be, nor is it\npossible that all men should have willingly consented to the folly of\naddressing deaf divinities and powerless gods, if they had not\nrecognized their benefactions, sometimes given spontaneously, sometimes\nin answer to prayer, always great, timely, averting by their\nintervention impending disasters.\n\n\n                         FROM VARIOUS SOURCES.\n\n\nIt is easy to form the mind while it is still tender; but it is\ndifficult to root out those vices that have grown up with it.\n\nIt is a great thing to know when to speak and when to be silent.\n\nThe vices of others we have before our eyes; our own, behind our backs.\n\nUse your ears oftener than your tongue.\n\nNothing is more out of place in him who is inflicting punishment than\nanger.\n\nIt is not the issue of a thing that ought to be taken into account, but\nthe purpose.\n\nEvery crime is committed before the deed is done.\n\nTo cupidity nothing is enough; to nature even a little is enough.\n\nVice takes possession of us unconsciously; virtue is difficult to find,\nand we need a guide and teacher. Vices are learned without a teacher.\n\nStars shall impinge upon stars and all matter that now delights us with\nits beautiful order shall burn in one huge conflagration.\n\nAll that is best can neither be given to men nor taken from them.\n\nThere are two things, the most precious of all, that attend us\nwhithersoever we turn our steps: common nature and personal virtue.\nThese things are so, believe me, because they were so willed by the\ncreator of the universe, whether it is that God who controls everything,\nor incorporeal reason, the artificer of great works, or the divine\nspirit that pervades equally the greatest and the smallest things.\n\nIf the dead have any feeling, the soul of my brother, now set free from\na long imprisonment, is at length in the full enjoyment of his freedom\nand his majority; he beholds with delight the nature of things and looks\ndown upon human affairs from his high abode; but things divine, the\ncauses of which he so long sought out in vain, he now beholds at close\nrange. Why then do I pine away in sorrow for him who is either blessed\nor not all? To mourn for one who is in bliss is envy; for one who is\nnot, folly.\n\nBorne on high, he soars among beatified spirits, and a sanctified\ncompany welcomes him\u2014the Scipios, the Catos, released by the beneficence\nof death. There thy father devotes himself to his grandson, resplendent\nin the new light even though in that place all are known to each. He\nexplains to him the motions of the stars around him; not from\nconjectures, but, versed in the knowledge of all things, he gladly\ninducts him into the arcana of nature.\n\nIf you will believe those who have looked more deeply into the truth,\nour whole life is a punishment.\n\nFor those who sail this sea so stormy, so exposed to every tempest,\nthere is no harbor except death.\n\nHe now enjoys a serene and cloudless heaven. From this humble and low\nabode, he has sped swiftly into that region, wherever it may be, where\nsouls, freed from their chains, are received into the abode of the\nblest. He now roams about at will, and beholds with supremest delight\nall that is good in the universe.... He has not left us; he has gone\nbefore.\n\n\n\n\n   DE PROVIDENTIA SIVE QUARE ALIQUA INCOMMODA BONIS VIRIS ACCIDANTCUM\n                            PROVIDENTIA SIT.\n\n\n    NOTE:\u2014This monograph is addressed to the same Lucilius, procurator\n    of Sicily, to whom Seneca also dedicates his letters and his\n    Problems in Physics. The date of composition is not known, but it\n    probably belongs to the later years of the author\u2019s life. The\n    opening sentences seem to make it a part of a larger work on ethics,\n    or rather of a theodicy, which was either never completed or has not\n    come down to us. This is a serious loss both to us and to Seneca: to\n    us, because such a work would doubtless have placed before us a\n    complete theory of human conduct as conceived by a man who was\n    thoroughly conversant with the motives that dominate men; to Seneca,\n    because it would in all probability have explained if not justified\n    some of the inconsistencies that have so sadly marred his career.\n    Indeed the fundamental proposition of the essay is inconsistent,\n    since the conclusion does not follow from the premises. For if the\n    patient endurance of tribulation is the supreme test of a good man,\n    how is he justified in avoiding that test, as our author proposes,\n    by taking his own life?\n\n\n                                   I.\n\n\nYou have asked me, Lucilius, why it is, if the world is governed by a\nProvidence, that so many misfortunes befall good men. To this an answer\nwould more properly be given in a work in which I should undertake to\nprove that a Providence presides over the affairs of men, and that God\ndwells among us. But since you deem it best to take a small portion of\nthe whole subject, and to settle this single disputed question, the main\nproposition meanwhile being left untouched, I shall undertake a case of\nlittle difficulty: I shall plead the cause of the gods.\n\n2. It is superfluous to show at the present time that so great a work\ndoes not stand fast and firm without an overseer; that the regular\ncourse of the heavenly bodies is not a fortuitous concourse of atoms;\nthat those objects which chance puts in motion are subject to frequent\ndisturbances and sudden collisions; that this harmonious velocity is\nunder the sway of an eternal law governing everything on land and sea,\nno less than the brilliant luminaries which shine according to a\nprearranged plan; that this order is not the result of elements moving\nabout at random, neither can fortuitous aggregations of matter cohere\nwith such art that the immense mass of the earth remains motionless\nwhile beholding the rapid gyrations of the heavenly bodies about itself;\nthat the seas poured into the valleys to fructify the soil never feel\nany increase from rivers; or that enormous vegetation grows from the\nminutest seeds.\n\n3. Not even those things that appear to be uncertain and without\nregularity\u2014I mean rains and clouds and the bolts of lightning darting\nfrom the clouds, and fires poured from the cleft summits of mountains,\nand the quakings of the tottering ground, and such other disturbances of\nthe earth about us\u2014are without a rational explanation, unforeseen though\nthey be. These things, too, have their causes, not less those which,\nwhen they appear in unexpected places, are regarded as prodigies, such\nas warm springs among the billows or new insular lands rising up in the\nvast expanse of the sea.\n\n4. Moreover, if one has observed the beach laid bare by the waves of the\nretiring sea and covered again within a brief space of time, does he\nbelieve that the waves have been contracted and drawn inward by a kind\nof blind restlessness, to burst forth again to seek with a mighty onset\ntheir accustomed seats, especially since the waters increase at regular\nintervals and move according to a fixed day and hour just as the lunar\nstar attracts them more or less, under whose influence the ocean\nregulates its ebb and flow? However, these questions had better be\nreserved for their proper place, since you do not deny the existence of\na providence, but only bring complaints against it.\n\n5. I wish to reconcile you with the gods since they regard the best men\nwith the most favor. For in the nature of things, what is good can never\nharm the good. Between good men and the gods a friendship exists, virtue\nbeing the bond of amity. Friendship, do I say? nay, more; it is a near\nrelationship and likeness, since the good man differs from God only in\ntime; he is His pupil and imitator, His true offspring, whom his august\nfather, no lenient trainer in the virtues, brings up somewhat rigorously\nafter the manner of stern parents.\n\n6. Accordingly, when you see good men, the favorites of the gods,\ntoiling, sweating, ascending by hard paths, and the bad living in\nlicentious indulgence and growing effeminate in luxury, consider that we\ntoo are gratified with the sobriety of our sons, but with the wantonness\nof our household slaves; that the former gain greater self-control by\nthe sterner discipline, the latter are confirmed in their presumption.\nThe same thing is true in regard to God; He does not support the good\nman in enervating ease; He tries him, hardens him, prepares him for\nHimself.\n\n\n                                  II.\n\n\n\u201cWhy do the good meet with so many adversities?\u201d (you ask). No evil\nthing can befall a good man; things in their nature contradictory may\nnot be commingled. Just as so many rivers, so much water falling from\nthe clouds above, so great a number of springs impregnated with mineral\nsubstances, do not change the saltness of the sea, do not even dilute\nit; so the assaults of adversity produce no change in the spirit of a\nbrave man. He remains steadfast, and whatever betides he gains for his\ncolors, for he is stronger than all external circumstances. I do not, it\nis true, say, that he is insensible to them, but that he triumphs over\nthem, and, moreover, remains calm and serene in spite of obstacles. All\nuntoward events he regards as so much drill. Besides, is there any man\nwho is only an admirer of noble deeds, that is not eager for honest\ntoil, or ready to do his duty with alacrity even in the face of danger?\nTo what industrious man is not inactivity a punishment? We see athletes,\nwhose purpose is to develop their bodily strength, matching themselves\nwith the most doughty antagonists, and requiring those who prepare them\nfor a contest to use all their strength against their pupils; they allow\nthemselves to be smitten and buffeted, and if they do not find suitable\nsingle antagonists they pit themselves against several at the same time.\n\n3. When virtue has no antagonist it becomes enervated; then only does it\nappear what its true character is, how strong, how virile it is when\npatient endurance shows what it can accomplish. You surely know that\ngood men must do the same thing, to the end that they may not fear what\nis hard or formidable, nor complain about fate. Whatever happens, let\nthe good bear it patiently and turn it to good uses. Not what we bear\nbut how we bear it, is the important thing. Do you not see how\ndifferently fathers and mothers show their love for their children? The\nformer want their sons to be aroused early in order that they may betake\nthemselves to their studies; their vacations even they would not have\nthem pass in idleness, and they draw sweat and sometimes even tears from\nthe youths; but mothers want to fondle them on their bosom, keep them in\nthe shade; they would never have them weep, never be sad, never undergo\ntoil.\n\n4. God has a father\u2019s feelings toward good men and ardently loves them,\nand says: \u201cBy labors, sorrows, privations, let them be tried in order\nthat they may gain real strength.\u201d Animals that are being fattened grow\nlanguid by their inactivity, and by the weight of their own bodies\nbecome incapable not only of work, but of movement. Unalloyed felicity\ncannot withstand any shock, but a constant struggle against obstacles\nhardens a man against injuries, and he does not succumb to any disaster,\nfor even if he falls, he fights on his knees.\n\n5. Are you surprised if God, who is a most devoted friend of the good,\nand who wishes them to attain the highest degree of perfection, assigns\nthem a place in which they are to be disciplined? Verily, I am not\nsurprised that sometimes a desire seizes the the gods to behold great\nmen struggling against some misfortune. To us mortals it at times\naffords pleasure to see a courageous youth await with the hunting spear,\nthe onset of some wild beast, or if with unblanched cheek he thrusts\nback the attack of a lion; and the spectacle is agreeable in proportion\nto the rank of him who exhibits it.\n\n6. These are not the sights that attract the attention of the gods, but\nchildish pastimes and the pleasures of men who have no serious aims.\nBehold a spectacle worthy of a god who is intensely interested in his\nwork; behold a pair of champions worthy of god, a brave man pitted\nagainst adverse fortune, especially if he himself be the challenging\nparty. I do not see, I say, what more agreeable sight on earth Jupiter\ncan look upon, if he turns his attention thither, than to behold Cato,\nafter his party had been more than once defeated, standing erect,\nnevertheless, amid the ruins of the republic.\n\n7. Said he, \u201cThough everything has yielded to the behests of one man;\nthough the lands be guarded by legions and the seas by fleets and the\nsoldiers of Caesar keep watch at our gates, there is a way of escape for\nCato. Single-handed will he make a broad way for liberty; this sword,\npure and untarnished even in civil strife, shall at length perform a\nworthy and noble deed; the liberty it could not give to his country, it\nshall give to Cato. Perform my soul, a deed long meditated, free thyself\nfrom earthly concerns!\n\n8. Already Petreius and Juba have turned their swords against each other\nand lie dead, slain with mutual hands. A brave and glorious covenant to\ndie was that, but one that was unworthy of my greatness; it is as\nignoble for Cato to beg for death at the hands of another as (to beg\nfor) life.\u201d I am sure the gods looked with keen satisfaction when that\nhero, the intrepid liberator of himself, takes counsel for the safety of\nothers and provides a way of escape for the fugitives; when he pursues\nhis studies far even into that final night; when he thrusts the sword\ninto his own sacred breast; when he disembowels himself and sets free\nwith his own hand that purest spirit unworthy to be contaminated with a\nsword.\n\n9. Hence I would fain believe that the thrust was badly directed and the\nwound not fatal; it was not enough for the immortal gods to have beheld\nCato once only; his courage was restrained and called back that it might\nshow itself in a more difficult part. For death may be said not so much\nto have come upon so great a soul as to have been sought by it. Why\nshould they not rejoice to see their favorite pass from life in a way so\nglorious and memorable? Death deifies those whose departure fills with\nadmiration even those who stand aghast at the manner of it.\n\n\n                                  III.\n\n\nBut as I proceed with my discourse, I shall show that not all those\nthings which seem to be evils are such. For the present, I affirm that\nthe conditions you call hard, adverse, and terrible, are in the first\nplace best for those very persons whom they befall; and in the second,\nfor all men, since the gods are more concerned for mankind as a whole\nthan for the individual; and lastly; that they happen either with their\napproval, or to men who are worthy of them, if without their approval.\nTo these propositions I shall add that such things take place in the\nfixed order of the world and rightly happen to the good, in virtue of\nthe same law which makes them good. From this point of view I shall then\nconvince you that you never need feel pity for the good man; for though\nhe may be called unfortunate, he never is so.\n\n2. The most difficult of the affirmations I have made seems to be the\nfirst, to wit, that it is for our own good these very things happen\nwhich we dread and shudder at. Is it good for anybody, you say, to be\ndriven into exile, to see his children reduced to want, to bear a wife\nto the grave, to be disgraced, maimed? If you are surprised that this\nshould result in good to any one, then you will be surprised that\npersons are sometimes cured by cutting and burning not the less than by\nhunger and thirst. But if you will reflect that as remedial measures,\nthe bones have to be laid bare or taken out, veins to be extracted, and\neven members to be amputated, because they cannot be allowed to remain\nattached to it without detriment to the whole body; you will also admit\nthat some unpleasant things are an advantage to those whom they befall,\nno less than that some things which are accounted good and are sought\nafter, are an injury to those who find pleasure in them, such as eating\nand drinking to excess and other things that kill by the gratification\nthey afford.\n\n3. Among the many noteworthy sayings of our friend Demetrius there is\none that is fresh in my mind and keeps sounding and ringing in my ears.\n\u201cThere is no being,\u201d says he, \u201cmore unfortunate than the man who never\nfelt adversity.\u201d For he has never had an opportunity to test himself.\nThough everything may have come to him when he wished it or even before\nhe wished it, the gods have nevertheless not thought well of him. They\nhave adjudged him unworthy of a struggle with adversity lest he be\novercome by it, for it avoids all cowards as if saying, Why should I\nchoose such an antagonist? he lays down his arms forthwith; there is no\nneed of all my strength against him; he is beaten by a feeble onset; he\ncannot bear even a look.\n\n4. Let another be selected for the struggle. It is a shame to fight with\na man who wants to be beaten. A gladiator regards it as a disgrace to be\npitted against an inferior antagonist for he knows there is no glory in\novercoming one who is vanquished without danger. Adversity does\nlikewise; it seeks out foemen worthy of their antagonist and passes by\nsome with disdain. It always attacks the doughtiest and boldest for a\ntrial of its strength.\n\n5. It tries Mucius with fire, Fabricius with poverty, Regulus with\ntorture, Socrates with poison, Cato with death. It is misfortune alone\nthat finds noble examples. Is Mucius to be commiserated because he put\nhis hand into an enemy\u2019s fire and punished himself for his mistake?\nbecause he vanquished with a burned hand a king whom he could not\nvanquish with it armed? Would he have been happier if he had warmed it\nin the bosom of a mistress?\n\n6. Is Fabricius to be pitied because he tilled his own field when not\nengaged in public duties? because he waged war against riches as well as\nagainst Pyrrhus? because he ate, by his own fireside, the same roots and\nherbs that his triumphant old age pulled up on his farm? Can we say that\nhe would have been happier if he had filled his stomach with fish from a\nfar off strand and with exotic birds? or if he had stimulated his jaded\nand nauseated stomach with oysters from the Upper and the Lower sea? or\nif he had encircled with a huge pile of different fruits, the finest\ngame captured at the cost of many a huntsman\u2019s life?\n\n7. Is Rutilius unfortunate because those who condemned him decided a\ncase against themselves for all time to come? because he was more\nwilling to be deprived of his country than to be recalled from exile?\nbecause he alone dared to deny anything to the dictator Sulla, and when\ninvited to return, not only refused, but fled farther? \u201cLet those manage\naffairs,\u201d said he, \u201cwhom thy good fortune keeps in Rome! Let them look\nupon the pool of blood in the Forum and the heads of senators floating\non the Servilian lake,\u2014for that was the field of carnage of those\nproscribed by Sulla\u2014and the bands of assassins roaming through the city,\nand the many thousands of Roman citizens slain in one place after\npledges of immunity had been given, yes, because of those very pledges!\nLet those look upon these things who are not able to endure exile.\u201d\n\n8. Shall we say that Sulla is to be congratulated because, when he\ndescends to the Forum, a way is opened for him with the sword? because\nhe allows the heads of men of consular rank to be shown him in public,\nand paid the price of their slaughter by the hand of the quaestor and\nfrom the fisc? And he who did these things is the same man that enacted\nthe Cornelian law! Let us return to Regulus. What injury did his destiny\ndo him by making him, the well-known exemplar of good faith, an exemplar\nof patient endurance? Nails pierce his skin, and whatever way he lays\ndown his weary body he lies on a wound, while his open eyes doom him to\nperpetual wakefulness.\n\n9. The greater the anguish, the greater will be the glory. Wouldst thou\nknow how little he regretted the high value he set on fortitude? Heal\nhis wounds and send him back to the senate\u2014he will give the same advice\n(as before). Dost thou think Maecenas happier when a prey to the\ntorments of love and when grieving over the daily repulses of a wayward\nwife, he courts sleep amid the sound of symphonies softly sounding in\nthe distance? Though he stupify himself with wine, and seek diversion in\nthe murmur of waters, or trick his troubled mind with a thousand\npastimes, he lies awake on his bed of down no less than the other on his\nbed of torture. But for the former there is the solace that he is\nenduring hardness for a noble purpose, and he can look away from his\npain to its cause; the latter, surfeited with pleasures, weighed down by\nan excess of good fortune, is more tormented by the cause of his\nsufferings than by the sufferings themselves.\n\n10. Not yet has vice so completely taken possession of the human race as\nto make it doubtful that the majority, if they had the choice of their\nlot, would prefer that of Regulus to that of Maecenas. Or, if there\nshould be anybody who had presumption enough to say that he had rather\nbe born a Maecenas than a Regulus, the same person, even though he might\nnot openly admit it, would also rather be born a Terentia. Do you\npronounce Socrates unfortunate because he drained the executioner\u2019s cup\nas if it had been the draught of immortality, and discoursed about death\nup to the moment it overtook him? Was his lot an unhappy one because his\nblood congealed and his vital force stopped by the gradually advancing\nrigor of death?\n\n11. How much more is he to be envied than those who are served from\ngoblets studded with gems, for whom a male prostitute, accustomed to\nsubmit to every kind of abuse, whose virility is gone or at least\ndoubtful, dissolves the snow that floats in a golden chalice? Whatever\nthey drink they vomit up, to their chagrin, and taste again mixed with\nbile; but he willingly and with joy drains the poisonous draught. For\nCato it is sufficient that the unanimous verdict of mankind has raised\nhim to the pinnacle of felicity; him destiny selected as one who was\nfitted to contend against everything that is to be dreaded.\n\n12. Is the enmity of the powers that be a serious matter? let him be\nopposed at the same time by Pompey, Caesar, Crassus. Is it hard to bear\nwhen one is less honored than worse men? let him be sacrificed for\nVatinius. Is it a hard thing to be involved in civil wars? throughout\nthe whole world let him fight for the good cause, equally renowned for\nhis misfortunes as for his bravery. Is it hard to take one\u2019s own life?\nlet him do it. What do I wish to prove by these things? I would have all\nmen know that those vicissitudes of which Cato was deemed worthy, cannot\nbe regarded as evils.\n\n\n                                  IV.\n\n\nProsperity comes to ordinary people and to men of mean abilities, but it\nis the prerogative of a great man to overcome the calamities and terrors\nthat frighten mortals. In truth, to be always happy and to pass one\u2019s\nlife without mental anxiety, is to be ignorant of half of man\u2019s destiny.\nThou art a great man; yet how am I to know it unless fate gives thee an\nopportunity to show thy worth?\n\n2. Thou didst enter the Olympian games as a contestant; if there was\nnone beside thyself, thou hast the crown, thou hast not the victory. I\ncongratulate thee, not as a brave man, but as one who has gained the\nconsulship or the praetorship: thou hast won political honors. I can say\nthe same thing to a good man, unless some more than ordinary emergency\nhas given him an opportunity to show his strength of soul.\n\n3. Unhappy do I adjudge thee, if thou hast never been unhappy; thou hast\npassed thy life without an adversary. No one knows what thou mightest\nhave done; thou dost not even know it thyself. We need to be tried that\nwe may find out what we are; what a man can do can be ascertained only\nby trial. For this reason men have sometimes voluntarily encountered\nobstacles that seemed to evade them and sought an opportunity for\ndemonstrating to others the virtue that was passing into oblivion.\n\n4. I assert that great men sometimes rejoice in tribulation like valiant\nsoldiers in battles. I heard Triumphus, a gladiator under Caius Caesar\n(Caligula) complain because he had so little to do. \u201cHow my best days\nare speeding away,\u201d said he! Courage is eager for danger and looks to\nthe end in view, not at what it is likely to encounter, for the reason\nthat what it encounters is part of the glory. Warriors are proud of\ntheir wounds; joyfully they point to the blood it was their good fortune\nto shed. Those who return from the combat unscathed may have been just\nas brave\u2014it is the wounded man that is the observed of all eyes.\n\nGod shows his good will to those whom he would have attain the highest\nexcellence every time he gives them an opportunity to display courage\nand endurance; this is possible only in some contingency beset with\ndifficulties. You form your opinion of a pilot in a storm; of a soldier,\nin battle. By what test am I to know how thou wilt bear up against\npoverty, if thou aboundest in wealth? By what test am I to know how thou\nwilt bear up under ignominy and disgrace and popular hatred, if thou\ngrowest old amid public applause? if a strong and unswerving popular\npartiality supports thee in all thou doest?\n\n6. How am I to know with what equanimity thou wilt bear the loss of\nchildren, if thou seest about thee all those thou hast begotten? I have\nlistened to thee when thou wert offering consolation to others; then\nshould I have seen thee when thou wert thyself in need of consolation;\nwhen thou wert trying to restrain thyself from sorrowing. Do not, I\nbeseech thee, shrink from these things which the immortal gods send upon\nthee as stimuli to thy courage. A disaster is an occasion of virtue.\nThose persons one can rightly call wretched who grow effeminate in\nsuperabounding prosperity; whom a dead calm bears along, as it were, in\na motionless sea.\n\n7. No matter what befalls them, they are unprepared for it. Hardships\nbear heaviest on those who have never known them; heavy lies the yoke on\nthe neck that has not felt it. The mere thought of a wound makes the raw\nrecruit turn pale; the veteran looks without blanching upon his own\nblood because he knows that he has often gained a victory at the price\nof it. Then it is that God trains and hardens those whom he has chosen,\nwhom he loves and wishes well to; but those whom he seems to treat with\nindulgence, whom he spares, he keeps tender for the evils to come. For\nyou are mistaken if you conclude that any one is exempt; he who has long\nbasked in the sunshine of fortune will have his turn.\n\nEvery one that thinks he is discharged has been placed among the\nreserves. (You ask) why does God afflict every good man with ill health\nor sorrow or other misfortune? Because in camp-life the most perilous\nduties are also laid on the bravest; the commander sends picked men to\nfall upon the enemy from a nocturnal ambuscade, or to explore a route,\nor to carry by assault an outpost. No one of those who go forth says,\n\u201cThe general has a poor opinion of me,\u201d but, \u201cHe has judged wisely and\nwell,\u201d And so let all say who are ordered to undergo what to the coward\nand the slothful seem to be painful experiences: God has accounted us\nworthy to be used as examples by which to show how much human nature can\nendure. Flee from pleasure, from that unmanly felicity in which the\nactive powers of the mind grow torpid, unless something intervenes to\nrecall man\u2019s lot, by a sort of perpetual intoxication.\n\n9. Him whom glass windows protect against every breath of air; whose\nfeet are kept warm by fomentations periodically renewed; whose\ndining-rooms are made always comfortable by heat within the walls and\nunder the floor\u2014such a person, not even a gentle breeze passes over\nwithout danger. Though everything that transcends the bounds of\nmoderation is hurtful, the most perilous intemperance is that of good\nfortune. It excites the brain, awakens idle fancies in the mind, puts\ndense darkness between the false and the true.\n\n10. Which is better, to bear up under continuous misfortune that incites\nus to do our best, or to be crushed under unbounded and inexhaustible\nriches? Death comes gently when the stomach is empty; it is from\nrepletion that men die like beasts. Accordingly the gods follow the same\nmethod with good men that teachers follow with good pupils\u2014they require\nthe hardest labor from those of whom they cherish the highest hopes.\nDost thou believe that it is out of hatred for their children that the\nLacedaemonians try, by public scourgings, what stuff they are made of?\nTheir own fathers exhort them to bear bravely their flagellations, and\nask them, when bleeding and half dead, to proffer unflinchingly their\nwounds for fresh wounds.\n\n11. Why is it strange if God sends severe trials upon noble spirits? a\ntest of one\u2019s courage is never an easy matter. Is it destiny that\nscourges and lacerates us? let us endure it; \u2019tis not wanton cruelty, it\nis a contest; the oftener we enter it, the stronger we shall become. The\nsolidest part of the body, frequent use has made so. We must be\nsubjected to the buffetings of fortune in order that in this way we may\nbecome callous to it. Little by little, fortune makes us a match for\nitself; contempt of dangers results from often braving them. In this way\nsailors inure their bodies to the sea; the hands of the husbandman are\ncalloused; the arms of the soldier are strong from hurling javelins; the\nlimbs of runners are agile. That part of everybody is the strongest that\nhas exercised the most.\n\n12. The soul acquires the strength to brave misfortune by patient\nendurance; what it can effect in us thou mayst know, if thou dost but\nconsider what hardship does for those peoples that go about without\nclothing and are strong by their very indigence. Consider all the\nnations over whom the sway of Rome does not extend, I mean the Germans\nand every nomad tribe along the Danube. Perpetual winter, a severe\nclimate, bear hard upon them, a sterile soil grudgingly supports them, a\nhut or branches of trees protect them against the rain, they roam over\nmarshes hardened by frost, for food they capture wild beasts.\n\n13. Dost thou think them wretched? No one is wretched when he performs\nwhat habit has made second nature to him; for by degrees we find\npleasure in doing what we began to do from necessity. These peoples have\nno houses and no resting place except as weariness finds them from day\nto day; their food is cheap and obtained only as wanted; their naked\nbodies are exposed to the terrible extremes of a horrid climate; what\nthou regardest as a frightful calamity is the whole life of many\npeoples.\n\n14. Why dost thou wonder that good men are called upon to undergo\nviolent shocks to the end that they may stand the more firmly? A tree\ndoes not take deep root, or grow strong, unless it is frequently shaken\nby the wind; for as a result of violent agitation its fiber is toughened\nand its roots more firmly set. Those are fragile that grow up in\nsheltered valleys. It is therefore a boon to good men, as it makes them\nfearless amid danger, to become familiar with hardships and to bear with\nequanimity those things that are not ills, except when they are borne\nwith an ill grace.\n\n\n                                   V.\n\n\nAdd, now, that it is best for all that every good man should, so to\nspeak, be always under arms and in action. It is the purpose of God,\njust as if He were a wise man, to demonstrate that those things which\nthe average man longs for, which he fears, are neither good nor evil;\nbut it will be evident that those things are good that are sent upon\ngood men, and those evil, that fall upon the bad. Blindness would be\ndreadful, if nobody had lost his sight except those who deserved to have\ntheir eyes put out. Accordingly, let Appius and Metellus be deprived of\neyesight. Riches are not a good.\n\n2. And so even the procurer Elius is rich in order that money to which\nmen have given a sacred character in temples may also be found in a\nbrothel. In no way is God better able to expose to contempt those things\nthat men covet than by bestowing them upon the vilest and taking them\nfrom the worthiest. \u201cBut,\u201d sayst thou, \u201cit is unjust that a good man\nshould suffer mutilation, or be crucified, or be bound in fetters, while\nthe bad strut proudly at large and live in luxury.\u201d\n\n3. What then? is it not also unjust when brave men are required to take\nup arms, to pass the night in camps and to defend the outposts, though\nthe bandages are still on their wounds, while in the city, eunuchs and\ndebauchees by profession go about in security. What further? is it not\nunjust that the noblest virgins should be aroused at night to perform\ntheir sacred duties while impure women are enjoying sound sleep? Toil\nclaims the best men. The senate is often in session during the entire\nday, when at the same time all the vilest men are either taking their\nease in the Campus Martius, or loitering in eating-houses, or wasting\ntheir time in idle gossip. It is just so in the world at large\u2014good men\ntoil, sacrifice themselves or are sacrificed, and willingly at that.\nThey are not dragged along by destiny, they follow it and keep pace with\nit; had they known whither it would lead them, they would have preceded\nit.\n\n4. I remember also to have heard these encouraging words from that\nnoblest of men, Demetrius. \u201cThis one complaint,\u201d said he, \u201cI have to\nmake against you, ye immortal gods: it is that ye did not sooner make\nknown to me your will; for of my own accord I would have come to those\nthings to which I am now summoned. Do you wish to take away my children?\nFor you I have brought them up. Do you wish any portion of my body? Take\nit. No great thing it is that I am offering you; soon I shall resign it\nentirely to you. Do you wish my life? Why not? I shall not be slow to\ngive back to you what ye have entrusted to my keeping; ye shall find me\nwilling to give up anything ye ask. Still I should rather have proferred\nit to you than given it up. What need was there to take what you could\nhave had as a gift. Yet not even now do ye need to constrain me, since\nthat is not taken from a man which he does not try to retain. I am in no\nsense the victim of constraint or violence, nor am I God\u2019s slave, but I\nam in accord with Him, and this all the more cheerfully because I know\nthat everything takes its course in accordance with an immutable law\nestablished from all eternity.\u201d\n\n5. The fates lead us, and our lot is assigned to us from the very hour\nof our birth. Cause depends upon cause; an unbroken chain of events\nlinks together public and private affairs. We ought therefore to bear\nwith fortitude whatever befalls us because everything takes place, not\nas we think, by chance, but in its due order. A long time in advance,\nall our pleasures and our pains have been determined, and although in\nthe great diversity of individual lives, one life may seem to stand\napart, it all comes to this: transitory beings ourselves we have entered\ninto a transitory inheritance.\n\n6. Why then does this disquiet us? Why indulge in complaints? it is the\nlaw of our existence. Let nature use our bodies, which are its own, as\nit wishes; let us cheerfully and bravely meet whatever comes, bearing in\nmind that what we lose is not our property. What is the duty of a good\nman? To resign himself to his destiny. It is a great consolation to\nshare the fate of the universe. Whatever it be that decrees how we are\nto live, how to die, it binds even the gods by the same inexorable law;\nan irresistible current bears along terrestrial and celestial things.\n\nThe creator and governor of the universe has indeed prescribed the\ncourse of events, but He Himself follows them; He obeys always, He\ncommanded but once.\n\n7. \u201cBut why was God so unjust in the destinies he prescribed for\nmortals, as to send upon good men poverty, wounds, and cruel deaths\u201d?\nThe artisan cannot change matter; it is passive. There are some things\nthat cannot be separated from others; they are bound together and\nindivisible. Sluggish natures and such as are prone to sink into slumber\nor into a state closely akin to slumber, are conjoined of inert\nelements; to form a man who is really worthy of the name a more heroic\ndestiny is needed. His path will not be smooth; he must go up-hill and\ndown-hill, be tossed on the waves, and guide his bark through turbid\nwaters; in spite of changing fortune, he must hold on his way.\n\n8. He will meet many obstacles hard to remove or surmount, but he will\nhimself remove them and smooth his path. Gold is tried by fire; brave\nmen by misfortune. Behold to what heights virtue may climb; thou\nshouldst know that it cannot go by ways that are free from dangers.\n\n         Hard is the way at first: though drawn by prancing steeds,\n         Slow, up the sky, the shining car proceeds;\u2014\n         On land and sea I gaze from heaven\u2019s high crest;\n         Fear and emotion fill my heaving breast.\n         Steep is the downward way, and with tight rein\n         I must the ardor of my steeds restrain;\n         E\u2019en Tethys, wont to greet me \u2019neath the waves,\n         Fears lest we plunge headlong to wat\u2019ry graves.\n\n9. When the high-spirited youth heard these words he said, \u201cI like the\nway; I shall ascend it even though I fall forthwith in so doing.\u201d The\nsun-god still tries to dissuade him from his rash purpose by exciting\nhis fears:\n\n             Hold straight thy course nor turn for aught aside,\n             Through Taurus\u2019 horns adverse thy coursers guide,\n             And Haemon\u2019s bow and Leo\u2019s searching face.\n\nTo this he replied, \u201cYoke the steeds to the chariot; by the very words\nwhich you seek to deter me, you incite me. I long to stand where Sol\nhimself quakes with fear; it is only ignoble and weak souls that journey\non safe roads; courage ventures on giddy heights.\u201d\n\n\n                                  VI.\n\n\n\u201cBut why does God suffer any evil to befall the good\u201d? Verily, He does\nnot suffer it. He wards off from them all evils, crimes and misdeeds and\nimpure thoughts and avaricious designs and unbridled passions and lust\nafter other men\u2019s property; He watches over and protects them. Will any\none in addition to this demand of God that He shall also bear the\nluggage of good men (as if He were a slave)! They themselves cast this\nburden upon God; mere externals they make light of. Democritus threw\naway his riches, thinking them a fardel upon his noble soul. Why do you\nwonder that God sometimes suffers that to come upon a good man which he\nhimself desires?\n\n2. \u201cGood men sometimes lose their children.\u201d Why not, when they\nsometimes even put them to death? \u201cThey are sent into exile.\u201d Why not,\nwhen they sometimes leave their country, voluntarily, never to return?\n\u201cThey are put to death.\u201d Why not, when they sometimes lay violent hands\non themselves? \u201cWhy do they suffer many hardships?\u201d That they may teach\nothers to suffer patiently; they are born to be examples.\n\n3. Think of God as speaking to them thus: \u201cWhat right have ye to\ncomplain of me, ye who take pleasure in doing right? Other men I have\nencompassed with seductive pleasures and their torpid souls I have\nlulled into a long and delusive sleep; gold, silver and ivory I have\nlavished upon them; yet at heart they are good for nothing. Those men\nwhom you look upon as fortunate, if you regard them, not with respect to\nwhat is external but what is concealed, are wretched, unclean, deformed,\nadorned on the outside after the similitude of their own walls. Their\ngood fortune is not substantial and unalloyed; it is a mere crust and a\nthin one at that.\n\n4. Accordingly, as long as they are allowed to stand and to show\nthemselves as they wish to appear, they make a brilliant and imposing\ndisplay; but when something occurs that disarranges their plans and\ndiscloses their true character, then it becomes apparent how real and\ndeep their foulness. To you I have given a genuine, an abiding good; the\nmore one turns it about and looks at it from every side, the greater and\nbetter it appears. I have given you the strength to contemn what other\nmen fear; to make of little account what others long for. You do not\nshine because of externals; it is the kingdom within you that is your\nhighest good. Thus does the world disdain what is on the outside because\nhappy in the contemplation of itself; within you have I placed all real\ngood; not to need happiness is your happiness.\u201d\n\n5. \u201cBut many sad occurrences take place, things from which we shrink in\nterror, and which are hard to bear.\u201d \u201cBecause I am not able to ward them\noff from you, I have armed you against all changes of fortune. Endure\nbravely; in this you may surpass God: He is exempt from suffering, you\nare superior to it. Contemn poverty; no one lives so poor as he is born.\nContemn pain; either it will end or you. Contemn fortune; I have given\nto it no weapon with which to wound the soul. Contemn death; it either\nends your existence or transfers it.\n\n6. Before all things, I took care that no one should keep you here\nagainst your will; the way for your departure is open. If you do not\nwant to fight, you can run away. Therefore, with all the restrictions I\nhave placed upon you, I have made nothing easier for you than death.\nOnly look and you will see how short and easy is the way to liberty. I\nhave made the way shorter for those who wish to go out of the world than\nfor those who are entering it; besides, destiny would have had great\npower over you, if it were as hard for a man to die as to be born.\n\n7. Every moment of time, every place, can teach you how easy it is to\nquit nature\u2019s service and to return to her her gift. At the very foot of\nthe altar and amid the solemnities of those who are offering sacrifices\nfor the preservation of life, learn to know death. The huge bodies of\nbulls drop from the effects of a little wound, and beasts of enormous\nstrength are felled by a blow from a human hand; with a little piece of\niron the jointures of the vertabrae are severed, and when the ligature\nthat binds the head and neck is cut asunder, the huge mass falls dead to\nthe ground.\n\n8. The breath does not lurk in some secret hiding place, nor must it\nnecessarily be sought out with the sword; there is no need of piercing\nthe vitals with a deep wound; death is close at hand. I have not\ndesignated any particular place for the fatal thrust, it may enter\nanywhere. What is called death, that time in which the spirit leaves the\nbody, is so brief that its fleetness cannot be perceived. Whether it be\na noose that strangles you, or water that suffocates you, or a fall upon\nthe hard earth that dashes the life out of you, or fire drawn in with\nthe breath that cuts off its return\u2014whatever it be, its effect is\nspeedy. Are you not ashamed to fear so long what may be done so\nquickly?\u201d\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nA few notes have been added to the translation. They bear chiefly on\nobscure allusions in Seneca\u2019s treatise, as the necessary biographical\ndata may be found in almost any encyclopedia. The notes are placed by\nthemselves so as not to interrupt the reader, who may omit them, if he\nchooses.\n\n\n    I.\n\n\n    2. It was held by some of the Greek philosophers, notably Epicurus,\n    that the universe was built up by a fortuitous concourse of atoms.\n\n    4. Some texts have _quaeris_, you are seeking information.\n\n    6. _Vernae_ were slaves born in the household of their masters,\n    sometimes his own children by a female slave. The _licentia\n    vernularum_ was proverbial in Rome. The _vernae_ and _vernulae_ were\n    allowed privileges not accorded to slaves obtained by purchase.\n\n\n    II.\n\n\n    _In suum colorem_, to its colors. The parties represented in the\n    race-course were distinguished by different colors. The significance\n    of the expression is therefore evident. Another less probable\n    explanation of the passage is that the author has reference to the\n    effect of red wine when mixed with liquids of another color.\n\n    3. As the holidays in Rome were very numerous much time was lost by\n    those who spent all of them in idleness.\n\n    7. Cato, surnamed Uticensis, is here meant. He was the patron saint\n    of the Roman Stoics.\n\n    9. The sentence here translated, \u201cFor death,\u201d etc., may also mean,\n    \u201cFor it requires less courage to meet death (once) than to seek it a\n    second time.\u201d\n\n\n    III.\n\n\n    6. The wild boar roasted whole was generally placed on the center of\n    the table. Around it were piled fruits, vegetables, etc.\n\n    7. _Tua felicitas._ Sulla called himself FELIX, and in the next\n    section we find this epithet applied to him. The atrocities he\n    committed are familiar to every reader of Roman history.\n\n    8. The Cornelian law. The Roman Legal Code was greatly modified\n    under the inspiration of Sulla. The statute here referred to, fixed\n    the penalty for homicide and similar crimes. It bore its author\u2019s\n    gentile name.\n\n    The familiar story of Regulus was accepted as true by the Romans,\n    and, in fact, by the world generally, until recent times. It is\n    interesting as showing the high estimate placed upon patriotism by\n    the Romans from their point of view. Though narrow it was intense\n    and played a conspicuous part in the growth of the Roman state.\n\n    9. Maecenas the well-known Premier of the emperor Augustus was\n    passionately attached to his wife Terentia; but her fidelity was\n    more than suspected, a condition of things that led to many quarrels\n    with her husband.\n\n    11. The writer refers here to the disgusting practice of the Romans,\n    who, at their feasts, frequently ate and drank to excess, then\n    produced vomiting in order to be able to begin eating and drinking\n    over again.\n\n    12. Vatinius was a worthless fellow who defeated Cato in the contest\n    for the praetorship.\n\n\n    IV.\n\n\n    12. The Romans were wilfully blind as to the climate and soil of\n    Germany. It was a case of \u201csour grapes.\u201d After vainly endeavoring to\n    conquer its inhabitants, they decided that they were not worth the\n    trouble of conquest.\n\n\n    V.\n\n\n    6. \u201cWhatever it be\u201d etc. The First Cause, about which Seneca is in\n    some doubt, whether it is personal or impersonal, material or\n    immaterial; whether matter exists of necessity or is created. In 4\n    he uses _mundus_ in a personal sense. He is also inconsistent in his\n    attitude toward suicide; for after assuring us in the strongest\n    language, that it is every man\u2019s duty to endure whatever Providence\n    or Fate or Destiny or Chance sends upon him, he ends by telling him\n    that if the service is too hard he is at perfect liberty to run away\n    from it. Gr\u00e9ard rightly says, \u201cHe confuses God with the world,\n    Providence with destiny; he admits and does not admit the\n    immortality of the soul; he proclaims the freedom of the will, and\n    denies it.\u201d\n\n    8. 9. Dr. Lodge, (1614) translates the two extracts from Ovid\u2019s\n    Metamorphoses as follows:\n\n            \u201cThe first which with unwearied steeds I clime,\n            Is such a iourney that their ceaseless toyle\n            Can scarcily reach before the morrowes prime;\n            The next is highest heau\u2019n from whence the soyle\n            And spacious seas, I see with dreadfull eye\n            And fearfull heart; the next whereto I hie\n            Is steep and prone and craues a cunning guide;\n            And then dothe Thetis shake herselfe for dread,\n            Lest headlong I should fall and downward glide,\n            And burie in her waues my golden head.\u201d\n\n            \u201cAnd that thou mayst continue in the way,\n            Be carefull lest thy posting steeds doe stray;\n            Yet shalt thou pass by Taurus, who will bend\n            His hornes to cross thee, whither thou dost tend;\n            Th\u2019 Aemonian Archer and the Lion fell\n            Shall stay thy course and fright thee where they dwell.\u201d\n\n    See also the classical dictionary under Phaethon.\n\n\n    VI.\n\n\n    6. An inclined plane down which an object may be easily started to\n    roll.\n\n    8. The final sentence more literally translated would read, Are you\n    not ashamed? what is so quickly done you fear so long?\n\n\n\n\n                  PLUTARCH AND THE GREECE OF HIS AGE.\n\n\nEver since I have known enough about Greek literature to form an opinion\nof my own on its merits, it has been a matter of surprise to me that the\nauthors who flourished in the century or two immediately preceding and\nsucceeding the Christian era, are treated with so much neglect. The\nhistories of Greek literature, whose name is legion, frequently end with\nGrecian independence; or if they continue the subject some centuries\nlonger, treat the later periods in a half-hearted and perfunctory\nmanner, as if they were deserving of nothing better. While it is true,\nthat in some departments the field is relatively infertile, there are\nmany writers well worth a careful study, and several eminently so. The\nstorm and stress period is over; the centuries of vigorous productions\nwell-nigh past; yet the Greek mind is not dead; the field of authorship\nstill bears many fine ears and occasionally a large sheaf for the\ncareful gleaner. The times that could produce a Polybius, a Plutarch, an\nEpictetus, an Arrian, a Dion Chrysostomus, a Lucian, to say nothing of\nJosephus and Philo, together with others, a score or more in number,\ncannot justly be charged with intellectual stagnation. If the form in\nwhich the later writers express their thoughts has no longer the\nelegance, nor the thoughts themselves the profundity, of their\npredecessors, they are far from being unworthy of painstaking study. If\nmen reflected less, they did more, or were at least active in a larger\nsphere. Greeks were now to be found in all parts of the civilized world;\nthey still provided its intellectual nourishment; Athens was still its\nuniversity and it is of the Greeks of these centuries more than of the\nearlier that Horace could say,\n\n                 Graeca capta ferum victorem cepit et artes\n                 Intulit agresti Latio.\n\nGreek culture had become so widespread that a sojourn in Athens was no\nlonger necessary for those who were ambitious to learn the language in\nits purest form. Though this city was still looked upon with a certain\nfilial regard, half a score of rivals had sprung up in three continents\nthat at times seriously threatened its prestige. The centuries that meet\nat the birth of Christ are the link that unites the golden age of Greek\nliterature with the Renaissance. In them was coined much of the small\nchange of Greek thought, which was by reason of its form the more widely\ncirculated. That much of it was silver, so to speak, only made it the\nmore generally available.\n\nBut while the writings of these three or four centuries have suffered\ngreatly from neglect at the hands of the moderns, the language in its\nnarrower sense, except that of the New Testament, has been almost wholly\nignored. It needs but a brief examination of the current Greek\ndictionaries to convince the student that here is an ample field for\nprofitable work. Even the great Thesaurus of Stephanus often leaves one\nsadly in the lurch; besides, it is both too extensive and too expensive\nfor general use. What we need is a careful lexicographical and\ngrammatical study of the individual authors and the presentation of the\nresults in as succinct a form as possible.\n\nIt is a pleasure to note the signs of a revival in this quarter\u2014for that\nit is not a misnomer to speak of a revival will be evident to those who\nknow that the reader of some of the authors above named, together with\nothers, is largely compelled to rely on texts that are more than half a\ncentury old, in some cases much more. In this laudable work of\nrediscovery, Professor Mahaffy in Great Britain, and Professor\nKrumbacher in Germany, may be regarded as the leaders. The former, by\nhis various works upon the Greeks under Roman sway, and the latter by\nhis masterly _Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur_ and his\n_Byzantinische Zeitschrift_ have done more than any two writers in the\npresent century to awaken an interest in a subject that has long been in\na comatose condition. The present volume, though bearing upon the\ngeneral theme, is concerned with but a small portion of it. I have tried\nto throw a little light upon two authors, in whose writings are many\npassages that put them in some sort of relation to nascent Christianity.\nWhile it is almost absolutely certain that neither Seneca nor Plutarch\nhad any knowledge of the new doctrines first preached in their time, it\nought surely to be a matter of interest to every thinking man to note\nhow closely the best that is in the old philosophy approached the new\nreligion; or, to state the case somewhat differently, that the old\nphilosophy and the new religion are in many points identical.\n\nThe French have, almost from the beginning of their national literature,\nbeen ardent admirers of Plutarch. Amyot reduced some of his precepts to\nrhyme in order that they might the more readily be taught to children,\nand regarded his writings as more profitable than any other except the\nScriptures. Gui-Patin makes Pliny, Aristotle, Plutarch, and Seneca\nconstitute an entire family,\u2014father, mother, older and younger\nbrother\u2014and thus in a sense represent the whole circle of literature.\nRollin copies his Parallel Lives almost literally into his Ancient\nHistory. Rousseau cites him among the few authors that he read in his\nold age. He is the last consolation of St. Pierre. Laharpe regards him\nas by nature the most moral man that ever lived; and Joubert calls him\nthe Herodotus of Philosophy, and deems his Lives the wisdom of antiquity\nin its entirety. Montaigne says, \u201cI never settled myself to the reading\nof any authors but Plutarch and Seneca.\u201d Again, \u201cPlutarch had rather we\nshould applaud his judgment than commend his knowledge, and had rather\nleave us with an appetite to read more, than glutted with that we have\nalready read. He knew very well that a man may say too much even upon\nthe best subjects, and that Alexandrides did justly reproach him who\nmade very elegant but too long speeches to the Ephori, when he said: \u2018O\nstranger, thou speakest the things thou oughtest to speak, but not after\nthe manner thou shouldst speak them.\u2019\u201d Elsewhere he recurs to the\nsubject with these words, \u201cAs to what concerns my other reading that\nmixes a little more profit with the pleasure and whence I learn how to\nmarshal my opinions, the books that serve me to this purpose are\nPlutarch and Seneca. Both of them have this great convenience suited to\nmy humor, that the knowledge I there seek is discoursed in some pieces\nthat do not require any great trouble of reading long, of which I am\nincapable.\u201d In his Essays, Montaigne refers to or quotes Plutarch more\nthan two hundred times, and Seneca almost as often. So far as Plutarch\u2019s\nLives are concerned, the translation published by Jacques Amyot, bishop\nof Auxerre, in 1559, is still regarded as a masterpiece. This version is\nof special interest to English-speaking people, because from it Sir\nThomas North made his translation, published some twenty years later,\nand Shakespeare, in turn, took the material for his plays dealing with\nantique life. Of later English translations, that of the Langhorne is\nundoubtedly the most popular, though the one known as Dryden\u2019s, albeit\nhe had little to do with it, as revised by A. H. Clough, is much read.\nThat of Stewart and Long is not generally known. There seems to be no\nEnglish translation of Plutarch\u2019s Moral Writings except that made by a\nnumber of Oxford scholars some two centuries since and edited by\nProfessor Goodwin. The German version made by Kaltwasser just one\nhundred years ago, is an excellent piece of work. The Lives have been\nfrequently translated.\n\nAbout sixty miles northwest of the city of Athens near the road leading\nfrom Delphi to Lebadeia, midway between the gulf of Corinth and the\nnorthern end of the Euripus, lies to-day the town of Chaeroneia, or\nrather its modern representative, Capraena. Though never a municipality\nof much importance, its inhabitants, before the time of Plutarch, had\nbeen the spectators of many stirring events. Epaminondas called the\nplain near it the dancing-plot of Ares, an epithet that was abundantly\njustified by preceding and succeeding occurrences. Lying in a measure\nbetween northern and southern Greece it was rich in historical\nreminiscences and in traditions. Already known to Homer as Arne, it\nsubsequently witnessed the countless hosts of Dareius and Xerxes pass\nbeneath its walls. Near it Philip of Macedon completely overthrew the\nallied Thebans and Athenians, B. C. 338. In Plutarch\u2019s time the mound\nerected in honor of the king\u2019s soldiers who lost their lives here, was\nstill in a fair state of preservation, and the oak under which Alexander\nhad erected his tent was yet standing. In 279 the Gauls passed over the\nplain of Chaeroneia leaving desolation in their track. Twenty-eight\nyears later the Boeotians were defeated near the town in a battle with\nthe Aetolians. Still later, by a century and a half, Sulla inflicted a\ncrushing blow on his enemies, for the most part Greeks, under the\ncommand of Archelaus, the lieutenant of Mithridates. It was two citizens\nof Chaeroneia who performed for the Roman general a service similar to\nthat rendered to Xerxes by Ephialtes. In order to leave a memorial of\nhis success he erected a trophy on the summit of an adjacent hill.\nAnother trophy, dating from this time and of special significance to the\nChaeroneans, was the statue of Lucius Lucullus, a Roman commander, that\nstood in their marketplace. They had become involved in a quarrel with\ntheir old enemies, the Orchomenians, on the charge of having caused the\ndeath of a Roman officer and several of his attendants; but through the\ninterposition of Lucullus had obtained a verdict from the home\ngovernment in their favor.\n\nBut the pen is mightier than the sword. Posterity is not greatly\ninterested in wars and battles in which no great principles are\ninvolved; besides, all sanguinary conflicts are of more or less local\nsignificance. Hence it is that Chaeroneia is chiefly known, not because\nof the two hundred thousand men who lost their lives or limbs near it,\nbut as the birthplace and lifelong residence of one of the best-known\ncharacters in the literary history of the world. About half a score of\nyears after the crucifixion, this august yet kindly personage, first saw\nthe light in what was, even for Greece, an obscure town, but which he\nnever left for any considerable time, until the day of his death, at a\nripe old age. The visible remains of the first great battle fought here\nin historic times are the fragments of a colossal lion erected to\ncommemorate, not a victory, but the valor of those who fell fighting for\ntheir country and for what they believed to be its freedom. There is\nalso a village of some fifty houses, a church, a schoolhouse and a stone\nseat which its inhabitants fondly imagine to have been the property of\ntheir illustrious fellow townsman, and which they eagerly show as such,\nto the traveler. Small as the village is to-day, it can never have been\na place of much importance, a fact that is attested by the scant remains\nof its ancient theater, one of the smallest in Greece.\n\nIn Plutarch\u2019s time the chief industry of his native town consisted in\nits trade in oil and the manufacture of perfumes and unguents from the\nnumerous flowers and herbs that grew in the vicinity. In conformity to\nancient usage, this business was chiefly carried on by slaves, while its\ncitizens, having no political affairs to engage their attention, and but\nlittle interest in philosophical discussion, gave themselves up largely\nto gossip and other equally profitless ways of passing time.\n\nPlutarch was descended from one of the most prominent families of his\nnative town. He received an excellent education, according to the\nstandard of his day. He also seems to have given instruction informally\nand without pay, as he shared the prejudices of his countrymen against\nreceiving compensation for such service. We do not know much of his\nprivate life or of his family connections. Living as he did the quiet\nlife of a peaceable man, absorbed in his books and his studies and only\nappearing in public when his duties as a good citizen called him forth,\nthere was little in his career to attract the attention of a biographer.\nAlmost all that we know about him has to be gleaned from occasional\nreferences in his own writings. It has been aptly said of him that the\nprince of biographers is himself without a biographer. His father\u2019s name\nis not recorded. That of his grandfather was Lamprias. We do not know\nhow many brothers and sisters he had, though he speaks of two brothers\nwith whom he lived on the most amicable terms. Of these, Timon is an\ninterlocutor in the dialogue De Sera. His wife\u2019s name was Timoxena. By\nher he had four sons and one daughter. The latter and the oldest son\ndied when quite young.\n\nPlutarch\u2019s wife seems to have been an excellent woman and to have shared\nher husband\u2019s views as to the proper conduct of life. She was plain in\ndress and appearance, averse to show and parade, devoted to her husband,\nher children, and her household affairs.\n\nPlutarch made some journeys beyond the bounds of his native land; one at\nleast as far as Alexandria in Egypt. He spent some time in Rome where he\ngave lectures in Greek; for as he himself tells us he never learned the\nLatin language well. He went thither on public business, and is thought\nto have visited other parts of Italy on a similar errand. His fame had\npreceded him to the imperial city where he was already known by\nreputation to some of the literati, and he embraced the opportunity to\nenlarge the circle of his acquaintances. Athens he visited a number of\ntimes, and Sparta at least once. Yet, notwithstanding his celebrity in\nhis lifetime, and in striking contrast to his fame in modern times, he\nis not quoted by any extant Roman writer, and but rarely by his own\ncountrymen.\n\nAs a patriotic citizen and an admirer of all that was venerable and\nworthy of preservation in the history no less than in the traditions of\nGreece, Plutarch felt it incumbent upon him to discharge both civil and\nreligious duties as occasion called him. He was a priest of Apollo to\nwhose worship he was ardently devoted and to whom he frequently refers\nin his works, among others in the De Sera. As a consequence he\ninterested himself greatly in the religious festivals that occurred so\nfrequently in Delphi near by. It is also plain from his writings that he\nkept open house. People who desired to learn, and all who took life\nseriously, were always welcome. In some of the young men who came to him\nfor enlightenment, whom, nevertheless, we cannot regard as his pupils\nexcept in the Socratic sense, he took a lifelong interest. The choice of\nmany of the subjects discussed in his lectures was probably accidental.\nThey were proposed by persons who visited him, talked over at the time,\nbut afterwards more fully investigated and the results written out. It\nthis way light was thrown upon them both by the oral contributions of an\nintelligent company and also by the aid of books, of which he had a\nlarge collection.[3]\n\nPlutarch was a man who strove not only to make others wiser, but also to\nbecome wiser himself. His aim was to be a living exemplar of the\ndoctrines he professed and taught. He was a firm believer in plain\nliving and high thinking. He disliked as strongly as he disliked\nanything the costly and luxurious banquets so much affected by the rich\nRomans of his day. The little company that so frequently came together\nunder his hospitable roof met, not to eat and drink, but to engage in\nserious and profitable conversation. The viands were plain\u2014a secondary\nmatter; the chief thing was the discussion. This often turned on the\nmost trivial subjects, for the host seems to have thought with Terence:\n\n               \u201cHomo sum, et nihil humani a me alienum puto.\u201d\n\nPractical politics for a Greek of Plutarch\u2019s day did not mean serious\nbusiness, especially for the citizen of a small municipality like\nChaeroneia. He had therefore ample time for studying, lecturing and\nformulating his numerous writings. He was not only so fortunate as to\nhave a good memory, but he began at an early age to take notes on what\nhe read; in this way he accumulated the large stock of quotations so\nprofusely scattered through his writings. In fact this practice of\ndepending upon others for his information must have done a good deal\ntoward weakening his power of original thought, and he usually enforces\na precept by an apt quotation rather than by arguments that he has\nhimself elaborated. On the other hand, his frequent reference to older\nauthors has given a special value to his writings in the eyes of the\nmoderns. Though not quoted by any extant Roman writer and rarely by a\nGreek he must have been much read soon after his death, and at no time\nwas he wholly forgotten. His early and continued popularity doubtless\ncontributed not a little to the preservation of so large a portion of\nhis writings; but it also put into circulation under his name a number\nof spurious works\u2014just how many cannot be determined. Yet it is certain\nthat some genuine writings have been lost. Among the earliest printed\nbooks were portions of Plutarch.\n\nPlutarch is a prolix but not a pedantic nor a tedious writer. Though he\ndisplays immense erudition he does so without effort. An apt quotation\nfrom one of the poets, a telling anecdote of some celebrated man or\nwoman, or historical incident seems always ready to his hand, and\nwaiting for a suitable place to be used. He is completely master of the\nextensive stock of knowledge stored up in his mind or his notes. He is a\ncapital story-teller. He knows how to seize the salient features of a\nsituation, and can place them before the reader in the most effective\nlight. A large proportion of the anecdotes of illustrious men, belonging\nto a remoter antiquity, current in modern literature, have found their\nway into it through the medium of his writings. He often reminds one of\nHerodotus notwithstanding his antipathy to this author, and whose\nveracity he vigorously impeaches in one of his essays\u2014assuming, of\ncourse, that De Malignitate is really the work of Plutarch. Like\nHerodotus, he often wanders from the main theme of his narrative, but\nnever loses sight of it, and always returns to it without unduly\ndistracting the reader\u2019s attention. Like Herodotus, he is often reminded\nof a \u201clittle story\u201d that he forthwith proceeds to tell; and, as in the\ncase of Herodotus, the reader feels that something of value has been\nadded to the narrative by the story. Like Herodotus, too, he exhibits a\nstrange mixture of credulity with sterling good sense. So it happens\nthat the Father of History and the man whom Jean Paul Richter calls the\nBiographical Shakespeare of Universal History often meet on common\nground, in spite of the aversion of the one to the other. Of course the\ncanvas on which the historian paints is much larger; the interests he\ndiscusses are much more momentous; but he does not treat them with\ngreater seriousness than does the biographer and moralist.\n\nPerhaps the most succinct statement of Plutarch\u2019s creed is a passage in\nIsis and Osiris. He says: \u201cFor God is not a being that is without\nintelligence, without a soul, and subject to men, but we regard these as\ngods who constantly and in sufficient measure furnish us these fruits,\nand there are neither different gods among different peoples, some\nbarbarian some Greek, some northern, some southern; but just as the sun\nand moon, heaven and earth and sea are common to all, but are\ndifferently designated by different peoples, so there is but one\nintelligence that arranges all those things about us in order and one\nProvidence to which other powers that direct all things are made\nsubordinate, some of which have, by custom, received different honors\nand appellations among different peoples. The initiates also employ\ndifferent symbols, some clearer, others more obscure, that lead the mind\nto what is divine, though not without risk (of being misunderstood). For\nsome, being altogether led astray, fall into superstition; others again,\nhaving steered clear of superstition, as if it were a bog, fall into\natheism as from a precipice. On this account it is especially important\nto take reason that is born of philosophy, as a guide through these\nmysteries, in order that we may comprehend rightly everything that is\nsaid and done, in its true significance.\u201d\n\nPlutarch is a philosopher in the sense that every man of sound mind may\nbe a philosopher; but he is not, strictly speaking, a philosophical\nthinker. He does not hold to any carefully elaborated and consistent\nsystem. While he has much to say about character and conduct, he rarely\nattempts to fathom the motives that underlie and influence conduct. He\nis at times inconsistent with himself because his views on\ntranscendental problems have not been systematically wrought out and\nfirmly fixed. If he can quote the authority of some great name in\nsupport of a position he takes, it generally suffices him. Not\nunfrequently he cites contradictory authorities both for facts and\nopinions, then declares which he prefers without giving a reason for his\npreference.\n\nPlutarch\u2019s Moralia or Moral Writings are so called for the reason that\nthey are more or less concerned with ethical problems. But they also\ntreat incidentally of matters religious, political, literary,\npsychological, physical and metaphysical or philosophical. Many of his\ntreatises are in the form of dialogues, in which he doubtless had before\nhis mind\u2019s eye his great prototype Plato, little as he is able to fathom\nhis speculative profundity. Sometimes his discussions are addressed to a\nreal or imaginary interlocutor, who has, however, little to say. His\ndiscourses may be regarded as sermons or lectures addressed to a small\ncircle of interested listeners, or even to a single person, though in\nreality intended for a larger public. The homiletic character of many of\nPlutarch\u2019s discourses is also attested by the fact that he regards\nmorals as closely connected with religion. He is the bitter enemy of\natheism, because, as he maintains, it leads to a dissolute and aimless\nlife. He was, however, in no sense an innovator, but ardently attached\nto the traditions of his countrymen. He seeks to discover a hidden\nmeaning in the popular myths and cults, and to explain them on\nphilosophical grounds. His attitude in this respect has contributed a\ngood deal to the popular interest in the man. He is a self-consecrated\npriest of the established religion which he defended, not because it was\nto his personal profit to do so, but from conviction. As he will not or\ncan not discard the cults of his day, or treat them as founded on mere\nfigments of the imagination, it is incumbent upon him to explain them as\nbest he can. And he seems to be convinced that he has been entirely\nsuccessful.\n\nNot only is he an avowed foe of atheism, but he is an equally vigorous\nopponent of superstition. Yet it is often impossible to see where he\ndraws the line between what he regards as rational faith and mere\ncredulity; between his own creed and that of the populace. In truth, the\ntask is not an easy one for anybody. The German nicely designates the\nclose proximity of faith and credulity by the two terms _Glaube_ and\n_Aberglaube_. There was hardly a man in the ancient world of whom we\nhave any considerable knowledge, even though he may have been an avowed\natheist, who was wholly without superstition. The destiny of individuals\nand nations was so often decided by influences so mysterious and\ninscrutable that it might well be attributed to the miraculous\ninterposition of the gods. Even in our day, when the laws of nature are\nbetter understood than ever before, men still feel themselves the sport\nof unseen forces and powers that often seem to be malevolent or\nbenevolent for no discoverable reason, and which, it is hard to believe,\nare not controlled by a supernal will.\n\nPlutarch\u2019s merits as a historical writer are seriously impaired by his\nreadiness to believe everything that comes to him through tradition or\nrecord. Still one ought not to blame him for not being what he does not\nprofess to be. His main purpose is not to attain historical truth, but\nto discover what will \u201cpoint a moral, or adorn a tale.\u201d Had he been\nother than he was he would never have been so assiduously read.\n\nPlutarch fully recognized the importance of the family in the social\nfabric. This is the more to his credit for the reason that the trend of\npublic opinion was against him in this respect. All the evidence we have\ngoes to show that he was a judicious father, a loving husband, a dutiful\nson, and an affectionate brother. He is thus a zealous defender of the\nvirtues he himself exemplified. A knowledge of his character, as shown\nby his conduct, contributes not a little to the pleasure the modern\nreader finds in the perusal of his pages. How often, alas! do we\ndiscover on closer examination a great gulf between what men write and\nwhat they do! How often does a knowledge of the private life of a great\nwriter mar the interest we take in what he writes!\n\nThough a man of kind heart and polished manners, judged by the standard\nof his time, Plutarch was no reformer. Indeed, no reform was possible by\nmeans of his didactic method. He does not denounce vigourously the\ncorruptions of his time. He is far from employing the drastic speech of\nhis Roman contemporaries. It is probable that in his secluded home he\ndid not know or even suspect the moral degradation of the world around\nhim; it is certain he had not fathomed it. He knows something of the\nJewish religion, and might have known more, had he cared to inform\nhimself. He might have heard Paul\u2019s preaching; and Christianity had\ngained a firm foothold in Greece before Plutarch\u2019s death. But he was too\nmuch of a Greek to take any interest in what had no relation either to\nGreek religion or tradition. The new faith in virtue of its origin, was\nfoolishness to him. He considered the Hellenic religion good enough for\nanybody and everybody. It might indeed need purification from some of\nits grosser elements and exotic excrescences; but more than this was\nwholly unnecessary.\n\nNothing that Plutarch says exhibits in a more striking light the\nhumaneness of his disposition than his exhortations to the kind\ntreatment of brutes. He believes that the good man is kind to his beast.\nHe regards it a duty to care for the horse and the dog that have served\nhim well, when they become old and useless. He seems to think that\nanimals are not without a measure of reason and that they have to a\nlimited extent, the power to decide between right and wrong. Though\npossessed of only a modicum of intelligence, this at least cannot be\nentirely denied to them, any more than it can be denied to a bad man. A\ncertain measure of reason is the gift of nature; perfect and virtuous\nreason is the result of practice and instruction. The reasoning powers\nof many animals are, to an extent, on a level with those of man; they\ndiffer not so much in quality as in quantity. It is right, therefore, to\nuse but not to abuse them. Cruelty to animals is evidence of a base\nheart. Those who treat them harshly usually accentuate their bad traits\nin their dealings with men. Our treatment of animals is, therefore, in\nsome sort and often to a considerable extent, an index of how we treat\nour fellow beings. Plutarch finds the lower animals in some respects\nmore rational than men. They never eat or drink more than enough to\nsatisfy hunger and thirst; nor do they give way to any unnatural or\nexcessive appetites. He is somewhat inclined to condemn the use of\nanimal food; but, at any rate, animals must not be cruelly dealt with to\nmake them more palatable, nor put to death by lingering and inhuman\nmethods. He had in view more particularly some of the practices\nprevalent in Rome in his day,\u2014practices that were, in truth, horrible in\nthe extreme. It is no wonder that he names them only to condemn them.\nThe extreme modernness of Plutarch in this matter becomes the more\nstrikingly evident when we remember that classical antiquity not only\nvery seldom has a kind word for irrational creatures, but was wont to\ntreat them with extreme harshness. This was particularly the case among\nthe Romans.\n\nPlutarch regards the soul as composed of two parts. One part seeks after\ntruth and light; the other is under the influence of the passions, and\nliable to error. The first is divine, the second carnal. In so far as a\nman heeds the monitions of the former he will follow the path of virtue.\nPractical virtue, virtue in action, is wisdom; vice is error. In order\nto be virtuous it is only necessary to listen to the voice of reason.\nPlutarch does not doubt that virtue can be taught. To teach virtue\nconsists largely in making it attractive to the young. Reason does not\nannihilate the passions; it merely directs them toward a goal that it\nhas marked out. Virtue consists in \u201cthe golden mean\u201d\u2014\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u2014in doing\nneither too much nor too little. Bravery is a virtue whose place is\nbetween cowardice and rashness. Mildness or kindness is a virtue: its\nplace is between stolidity and cruelty, just as the place of liberality\nis midway between the extremes, stinginess and prodigality. He adduces a\nnumber of proofs to establish the position that the passions are\ncorporeal and the reason supersensuous; in a correct system of pedagogy\na proper use is to be made of the latter for controlling and wisely\ndirecting the former toward rational ends. It is in every man\u2019s power to\nbe virtuous under all circumstances, but happiness, or rather good\nfortune, is dependent upon many things. A virtuous man may enjoy peace\nof mind at all times, while the largest possessions are of no real value\nto a bad man. Vice is an anomaly in the constitution of society.\nTranquillity of mind, calmness of soul, are not to be sought in a state\nof inactivity and in retirement. The affirmative of this proposition has\nled many people into error. Disgusted with the world, they seek peace by\nwithdrawing from its turmoil and hurly-burly, too often only to meet\nwith disappointment. There is not a condition in life from which no\nconsolation can be extracted, and it is the province of reason to\ndiscover how this may be done. In what way this is possible he shows by\na number of examples from biography. What many persons at first looked\nupon as misfortunes not unfrequently turned out to be a blessing to\nthemselves and to the world. On the other hand, many persons who were\nregarded by almost every one as among the most fortunate, were found to\nhave a skeleton in their closet. When the sage suffers a loss, he does\nnot grieve over it, but places a higher value on what is left to him. No\nman is so poor, no man has lost so much, but that there remains in his\npossession something for which he can felicitate himself. Neither is any\none so destitute but that he might be still worse off, and the most\nwretched are certain to meet with others more needy than themselves. On\nthe physical side of our nature we are all subject to what, for want of\na better name, may be called _chance_; but this is not true of our moral\nand intellectual side. It is therefore within our power to secure\nindestructible and inalienable possessions: insight, love of knowledge,\nvirtue, the consciousness of being and doing right. Not even the fear of\ndeath disquiets the good man, for he knows that after his dissolution he\nshall enter into a better state of existence than this life; the bad man\nclings to life because of the dread uncertainty before him after death.\nAs a last resource, if a man\u2019s sufferings become too great to be\nendured, he can make an end of them with his own hand.\n\nTo Plutarch, no riches, no purely external possessions, are so conducive\nto peace of mind and cheerfulness of heart, as a soul that has kept\nitself free from evil thoughts and acts. For a soul that has held itself\naloof from contamination every day is a festival; the world, a temple in\nwhich God dwells and which he has adapted to the fulfilment of man\u2019s\nwants. By the proper use of reason men may control their passions and\nfind satisfaction in the enjoyment of what is within their reach. They\nmay reflect with complacency on the past and look forward to the future\nwith hope. A man\u2019s unhappiness is caused rather by the pains of the soul\nthan those of the body. Diseases of the body are due to its nature, but\ndisease of the soul is man\u2019s own work. Moreover the maladies of the soul\nare curable, a condition of things that ought to afford us much\nconsolation. Though the sufferings and diseases to which the body is\nsubject take many forms, those that a corrupt heart and a debased soul\nsend forth, as from a perennial fountain, are much more numerous. Again,\ncorporal diseases may be detected by their external symptoms; the\nmaladies of the soul are hidden. They are the more dangerous from the\nfact that, in most instances, the patient himself is not aware of them.\nThe greatest malady of the soul is the want of reason and good sense,\nbecause they disqualify men from recognizing their own baseness and the\nremedies necessary for a cure. Few persons who are guilty of wrong-doing\nrealize that they have committed transgressions; oftentimes they even\nthink they have acted wisely and judiciously. They call their anger,\nbravery; their envy and jealousy, emulation; their cowardice, prudence;\nwhile it never occurs to them to seek the aid of a philosopher for the\ndiseases of the soul until they are incurable and have become so\nvirulent that they drive the patient to the commission of the most\ndiabolical crimes.\n\nFrom these premises there follows the inevitable conclusion that the\nchief end of man is progress in virtue, or, we might better say, in all\nthe virtues, though virtue in reality is but one. Our progress in\nphilosophy is the result of constant and uninterrupted effort. Parallel\nto this is our progress in virtue; if we relax our efforts for a moment\nwe incur the danger of letting vice get a hold upon us. He who is always\nin conflict with vice, with his evil passions, may rest assured that he\nis making progress in virtue. But our love for virtue must partake of\nthe nature of a passion; in it we ought to find our highest\ngratification, so that if we are interrupted in our pursuit we shall\nlong to return to it. The aim and purpose of our philosophy must be\npractical, and it is chiefly in our activity as a citizen and a man in\nall the multiplex relations of life, that we may test our love for it.\nYet, the true philosopher is not ostentatious, and it makes little\ndifference to him whether the world recognizes him as such or not. He\nought to seek internal satisfaction, not public acknowledgement. Herein\nPlutarch takes his stand in opposition to many of his countrymen who\naspired to the name and title of philosophers, but did little to deserve\nthem. How men of sense regarded them has been pointed out elsewhere.\n\nWe may also measure our progress in philosophy, that is, in virtue, by\nour love of the beautiful and the good; by our attitude towards praise\nand blame. We ought neither to seek the one nor avoid the other. If we\nreally desire to correct our faults and shortcomings, we will be ready\nat all times to listen to advice and to heed criticism; nor will we\nconceal any part of our nature or cover up any of our acts in order to\nseem what we are not. Nevertheless, when we are firmly convinced that we\nare in the right, it is our duty to go forward in the course we have\nmarked out for ourselves, no matter what others may think or say.\n\nThere is no stronger incentive to noble deeds and an upright life than\nthe lives of the great and the good of all ages. It was mainly under the\nimpulse of this belief that Plutarch compiled his parallel biographies.\nIn the nature of the case their value as truthful records is greatly\nimpaired by the standpoint from which they were written; but it is this\nfact that has given them an attractiveness and a currency such as no\nother works of their kind have equalled. Plutarch\u2019s Lives have for\ncenturies been the monitors of youth and the solace of the aged. They\nhave been read and admired wherever men have honored courage, fortitude,\nintrepidity, self-control, patriotism, humaneness\u2014in short, every trait\nof character that can be classed among the virtues. Greeks and Romans,\nancients and moderns, learned and illiterate, rich and poor, have been\nfascinated by them, and it is on them that their author\u2019s fame chiefly\nrests. To many persons, in fact to the great majority of readers,\nPlutarch is known only as the writer of charming biographies; yet these\nconstitute a good deal less than half his extant works.\n\nPlutarch holds that men find the path of virtue and continue to walk in\nit, by reflection, deliberation, introspection; by a systematic, rigid\nand continued self-examination\u2014in other words, by a practical\napplication of the methods that philosophy points out. Man is sane and\nsound only so long as he puts into practice the principles of virtue. So\nlong as he is the slave of his passions he is in need of a physician.\nPhilosophy is the sanitation of the soul; the genuine philosopher is the\nreal physician of the soul. In pursuance of his chosen vocation,\nPlutarch wrote a number of essays for the purpose of giving instruction\nupon the best methods of controlling the different passions to which men\nare subject. Their purport easily becomes evident from a glance at their\ntitles. They show that he has carefully observed and studied men, at\nleast those that constitute the various higher classes and give the\nprevailing tone to society. Many of these essays are still of interest\nand well repay perusal. They contain many acute observations and piquant\nremarks.\n\nFor Plutarch the old mythology is sufficient as a basis for a religious\nbelief. Like most of the Greek philosophers who incline toward theism,\nhe maintains that myths are, to a greater or less extent, corruptions of\nprimitive verities. These originated in the popular mind and received\nartistic form at the hands of the poets. Underlying them all there is\ntruth enough and beauty enough to show the aspiration of the soul after\nhigher things, and they form the basis of a purely theistic belief.\nPlutarch\u2019s unbounded faith in human reason leads him to believe that it\nalone is entirely sufficient to enable any and every man to lead a\nvirtuous life. His advice to every one is, in substance: get all the\nlight you can; use the reason you are endowed with by the creator;\nacquire additional knowledge and wisdom every day; make your inward life\nan object of daily study and reflection,\u2014if you do these things you will\nlead a virtuous life. Those persons who have no love for the beautiful\nand the good, no desire to become virtuous, fail because they neglect to\ncultivate the reason with which every man is originally endowed. They\ngrope in the darkness cast about them by their own passions, and refuse\nto follow the lamp that reason holds up before them. Plutarch\u2019s\noptimism; his faith in the power of the intellect to make the world\nbetter, is especially remarkable in view of the fact that his\ncountrymen, notwithstanding their general intelligence, notwithstanding\nthe large number of great men in almost every department of knowledge\nborn in Greek lands, in spite of the fact that Greece was the native\nhearth of philosophy, had for centuries been retrograding morally,\nintellectually and politically. So hard is it to divorce most men from a\ntheory to which they have attached themselves. His mistake arose from\nhis seeing all men in the mirror of his own thoughts. He believed that\nthe whole human race could be influenced by the motives that influenced\nhimself, and that all could, if they wished, be constantly engaged in\nthe search for light and wisdom in the way he sought them. This radical\nerror he inherited from his master, Plato, and it is strange that he did\nnot detect it. He seems never to have suspected that he might be\nmistaken.\n\nPlutarch\u2019s religion is wholly without enthusiasm and his morality has in\nit not a tinge of emotion. Do right always, because by such a course of\nlife you will enjoy the largest measure of mundane happiness that can\nfall to the lot of a mortal, and be a benefactor to all who come within\nthe circle of your influence. Make the best of every situation in which\nyou may be placed. Do not take too seriously the hindrances to a\nvirtuous life that you may find in your way, because you can remove them\nif you will. No matter what your station in life, do not expect your\npath to be always a smooth one. If you keep these things in mind you\nwill probably live long,\u2014you are sure to live happily.\n\nPlutarch\u2019s views regarding the education of women are far in advance of\nhis age. He follows his master, Plato, in vindicating for them the same\nvirtues that belong to men. His treatise often designated The Virtues of\nWomen is chiefly a record of heroic deeds that have been performed by\nthe so-called weaker sex. He admits that the worth or efficiency of\nwomen is not necessarily of the same quality as that of men, but he\ncontends that its ethical value is equal and its intrinsic merit in no\nwise inferior. The woman who has performed a noble deed is entitled to\njust as much credit as a a man. He takes issue with Thucydides for\nsaying that the best woman is the one of whom least is said either for\ngood or evil. He also takes issue with the thoroughly Greek sentiment,\nthough perhaps more pronounced in Athens than elsewhere, that woman is\nat most little else than a plaything and a convenience for man; and that\nher highest function is to bear legitimate male children. According to\nPlutarch the wife is to be the equal partner in the management of the\nhousehold. When it is well conducted she deserves equal commendation\nwith the husband. He would open a wider sphere for women; train them\nintellectually, and awaken in them an interest in the larger affairs of\nlife. Consistently with these views, Plutarch assigned to his wife an\nhonorable place in his household. She received guests in her husband\u2019s\nabsence; sat at table with him and interested herself in public as well\nas private affairs. While this was in contravention of the custom of his\nday, it was in harmony with a faintly discernible trend of public\nopinion, probably the result of Roman influence. That the innovation\nmade slow progress is plain not only from the later history of Greece\nbut also from Greek social usages in our own day. When we take\ncognizance of the unhappy state of his country we are inclined to wonder\nat Plutarch\u2019s uniform serenity of mind. He never indulges in satire or\nsneer, while many of his contemporaries did both. But we must remember\nthat his philosophy had, above and beyond everything else, a practical\npurpose, and that in a rather material sense. Men\u2019s misfortunes are\ntheir own fault and therefore preventible; or they are not their own\nfault and therefore unavoidable. In either case nothing is gained by\ngrieving over them.\n\nIt will be evident from a perusal of the De Sera that optimism is the\nbasis of Plutarch\u2019s philosophy. Men can do right if they will, and if\nthey do right they can not fail to be happy. There is a superintending\nProvidence that in the end rectifies all wrong and injustice. He seems\nto hold with Goethe that \u201cEvery sin is punished here below,\u201d though the\npunishment does not end in this life. Retribution is not delayed until\nafter death; it visits the sinner in this world. Or if he is so\nfortunate as to end his days in peace, so far as mortals can see, he\nentails a curse upon his descendants. The iniquities of the fathers are\nvisited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. But the\npunishment of the wicked does not end with this life. The soul bears the\nimprint of its crimes after it has left the body. That God sometimes\npermits a wicked man to end his days in peace but that He has fastened a\ncurse on his offspring, is a prominent article in the creed of many of\nthe older Greek writers. It is often referred to by Herodotus. So firmly\nconvinced is he that all wrong-doing must be atoned for that when he\nfinds an instance where the law does not appear to hold good he\nconfesses himself at a loss to account for the failure of its operation.\nNot only individuals but nations as well must expiate crimes committed\nand wrongs done by their representatives in an official capacity. And\nthere is no doubt that the influence of this belief was most wholesome.\nMuch of what Plutarch says on this point is probably fanciful,\nespecially when he appeals to the testimony of history; but what he\nrecords is in keeping with his philosophy and has therefore a strong\npersonal interest. Moreover, he furnishes us with some interesting\ntestimony as to the prevalence of a belief in rewards and punishments\namong men outside the pale of Christianity.\n\nPlutarch\u2019s ideal of duty is a high one. The fulfilment of some duty is\nincumbent upon every man so long as he lives. It is as imperative in old\nage as in early life. When a man is quit of his obligations to his\nchildren, he owes a service to his country and to his fellow citizens in\na narrower sense. From this service, only the impairment of his\nfacilities or death may release him. As every man is born into the\nstate, and as, in a certain sense, he is a man only in so far as he\ndischarges his obligations to the state, he has no choice in the matter.\nHerein lies a duty from which there is no possible escape. But the mere\nholding of an office is not the only or even the chief test of the good\ncitizen. His duties in a private capacity are no less important, and if\nless conspicuous are equally far reaching. The good citizen is the\nphilosopher in his true sphere: good citizenship is philosophy in\naction\u2014applied philosophy. It is only in actual life that the\nphilosopher can put his theories to the test. The form of government is\na matter of minor importance. Plutarch regards monarchy, as on the\nwhole, the best, but he is not radical. In this he agrees with the\nmajority of Greek philosophers, most of whom were generally more or less\ndissatisfied with the turbulent Athenian democracy. That monarchy is\nbest where the head of the state is what Plutarch would have him be, a\nphilosopher. But even the most absolute monarch should not regard\nhimself above law; he is to be its executor. Moreover, it is his duty\nnot only to obey cheerfully the written law that binds prince and people\nalike, but also that unwritten law that reason has implanted in the soul\nof every man of sound mind. Rulers are in a sense the servants of God\nwhose duty it is to apportion rewards and punishments according to their\ndeserts, to all that are under their authority.\n\nAfter all, man\u2019s first and chief duty is to himself. His quest for\nlight, for knowledge, for truth is never to be intermitted. He is to\ntake his bearings, as it were, frequently, in order to see what progress\nhe is making. If his aims are noble, his purposes right, and his motives\npure, he will not only make daily progress in virtue, but when he is\ncalled to leave this world he can depart in peace because he will have\nthe consciousness that it is the better for his having lived in it.\n\nHaving thus given a short sketch of Plutarch as a man and a citizen let\nus proceed to examine briefly the times in which he lived as\nsupplementary to what has already been said under this general head in\ntreating of Seneca. What had Roman rule done for his country? What was\nthe social and economic condition of Greece and Greek lands in the first\ncentury of the Christian era? Unfortunately our information on these\npoints is exceedingly scanty. In fact, political economy is a recent\nscience; in ancient times the lot of the poor was little taken note of.\nIt was everywhere a hard one, and the care of the indigent, so much\ninsisted on in the New Testament, is almost the first sign of an\nawakening in this respect. But it did not originate with the government;\nthat had other ends in view. That the Roman policy toward the\nproletariat in the imperial capital only made matters worse, is well\nknown. When we remember how much has been done in recent years by\nlegislation in every civilized country for the amelioration of the\ncondition of the lowest classes and how much still remains to be done,\nwe can picture to ourselves the state of society where all this was\nomitted.\n\nWhen we remember further that up to a comparatively recent period\ncommerce, trade and manufactures flourished, in so far as they can be\nsaid to have flourished, not because they were fostered by governments,\nbut almost in spite of them, it is not surprising that they received\nlittle attention at the hands of the Greeks and Romans, either\nindividually or collectively. It has already been stated that the sole\nobject of the ruling powers was to raise the largest amount of revenue,\nnot to equalize the burdens on all the subjects. On no question is\nancient thought so crude as upon economics. The blight of slavery that\nmade free labor to a certain extent disgraceful, and a condition of\nthings that hindered the establishment of manufacturies on a large\nscale, tells the sorrowful story.\n\nIn his attitude toward slavery, Plutarch does not seem to hold as\nadvanced views as Seneca and some of the better men of his age and\npreceding times. Yet he did not endorse the prevalent opinion, embodied\nin legislation, that a slave is a soulless thing, though the justice of\nemancipation occupied his attention but little. Here again we find his\npractical ideas in the foreground. He is concerned to make the best of\nthe situation as he finds it. Slavery exists, is an ineradicable element\nof organized society and is coextensive with the human race. The best\nthat the philosopher can do is to make sages of slave-holders, to the\nend that they treat their bondmen with justice and humaneness. Compare\nthe anecdotes of Plato and Archytas in De Sera, Chap. 5. According to\nPlutarch slaves have souls like other human beings, and are capable of\nmental and moral improvement; consequently masters have duties to\nperform toward them that are just as plain and just as imperative as\nthose due to persons on the same social level with themselves.\n\nThe prosperity of nations rests mainly upon the numbers and intelligence\nof its middle classes. It can everywhere be measured by the rise of this\nclass. What wonder then that the nations were poor among whom it\nscarcely existed? Rome could not go on plundering interminably, and the\nriches of its provinces in time became exhausted because not\nreplenished. All that the ancient world has left upon record for us,\nproceeds upon the assumption of a large body of slaves and a small body\nof free citizens, and breathes a contempt for labor and trade. In most\nof the Greek states the commercial and manufacturing class consisted\nchiefly of resident aliens who were also slave-holders, and no citizen\nwas so poor that he did not own at least one slave. To be a slave-owner\nwas a badge of respectability even for those who were not citizens. In\nthe Greek states, so long as they were free polities, war and religion\noccupied all the time and attention of the citizens, except that small\nbody that were interested in philosophical pursuits. When they were no\nlonger free and no longer had serious affairs in which to employ their\ntime, they spent most of it in idle gossip or as the Acts tell us, \u201cin\nhearing or telling some new thing.\u201d What legislation they were still\npermitted to engage in never concerned matters of grave import. They\ndecreed crowns and statues to real or supposed benefactors, only to\nannul their decrees when those whom they were intended to honor happened\nto incur the displeasure of the legislators or to fall into disgrace\nwith the higher powers. Then there were deputations between different\nstates about boundary disputes, about festivals, about claims and\ncounter claims of all sorts, the sending of which was often debated with\na solemnity that makes us wonder how the participants could themselves\nfail to see their farcical character. Generally the game at stake was\nthe favor of the emperor, each party striving to outbid the other in\nprofessions of loyalty or to outvie it in the length of its bill for\nservices rendered. When, as was frequently the case, these delegations\ndid not find the emperor in Rome, they had, of course, to follow him\ninto provinces or to await his return. This required time that, we may\nbe sure, was in most cases ungrudgingly given. Instead of directing\ntheir energies into channels of activity and trying by honest work to\nbetter their worldly condition it was talk, talk with the Greeks, and\ntalk without end.\n\nThere is no stronger evidence of their fondness for discussion and for\nlistening to the spoken word than Greek literature itself. The\nhistorians are in the habit of stating the case of opposing parties by\nharangues which they put into the mouth of a representative of each.\nGreek poetry consists in a great measure of dialogue. Philosophy was\nchiefly developed by means of oral discussion. Comedy, even after it was\nno longer represented on the stage, still appears as dialogue and not in\nthe usual form of the satire. Among its richest legacies to posterity is\nits oratory, and in it we have the spoken word in its most effective\nform; but it still represents words rather than deeds, and belongs for\nthe most part to the declining age of Greece. A solitary thinker like\nKant was wholly foreign to Greek ideas. So persistently has this trait\nremained a characteristic of the Hellenes that many of their best\nfriends deplore their fondness for petty politics; their sleepless\nanxiety to assist in the management of the government instead of turning\ntheir attention to bettering their material condition by a steady\ndevotion to private business. Many of the rich and well-to-do Greeks\nlive outside the kingdom of Greece where their lingual activity is\ncircumscribed and they are compelled by circumstances to turn their\nenergies into more profitable channels. Rarely has a man, distinguished\nfor eloquence alone, profoundly influenced the course of human events.\nContemporaries are unanimous in ascribing to Julius Caesar oratorical\ngifts of the highest order; but he preferred to make his mark as a doer\nof deeds rather than as a maker of phrases.\n\nIn Rome the economic conditions were somewhat different from those\nprevailing in Greece and the East, yet Rome was not a commercial state.\nIt was founded on military power, extended by valor and endurance in\nwar, and when there were no more worlds to conquer, the forces that had\nbeen turned against external enemies began to be turned against herself.\nRome was rich while she had other countries to plunder; when this was no\nlonger possible her decay began. And these countries, by which we mean\nall the provinces outside of the city, were rich so long as the\nfertility of their soil continued and their mines were productive. That\nRome\u2019s moral decline antedated her economic retrogression by centuries\nis familiar to every reader of ancient history, but it is only the\nlatter that we are concerned with here.\n\nMoney was not used for purposes of production, but for the purchase of\narticles of luxury and display. Much of what had been accumulated in the\ncapital flowed eastward and disappeared. Italy gradually passed into the\nhands of a small number of largelanded proprietors, whose vast estates\nwere cultivated by persons who had no interest in maintaining their\nfertility. Great numbers of free citizens flocked to Rome to enjoy the\ndoles distributed to the populace at stated intervals; to feast their\neyes on the bloody spectacles, so frequently and so magnificently given;\nand to die, only to leave room to be filled by the constantly inflowing\nstream. The empire existed for the City, its capital. We have already\nspoken of the strange fascination it exercised over all who had once\nbeen under its spell. We may safely assume that of the eighty thousand\nRomans put to death by Mithridates in his dominions, a considerable\nportion had gone abroad in the hope of enriching themselves in order to\nspend their gains in the capital. Doubtless, too, so far afield, trade\nwas less despised than at the seat of government. The empire built, and\nfor a time kept in repair, those magnificent highways that are still the\nadmiration of all who see them. But they served military purposes almost\nexclusively. When no longer needed they were suffered to fall into\ndecay. They were not constructed to facilitate commercial intercourse,\nand contributed little to the economic welfare of the empire. When the\nlack of local improvements was sufficiently felt and the people were not\ntoo much impoverished, which was seldom the case, to bear the necessary\nfinancial burdens these were undertaken by the local authorities. But\nthere is reason to believe that some of the provinces, notably the\nGrecian, became poorer and poorer from year to year. The capital drained\nthe province; the people lost heart, and gave themselves up to the\napathy of indifference or despair.\n\nIt was the evil destiny of the Greek polities that they could never be\nbrought to act together for any length of time; nor did all of them ever\nact together in any common enterprise. And they learned nothing from\nexperience. The misfortunes resulting from this centripetal tendency\nwere pointed out time and again by writers and orators, but to no\npurpose. Local pride always outweighed the dictates of reason or even of\ncommon prudence. Had Greece presented a united front, under competent\nleadership, it would have been a hard task for even Rome to subdue it.\nBut it was impossible for the different states to forget their\nreciprocal animosities: the increasing prosperity of one was usually the\nsignal for others to turn their arms against it. In this way all of them\nwere gradually weakened and thus became a comparatively easy prey to any\nstrong foreign foe that might choose to attack them. Their subjugation\nby Rome was by far the greatest misfortune that ever befell them. Philip\nof Macedon and his successors were at least more than half Greeks, and\nhad a good deal of sympathy with Greek ideas. The Romans had none\nwhatever. Still, cruelly as they carried out the work of subjugation in\ncertain localities, when their first animosity was appeased they seem\nnot to have interfered systematically with existing municipal\nadministrations. Yet the financial pressure became harder as the people\ngrew poorer, and matters went from bad to worse. The wickedness of\nCorinth, the most Roman of Greek cities after it had been rebuilt under\nimperial auspices, affords striking evidence of what Roman influence\nmeant on the morals of a Greek polity.\n\nIt is a matter of common knowledge what Roman internecine war brought\nupon Italy. To a certain extent the same evils were shared by Greece.\nThree of the fiercest battles between the contestants for the principate\nwere fought in or near Greece. The Greeks were always on the losing\nside, though her soldiers were not numerously represented in the Roman\narmies. These battles did but accelerate a retrograde movement that had\nbeen quite marked at least since the Mithridatic war, though it did not\nbegin then. The population was rapidly decreasing. Plutarch says that in\nhis time all Greece could not furnish three thousand heavy-armed\nsoldiers. This statement must not be taken too literally; it can hardly\nmean that there were not this number of able-bodied men in the whole of\nGreece; it must mean that it did not contain three thousand citizens\nsufficiently well-to-do to enable them to support themselves in the\nfield. In the days of their glory some of the smallest Greek states were\nbetter off than this would indicate. It is certainly proof positive of\npoverty, if not of a very sparse population. But this, too, had greatly\ndecreased in some places. In the time of Augustus, Thebes had ceased to\nbe anything more than a large village\u2014the same Thebes that had played so\nprominent a part in legend and history. With a few exceptions, the\nlarger Boeotian towns were in the same sad plight. Cities without\ninhabitants, or only a few; cattle grazing in the deserted streets, and\neven in the market-place, seem to have been a common sight. What had\nbecome of the inhabitants? We only know that they were gone, most of\nthem, doubtless, to their graves.\n\nIn Greece, Sparta excepted, slavery was of a rather mild type, and it\nwas unusual for a Greek to sell a slave to a foreigner. Neither did\ngladiatorial combats flourish among the Greeks. Even Corinth, that in\nlater times contained a large admixture of Romans, could not acclimate\nthem. While it is true that the Greeks made light of human life and took\nit upon the slightest pretext, it was rarely done by the cruel methods\nof the Romans. With all their faults and frailties they belonged to a\ndistinctly higher type of men, and their civilization at a very early\nperiod began to move along lines afterward followed by the progressive\nnations of the world. How infinitely better were their peaceful contests\nthan the bloody spectacles that were the delight of Rome!\n\nJust as the Greeks were reluctant to admit foreigners to citizenship,\nthey were also reluctant to admit exotic gods into their pantheon. In\nboth, their policy was diametrically opposed to that of Rome. Their\nexclusiveness in the former regard was due to their belief in their own\nsuperiority; in the latter, to the conviction that their national gods\nwere sufficient for all human needs. Friedlaender is probably right in\nhis contention that the period here under consideration shows no decay\nin what we may call religion, either in Greece or Rome. Its external\nforms and traditional rites were sedulously kept up and scrupulously\nmaintained. Plutarch likewise bears testimony to this condition of\nthings. Scoffers and infidels had become more numerous, mainly because\nthe Romans were more tolerant in such matters than the Greeks. To the\nruling class all cults were alike; consequently they made no objections\nto anything that was spoken or written, so long as their authority was\nnot directly or indirectly attacked. In the various controversies about\nreligion mentioned in the New Testament, the attitude of the government\nis always one of indifference except as to the maintenance of public\norder.\n\nThe Greeks, generally speaking, preferred, like Plutarch, the limited\nsphere of local political activity to the larger one offered at Rome.\nThe provincials who came to honor on the other side of the Adriatic were\nfew in number.\n\nIn the main the provinces fared better under the imperial government\nthan under the republic. There was a higher degree of probability that\nwrongs would be redressed. A case in point is that of the apostle Paul\nwho appealed to Caesar even when the Caesar was Nero.\n\nIt is a well-known fact of ancient history that property in transit,\neither by land or sea, was at no time particularly safe at a distance\nfrom the centers of population. The thief and the robber are familiar\nfigures in both sacred and profane writings. Pompey\u2019s extensive crusade\nagainst the pirates that infested all parts of the Mediterranean forms\nan important episode in the records of the Roman navy. Even in the\ncities, the unlighted streets afforded frequent opportunities for\nplunder and murder to those who had no scruples about taking life or\nproperty. As domestic affairs from time to time engrossed the attention\nof the imperial administration, the outlying provinces were not\ncarefully looked after; roads were neglected and became insecure; the\npolice force lacked efficiency, and commercial intercourse between the\ndifferent parts of the empire was reduced to a minimum. The people were\ndriven to agriculture as their only means of support, which, in Greece\nparticularly, was never a profitable industry. Nothing affords a more\nstriking contrast between the police system of ancient and modern times\nthan the frequency with which robberies are mentioned in the former and\ntheir rarity in the other. Paul tells us that he had been in peril by\nrobbers; we know, too, from the writings of Josephus and others that the\nconflicts between this class of outlaws and the Roman government were by\nno means infrequent. Those who had been engaged in rebellion, or who\nwere among the vanquished in battle, or who had become voluntary or\ncompulsory exiles, often felt that they had a right to prey on orderly\nsociety.\n\nIt is a recognized fact that the monarchical system of the East tended\nto encourage immorality, a condition of things that usually exists where\nthere is no strong and wholesome public opinion. The usurpers in the\nGreek cities, and later, the Roman provincial governors, were, with rare\nexceptions, men of loose morals if not worse. The private life of its\nrepresentatives was a matter with which the home government did not\nconcern itself, and the subjects were constrained to be dumb. Now and\nthen one of these petty sovereigns ruled wisely according to the\nstandards of the time, and the public was satisfied, especially if they\nknew how to maintain brilliant courts, and to adorn their capitals with\nimposing structures. It was so easy to trump up the charge of sedition\nagainst persons who refused to be servile flatterers, that only the most\ncourageous dared to stand aloof. Finlay, though somewhat given to\npainting in strong colors, is probably not far wrong when he says: \u201cIt\nis difficult to imagine a society more completely destitute of moral\nrestraint than that in which the Asiatic Greeks lived. Public opinion\nwas powerless to enforce even an outward respect for virtue; military\naccomplishments, talents for civil administration, literary eminence and\ndevotion to the power of an arbitrary sovereign, were the direct roads\nto distinction and wealth; honesty and virtue were very secondary\nqualities. In old countries or societies where a class becomes\npredominant, a conventional character is formed, according to the\nexigencies of the case, as the standard of an honorable man; and it is\nusually very different indeed from what is really necessary to\nconstitute a virtuous or even an honest citizen.\u201d\n\nThe student of Greek history is often inclined to believe that the bane\nof Hellenic statesmanship was the bitter rivalry that always existed\nbetween the different polities. From the standpoint of the philosopher\nthis view is correct. If the energies devoted to the means and methods\nof mutual destruction had been expended on the arts of peace, not only\nGreece, but the entire world would, to-day, present a widely different\naspect. However much the moralist may deplore the existing conditions,\nthe man who takes the world as it is cannot fail to see that the utmost\nstrength of a nation is always put forth in war and for warlike\npurposes. It was so with the Greeks. Political rivalry was the strongest\nstimulus under which they acted. It was their life and growth, and to a\nlarge extent the measure of their prosperity. When political rivalries\nwere extinguished by Alexander, and more effectually by the Romans, the\nspirit of Greece, too, died out. The Romans, especially in their first\ncontact with Greece, were too much barbarians to have any sympathy with\nthe best that Greece had to offer. A genius for government is not\nnecessarily a mark of advanced civilization. It is true there were at\nall times men among the Romans able to appreciate the proud preeminence\nof the Greeks in arts and letters, but their numbers were too few to\nmake any general impression. The leading families, including most of the\nemperors, were familiar with the Greek language and used it with ease;\nbut there were few Romans who did not despise the Greeks and regard them\nas inferiors. Nations, like individuals, feel more or less contempt for\nthose whose tastes are different from their own; and in the case before\nus, the Greeks being the weaker, were the chief sufferers. But just as\nrich men sometimes buy books and statuary of which they do not know the\nvalue, and collect libraries which they cannot read, because intelligent\npeople take pleasure in these things, so a certain class of Romans\naffected a fondness for Greek art and literature and philosophy. An\nenormous quantity of works of Greek art was transported across the\nAdriatic by the Romans with small advantage to the pillagers or to the\nnation. Notwithstanding the predilection of some of the leading families\nfor Greek culture, their influence made no deep and lasting impression\non Roman thought, in the better sense. Rome always showed itself much\nmore receptive toward what is debasing than for what was ennobling.\n\nAfter this hasty survey of the condition of Plutarch\u2019s countrymen we are\nmore than ever inclined to be surprised at his optimism. Yet the\nexplanation is not far to seek, and is consistent with his philosophy.\nHe had an abiding faith in a divine Providence who orders all things for\nthe best. He holds that men are free and therefore responsible. The ills\nthat afflict them are chiefly of their own making; why then should a\nwise man grieve over them? It is man\u2019s chief business to free himself\nfrom unholy desires; to control the volcanic and perturbing impulses of\nhis nature by means of philosophy, which when rightly apprehended is\ndivine. As man is in the last analysis an ethical being, the fundamental\nproblem of philosophy is how to carry out in practice those ethical\nprinciples in the observance of which man only can be truly happy. If,\nthen, men\u2019s misfortunes are the natural consequence and result of their\nown perverseness, there is no reason why we should grieve over them. So\nfar as political conditions are concerned, he doubtless felt that the\nrule of the Roman emperors had at last given peace to his long\ndistracted country, on as favorable terms as could be expected.\n\nIt has been said of Plutarch that there is not a new thought in all his\nwritings,\u2014and this by way of disparagement. The charge is probably true.\nThe men who have put new ideas into the world are few indeed. The world\nis far less in need of instruction than of reminding. Besides, there is\nno reason why an artist should not deal with a familiar subject in his\nown way. If he can tell an old story so as to give it a new interest, or\ntreat a well-worn theme so as to make it seem fresh, he is not the least\namong his brethren. It is especially writers upon ethics that are apt to\nbe tedious. The more honor to him who can make his preaching attractive\nand interesting.\n\nPerhaps the chief charm of Plutarch\u2019s writings is the assumption on his\npart that he is a reasonable man himself and is talking to reasonable\nmen; for as we have already seen, he has always hearers in mind rather\nthan readers. We can imagine him ever and anon saying, You either know\nwhat is right, what your duty is, or you want to know. The rules of\nconduct are plain and simple; you have but to obey them and you will be\nhappy. Perform the duties incumbent upon you, to the gods, to your\nfellow citizens, to the members of your family, to yourself, and you\nwill be content with the present order of things, and your fellow men\nwith you. If you want to lead a moral life, be humane, be truthful, be\nsympathetic, be chaste, deal honestly with your fellow men, follow your\nrational nature rather than your emotions, and you will have no reason\nto regret that you have lived; your fellow men will be glad that you\nhave for a time sojourned among them, and have left behind you the light\nof your example to shine for those who come after you.\n\nLecky in his History of European Morals, already cited, has some\ninteresting passages on the relation of Seneca and Plutarch to certain\nphases of the thought of their time, a few of which may properly find a\nplace here. He says: \u201cA class of writers began to arise, who, like the\nStoics, believed virtue rather than enjoyment, to be the supreme good,\nand who acknowledged that virtue consisted solely of the control which\nthe enlightened will exercises over the desires, but who at the same\ntime gave free scope to the benevolent affections, and a more religious\nand mystical tone to the whole scheme of morals.\u201d\n\n\u201cPlutarch, whose fame as a biographer has, I think, unduly eclipsed his\nreputation as a moralist, may be justly regarded as the leader of this\nmovement, and his moral writings may be profitably compared with those\nof Seneca, the most ample exponent of the sterner school. Seneca is not\nunfrequently self-conscious, theatrical, and over-strained. His precepts\nhave something of the affected ring of a popular preacher. The imperfect\nfusion of his short sentences gives his style a disjointed and, so to\nspeak, granulated character, which the emperor Caligula happily\nexpressed when he compared it to sand without cement; yet he often rises\nto a majesty of eloquence, a grandeur both of thought and expression,\nthat few moralists have ever rivaled. Plutarch, though far less sublime,\nis more sustained, equable and uniformly pleasing. The Montaigne of\nantiquity, his genius coruscates playfully and gracefully around his\nsubject; he delights in illustrations which are often singularly vivid\nand original, but which by their excessive multiplication appear\nsometimes rather the texture than the ornament of his discourse. A\ngentle, tender spirit, and a judgment equally free from paradox,\nexaggeration, and excessive subtilty, are characteristics of all he\nwrote. Plutarch excels most in collecting motives of consolation; Seneca\nin forming characters that need no consolation. There is something of\nthe woman in Plutarch; Seneca is all man.[4] The writings of the first\nresemble the strains of the flute, to which the ancients attributed the\npower of calming the possessions and chasing away the clouds of sorrow,\nand drawing men by gentle suasion into the paths of virtue; the writings\nof the other are like the trumpet blast which kindles the soul with\nheroic courage. The first is more fitted to console a mother sorrowing\nover her dead child; the second to nerve a brave man, without flinching\nand without illusion, to grapple with an inevitable fate. The elaborate\nletters which Seneca has left us on distinctive tenets of the Stoical\nschool, such as the equality of the vices, or the evil of the\naffections, have now little more than an historic interest; but the\ngeneral tone of his writings gives them a permanent importance, for they\nreflect and foster a certain type of excellence which, since the\nextinction of Stoicism, has had no adequate expression in literature.\nThe prevailing moral tone of Plutarch, on the other hand, being formed\nmainly on the prominence of the amiable virtues has been eclipsed or\ntranscended by the Christian writers, but his definite contribution to\nphilosophy and morals are more important than those of Seneca. He has\nleft us one of the best works on Superstition, and one of the most\ningenious on Providence, we possess. He was probably the first writer\nwho advocated very strongly humanity to animals on the broad ground of\nuniversal benevolence, as distinguished from the Pythagorean doctrine of\ntransmigration, as he was also remarkable, beyond all his contemporaries\nfor his high sense of female excellence, and of the sanctity of female\nlove.\u201d\n\nSeneca, Plutarch, and the Apostle Paul were in a sense contemporaries.\nAll three did what they could to make the world better in their time and\nafter them. All three were preachers of righteousness, each in his way.\nAll three wrote much that has engaged the attention of the world, and\nstimulated its thought. But how great the contrast between the projects\nof these men, especially the two last! Plutarch was wholly lacking in\nPaul\u2019s devotion to an idea. He would have scouted the suggestion that a\nman should give up friends, social position, country, kindred,\neverything, to go forth to preach a new doctrine. How widely apart, how\nalmost diametrically opposite the methods of two men who are in a sense\nseeking the same end! The thoughts of the philosopher, his intellectual\nvision, was turned toward the setting sun. At most he could only hope,\nas we now see, to prolong the dim twilight that still hovered over the\nearth. The world had well-nigh lost faith in the power of human reason\nto regenerate mankind. The spiritual eyes of the Christian were on the\nrising sun. Though he saw that it was as yet shining but dimly, he had\nno doubt that in time it would rise to noonday splendor. The pillar of\nfire that led and lighted the way for the saint; the beatific vision\nthat always stood before his enraptured gaze; the world-embracing\npanorama that kept growing larger and larger as the little Christian\ncolonies were planted one after another in Asia Minor, in Greece, in\nRome, had no existence for the philosopher. He has, it is true, a belief\nin an overruling Providence, but it lacks clearness, because weakened by\na polytheistic creed, or at least by the remnants of such a creed. To it\nhe still tenaciously clings, though it may be half unconsciously. He too\nhad a belief in an existence after death; but it was not of the sort\nthat made him feel that all the tribulations of this world which were\nbut for a moment were not to be compared with the glory that should\nfollow.\n\nIf we would personify Christianity and Philosophy as they met each other\nat the close of the first century of our era, we may designate the one\nas the young man, who, though poor in this world\u2019s goods, is strong in\nhope, in faith, in himself and in his cause. His superb physique, his\ncapital digestion, make him ready for any enterprise, any sacrifice that\nshall promise success. Any field in which he may display his splendid\nenergies is welcome to him, for he lives not in the past, but in the\nfuture. The other is the old man who has, in the main, lived a useful\nand honorable life, who has performed some noble deeds, and whose chief\nanxiety is to give the rising generation the benefit of the wisdom that\nhas come to him in a life of study and observation. But, as is usually\nthe case with the aged, his advice has become commonplace and the rising\ngeneration passes him by almost unheeded. Few have now any confidence in\nhis teachings, while many of his former disciples have deserted him. It\nis his sad fate, to see himself jostled at first and finally thrust\naside by the passing stream of humanity.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Students of German literature are reminded of a certain moral and\n  intellectual similarity between Plutarch and Gellert. The latter,\n  though a man of much less natural ability, had all of Plutarch\u2019s\n  kindliness, moral and religious earnestness, sympathy for those in\n  distress, and the same popularity among all classes from prince to\n  peasant. Both were equally religious, though one was a heathen and the\n  other a Christian; both preserved the same serenity of mind and\n  cheerfulness of heart in a time of national degradation and\n  immorality.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  \u201cWhen Plutarch, after the death of his daughter; was writing a letter\n  of consolation to his wife, we find him turning away from all the\n  commonplaces of the stoics as the recollection of one simple trait of\n  his little child rushed upon his mind:\u2014\u2018She desired her nurse to press\n  even her dolls to her breast. She was so loving that she wished\n  everything that gave her pleasure to share in the best she had.\u2019\u201d The\n  statement that Seneca is all man will be questioned by those who know\n  that two of his Letters of Condolence are addressed to women. These\n  are almost the only writings in Roman literature so addressed.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThe principal works used in the study of Plutarch here placed before the\nreader are the following:\n\n    _Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia. Edidit Daniel Wyttenbach. 8 voll.\n    Oxonii, 1795-1821._\n\n    _R. Volkmann. Leben und Schriften des Plutarch von Chaeronea.\n    Berlin, 1869._\n\n    _O. Gr\u00e8ard. De la Morale de Plutarque. Cinqui\u00e9me edition. Paris,\n    1892._\n\n    _Plutarch\u2019s Werke \u00fcbersetzt von Klaiber, B\u00e4hr, u. A. Stuttgart,\n    1837-57._\n\n    _Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia. Recognovit Gregorius N.\n    Bernardakis. Lipsiae, 1888-96. 7 voll._\n\nThe last named contains a revised text only; from it my translation of\nthe De Sera was made. The German translation of B\u00e4hr, the well-known\nHeidelberg professor, in the collection above cited, follows the\noriginal very closely and has been of much service to me by its\ninterpretation of obscure passages.\n\nA complete catalogue of Plutarch\u2019s Moralia is given in the appendix. The\nlist is borrowed from the edition of Bernardakis and the question of\nauthenticity is not taken into account.\n\n    NOTE:\u2014To translate Plutarch is a very different task from that of\n    translating Seneca. The style of the latter is terse and\n    epigrammatic; clauses and sentences often follow each other without\n    connectives, and are in the main short. That of the former is the\n    reverse. Most of his sentences are long, many of them very long.\n    These, as well as clauses and words, are often strung together with\n    the participles \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 and \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, or other connectives, until the reader\n    sometimes wonders whether they will ever end. Seneca is full of\n    pithy sayings well suited for quotation; in Plutarch they are rare.\n    The style of both writers is highly rhetorical, but, if we except\n    the evident striving after effect, they have little else in common.\n\n    As in the case of Seneca, it has been my aim to preserve for the\n    English reader the peculiarities of the Greek, so far as possible.\n    There is much to be said in favor of making a translation, above\n    everything else, readable; but in the effort to do so, the\n    translator is constantly exposed to the danger of displacing the\n    style of the original with his own. I hope I have in a measure, at\n    least, succeeded in putting before the English reader, not only what\n    Plutarch said in the following Tract, but also how he said it.\n\n    \u201cBecause sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,\n    therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do\n    evil.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n       CONCERNING THE DELAY OF THE DEITY IN PUNISHING THE WICKED.\n\n\nDRAMATIS PERSONAE.\n\nPLUTARCH. PATROCLEAS, his son-in-law. TIMON, his brother. OLYMPICHUS.\n\n    The scene is the portico of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. The\n    tract is dedicated to a certain Quintus, whose name seems to\n    indicate that he was a Roman, but of whom nothing definite is known.\n\nWhen Epicurus had thus spoken, O Quintus, and before any one had\nreplied, he went hurriedly away, as we were now at the end of the porch.\nWe stood for some time in speechless wonder at the strange conduct of\nthe man and looking at one another, then turned back to resume our walk.\nThereupon Patrocleas first broke the silence: \u201cPray, what shall we do?\u201d\nsaid he, \u201cShall we drop the inquiry, or shall we answer the arguments of\nthe speaker who is not present as if he were?\u201d \u201cIt would not be fitting\nto leave the dart he discharged, as he departed, sticking in the wound.\nBrasidas, as we are told, drew the shaft from his body, and with the\nsame weapon slew the man who had hit him. It is not worth our while, of\ncourse, to defend ourselves against all those who assail us with\nill-grounded or fallacious arguments, but it will suffice us if we cast\nthem from us before they become firmly fixed in our minds.\u201d \u201cWhat was\nthere then,\u201d said I, \u201cin what he said that most impressed you? For many\nthings and without any order, one here, another there, the man kept\ncharging against Providence, with anger and vituperation at the same\ntime.\u201d\n\n2. Hereupon Patrocleas said: \u201cThe tardiness and delay of the Deity in\npunishing the wicked seems to me a matter of special importance; and\nnow, by the arguments that have been advanced, I have been led anew and,\nas it were, a stranger, to the question; but long ago I was offended\nwhen I read in Euripides,\n\n\u2018He procrastinates, and this is the manner of the Deity.\u2019 Yet God ought,\nleast of all things, to be slack towards the wicked, as they are neither\nslack nor dilatory about doing evil, but are impelled by their\nunrestrained passions to acts of injustice. And in truth, the\nretribution, which Thucydides says follows close upon the commission of\na crime, forthwith bars the way for those who usually prosper in\nsuccessful villainy. For there is no debt like overdue justice that\nmakes him who has been wronged so faint-hearted and discouraged, while\nit emboldens the wicked man in his audacity and violence; but the\npunishments that follow close upon the commission of crimes are\nrestraints upon those who are meditating wrongs against others, and\nthere is the greatest consolation in this for those who have suffered\ninjustice. So, then, the remark of Bias often troubles me when I reflect\nupon it; for he said, according to report, to a certain reprobate, that\nhe did not fear lest he might not suffer the punishment of his misdeeds,\nbut only that he might not himself (Bias) live to see it. What profit\nwas it to the Messenians, who were long since dead, that Aristokrates\nwas punished for betraying them at the battle of Taphros, when the\nmatter remained undiscovered for more than twenty years, during which\ntime he had been king of the Arcadians, though he was finally detected\nand punished, when they were no longer alive? Or what consolation was it\nto the Orchomenians who had lost children and friends and kinsmen\nthrough the treason of Lykiscus, that he was seized a long time\nafterwards by a disease which gradually ate up his body?\u2014this man who\nwas always dipping his feet into the river to wet them and calling down\na curse upon himself, praying that he might rot if he had betrayed and\nwronged them. And the casting forth of the bodies of the accursed from\nAthens and their transportation beyond the boundaries was an act that\nnot even the children of those who had been slain were permitted to\nbehold. Wherefore, Euripides inappropriately uses these lines to deter\nmen from the commission of crime, \u2018Fear not lest injustice overtake thee\nand smite thee down, unjust man; but in silence and with slow step it\nwill overtake the wicked when the time is ripe.\u2019 For verily, no other\nconsideration but just such as these, the bad will naturally use to\nencourage themselves and take as pledges of security in villainy, on the\nground that wrong-doing brings forth early and evident fruit, while the\npenalty comes late, and long after the satisfaction (that arises from\nsuccess in crime).\u201d\n\n3. When Patrocleas had concluded his remarks, Olympichus spoke up and\nsaid, \u201cTo what great absurdities do the delays and postponements of the\nDeity in such matters lead! Because this tardiness destroys faith in\nProvidence, and the fact that retribution does not closely follow each\nparticular act of wrong-doing but is later, thus making room for chance,\nmen, by calling it a misfortune, not a penalty, are they in any wise\nbettered? Even though they may be grieved at what has befallen them, do\nthey feel regret at what they have done? For just as the immediate\nstroke of the whip or the spur laid quickly to the horse that makes a\nfalse step or stumbles brings it to a sense of duty, but all the\nsubsequent jerking and tugging at the reins and shouting seem rather to\nbe done for some other reason than correction, because they produce pain\nbut not betterment; so vice, if lashed and beaten for each act of\nvillainy committed, would speedily become repentant and humble and\nfearful of God who beholds men\u2019s acts and sufferings, if He did not\npostpone justice. And justice that according to Euripides procrastinates\nand with slow pace overtakes the wicked, seems more like an affair of\nchance than of Providence, because there is about it so much\nuncertainty, delay and lack of system. The result is that I do not see\nwhat use there is in the saying that the mills of the gods grind late,\nboth because they obscure justice and take away the fear of evil-doing.\u201d\n\n4. Thereupon in reply to these remarks and while I was still absorbed in\nreflection, Timon said: \u201cShall I now add to the discussion the climax of\nmy own perplexity or shall I pass it over until after the disposal of\nthe main argument?\u201d \u201cWhat is the use,\u201d said I, \u201cof sending along a third\nwave to wash away the subject-matter, if it be found impossible to\nrefute and invalidate the first objection? First, then, beginning, as we\nsay, at the ingle-side and with the caution of the philosophers of the\nAcademy in regard to the divinity, let us beware of assuming that we\nknow just what to say on this subject. In truth, an affair of more\nserious moment is the consideration of supernal and divine things, for\nus who are human beings, than when one who has no ear for music\ndiscusses this art, or when one who has never served in the army\ndiscourses on military affairs; because, though ignorant of the plan of\nthe artificer, we assume to be able to fathom his designs from what we\nsuppose to be probable and fitting. It is not hard for one unacquainted\nwith the healing art to comprehend the reasoning of a physician as to\nwhy he did not sooner perform a certain amputation rather than later, or\nwhy he ordered a bath yesterday and not to-day; in respect to God, on\nthe other hand, it is not easy for a mortal to say any thing positive\nexcept that, knowing best the proper occasion for curing a man of his\nvices, He administers to each person chastisements as medicaments, but\nnot equally severe in all cases nor at one and the same time. For that\nthe healing art when applied to the soul is called right and\nrighteousness and is the greatest of all arts, Pindar in addition to\nthousands of others, affirms, when he calls God the ruler and custodian\nof the whole universe, the \u2018master builder,\u2019 for the reason that He is\nthe guardian of justice according to which it shall be determined when\nand how and to what degree every wicked man is to be punished. And of\nthis art Plato says that Minos the son of Jove was a student, as it is\nnot possible to properly dispense justice, or to recognize what is just\nunless one has learned and acquired a knowledge of the same. Not even\nthe laws that men enact have always their clear and plain justification\nand some enactments even seem at first sight ridiculous. For instance,\nin Lacedaemon, the ephors, immediately upon taking office, issue an\nedict that no one is to wear a mustache and that the laws are to be\nobeyed in order that none may feel their severity. The Romans inflict a\nslight blow with a twig upon those whom they intend to emancipate; and\nwhen they make a will they bequeath their property to some persons as\ntheir heirs, but sell it to others,\u2014which seems to be absurd. But most\nabsurd one would think the law of Solon to be to the effect that he\nshall be deprived of civil rights, who, when there are parties and\nfactions in the state, take sides with neither. In short, one could name\nmany anomalies in law, if he did not know the intentions of the\nlaw-maker, and did not understand the reason for every single part of\nthe decrees that have been issued. What wonder is it then, if, when it\nis so hard to see through human purposes, that it is not easy to say\nwith respect to the gods for what reason they punish some transgressors\nlater, others sooner.\n\n5. These things are no excuse for shunning an investigation, but a plea\nfor indulgence, so that the discussion, looking as it were, toward a\nharbor and port of refuge, may move forward with the greater confidence,\nin the midst of perplexities. Then consider first this fact, that\naccording to Plato, God having placed Himself in the midst of all that\nis enchantingly fair, as a sort of model, gives to human worth, which is\nin some measure an image of Himself, an exemplar which all are to follow\nso far as they are able. For the universe, being in its natural state\ndevoid of order, began to change and to be transformed into a cosmos\nwhen it participated in, and became assimilated to, the divine idea and\nvirtue. This same man also says that nature kindles in us the germ of\nvision so that by beholding the heavenly bodies borne along in their\ncourses, and by admiration of the same, the soul becomes habituated to\ntake pleasure in and to love what is orderly and systematically\narranged, but that it hates all disorderly and uncontrolled passion, and\nshuns the purposeless and hit-or-miss as being the origin of all vice\nand discord. It is impossible for man, by his very nature, to have a\ncompleter enjoyment of God than when seeking and earnestly striving\nafter virtue by imitating everything that is good and noble. For this\nreason also God punishes the wicked in due time and with deliberation;\nnot because He is Himself afraid of making a mistake by chastising any\none too soon or because He might repent of it, but in order to remove\nfrom us what is brutal and hasty in the infliction of punishment, and to\nteach us not to chastise in anger nor when greatly excited and\nindignant, \u2018rage o\u2019erleaps the bounds of reason\u2019; as if, in order to\nsatisfy our hunger or quench our thirst we rushed upon those who have\ndone us an injury, but imitating His goodness and long-suffering and\ntaking time as our adviser, that gives least room for repentance, we\nshould proceed to inflict punishments in accordance with justice. For,\nas Socrates said, it is less mischievous to drink murky water,\nheedlessly, than when one is in a perturbed state of mind and under the\ninfluence of anger and has lost the power of self-control before the\nmind has become calm and clear, to vent one\u2019s wrath on the person of a\nkinsman or friend. For vengeance does not belong close upon the inquiry,\nas Thucydides says, but is most in place when as far from it as\npossible. Since anger, according to Melanthius \u2018commits terrible deeds\nwhen it has displaced self-control\u2019; so, likewise, reason does what is\njust and fitting when it has put aside anger and excitement. Further\nalso, men are made humane by the example of others when they learn, for\ninstance, that Plato, after raising his staff to strike his slave,\nremained standing for a long time, as he himself says, in this way\nchastening his anger. And Archytas, on learning that his servants were\nnegligent and disorderly in his fields, but noticing that he was greatly\nangered and incensed at them, did nothing but remark as he walked away,\n\u2018You are lucky that I am very wroth at you.\u2019 If, therefore, the reported\nsayings of men, treasured up for us, deter us from harshness and the\nviolence resulting from passion; much more does it become us, as we look\nupon God who lacks nothing and who knows no repentance for any deed, yet\npostpones punishment to the future and bides His time, to be on our\nguard in such matters. We ought also to look upon mildness and\nlong-suffering as the divine part of the virtue which God Himself\nexemplifies (in His dealings with men), and to remember that few are\nmade better by swift chastisement, but that many are profited and\nadmonished by tardiness in punishing.\n\n6. In the second place, let us remember that punishments among men,\nhaving regard solely to the infliction of injuries to others, cease with\nthe malefactor and go no further; therefore, like a barking dog they\n(the penalties) cling to the heels of the transgression and follow up\nactions closely. But God, as seems reasonable, discerns the passions of\nthe diseased soul upon which He wishes to visit punishment, whether in\nany way, perchance, it may turn to repentance, and He gives time for\namendment to those whose vices are not ineradicable and incurable. For,\nknowing (as He does) what portion of virtue souls going forth from Him\nto be born, carry with them, and how strong and ineffaceable is the\nnobleness implanted in them, and that virtue yields to vice contrary to\nits nature because corrupted by food and evil communications, and that\nsome, after undergoing a cure, again resume their former nature, He does\nnot inflict upon all a penalty equally severe. But him who is\nincorrigible He removes forthwith from life and cuts off, because\nconstant association with wickedness is very harmful to others, and in\nthe highest degree harmful to the soul itself. On the contrary, to those\nwho from ignorance of the good rather than from a predilection for evil\nand to whom it is only second nature to go astray, He gives time for\nrepentance. But if they remain obdurate He visits these also with\npunishment, for, of course, He has no fear lest they may escape Him.\nConsider also what transformations have taken place in the character of\nmen and in their life; for which reason also this change and character\n(\u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2) is called a turning (\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) as habit (\u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2) for the most part\nshapes it and by laying hold of it controls it. I think, therefore, that\nthe ancients represented Kecrops dual in form (a combination of man and\ndragon), not as some say, because, after he had been an excellent king\nhe became a cruel and ruthless tyrant, but for the opposite reason,\nnamely, that after having been unjust and merciless he turned out to be\ngentle and kindly, when he had got into power. If this is not certain,\nwe know, at least, that Gelo and Hiero, both Sicilians, and Peisistratus\nthe son of Hippokrates, all men who had put themselves at the head of\naffairs by base methods, used their power for the furtherance of\nvirtuous ends; and though they had attained power illegally, they\nnevertheless became just and popular rulers. They promoted good order\nand the cultivation of the soil; made temperate and industrious citizens\nout of men who had been gossipers and idlers; and Gelo, after fighting\nbravely and defeating the Carthaginians in a great battle, would not\nmake the peace with them which they sued for until they had pledged\nthemselves to cease from sacrificing their children to Kronos. In\nMegalopolis, Lydiades was a usurper; but when at the height of his power\na change came over him and, having conceived a loathing for iniquity, he\ngave a constitution to the citizens, then in a battle with the enemies\nof his country met a glorious death. If some one had slain the usurper\nMiltiades in the Chersonesus, or had prosecuted Kimon for incest with\nhis sister, or had driven Themistocles from the city by an indictment,\nwhen he was indulging in drunken revelries and insulting people in the\nmarket place, as was afterwards done with Alkibiades, would we not have\nlost the heroes of Marathon, of the Eurymedon and fair Artemisium,\n\u2018where the sons of the Athenians laid the glorious corner-stone of\nliberty?\u2019 Men cast in a large mold neither do anything in a small way,\nnor do the vehemence and energy of their titanic natures suffer them to\nbe inactive; but they are tossed to and fro like a ship on the waves\nuntil they settle down into a fixed and well-grounded character. Just as\na person who was ignorant of agriculture would not take a fancy to land,\nif he saw it overgrown with weeds and brambles, full of wild animals,\nrunning water and marshes; while to one who has learned to discriminate\nand to judge, these very things show the strength and goodness of the\nsoil; so men cast in a large mold commit irregularities and follies\u2014men\nwhose volcanic and vehement natures we cannot endure, and think they\nought to be cut off or kept in check. But the better judge, he who in\nspite of these things discerns innate worth and nobility, waits until\nage and maturity become the co-workers of reason and virtue, when nature\nshall bring forth her proper fruit.\u201d\n\n7. \u201cSo much, then, on this point. And do you not think certain of the\nGreeks have done wisely in adopting the Egyptian law that forbids the\nexecution of a woman condemned to death during pregnancy, until after\nher delivery?\u201d \u201cMost assuredly,\u201d they said. \u201cIf then,\u201d said I, \u201ca person\nis big, not with a child, but with a deed or a secret project which he\nmay in the course of time bring into the world and put into execution,\nor if he might disclose some hidden crime, or be the author of some\njudicious counsel or the discoverer of some useful invention, would it\nnot be better to await a seasonable time for removing him (than to do it\nprematurely)? To me at least it seems so,\u201d I said. \u201cAnd to us also,\u201d\nreplied Patrocleas. \u201cVery good,\u201d said I. \u201cNow consider that if Dionysius\nhad been punished at the beginning of his usurped power, no Greek would\nhave settled in Sicily, though it had been laid waste by the\nCarthaginians; nor would Greeks have settled in Apollonia or in\nAnaktorium or in the peninsula of Leukadia, if Periander had not\nreceived his punishment a long time after (his accession to power). And\nI believe also that the day of reckoning for Kasander was postponed in\norder that Thebes might be rebuilt. Of the mercenaries that had assisted\nin plundering the temple here the greater part accompanied Timoleon on\nan expedition to Sicily where they conquered the Carthaginians and\noverthrew the tyrants; then the miserable wretches died a miserable\ndeath. There is no doubt that the Deity sometimes employs certain men\nafter the manner of public executioners, to be the avengers of other\nvillains, then destroys them as I think He does most tyrants. For just\nas the gall of the hyena and the beestings (or rennet) of the seal and\nother parts of repulsive animals have a property that is useful for the\ncure of diseases, so God inflicts on some persons who need a drastic\nremedy and chastisement, a stern and hard tyrant; nor does He release\nthem from their grievous and melancholy state until He has cured their\ndisease and purified them. Such a medicine was Phalaris to the\nAkragantines, and to the Romans, Marius. To the Sikyonians also the god\ndeclared explicitly that their city needed a scourge for taking away\nfrom the Kleonians the boy Teletias, crowned in the Pythian games, as\ntheir own fellow-citizen, and putting him to death. So, sure enough,\nwhen Orthagoras had become tyrant of Sikyon, and after him Myron and\nKleisthenes, he and his successors made an end of their lasciviousness;\nthe Kleonians, however, not receiving such curative treatment, sank into\ninsignificance. You know that Homer somewhere says, \u2018From him, a far\nbaser father, was born a son better in all manner of excellence\u2019; yet\nthat son of Kopreus performed no brilliant or even noteworthy exploit.\nBut the descendants of Sisyphus and of Autolycus and of Phlegyas were\nconspicuous for the deeds and virtues of great kings. Pericles of\nAthens, also sprang from a house on which rested a curse; while in Rome,\nPompey the Great was the son of Strabo whose corpse the Roman people, in\ntheir hatred, cast out and trampled under foot. Why should it then be\nthought strange, if, just as the husbandman does not dig up the thorns\nlest he destroy the asparagus, and the Lydians do not burn the shrub\nuntil they have gathered the gum from it; so God should in like manner\ndelay to extirpate the evil and corrupt root of an illustrious and\nkingly house until the proper fruit has grown from it? It was better for\nthe Phokians to lose the countless herds of kine and horses belonging to\nIphitus, as also that much gold and silver should be taken from Delphi,\nthan not to have had Ulysses or Asklepias born among them, or the other\ndistinguished and noble-minded men whose ancestors had been evil-doers\nand reprobates.\n\n8. Do you not think it better that retribution should come in due season\nand in a fitting way, than immediately and all at once? As, for\ninstance, in the case of Kalippus, who, supposed to be the friend of\nDion, killed him with the same sword with which he was afterward\ndispatched by his friends; and that of Mitias the Argive who had been\nslain in a tumult and whose brazen statue in the market-place fell on\nthe slayer of Mitias during a dramatic performance and killed him. And\nthe stories of Bessus, the Paeonian, and of Aristo the Oetaean, the\nleaders of the mercenaries, you, of course, know, Patrocleas.\u201d \u201cI do\nnot,\u201d said he, \u201cbut I would like to hear them.\u201d \u201cAristo,\u201d I said,\n\u201chaving taken away the ornaments of Eriphyle lying here (in this\ntemple), with the permission of the authorities, presented them to his\nwife; but his son, angered at his mother from some cause, set the house\non fire and burned up all who were in it. And Bessus, as the story goes,\nhaving killed his own father, was not found out for a long time, but\nfinally, going to a banquet with some friends and happening to strike a\nnest of young swallows with his spear, knocked it down and killed the\nfledglings. When those who were present said, as was natural, \u2018Man, what\npossessed you to do such an ill-omened deed?\u2019 he replied, \u2018Have they not\nthis long time been falsely accusing me and crying out against me for\nkilling my father\u2019? The astonished company reported the remark to the\nking, and after the case had been investigated Bessus received his just\ndeserts.\u201d\n\n9. \u201cWe say these things,\u201d I continued, \u201con the assumption that there is\na postponement of punishment for the wicked; on the other hand, it is\nproper to hear what Hesiod says, who does not think with Plato that\npunishment is a pain which follows injustice, but that it is something\nof equal age with it; that it springs from the same root and place, for\nhe says,\n\n\u2018Evil counsel is most hurtful to him who has given it,\u2019 and,\n\n\u2018He who lays plots for another, lays a plot against himself.\u2019\n\nThe cantharis, you know, is said to contain within itself the antidote\n(for the pain it inflicts), and villainy, by engendering within itself\nboth pain and punishment, pays the penalty for evil-doing, not at a\nsubsequent time, but in the outrage itself. Every malefactor who is\npunished by the infliction of pain on his body bears his own cross, and\nvice wreaks upon itself, out of itself, its own vengeance, because it is\nin a sense a creator of the woes of life that it brings into existence,\ntogether with the accompanying disgrace, many sorrows, fears and violent\npassions and regrets and unceasing restlessness. Some people are in no\nwise different from children, who, on seeing malefactors in the theaters\noften clad in gilded and purple garments, crowned and dancing about, are\ndelighted and admire them as fortunate mortals, until they are seen\ngoaded and scourged, while the fire breaks forth from their splendid and\ncostly attire. For many of the wicked are the owners of fine mansions,\nand, as they hold magistracies and other responsible positions, no one\nis aware that they are undergoing punishment until they are put to death\nor hurled from rocks. This, one ought not to call punishment, but the\nconsummation and fulfilment of punishment. For as Herodicus of\nSelymbria, who had been attacked by consumption, an incurable disease,\nwas the first to combine gymnastics with the healing art, and of whom\nPlato says, that (in so doing) he protracted his own death, and that of\nall who were similarly diseased; so malefactors who are seen to have\nescaped immediate punishment, expiate their crimes by a longer, not by a\nshorter penalty; nor after a longer time but during a longer time; they\nare not punished after they have grown old, but they grow old during\ntheir punishment. And I say _a long time_ with reference to ourselves,\nfor to the gods the span of human life is nothing,\u2014now, but not thirty\nyears ago is the same as to say, that in the evening, but not in the\nmorning, the malefactor, is to be tortured or hanged, especially since\nman is shut up in this life just as in a prison from which there is no\nmigration to another place or escape, but which in the meanwhile allows\ntime for many enjoyments and the transaction of business, the bestowing\nand receiving of honors and favors, and for diversions; just as persons\nin prison are allowed to play at dice or draughts, though the noose is\nall the while dangling above their heads.\n\n10. Moreover, what reason is there for saying that those who lie in\nprison under sentence of death do not receive their punishment until\nthey are decapitated? or that he who has drunk the hemlock-juice, but is\nstill walking about waiting for the heaviness to get into his legs,\nuntil he is seized by anaesthesia and the rigor of death, (has not\nreceived his?) If we regard the consummation of the punishment as the\npunishment itself, we overlook the intervening sufferings and fears, as\nwell as the apprehension and regret with which every evil-doer is\nharassed. Is not this just as if we were to say of the fish that has\nswallowed the hook, that it is not caught until we see it broiled or cut\nup by the cooks? Every one who has committed a crime is firmly held by\njustice and has then and there fastened within himself, like a bait the\nsweet morsel of iniquity. Having an avenging conscience in his breast,\n\u2018Like a frantic tunny he spins round in the sea.\u2019 For the well-known\nreckless audacity and over-confidence of vice is active and ardent until\nthe evil deed has been done; then the passion subsiding like a wind,\nsinks down weak and cowed under the weight of fears and superstitions;\nso that it is entirely in accordance with the event and the truth that\nStesichorus attributes a dream to Klytemnestra in about these words:\n\u2018She thought a dragon with gory head approached her, and from it\nPleisthenades came forth.\u2019 For visions by night and apparitions by day\nand oracles and celestial portents and whatever other phenomenon is\nregarded as caused by the direct interposition of God, cause anxieties\nand fears to persons who have a guilty conscience. For example, it is\nsaid, that Apollodorus once in a dream saw himself flayed by the\nScythians, then boiled, and heard his heart speaking from the caldron\nand saying, \u2018I am the cause of all this\u2019; and that at another time he\nsaw his daughters all ablaze, their bodies encircled with flame, running\nabout him. Hipparchus also, the son of Peisistratus, a little before his\ndeath saw Aphrodite flinging blood in his face from a kind of basin; and\nthe favorites of Ptolemy the Thunderer, saw him summoned before a\ntribunal by Seleucus where vultures and wolves were the judges,\ndistributing many pieces of flesh among his enemies. Pausanias,\nlikewise, having caused a free maiden to be brought by force from\nByzantium in order to pass the night with her, but when she was come,\nowing to some perturbation of mind and suspicion, had her put to\ndeath\u2014this maiden he frequently saw in a dream calling to him, \u2018Hasten\nto judgment; assuredly lust brings sorrow on men.\u2019 As the apparition did\nnot cease to haunt him, it is said that he set sail for the oracle of\nthe dead at Heracleia where he called up the ghost of the damsel by\nexpiatory rites and libations. Appearing before him, she said that he\nwould be freed from his troubles when he came to Lacedaemon; but as soon\nas he arrived there he died.\n\n11. If then the soul has no sensation after death, and dissolution is\nthe end of all rewards and punishments, one might rather say that the\ndivinity deals kindly and indulgently with the wicked who are speedily\nchastised and die. For if we were to assert nothing more than that as\nlong as they live and during the present existence no evil befalls the\nbad, but that when vice is exposed and is seen to be a fruitless and\nbarren thing, that it brings nothing good or worth an effort, in spite\nof many severe agonies of mind\u2014the recognition of these facts renders\nlife an uneasy one. A case in point is the story told of Lysimachus that\nunder stress of thirst he gave up his body and his dominions to the\nGetae, but that when he had got into their hands and received a draught\nhe cried out, \u2018Shame on my baseness for depriving myself of such a\nkingdom for so short-lived a pleasure.\u2019 Yet it is exceedingly difficult\nto resist the needs of our physical nature; but when a man, either for\nthe sake of money or from avidity for political honors or influence,\ncommits a lawless and wicked act, and when, after the thirst and madness\nof his passion have been allayed, he finds, in the course of time, that\nthe ignominy and the bitter sorrow for his crimes remain behind, and\nthat villainy has been neither advantageous nor necessary nor\nprofitable, must not the thought, so servile and mean, often occur to\nhim, that for empty glory or fleeting enjoyment he has trampled under\nfoot the dearest and highest rights of mankind, only to fill his life\nwith shame and confusion. For as Simonides jestingly said, that he\nalways found the chest he kept for money full and the one he kept for\ngratitude empty; so wicked men, when they examine their own evil hearts,\ndiscover that for the sake of a pleasure which directly proves to be an\nempty one, they find them void of hope but full of sorrows and pain,\nunpleasant memories, and anxiety for the future, but big with distrust\nof the present. Just as we hear Ino crying out in the theater when\nfilled with regret for what she had done, \u2018Dear women, how can I again\ndwell in the house of Athamas? Would that I had done none of the deeds I\ncommitted!\u2019 So the soul of every villain ought to consider well and\nreflect how it may rid itself of the memory of its iniquities and\nexorcise a bad conscience, undergo a process of purification and live\nlife over again. When the bad is deliberately preferred, it shows a lack\nof confidence and firmness and strength and stability\u2014unless, forsooth,\nwe admit that evil-doers are a class of sages. Wherever there exists an\nuncontrollable love of money and pleasure, and insatiable avarice\ncoupled with malice or a bad character, there you will find also, if you\nlook closely, latent superstitions and an aversion to labor and fear of\ndeath and sudden gusts of passion and an eagerness to be talked about\njoined to a penchant for boasting. Such men fear those who censure them\nand are afraid of those who praise them as persons who have been wronged\nby deception; they are particularly hostile to the wicked because they\nfreely praise those who have the reputation of being virtuous. For that\nwhich hardens men in vice is like the brittleness in poor iron and is\neasily shivered. Whence it comes that as they, in the course of time,\ngain a deeper insight into the nature of things, are weighed down with\nsorrow and become morose and abhor their own past life. It surely cannot\nbe but that a bad man who has restored a trust, or become surety for a\nfriend, or who from a love of glory or fame has given and contributed\nsomething to his country, will forthwith regret what he has done,\nbecause he is unstable in his ways and fickle in his purpose; sometimes\npersons of this kind, even when applauded in the theaters, groan\ninwardly because the love of money has supplanted the love of glory; nor\ncan it be that those who have sacrificed men for the attainment of\nsovereignty or to carry out a conspiracy, as did Apollodorus, or who\nhave taken away money from their friends, as did Glaucus, do not repent,\nnor hate themselves, and do not feel regret for what they have done. I,\nfor my part, do not believe, if I may say so, that there is need of any\ngod or man to punish the impious, but that their life, ruined and made\nuneasy by vice, is fully sufficient.\u201d\n\n12. \u201cConsider, however,\u201d I said, \u201cwhether we are not examining the\nargument at greater length than its importance demands.\u201d To this Timon\nreplied, \u201cIt may be, in view of what is yet to come and of what has been\nomitted. For I shall now bring up as a sort of reserve the final\ndifficulty, since we have in a measure worked our way through those that\npreceded. What Euripides alleges against the gods when he boldly charges\nthem with turning \u2018the transgressions of the parents over to their\nchildren,\u2019 this, believe me, we also tacitly impute to them as an\ninjustice. For, if those who have committed offenses have themselves\nexpiated them, there is no further need of punishing those who have\ncommitted none, since it is not just to punish a second time for the\nsame crime those who are innocent; or if through negligence they have\nfailed to punish the real criminals, and long after visit the penalty\nupon the innocent, they do not justly make up for their tardiness by\ninjustice. Something of this kind is told of Aesop who, it is said, came\nhere (to Delphi) with gold from Cr\u0153sus in order to make a magnificent\noblation to the god and to distribute to each of the Delphians four\nminae; but some difficulty arising, as it seems, and he having got into\na quarrel with the parties here, performed the sacrifice but sent the\nmoney back to Sardis, alleging that the men were not worthy to receive\nit; thereupon they trumped up a charge of temple-robbery against him and\nput him to death by hurling him from the rock called Hyampeia. For this\nthe god is said to have become incensed at them and to have sent a\nfamine upon the land, together with all manner of strange diseases; so\nthat they went around to the Hellenic festivals proclaiming and making\nknown everywhere that whoever wished might wreak vengeance upon them for\nthe wrong they had done to Aesop. In the third generation came one\nIadmon, a man in no way related to Aesop, but a descendant of those who\nhad bought him in Samos; and to this man, having in some way made\nsatisfaction (for the wrong done to Aesop), the Delphians were released\nfrom their calamities. After that date also, they say, the punishment of\ntemple-robbery was transferred to Nauplia from Hyampeia. Those who are\ngreat admirers of Alexander, of which number we also are, do not commend\nhim for destroying the city of the Branchidae and putting them all to\ndeath, without distinction of age or sex, because their forefathers had\nbetrayed the temple at Miletus. Agathocles, too, the usurper of\nSyracuse, mockingly told the Corcyreans, in answer to the question why\nhe had laid waste their island, \u2018That it most assuredly was because\ntheir fathers had kindly received Ulysses.\u2019 To the people of Ithaca he\nlikewise replied when they expostulated with him because his soldiers\ncarried off their sheep, \u2018Your king also came to us and even blinded the\nshepherd.\u2019 And is not Apollo even more unreasonable if he is destroying\nthe present generation of Pheneatae by blocking up the barathrum and\ninundating their entire territory, because a thousand years ago, as they\nsay, Hercules carried off the prophetic tripod and took it to Pheneus?\nor when he foretold to the Sybarites a release from their ills, whenever\nthey had appeased the anger of the Leucadian Hera, by a demolition three\ntimes repeated? And in truth, it is not long since the Lacedaemonians\nceased to send virgins to Troy \u2018who without upper garments and with bare\nfeet, like slaves, at early dawn swept around the altar of Athena,\nwithout the wimple, even though old age bore heavy upon them,\u2019 on\naccount of the lasciviousness of Ajax. Where, pray, is the logic or\njustice of these things? We do not approve the custom of the Thracians,\nwho even at the present day tattoo their wives for the purpose of\navenging Orpheus, nor that of the barbarians along the Po for wearing\nblack garments in token of mourning for Pentheus, as they say. And it\nwould have been still more ridiculous, I think, if the men who lived at\nthe time when Phaethon perished had not concerned themselves about him,\nbut those who were born five or ten generations after his death had\nbegun to change their garments for his sake and to put on mourning.\nNevertheless this is merely silly and has nothing pernicious or\nirremediable about it. But with what reason does the anger of the gods\nsometimes suddenly disappear like certain rivers, only to break out\nafterwards against others in order to plunge them into the direst\nmisfortunes?\u201d\n\n13. As soon as he ceased, I, fearing lest he might again proceed anew to\nmore and greater absurdities, spoke up and asked him: \u201cVery well, but do\nyou accept all these things as true?\u201d To which he replied, \u201cEven if not\nall, but only some of them are true, do you not think the question\npresents the same difficulty?\u201d \u201cPerhaps,\u201d said I, \u201cand yet when persons\nare suffering from a high fever, the same or nearly the same heat\nremains whether they have on them one or more garments; nevertheless it\naffords some relief (to the patient) to remove what is superfluous.\nStill, if you do not wish to go on, we will let this matter pass; at any\nrate, these stories look like fables and inventions; remember, however,\nthe festival of Theoxenia, recently celebrated, and the honorable place\nthe heralds assign to the descendants of Pindar; how imposing and\ndelightful the ceremony appeared to you. Who would not, I said, be\ncharmed with the bestowal of this honor, so entirely in harmony with the\nspirit of Greek antiquity, unless his \u2018black heart had been forged with\ncold flame,\u2019 to use one of Pindar\u2019s own expressions? Then I forbear to\nmention, I said, a proclamation similar to this in Sparta called, After\nthe Lesbian Bard, in honor and memory of Terpander the Ancient, for the\nargument is the same. And you too, descendants of Opheltas, forsooth,\nclaim somewhat more consideration than others among the Boeotians and at\nthe hands of the Phokians because of Diophantus; besides, you were\npresent and were the first to support me when I upheld the traditional\nhonor of Herakles and the right to wear a crown which the Lycormae and\nthe Satilaiae laid claim to; for I said it was altogether proper that\nthe descendants of Herakles should enjoy unimpaired honors and benefits\nfor services which he had rendered to the Greeks, but for which he had\nnot himself received adequate recognition and requital.\u201d \u201cYou have\nrecalled to my mind a noble contest,\u201d he said, \u201cand one well worthy of a\nphilosopher.\u201d \u201cRetract, then, my friend,\u201d said I, \u201cthis serious charge,\nand do not take it ill if the descendants of wicked or base men are\nsometimes punished; or cease to speak with approval of the honors\nconferred upon those who are of noble ancestry. For it is incumbent upon\nus, if we are to requite to their descendants, the services of their\nforefathers, as a matter of consistency not to think that punishment\nought to cease or be discontinued at once after the crime, but that it\nought to run along with it and render a recompense corresponding to it.\nHe who is pleased to see the family Kimon honored at Athens, but feels\nsore and aggrieved when the descendants of Lachares or Aristo are\nexpelled, is very weak and inconsistent; or rather, he is captious and\nhypercritical as regards the deity: for he finds fault if the\ngrand-children of a wicked and unjust man seem to meet with good\nfortune, and he finds fault again, if the offspring of the vicious are\ncut off and blotted out. He blames God equally whether the children of a\ngood man or a bad man fare ill.\u201d\n\n14. \u201cLet these things,\u201d I said, \u201cserve you as a sort of bulwark against\nthose over hasty and carping critics; but let us take up again, as one\nmay say, the beginning of the thread of this obscure problem concerning\nthe Deity, with its many windings and ramifications, and let us follow\nthem up with care but without fear, to what is probable as well as what\nis reasonable; this at least is clear and well established, that even in\nthose things which we ourselves do, we cannot always give the reason.\nFor example, why do we direct the children of those who have died of\nconsumption or dropsy to sit with both feet in the water until the\ncorpse is buried? for it is believed that in this way the disease will\nnot pass to them or come near them. Again, for what reason does a whole\nherd of goats stand still if one of their number gets eryngo in its\nmouth, until the herdsman comes up and takes it out? And there are other\nforces in nature that interact among each other and pass back and forth\nwith incredible swiftness through a great extent of space. Yet we are\nsurprised at intervals of time, but not those of space. With all that,\nit is more wonderful if Athens is infected with a disease that had its\norigin in Ethiopia and of which Pericles died and from which Thucydides\nsuffered than if the penalty for the crimes committed by the Delphians\nor Sybarites should be carried down to and visited upon their children.\nThe forces of nature have certain connections, and inter-relations with\neach other extending from their farthest endings to their very\nbeginnings, the cause of which, though unknown by us, silently produce\ntheir proper effects.\n\n15. And, in truth, the wrath of the gods, when it falls upon a whole\ncity, has its justification. For a city is a unit and an entirety, just\nlike an animal, that does not lose its identity with the passing of the\nyears, nor is transformed from one thing into something different in the\ncourse of time, but is always affected by like feelings and has a\ncharacter peculiar to itself. It merits all the praise and all the blame\nfor what it has done in its sovereign capacity, so long as the community\nwhich makes it one and binds it together preserves its unity. To make\none city, in the course of time, consist of many cities, or rather, of a\ncountless number, is like dividing one man into many because he is now\nolder, but was formerly younger, and still earlier, a stripling. This is\naltogether like the well-known argument of Epicharmus, the so-called\nincreasing syllogism, much used by the Sophists, that the man who had\nincurred a debt some time ago does not owe it now as he has become\nanother man, and that he who was invited to a banquet yesterday comes\nto-day an unbidden guest because he is another person. Advancing age\nproduces greater changes in each one of us than in the general character\nof cities. Any one would recognize Athens if he saw it thirty years ago;\nthe customs of to-day, the motions, the sports, the occupations, the\nlikes and dislikes of the people are precisely the same they were in\nformer times; but a man whom a relative or a friend might chance to meet\nafter an interval of time, he would scarcely recognize, and the change\nof character easily seen in every remark and occupation and in the\nfeelings and habits have, even for those who are about us all the time,\nsomething strange and striking by their novelty. Nevertheless a man is\nregarded as one person from his birth to his death; and in like manner\nwe think it right that the city, which remains the same, ought to be\nheld responsible for the transgressions of its former citizens with the\nsame show of reason that it shares in their glory and prestige;\notherwise we shall, without being aware of it, cast everything into the\nriver of Heracleitus into which he says nothing goes twice because\nnature keeps all things in motion and changes their form.\n\n16. If then a city is a unit and a continuous thing, the same is\nundoubtedly true of the family that springs from one and the same\nbeginning and engenders a certain power and a natural bond of sympathy\nbetween all its members. That which is begotten is not as if it were the\nhandiwork of an artisan, separate from him who begets, for it is\nsomething that proceeds out of him, not something framed by him;\nconsequently it possesses and bears within itself some portion of its\noriginal that may rightfully be chastised or honored. If I were not\nafraid I should be thought to be jesting I would say that the statue of\nKasander has suffered a greater wrong at the hands of the Athenians when\nit was melted down, and the body of Dionysius when after death it was\ncarried beyond their boundary by the Syracusans, than their descendants\nin paying the penalty for the deeds of these men. For in a statue of\nKasander there was no part of him, and the soul of Dionysius had left\nthe dead body long previously; but in the case of Nysaeus and of\nApollokrates and of Antipater and of Philip and of all other persons in\nlike manner who are the children of vicious parents, nature has\nimplanted this predominant principle and it is ever present with them;\nis not dormant or inoperative, but they live in it and are nurtured by\nit; with them it abides and it directs their actions. It is not cruel or\nunreasonable if the children of these men share their destiny. All\nthings considered, here, as in the healing art, what is advantageous is\njust, and he would make himself ridiculous who should affirm that in\ndiseases of the hip-joint it was wrong to cauterize the thumb, and in\nthe case of an ulcerated liver, to make an incision in the belly, and to\nanoint the tips of the horns of cattle if their hoofs are soft. So in\nthe matter of punishments; he who thinks anything else is just than what\nwill cure vice, and is scandalized if the healing is affected on one\nparty for the sake of another,\u2014like the opening of a vein to relieve the\neyes\u2014evidently sees no farther than what is plain to the senses. He does\nnot take into account that even a schoolmaster, when he punishes one\npupil also corrects others, and that a general who decimates his army\npunishes all his soldiers. Likewise, certain qualities, good as well as\nbad, are transmitted not only from one body to another, but even more\nreadily from one soul to another. For in the one case it seems\nreasonable that the same conditions should also produce the same change,\nwhile in the other, the soul impelled by motives and impulses is\nnaturally inclined by boldness or timidity to become worse or better.\u201d\n\n17. While I was yet speaking, Olympichus interrupting me, said, \u201cYou\nseem, in your discourse, to proceed on a weighty assumption, namely, the\ncontinued existence of the soul.\u201d \u201cYou will surely grant this,\u201d I\nreplied, \u201cor rather, have granted it, for my argument has proceeded from\nthe beginning on the hypothesis that God distributes to us all rewards\nand punishments according to our deserts.\u201d\n\nHereupon he replied, \u201cDo you then think it follows of necessity, from\nthe fact that because the gods observe all our actions, and apportion\nrewards and punishments, that souls are either altogether incorruptible,\nor that they continue to exist for some time after death?\u201d \u201cMy good\nfriends,\u201d said I, \u201cGod is not impatient, or so occupied with trifles,\nthat if there were not something of the divinity in us, something at\nleast in a measure similar to Himself, but if, like unto leaves, as\nHomer says, we are altogether transitory, and doomed to perish in a\nlittle while, He would treat us with so much consideration\u2014like those\nwomen who plant the gardens of Adonis in fragments of pottery and bestow\npains on them\u2014cherishing those ephemeral souls of ours, that dwell in a\nfrail body, and when they are sprung up have no firm root in life, but\nare forever extinguished by any sudden calamity. But if you are agreed,\nlet us pass over the other gods and let us consider ours here (in\nDelphi), whether you think, if he were aware that the souls of those who\nhave passed from life, forthwith dissolve into nothing, like clouds or\nsmoke, as soon as they leave the body, he would have instituted so many\nceremonies for the dead, and would still require large gifts and honors\nfor the deceased, merely to impose upon and delude the credulous. For my\npart, I could never give up (my faith in) the immortality of the soul\nunless some one should again, like another Herakles, take away the\ntripod of the Pythia, and eradicate and destroy the oracle. So long as\neven in our day many such oracular responses are rendered, as they say\nwere given to Korax the Naxian, it is impious to assert that the soul\ncan die.\u201d Here Patrocleas asked, \u201cWhat was the response and who was this\nKorax? for to me both the name and the circumstance are unknown.\u201d \u201cNot\nat all,\u201d said I, \u201cbut I am to blame for using a cognomen instead of a\nname. The man who slew Archilochus in battle was called Kalondas, as you\nknow; but he bore the eponym, Korax. Repelled at first by the Pythia for\nkilling a devotee of the Muses, he next had recourse to prayers and\nhumble supplications in order to secure his restoration to favor, then\nwas commanded to repair to the habitation of Tettix, in order to appease\nthe soul of Archilochus. This was at Taenarus, for thither, they say,\nTettix the Cretan came with his fleet, founded a city and settled near\nan oracle of the dead. In like manner, also, an oracle came to the\nSpartans, bidding them conciliate the soul of Pausanias, persons who\ncould evoke the dead having been sent for to Italy; these, after\noffering sacrifice, conjured up the ghost of the dead man in the temple.\n\n18. This, then is one argument which establishes the providence of God\nand at the same time the immortality of the soul, and it is not possible\nto reject the one and accept the other. Now if the soul survives after\nthe death of the body, it is also quite reasonable that it shares the\nrewards and punishments (of the latter). For in this life it is engaged\nin a contest, like an athlete, and when the contest is ended it receives\nits deserts. To the rewards and punishments meted out when existing\nthere by itself (separate from the body) for the deeds of the previous\nlife, the living attach no importance; they are concealed from our\nknowledge, and discredited. But those that are transmitted to children\nand through successive generations, being plainly evident to all who\nlive here, turn many bad men from their ways and hold them in check.\nThere is no more grievous chastisement, and none that reaches more to\nthe quick, than for men to see their descendants in misfortune on their\naccount; and when the soul of an impious and unjust man beholds, after\ndeath, not statues overturned and honors annulled, but children and\nfriends and his own household overwhelmed with calamities and paying the\npenalty for crimes that he has himself committed,\u2014there is no one who\nwould again be unjust, or who would yield to his unbridled passion, for\nthe honors of Zeus. I have also a story to tell that I recently heard,\nbut I hesitate to do so lest you think it a fable, I will therefore keep\nto what is probable. \u201cBy no means,\u201d said Olympichus, \u201cbut repeat it\nentire.\u201d When the others also joined in the request, I said, \u201cPermit me\nto repeat what is probable in the story and afterward, if you like, we\nwill take up the fable, granting, of course, that it is a fable.\u201d\n\n19. Now Bion says for a god to punish the children of bad men would be\nmore ridiculous than if a physician were to administer medicine to the\nson or grandson, for the disease of the grandfather, or the father. In\none respect the conditions are unlike, in another they are alike, or\nsimilar. Administering medicine to one man for the disease of another\ndoes not, it is true, cure the patient, and a person who is suffering\nfrom a disease of the eyes, or a fever, does not get better when he sees\nanother annointed or having a plaster put on him; but the punishments of\nthe wicked make it evident to all men that it is the purpose of\nwisely-directed justice to restrain some by the correction of others. In\nwhat respect the comparison made by Bion is pertinent to the inquiry, he\nhimself failed to notice; for suppose, now, a man falls sick of a\npainful but by no means incurable disease, then gives himself up to\nintemperance and effeminate habits, and dies; and suppose, again, that\nhis son does not have the same disease but only a predisposition to\nit,\u2014would not a physician, or a trainer, or even a careful master, on\nlearning this fact, put him on a frugal diet, and keep him from dainties\nand pastry, from drink and women, and by enjoining the continuous use of\nremedies and the exercise of the body in gymnastics, scatter and\neradicate the little germ of a big disorder, before it had reached the\nserious stage? Forsooth, do not we admonish those who are born of\ndiseased fathers or mothers, to take heed to themselves, and to be on\ntheir guard against neglecting themselves, and forthwith to expel the\ninbred evil while its germ is yet undeveloped, and thus take the danger\nby the forelock? \u201cMost assuredly,\u201d said they. \u201cThen,\u201d replied I, \u201cwe are\nnot doing an absurd but a necessary thing; not something ridiculous but\nsomething useful, when we recommend to the children of epileptics and\nhypochondriacs and gouty persons, physical exercise and wholesome diet\nand medicaments, not because they are sick, but to the end that they may\nnot become sick. The body that is born of an unsound body does not need\nchastisement but medical treatment and good regimen. If anybody calls\nthe interdiction of pleasures and the imposition of toil and labor,\npunishment, he does so because he is inept and effeminate, and no\nattention need be paid to him. Shall we say, then, that a body born of\nan unsound body is worthy of care and attention, but the congenital\nseeds of vice that germinate and spring up in the young character, we\nare to let alone and wait and dally, until the evil passions break forth\nopenly,\u2014\u2018show forth the malignant fruit of the heart,\u2019 as Pindar says?\n\n20. Of a truth, in this matter is the Deity any wiser than Hesiod when\nhe exhorts and advises us \u2018Not when returned from the sorrowful burial,\nto propagate the race, but after the feast of the immortals?\u2019 on the\nground that not only vice and virtue, but sorrow and joy and all\nqualities, are transferred to the offspring in procreation; that at such\na time men should be jocund and in good spirits and merry. But it does\nnot follow, according to Hesiod, nor is it the work of human wisdom, but\nof God, to see through and understand similarities and differences of\nhuman nature, before they have led to great crimes and are thus made\nplain to all men. For while the cubs of bears and the whelps of wolves\nand monkeys immediately disclose their inborn nature because there is\nnothing to conceal or disguise it, the natural disposition of man\nconforms to customs and opinions and laws, and thus frequently puts a\nmask on what is evil and imitates the good. In this way it altogether\nexpunges or eradicates the inborn taint of vice, or hides it for a long\ntime by cunningly disguising itself under the cloak of virtue; inasmuch\nas we hardly take note of any particular act of villainy, unless it\nfalls upon us or strikes us; or, rather, we are for the most part\naccustomed to regard men as bad only when they do a bad deed, licentious\nwhen they indulge their lusts, and cowards when they run away. This is\ndoing as if we believed scorpions had a sting only when they strike, and\nserpents were poisonous only when they bite,\u2014a foolish notion, verily!\nThe man who proves to be a villain does not become so just at the moment\nhe is found out, but he had in him from his birth the germs of iniquity,\nthe thief merely seizing the opportunity or using his power to steal,\nand the tyrant to override the law. But God, depend upon it, is not\nignorant of the inclinations and nature of any man because He looks to\nthe soul rather than the body; He does not wait to punish deeds of\nviolence, until they are done with the hands, or impurity until it is\nuttered with the tongue, or lasciviousness until it is committed with\nthe sexual organs. He does not take vengeance on the evil-doer from any\nwrong he has himself suffered, neither is He incensed at the robber,\nbecause he has been roughly handled, nor does He hate the adulterer\nbecause of the disgrace; yet, for the sake of betterment, He often\npunishes the adulterer and the miser and the unjust man, thus cutting\noff vice, as if it were an epilepsy, before it becomes firmly rooted.\n\n21. A little while ago we expressed our ill-will at the late and tardy\npunishment of the wicked; now we find fault because in some cases, even\nbefore they perpetrate any evil deed, God checks the natural bent and\ndisposition of men, though we are aware that the future is often worse\nand more to be feared than the past, and what is dormant than what is\napparent. We are not able to fathom the reasons why it is sometimes\nbetter to let men commit crimes and sometimes better to anticipate them\nwhile they are merely deliberating and contriving; just as some\nmedicines are not adapted to certain patients, though helpful to others\nwho are not actually sick, and yet in a worse condition than the former.\nFor this reason the gods do not \u2018turn all the transgressions of the\nparents upon their offspring,\u2019 but if a virtuous son is begotten by a\nwicked father, as it were, a sound man, by one who is diseased, he\naverts the penalty from the house, the offspring of one being, so to\nspeak, adopted into another. But it is fitting that a young man who\nconforms himself to the likeness of a corrupt family should also share\nthe chastisement of its villainies as a debt incurred by inheritance.\nAntigonus was not punished on account of Demetrius, any more than the\nheroes of the olden time, Phyleus and Nestor, for the sake of Augeas and\nNeleus; since these men, though sprung from wicked fathers, were\nthemselves good men. But those who cherish and take naturally to the\nbaseness that is born in them must also expect to be pursued to the end\nby that justice which the likeness of vice demands. For just as warts\nand livid spots and freckles that fathers sometimes have, are not on\ntheir sons, but afterwards reappear on the grandsons, and\ngranddaughters; and a certain Greek woman who had given birth to a black\nchild for which she was charged with adultery until she proved that she\nwas descended from an Ethiopian in the fourth generation; and one of the\nsons of Pytho of Nisibis, who recently died, and who was said to be\nsprung from the Sparti, was born with the print of a spear on his\nbody\u2014in which case the family likeness reappeared and came to the\nsurface as out of the deep, after such a long space of time,\u2014so in like\nmanner the character and passions of the soul are often concealed in the\nfirst generations and remain unknown, but some time afterward and in\nother persons nature springs up and asserts its power, either for virtue\nor vice.\u201d\n\n22. When he had spoken thus he held his peace, whereupon Olympichus\nsaid with a smile, \u201cWe do not give you our approval lest we shall seem\nto excuse you from telling the story, on the ground that the case has\nbeen sufficiently proved; but we shall only then render our verdict\nwhen we have heard that.\u201d In this wise I accordingly began:\n\u201cThespesius of Soli, a kinsman and friend of the Protagenes who spent\nsome time here with us, having passed the first part of his life in\ngreat dissoluteness, and having speedily squandered all his patrimony,\nnow pressed by the exigencies of his situation, for some time led a\nvicious life; besides repenting of his bad management, he also sought\nin every way to recover what he had lost, and acted just like those\nlibertines who care nothing for their wives so long as they are in\npossession of them, but after they are divorced and married to other\nmen, basely try to corrupt them. Accordingly, by holding aloof from no\nact of meanness that brought either gratification or gain, he acquired\nin a short time not only very great possessions, but also the\nreputation of being a thorough scoundrel. Above all, an oracle brought\nfrom Amphilochus gave him a bad name; for having asked the god through\na messenger, as we are told, whether he would lead a better life in\nthe future, the answer came back that it would be better with him\nafter he was dead. And in a measure this turned out to be true, not\nlong after. For happening to fall on his head from a height he lay\nlike one dead from the shock alone, for he had received no wound, and\non the third day was already carried forth for burial. Then all at\nonce recovering strength and coming to himself, he showed a most\nastonishing change in his manner of life; for the Cilicians know of no\nman of his time more just in dealings between man and man, none more\nreverent toward the gods, none more dreaded by his enemies, or more\nfaithful to his friends. Consequently all who knew him were eager to\nhear the cause of this transformation, as they thought such an\nalteration of character could not be a mere matter of chance\u2014which was\nin fact the case, as he himself related to Protagenes and other\nequally intimate friends. For when he lost consciousness,\u2014(literally,\nwhen his rational soul left his body)\u2014he at first experienced about\nthe same sensation as the result of the change that a pilot would feel\nwho should be hurled from a ship into the deep; afterwards, having\nrecovered a little, he thought he had entirely regained his breath and\nwas able to see on every side with his soul opened as if it were all\none eye. Yet he beheld none of the former things, but the objects he\nrecognized were stars of immense magnitude at immeasurable distances\nfrom one another, and a radiance proceeding from them, surprising in\nits brilliancy and color, in which his soul moved about with facility\njust as a man in a calm moves a ship in any direction, easily and\nquickly. Though he omitted most of what he saw, he said that the souls\nof the dead, rising from below, made flame-like bubbles as they\ndisplaced the air before them; then, as each bubble noiselessly burst,\nthe souls came forth, human in form but of a smaller size. Their\nmovements, however, were not alike, for some started forth with\nsurprising fleetness and darted straight up, while others whirled\nround in a circle just like spindles, and whisking, now upward, now\ndownward, with a kind of confused and aimless motion, they came to\nrest only after a long time and with great difficulty. Respecting most\nof the souls, however, he was in ignorance as to who they were; but\nrecognizing two or three of his acquaintances, he tried to approach\nand address them, yet they neither heard him nor were in their right\nmind, but beside themselves and dazed, trying to avoid all notice and\nintercourse, moving aimlessly about, at first alone by themselves,\nthen encountering many who were in a like condition, they joined\nthemselves to these, and, tossed about in a disorderly manner in all\ndirections, they uttered unintelligible cries that sounded like\nmingled screams of lamentation and fear. Others, again, were seen at\nthe very summit of the upper air, radiant with joy, frequently\napproaching each other with signs of affection, but avoiding the\ndisorderly ones and testifying their aversion, as he thought, by\ndrawing themselves together, but their delight and satisfaction, by\nexpanding and extending themselves. Here, he said, he recognized the\nsoul of one of his kinsmen, though not quite distinctly, for he had\ndied when yet very young; but drawing near it saluted him with, \u2018Hail,\nThespesius!\u2019 When he, in surprise, rejoined that his name was not\nThespesius, but Aridaeus. \u2018Formerly, it is true,\u2019 replied the spirit,\n\u2018that was thy name, but henceforth it is Thespesius (the Divine). For\nthou didst not die, but through the interposition of God art come\nhither in the full possession of thy faculties; the other part of thy\nsoul thou hast left behind in thy body, as it were an anchor; and let\nthis be a token to thee both, now, and henceforth, that the souls of\nthe departed neither cast a shadow nor move the eyelids.\u2019 On hearing\nthis, Thespesius, who had by this time somewhat recovered\nconsciousness, looked and beheld a kind of faint line about himself,\nwhile the rest were completely encircled with a radiance and\ndiaphanous, though not all in the same manner, for some, like the moon\nin her brightest splendor, had a uniformly smooth and even color,\nwhile others were marked with a kind of spots or faint weals; others\nagain were all variegated and strange to look upon; while still others\nwere marked with livid fleckings like vipers, and some even showed\nslight scarifications. The kinsman of Thespesius explained these\nthings in detail (for there is nothing to hinder us from calling the\nsouls of men by the name they themselves bore during life) by reciting\nthat Adrastea, the daughter of Necessity and Zeus, had been placed in\nthe highest seat as the avenger of all crimes, and that there is no\nwicked man so powerful or so insignificant as to be able, either by\ncraft or by force, to escape her. Three attendants wait upon her to\neach of whom has been assigned a different mode of inflicting\npunishment: those who are to be chastised while yet in the body and by\nmeans of the body, swift Poena (Punishment) seizes, though in a rather\nmild way that still leaves behind many things needing expiation; those\nwhose cure is a matter of greater difficulty on account of their\nvices, the daemon hands over, after death, to Dike (Justice), while\nthose that Dike gives up as entirely incorrigible, the third and most\nterrible of the attendants of Adrastea, Erinys (the Fury), pursues,\nand after hounding them as they rush about trying to escape her in one\nway or another, she puts them all out of sight in a pitiless and awful\nway by thrusting them into a nameless and invisible abyss. Of the\nother punishments, said he, that inflicted by Poena in this life is\nlike those of the non-Greeks. For as among the Persians the clothes\nand tiaras of those who are undergoing chastisement are pulled off and\nthey are scourged, while the culprits beg with tears that their\ncastigation may be ended; so the punishments suffered in body or\nestate are no severe affliction, nor do they touch vice itself, but\nare chiefly for appearance sake and for the outward sense. But him who\ncomes hither from there, unpunished and unpurged, Dike seizes and\nexposes his soul in all its nakedness, and there is no place where it\ncan hide or go into concealment or cover up its baseness, but it is\ncompletely seen on all sides and by everybody. At first Dike shows\nthis soul to honest parents, if such he had, or to ancestors, as a\ndetestable creature and unworthy (of such ancestry); but if they were\nlikewise wicked, he sees them undergoing chastisement, while he is in\nturn beheld by them receiving his deserts and expiating, for a long\ntime, each of his evil passions with pains and torments which as far\nexceed in sharpness those endured in the flesh as the reality exceeds\nin distinctness the mere vision (before you). The stripes and weals\nfor each of the passions remain on some a longer, on others a shorter\ntime.\u201d \u2018Observe also,\u2019 said he, \u2018the variegated and party-colored\nappearance of the souls; the darkish and filthy hue is the mark of\nfraud and avarice, while the blood-red and flame-colored indicates\ncruelty and ugliness of temper; where the soul has a bluish color, a\nlack of self-control as against lust has not been wholly eradicated\nfrom it; inherent malevolence combined with envy give out the violet\ncolor and festering appearance underneath, just as the cuttle-fish\nsets free its black fluid. For yonder (in the world), vice, when the\nsoul is changed by its passions and changes the body, occasions a\nvariety of colors, but here (in the realm of departed spirits) there\nis an end of purification and punishment, and when the passions are\npurged out, the soul recovers entirely its native luster and uniform\ncolor. Until this takes place, paroxysms of passion break forth,\ncausing relapses and heart-throbs, in some cases faint and easily\nrecovered from, in others exceedingly violent. Some of the souls,\nafter undergoing repeated castigations resume their natural character\nand disposition; others again are carried away into the bodies of\nanimals by the force and power of ignorance and the innate love of\nsensual gratification; for, owing to the weakness of the reasoning\nfaculty and a disinclination to discursive thought, one is impelled by\nits active principle to procreation, while another, though lacking an\ninstrument of sensual gratification, yet longs to satisfy its desires\nwith worldly pleasures and to attain its ends by means of the body,\nfor in this place there is only a kind of imperfect shadow and vision\nof joys that can have no reality.\u2019 When the spirit had thus spoken, it\nconducted him (Thespesius) swiftly through boundless space, as he\nthought, easily and without deviation, borne up by the beams of light\nas if on wings, until he came to a wide and deep chasm where the power\nthat supported him gave way; he saw, too, that the other souls had a\nlike experience at that place, for these, crowding together like\nbirds, and darting downward, flew about the chasm,\u2014for they dared not\nventure to pass directly across it\u2014which he saw was decorated within\nlike the grottoes of Bacchus, with shrubbery and plants and with all\nsorts of green twigs bearing flowers; it also sent forth a gentle and\nagreeable breeze which was singularly pleasant and which produced the\nsame effect that wine does on those who are addicted to it, for the\nsouls that inhaled these fragrant odors were in ecstasies of joy and\nembraced one another. All around this place there was revelry and\nlaughter, together with every kind of enjoyment and merry-making. He\nsaid that here Dionysus had ascended and had afterwards fetched up\nSemele and that it was called the place of Forgetfulness (Lethe).\nHere, too, Thespesius desired to tarry, but his conductor would not\nallow it, and hurried him forcibly away, at the same time telling him\nthat the rational soul is melted and dissolved under the influence of\npleasure, but that the irrational and carnal part, moistened and\nclothed in flesh, revives the memory of the body, and as a result of\nthis reminiscense, a desire and a concupiscence that incites to\nprocreation; for which reason it is called an _inclination toward the\nearth_ because the soul is weighed down with moisture. Passing next\nover another way of equal extent, he thought he saw a huge goblet into\nwhich streams flowed, of which one was of a whiter color than the foam\nof the sea or snow; another, purple like the iris; while others again\nshowed, from afar, different hues, each of which shone with its own\nparticular luster, yet when he came near, the ambient air became more\nand more rarified, the colors became fainter, and the goblet lost its\nbrilliant tints, except the white. Here he saw three supernatural\nbeings (daemons) sitting by one another in the form of a triangle,\nmixing together the streams with certain measures. The conductor of\nthe soul of Thespesius said that to this point Orpheus had advanced\nwhen he was following after the soul of his wife, but because his\nmemory partly failed him he brought back to men an incorrect account\nwhen he said that the oracle at Delphi was the common property of\nApollo and Night, when in sooth, there is nothing in common between\nApollo and Night. \u2018But this oracle,\u2019 the spirit said, \u2018is common to\nnight and the moon; it gives response nowhere upon the earth and has\nno fixed abode, but roams about everywhere among men, in dreams and\napparitions; and emanating from it, as thou seest, dreams mixed up\nwith the plain and simple truth, spread abroad trickery and fraud. But\nthat of Apollo thou didst not see,\u2019 it said, \u2018nor wilt thou be able to\nsee it, for the earthly part of the soul neither strives toward what\nis higher nor does it release (the spiritual part), but it tends\ndownward as long as it is joined to the body.\u2019 At the same time the\nspirit leading him (Thespesius) nearer tried to show him the light\nissuing from the tripod which, as he said, passed through the bosom of\nThemis and reached as far as Parnassus. Though greatly desiring to see\nit, he was not able to do so because of its brilliancy; but as he\npassed by he heard the shrill voice of a woman chanting in verse some\nother things, and the time of his death, as he thought. The\nsupernatural being (daemon) said it was the Sibyl, and that she\nforetold future events as she was whirled about on the face of the\nmoon. Though wishing to hear more, he was carried round to the\nopposite side by the rotary motion of the moon and caught but a few\nwords; among which was the prediction about Mount Vesuvius and the\nimpending destruction of Dicaearchea by fire, and a verse about the\nreigning emperor, thus:\n\n\u2018Though he is good, disease shall end his reign.\u2019 Next in order they\nturned to look upon those who were undergoing punishments. From the very\nfirst they beheld nothing but repulsive and pitiable sights; then\nThespesius quite unexpectedly came upon kindred and acquaintances and\nformer companions who were in terrible sufferings and undergoing\nhorrible torments and pains, and who besought him with loud lamentations\nto have pity on them. Finally, he recognized his own father coming up\nfrom a kind of abyss, all covered with marks and wounds, stretching out\nhis hands to him; nor did those who directed his castigations suffer him\nto hold his peace, but they compelled him to confess that he had been\nguilty of a base crime against some guests, for their gold, by taking\nthem off with poison, and that, though the deed was unknown to everybody\nin the world above, it was known to those below. (He also said) that he\nhad already undergone some torments, but was being dragged away to\nsuffer others. Smitten with fear and horror he durst not offer\nsupplications and intercessions for his father; but wanting to turn\nabout and flee, he no longer saw his kind and familiar guide, and felt\nhimself urged forward by other beings horrible to look upon, by whom he\nwas compelled to pass among and behold the chastisements of others of\nhis acquaintances who had openly led a wicked life, though the shade of\nthose who had been punished in the world was less grievously tormented\nthan the rest, and not in the same way, as they were merely condemned to\nsevere toil for the irrational nature and the passions. On the other\nhand, those who had worn the garb and assumed the name of virtue, but\nhad in secret led corrupt lives, were forced by other tormentors, with\nsevere exertion and great pain, to turn the inner parts of the soul\noutward; which action being so contrary to their nature, they performed\nit with wrigglings and contortions like those made by the marine\nscolopendra when they have swallowed the hook; some, their tormentors\nflayed and laid open in order to show how corrupt and flecked they were,\nand that their iniquity had its root in the reason which is the noblest\npart of the soul. Other souls, he also said, he observed coiled about\neach other by twos and threes and even more, gnawing one another on the\nscore of old grudges for the deeds of malice they had suffered or\ncommitted in life. And he noticed further, some lakes alongside of each\nother, one of which was of seething gold, another of exceeding cold\nlead, and still another of hard iron; that over these stood certain\ndemons who in turn, like smiths, seized with tongs the souls of those\nwho had been guilty of insatiable greed and avarice, drawing them out\nand thrusting them in. When they had become heated through and\ndiaphanous in the gold from the effects of the burning, they were\nplunged into the sea of lead; having become congealed here and hard as\nhailstones, they were next thrust into the lake of iron, where they\nturned completely black, and were then twisted round and round because\nof their hard-heartedness, and rubbed together until they lost all\nsemblance of their former selves. They were then put once more into the\nlake of gold to undergo, as he said, awful torments by the change. But\nhe said those endured the keenest anguish, who, supposing they had been\nreleased by Justice (Dike) were seized anew: these were the souls of\nthose for whose transgressions their descendants or children had to pay\nthe penalty. For whenever one of these arrived and encountered the\nother, he fell upon the shade in great wrath, uttering loud cries and\nshowing the marks of what he had endured, at the same time execrating\nand pursuing it while it endeavored to flee away and hide itself, yet\ncould not. For swiftly did the avengers of justice pursue such, dragging\nthem back again amid loud lamentations because they foreknew their\nimpending doom. To some of the souls, he said, many of their descendants\nat the same time attached themselves like bees or bats, uttering shrill\ncries and falling into transports of rage at the recollection of what\nthey had endured for their sakes; and last of all he saw the souls of\nthose who were undergoing the preparation for a second birth by a forced\ntransformation into all sorts of animals, and by metempsychosis at the\nhands of those who were appointed to the task. These, by the use of\ncertain tools, and with blows, hammered together entire members, turned\nothers round, scraped down or removed others entirely in order to adapt\nthem to different modes of life, among which also appeared the soul of\nNero that had already undergone the other castigations, and had been\ntransfixed with red-hot nails. When the workmen had begun to prepare the\nfigure of a Pindaric viper, in which it was destined to live after it\nhad been conceived and had eaten its way out of its mother, he said that\na great light appeared and a voice came out of the light commanding that\nit be transformed into some more gentle creature and made over into an\nanimal that is wont to chant around marshes and ponds, as he had already\nexpiated his crimes, and some consideration was due him at the hands of\nthe gods for freeing Greece, the land in which dwelt the best and most\ngod-favored of his subjects. Thus far now Thespesius was an eyewitness;\nbut when he was about to turn back, he got into the utmost perplexity\nthrough fright; for a woman, imposing by her stature and beauty, taking\nhold of him, said, \u2018Pray come hither, my friend, in order that you may\nthe better remember everything\u2019 (you have seen). And as she was about to\napply to him a little red-hot iron rod such as the painters in encaustic\nare wont to use, another woman interfered. But he himself was carried\naway all at once by a sudden and very violent gust of wind, as if blown\nthrough a tube, and so lighting again in his own body, he was restored\nto life, as it were, on the very brink of the grave.\u201d\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nA few notes of general character are here appended. Biographical and\nmythological details may be found in classical dictionaries. They are,\nhowever, rarely necessary to make clear the object of the author\u2019s\nallusions. A word or a phrase not in the original has, in a few cases,\nbeen inserted in the translation to preclude the necessity of a note.\n\n    \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 of the title. It is not clear from the writings of\n    Plutarch to what extent he was a monotheist. He uses \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 both with\n    and without the article. In some cases his meaning is perfectly\n    clear; in others not. The New Testament writers, whose monotheism is\n    beyond question, frequently use the article before the name of God.\n    In like manner proper names sometimes have the article and sometimes\n    are without it. Thus we have \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a0\u03b9\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 usually\n    has the article while \u03a4\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 never has it, etc.\n\n    CHAP. 3. The thought here expressed regarding the mills of the gods\n    has been put into the form of a couplet by Longfellow in his Poetic\n    Aphorisms, thus:\n\n                  \u201cThough the mills of God grind slowly\n                    yet they grind exceeding small;\n                  Though with patience He stands waiting,\n                    with exactness grinds He all.\u201d\n\n    The purport of the passage is plain, but the parallelism between the\n    fact and the figure is not very close. The idea is much older than\n    Plutarch.\n\n    CHAP. 4. \u201cThe ingle-side\u201d or ancestral hearth. According to the\n    ancients the hearth was the center and beginning of the family and\n    the state. The expression, which is often used by Plato and others,\n    is equivalent to the _remotest beginning_. Compare also the Roman\n    Vesta.\n\n    5. \u201cGod having placed Himself,\u201d etc. The following extract from the\n    Timaeus of Plato will serve to illustrate our author\u2019s meaning. \u201cLet\n    me tell you then why the Creator made this world of generation. He\n    was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And\n    being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as\n    like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the\n    origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in\n    believing on the testimony of wise men. God desired that all things\n    should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable.\n    Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but\n    moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he\n    brought order, considering that this was in every way better than\n    the other. Now the deeds of the best could never be or have been\n    other than the fairest and best; and the Creator, reflecting on the\n    things which are by nature visible, found that no unintelligent\n    creature taken as a whole was fairer than the intelligent taken as a\n    whole; and that intelligence could not be present in anything which\n    was devoid of soul. For which reason, when he was framing the\n    universe, he put intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he\n    might be the creator of a work which was, by nature, fairest.\n    Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the\n    world became a living creature, truly endowed with soul and\n    intelligence by the providence of God.\u201d\n\n    6. \u201cSouls going forth from him.\u201d The idea here is, that the human\n    soul existed previous to its incarnation in the human body, and that\n    it is a direct emanation from the Deity. This doctrine is fully\n    expounded by Plato. How to establish the immortality of the soul, if\n    it comes into existence with the body, was a serious problem with\n    the ancients. Plutarch seems to have regarded both the soul and the\n    body as eternal and uncreated, but the latter without form until it\n    was united with the soul. Or we may put the case otherwise by saying\n    that the soul, upon entering into a conscious existence, shapes the\n    hitherto formless body into an abode for itself. He also holds that\n    the soul consists of two parts: The one part seeks after truth and\n    has an affection for the beautiful; the other is subject to the\n    passions and under the dominion of error. \u201cFor which reason,\u201d the\n    author here assumes that the words \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 are from the same\n    root. The former means, use and wont; the latter was originally\n    applied to the haunts or abodes of animals; then the manners,\n    habits, and dispositions of men. Aristotle says, \u1f21 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f20\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f10\u03be \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n    \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u1f24\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. (Ethical is from \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, for which reason the word differs but\n    slightly from \u1f24\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2.) Plutarch himself says that custom is second\n    nature. It is easy to trace the connection between a man\u2019s acts and\n    the psychical forces, the character, that produces them.\n\n    8. \u201cAn ill-omened deed.\u201d It was a prevalent belief in antiquity that\n    misfortunes fell upon those who were concerned in disturbing a\n    swallow\u2019s nest.\n\n    10. Near the end. The Greeks ventured to consult oracles of the dead\n    only on rare and extraordinary occasions. They probably borrowed the\n    custom from the East.\n\n    11. The story of Glaucus is told at length by Herodotus in the third\n    book of his history and is often alluded to by later writers. The\n    ethical import of the anecdote is far-reaching.\n\n    17. \u201cGardens of Adonis.\u201d Shakespeare probably had these in mind when\n    he wrote (King Henry VI. Part 1, scene sixth): \u201cThy promises are\n    like Adonis\u2019 gardens, That one day bloomed and fruitful were the\n    next.\u201d At Taenarus, the most southern point of the Peloponnesus,\n    there was believed to be an entrance to the lower world.\n\n    22. \u201cNone more dreaded by his enemies.\u201d To return good for good and\n    evil for evil was a fundamental article of Greek ethics. It is more\n    than once alluded to in the Anabasis, and is found in nearly all\n    Greek writers. Socrates, however, takes a firm stand against the\n    principle and maintains that whatever is intrinsically wrong can\n    never under any circumstances become right.\n\n    \u201cAn inclination toward the earth.\u201d The author here assumes that\n    \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, procreation, beginning, is both in fact and etymologically,\n    connected with \u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, an inclination or tendency toward the\n    earth. It need hardly be said that his idea is pure fancy.\n\n    This eruption of Vesuvius, as is well known, took place in the year\n    79. Decaearchea or Puteoli was one of the cities destroyed together\n    with Herculaneum, Pompei and others. Vespasian was one of the few\n    Roman emperors, who, up to his time, died a natural death.\n\n    What is meant by a Pindaric viper is not known. Plutarch is\n    evidently of the opinion that its young gnaw their way out of the\n    mother\u2019s womb instead of being born in the natural way, and the\n    allusion to Nero\u2019s treatment of his mother is plain. Nero\u2019s love for\n    music and his proficiency in the musical art are evidently held up\n    to ridicule in this passage.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDIX.\n\n\nA list of Plutarch\u2019s works in the order of Bernardakis\u2019 edition.\nLipsiae, 1888-96.\n\n\nVOLUME I.\n\n    _De liberis educandis_, (On the education of children).\n\n    _Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat_, (How a young man ought to\n    hear poems).\n\n    _De recta ratione audiendi_, (How one ought to hear lectures).\n\n    _Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur_, (How one may distinguish\n    a flatterer from a friend).\n\n    _Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus_, (How one may know\n    whether he is making progress in virtue).\n\n    _De capienda ex inimicis utilitate_, (How one may profit by his\n    enemies).\n\n    _De amicorum multitudine_, (On the abundance of friends).\n\n    _De fortuna_, (On good and ill fortune).\n\n    _De virtute et vitio_, (On virtue and vice).\n\n    _Consolatio ad Apollonium_, (Consolation for Apollonius).\n\n    _De tuenda sanitate pr\u00e6cepta_, (Precepts on the preservation of\n    health).\n\n    _Conjugalia pr\u00e6cepta_, (Precepts on matrimony).\n\n    _Septem sapientum convivium_, (The banquet of the seven sages).\n\n    _De superstitione_, (On superstition).\n\n\nVOLUME II.\n\n    _Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata_, (Memorable sayings of kings\n    and commanders).\n\n    _Apophthegmata Laconica_, (Memorable sayings of Spartans).\n\n    _Instituta Laconica_, (The ancient customs of the Lacedaemonians).\n\n    _Lac\u00e6narum apophthegmata_, (Memorable sayings of Spartan women).\n\n    _Mulierum virtutes_, (Heroic deeds of women).\n\n    _\u00c6tia Romana_, (A list of topics, Roman).\n\n    _\u00c6tia Gr\u00e6ca_, (A list of topics, Greek).\n\n    _Parallela Gr\u00e6ca et Romana_, (A collection of Greek and Roman\n    historical parallels).\n\n    _De fortuna Romanorum_, (On the good fortune of the Romans).\n\n    _De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute, oratio I et II_, (On the\n    good fortune or valor of Alexander the Great, discourses I and II).\n\n    _Bellone an pace clariores fuerint Athenienses_, (Were the Athenians\n    more distinguished in war or in wisdom)?\n\n    _De Iside et Osiride,_ (Concerning Isis and Osiris).\n\n\nVOLUME III.\n\n    _De E apud Delphos_, (On the E at Delphi).\n\n    _De Pythia oraculis_, (On the cessation of the Pythian oracles in\n    meter).\n\n    _De defectu oraculorum_, (On the cessation of oracles).\n\n    _An virtus doceri possit_, (Can virtue be taught)?\n\n    _De virtute morali_, (On moral virtue).\n\n    _De cohibenda ira_, (On the control of the temper).\n\n    _De tranquillitate animi_, (On peace of mind).\n\n    _De fraterno amore_, (On fraternal love).\n\n    _De amore prolis_, (On the love of offspring).\n\n    _An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat_, (Does vice of itself\n    make men unhappy)?\n\n    _Animine an corporis affectiones sint peiores_, (Are the sufferings\n    of the mind more grievous than those of the body)?\n\n    _De garrulitate_, (On talkativeness).\n\n    _De curiositate_, (On meddlesomness).\n\n    _De cupiditate divitiarum_, (On the love of riches).\n\n    _De vitioso pudore_, (On excess of modesty).\n\n    _De invidia et odio_, (Concerning envy and hatred).\n\n    _De se ipsum citra invidiam laudando_, (On praising one\u2019s self\n    without reproach).\n\n    _De sera numinis vindicta_, (Concerning those whom God is slow to\n    punish).\n\n    _De fato_, (On fate).\n\n    _De genio Socratis_, (On the tutelary deity of Socrates).\n\n    _De exilio_, (On exile).\n\n    _Consolatio ad uxorem_, (A letter of condolence to his wife).\n\n\nVOLUME IV.\n\n    _Questionum convivialium libri IX_, (Nine books of table-talk).\n\n    _Amatorius_, (A dialogue on love).\n\n    _Amatoriae narrationes_, (Love stories).\n\n\nVOLUME V.\n\n    _Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse disserendum_, (On the\n    proposition that the philosopher ought chiefly to converse with\n    rulers).\n\n    _Ad principem ineruditum_, (To an uneducated ruler).\n\n    _An seni res publica gerenda sit_, (Should an old man hold a public\n    office)?\n\n    _Praecepta gerendae rei publicae_, (Political precepts).\n\n    _De unius in re publica dominatione, populari statu et paucorum\n    imperio_, (On monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy).\n\n    _De vitando aere alieno_, (On avoiding debts).\n\n    _X oratorum vitae_, (The lives of the ten orators).\n\n    _De comparatione Aristophanis et Menandri epitome_ (Abstract of a\n    comparison between Aristophanes and Menander).\n\n    _De Herodoti malignitate_, (On the malice of Herodotus).\n\n    _De placitis philosophorum libri V_, (Five books of maxims of the\n    philosophers).\n\n    _Aetia physica_, (Problems in physics).\n\n    _De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet_, (Concerning the face that\n    appears on the moon\u2019s disk).\n\n    _De primo frigido_, (On the origin of cold).\n\n\nVOLUME VI.\n\n    _Aquane an ignis sit utilior_, (Is fire or water the more useful)?\n\n    _Terrestriane an aquatilia animalia sint callidiora_, (Are water or\n    land animals the more cunning)?\n\n    _Bruta animalia ratione uti_, (On the use of reason by brutes).\n\n    _De esu carnium, orationes duo_, (On the eating of flesh, two\n    discourses).\n\n    _Platonicae quaestiones_, (Platonic questions).\n\n    _De animae procreatione in Timaeo_, (On the origin of the soul in\n    the Timaeus).\n\n    _Epitome libri de animae procreatione in Timaeo_, (Abstract of the\n    book on the origin of the soul in the Timaeus).\n\n    _De Stoicorum repugnantiis_, (On contradictions of the Stoics).\n\n    _Compendium libri cui argumentum fuit, Stoicos absurdiora poetis\n    dicere_, (Synopsis of the book the argument of which was, The Stoics\n    utter greater absurdities than the poets).\n\n    _De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos_, (Concerning the common\n    conceptions against the Stoics).\n\n    _Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum_, (That it is not\n    possible to live pleasurably according to Epicurus).\n\n    _Adversus Coloten_, (Against Colotes).\n\n    _An recte dictum sit latenter vivendum esse_, (Is it a true saying\n    that one ought to live in seclusion)?\n\n    _De musica_, (On music).\n\n\nVOLUME VII.\n\n    _De fluviorum et montium nominibus et de iis qu\u00e6 in illis\n    inveniuntur_, (On the names of rivers and mountains and those things\n    that are found in them).\n\n    _De vita et poesi Homeri, Lib. I et II_, (On the life and poetry of\n    Homer).\n\nThe two treatises last named fill more than one-third of the volume, the\nremainder being chiefly taken up with fragments, some of them only a few\nlines in length. It also contains the so-called catalogue of Lamprias\nwhich, including the Parallel lives, assigns 227 different works to\nPlutarch. Volume seven concludes with an index of names. As these\ntreatises are usually cited by their Latin titles, they only are given\nabove. A complete edition of Plutarch\u2019s Morals, with an introduction by\nR. W. Emerson was published in Boston about twenty-five years ago, under\nthe editorial supervision of Professor Goodwin of Harvard University.\nThe translations were made by a number of English scholars near the\nclose of the seventeenth century. In their revised form they are in the\nmain correct and some of them are vigorous and readable.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Typographical errors were silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"Between Heathenism and Christianity: Being a translation of Seneca's De Providentia, and Plutarch's De sera numinis vindicta, together with notes, additional extracts from these writers and two essays on Graeco-Roman life in the first century after Christ.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":56699}