FOOTNOTES
[1] The English term, like so many we have to use, is an imperfect translation; in discussing such questions as marriage and death we speak instead of ‘ordinary’ or ‘simple’ duties.
[2] κατωνομάσθαι δ’ οὕτως ὑπὸ πρώτου Ζήνωνος τὸ καθῆκον, ἀπὸ τοῦ ‘κατά τινας ἥκειν’ τῆς προσονομασίας εἰλημμένης Diog. L. vii 108.
[3] ‘est quoddam commune officium sapientis et insipientis’ Cic. Fin. iii 18, 59.
[4] Stob. ii 7, 8.
[5] Diog. L. vii 107.
[6] Stob. ii 7, 8.
[7] τῶν καθηκόντων τὰ μὲν εἶναί φασι τέλεια, ἃ δὴ καὶ κατορθώματα λέγεσθαι Stob. as above; ‘[sapiens] iudicat, cum agit, officium illud esse’ Cic. Fin. iii 18, 59.
[8] See below, §§ [357], [358].
[9] Diog. L. vii 4.
[10] ib. 175.
[11] ‘omnia officia eo [referuntur], ut adipiscamur principia naturae’ Cic. Fin. iii 6, 22.
[12] ‘Zenonem cum Polemone disceptantem, a quo quae essent principia naturae acceperat’ ib. iv 16, 45.
[13] καθῆκόν φασιν εἶναι ὃ πραχθὲν εὔλογόν τιν’ ἴσχει ἀπολογισμόν Diog. L. vii 107; ‘est autem officium, quod ita factum est, ut eius facti probabilis ratio reddi possit’ Cic. Fin. iii 17, 58; ‘ratio [non] debet agere quidquam, cuius non possit causam probabilem reddere’ Off. i 29, 101; ‘huic respondebimus, nunquam exspectare nos certissimam rerum comprehensionem, quoniam in arduo est veri exploratio; sed ea ire, qua ducit verisimilitudo, omne hac via procedit officium’ Sen. Ben. iv 33, 2; and see above, § [159].
[15] ‘quod secundum naturam est, quod contigit protinus nato, non dico bonum sed initium boni’ Sen. Ep. 124, 7.
[17] ‘placet his, simul atque natum sit animal, ipsum sibi conciliari et commendari ad se conservandum, et ad suum statum eaque, quae conservantia sunt eius status, diligenda’ Cic. Fin. iii 5, 16; the maintenance of a complete life is illustrated by the desire to avoid the loss of a limb or deformity, ib. 17. ‘Universally (be not deceived) every animal is attached to nothing so much as to its own interest’ Epict. Disc. ii 22, 15.
[18] ‘commune autem animantium omnium est coniunctionis appetitus procreandi causa, et cura quaedam eorum, quae procreata sunt’ Cic. Off. i 4, 11.
[19] ib.
[20] ib. 12.
[21] Cic. Off. i 4, 13.
[22] ib.
[23] ib. 14.
[24] ‘formam quidem ipsam, Marce fili, et tanquam faciem honesti vides; quae si oculis cerneretur, mirabiles amores, ut ait Plato, excitaret sapientiae’ ib. 5, 14.
[25] ‘in principiis autem naturalibus plerique Stoici non putant voluptatem esse ponendam: quibus ego vehementer assentior, ne si voluptatem natura posuisse in iis rebus videatur, quae primae appetuntur, multa turpia sequantur’ Fin. iii 5, 17. Yet Cicero, still writing as a Stoic, can say: ‘[beluae] nihil sentiunt nisi voluptatem, ad eamque feruntur omni impetu’ Off. i 30, 105. See below, §§ [346], [347].
[26] See below, §§ [343], [344].
[27] ‘in iis, in quibus sapientia perfecta non est, ipsum illud quidem perfectum honestum nullo modo, similitudines honesti esse possunt’ Cic. Off. iii 3, 13; ‘vivitur cum iis, in quibus praeclare agitur, si sunt simulacra virtutis’ ib. i 15, 46; ‘est autem quaedam animi sanitas, quae in insipientem etiam cadat, cum curatione medicorum turbatio mentis aufertur’ Tusc. disp. iv 13, 30.
[28] Diog. L. vii 92; ‘in duas partes virtus dividitur, in contemplationem veri et actionem’ Sen. Ep. 94, 45.
[29] ταύτας μὲν οὖν τὰς ῥηθείσας ἀρετὰς τελείας (leg. τέχνας Hirz. ii 482) εἶναι λέγουσι περὶ τὸν βίον καὶ συνεστηκέναι ἐκ θεωρημάτων· ἄλλας δὲ ἐπιγίνεσθαι ταύταις, οὐκ ἔτι τέχνας οὔσας, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις τινάς, ἐκ τῆς ἀσκήσεως περιγιγνομένας Stob. ii 7, 5 b 4.
[30] For the virtues recognised by Chrysippus and others see Arnim iii 262-293; we find a sufficiently long list in Seneca: fortitudo, fides, temperantia, humanitas, simplicitas, modestia ac moderatio, frugalitas et parsimonia, clementia, Ep. 88, 29 and 30.
[31] Plut. virt. mor. 2; de fort. 2; Sto. rep. vii 1.
[32] Thus φρόνησις became ἐπιστήμη ὧν ποιητέον καὶ οὐ ποιητέον καὶ οὐδετέρων Stob. ii 7 5 b 1, cf. Alex. Aph. de fato 37 (Arnim iii 283).
[33] ‘omnis cogitatio motusque animi aut in consiliis capiendis de rebus honestis aut in studiis scientiae cognitionisque versatur’ Cic. Off. i 6, 19; ‘natura nos ad utrumque genuit, et contemplationi rerum et actioni’ Sen. Dial. viii 5, 1.
[34] ‘quid ergo? nihil nobis liberalia conferunt studia? ad alia multum, ad virtutem nihil. quare ergo liberalibus studiis filios erudimus? quia animum ad accipiendam virtutem praeparant’ Ep. 88, 20.
[35] ‘sine hac arte (sc. dialectica) quemvis arbitrantur a vero abduci fallique posse’ Cic. Fin. iii 21, 72.
[36] ‘qui convenienter naturae victurus sit, ei proficiscendum est ab omni mundo atque ab eius procuratione’ ib. 22, 73.
[37] ‘ad eas virtutes dialecticam etiam adiungunt et physicam, easque ambas virtutum nomine appellant’ ib. 21, 72.
[38] ‘ad hoc nobis proderit inspicere rerum naturam. primo discedemus a sordidis; deinde animum ipsum, quo summo magnoque opus est, seducemus a corpore; deinde in occultis exercitata subtilitas non erit in aperta deterior’ Sen. N. Q. iii Praef. 18.
[39] ‘quae omnes artes [sc. astrologia, geometria, ius civile] in veri investigatione versantur, cuius studio a rebus gerendis abduci contra officium est’ Cic. Off. i 6, 19.
[40] ‘est vitium, quod quidam nimis magnum studium ... in res conferunt non necessarias’ ib. 6, 18.
[41] A. Gellius, N. A. xiv 4, 4.
[42] Cic. Off. i 7, 21 and 22.
[43] ib. 13, 41.
[44] ‘principes sint patria ac parentes; proximi liberi, totaque domus, quae spectat in nos solos; deinde bene convenientes propinqui’ Cic. Off. i 17, 58.
[45] ‘I ought not to be free from affections (ἀπαθής) like a statue, but I ought to maintain the relations (σχέσεις) natural and acquired, as a pious man, as a son, as a father, as a citizen’ Epict. Disc. iii 2, 4; ‘Duties are usually measured by relations (ταῖς σχέσεσι). Is a man a father? The precept is to take care of him, to yield to him in all things. Does a brother wrong you? Maintain then your own position towards him’ Manual 30. All the duties of relationship on the one side imply corresponding duties on the other side; ‘invicem ista, quantum exigunt, praestant, et parem desiderant regulam, quae (ut ait Hecaton) difficilis est’ Sen. Ben. ii 18, 2.
[46] ‘[fortitudo] scientia est distinguendi, quid sit malum et quid non sit’ Ep. 85, 28; ‘quomodo igitur Chrysippus? fortitudo est, inquit, scientia rerum perferendarum, vel affectio animi in patiendo ac perferendo, summae legi parens sine timore’ Cic. Tusc. disp. iv 24, 53.
[47] ‘quicquid est hoc, Marcia, quod circa nos ex adventicio fulget, liberi honores opes, ampla atria et exclusorum clientium turba referta vestibula, clara nobilis aut formosa coniunx ceteraque ex incerta et mobili sorte pendentia, alieni commodatique adparatus sunt; nihil horum dono datur; collaticiis et ad dominos redituris instrumentis scena adornatur’ Sen. Dial. vi 10, 1; ‘victrix fortunae sapientia’ Juv. Sat. xiii 20.
[48] ‘cum potentes et imperio editi nocere intendent, citra sapientiam omnes eorum impetus deficient’ Sen. Dial. ii 4, 1.
[49] ‘levis est, si ferre possum; brevis est, si ferre non possum’ Ep. 24, 14.
[50] ‘inter haec tamen aliquis non gemuit. parum est, non rogavit. parum est, non respondit. parum est: risit, et quidem ex animo’ ib. 78, 19.
[51] ‘mors optimum inventum naturae’ Dial. vi 20, 1; ‘fortem posce animum, mortis terrore carentem, | qui spatium vitae extremum inter munera ponat | naturae’ Juv. Sat. x 357-9.
[52] ‘caram te, vita, beneficio mortis habeo’ Sen. Dial. vi 20, 3; ‘nullo nos invida tanto | armavit natura bono, quam ianua mortis | quod patet’ Silius Pun. xi 186-8; ‘adeo mors timenda non est, ut beneficio eius nihil timendum sit’ Sen. Ep. 24, 11.
[53] ‘[mors] quin habeat aliquid in se terribile, ut et animos nostros, quos in amorem sui natura formavit, offendat, nemo dubitat’ ib. 36, 8.
[54] So Heraclitus had said ‘unus dies par omni est’ ib. 12, 7; ‘ut prorogetur tibi dies mortis, nihil proficitur ad felicitatem: quoniam mora non fit beatior vita, sed longior’ Ben. v 17, 6.
[55] ‘si [senectus] coeperit concutere mentem, si partes eius convellere, si mihi non vitam reliquerit sed animam, prosiliam ex aedificio putri ac ruenti’ Ep. 58, 35.
[56] ‘melius nos | Zenonis praecepta docent; nec enim omnia, quaedam | pro vita facienda putant’ Juv. Sat. xv 106 to 108.
[57] Diog. L. vii 130. Ingenious members of the school found five good reasons for voluntarily quitting life, resembling the causes for breaking up a banquet. As the guests part, because of (i) a sudden need, such as the arrival of a friend, (ii) revellers breaking in and using violent language, (iii) the food turning bad, (iv) the food being eaten up, or (v) the company being drunk; so the wise man will depart, because of (i) a call to sacrifice himself for his country, (ii) tyrants doing him violence, (iii) disease hindering the use of the body, (iv) poverty, (v) madness, which is the drunkenness of the soul. See Arnim iii 768.
[58] Notably in the case of Cato.
[59] ‘in quo plura sunt, quae secundum naturam sunt, huius officium est in vita manere; in quo autem aut sunt plura contraria, aut fore videntur, huius officium est e vita excedere’ Cic. Fin. iii 18, 60.
[60] ‘perspicuum est etiam stultorum, qui iidem miseri sint, officium esse manere in vita, si sint in maiore parte earum rerum, quas secundum naturam esse dicimus’ ib. iii 18, 61.
[61] He might easily have obtained acquittal by a judicious defence: Xen. Mem. iv 4, 4.
[62] ‘Catoni gladium adsertorem libertatis extorque: magnam partem detraxeris gloriae’ Sen. Ep. 13, 14.
[63] ‘ille adfectus multos occupavit, libido moriendi’ ib. 24, 25; ‘quid ergo? non multos spectavi abrumpentes vitam? ego vero vidi, sed plus momenti apud me habent qui ad mortem veniunt sine odio vitae, et admittunt illam, non adtrahunt’ ib. 30, 15.
[64] ib. 24, 25.
[65] ib. 117, 22.
[66] Epict. Disc. i 9, 16.
[67] ‘probe definitur a Stoicis fortitudo, cum eam virtutem esse dicunt propugnantem pro aequitate’ Cic. Off. i 19, 62.
[68] ib. 21, 71.
[69] ib. 26, 92.
[70] ib. 23, 80.
[71] ‘Zenon ait; accedet ad rempublicam [sapiens], nisi si quid impedierit’ Sen. Dial. viii 3, 2.
[72] See above, §§ [89], [90].
[74] ‘efficiendum autem est, ut appetitus rationi obediant, eamque neque praecurrant, nec propter pigritiam aut ignaviam deserant, sintque tranquilli atque omni perturbatione animi careant’ Cic. Off. i 29, 102.
[75] ‘hoc loco continetur id, quod dici Latine decorum potest; Graece enim πρέπον dicitur; huius vis ea est, ut ab honesto non queat separari’ ib. i 27, 93.
[76] Stob. ii 7, 5 b 4; ‘ut corporis est quaedam apta figura membrorum cum coloris quadam suavitate, ea quae dicitur pulchritudo; sic in animo opinionum iudiciorumque aequabilitas et constantia, cum firmitate quadam et stabilitate, pulchritudo vocatur’ Tusc. disp. iv 13, 31.
[77] ‘id decorum [volunt] esse, quod ita naturae consentaneum sit, ut in eo moderatio et temperantia appareat cum specie quadam liberali’ Off. i 27, 96.
[78] ‘adhibenda est igitur quaedam reverentia adversus homines, et optimi cuiusque et reliquorum’ ib. 28, 99; ‘to order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters’ English Church Catechism.
[79] Cic. Off. i 29, 104.
[80] ‘id enim maxime quemque decet, quod est cuiusque maxime suum. suum quisque igitur noscat ingenium’ ib. 31, 113-4. Retail trading, and all the arts that subserve luxury, are illiberal; agriculture is the most truly liberal: ib. 42, 150 and 151.
[81] ib. 34, 122-124.
[82] ‘venustatem muliebrem ducere debemus, dignitatem virilem’ ib. 36, 130. In the same spirit Epictetus says ‘we ought not to confound the distinctions of the sexes’ Disc. i 16, 14.
[83] Cic. Off. i 35, 127.
[84] ‘nec vero audiendi sunt Cynici, aut si qui fuerunt Stoici paene Cynici, qui reprehendunt et irrident, quod ea quae re turpia non sint, verbis flagitiosa ducamus; illa autem, quae turpia sint, nominibus appellemus suis’ ib. i 35, 128; ‘Cynicorum autem rationem atque vitam alii cadere in sapientem dicunt, si quis eiusmodi forte casus inciderit, ut id faciendum sit: alii nullo modo’ Fin. iii 20, 68.
[85] ‘habes scholam Stoicam, ὁ σοφὸς εὐθυῤῥημονήσει. ego servo et servabo (sic enim adsuevi) Platonis verecundiam. itaque tectis verbis ea ad te scripsi, quae apertissimis agunt Stoici’ Fam. ix 22, 5. See also above, § [318].
[86] ‘rem ineptissimam fecero, si nunc verba quaesiero, quemadmodum dicam illum matelam sumpsisse’ Sen. Ben. iii 26, 2.
[87] Dial. vi 20, 3.
[88] σωφροσύνην δ’ εἶναι ἐπιστήμην αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν καὶ οὐδετέρων Stob. ii 7, 5 b 1.
[89] τὴν δὲ σωφροσύνην περὶ τὰς ὁρμὰς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ib. 7, 5 b 2.
[90] μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην was the expression of Antisthenes, see Diog. L. vi 3; ‘voluptas est ... res humilis, membrorum turpium aut vilium ministerio veniens’ Sen. Ben. vii 2, 2.
[91] ‘intellegitur appetitus omnes contrahendos sedandosque esse’ Cic. Off. i 29, 103.
[92] See above, § [319]. It does not seem possible to accept Pearson’s view (on Z. fr. 128) that Zeno intended πόνος to be the προηγμένον, and ἡδονή the ἀποπροηγμένον; but both he and his successors undoubtedly recognised the value of πόνος (toil) as a discipline. The following remarks communicated to the writer by Mr Pearson throw much light on a really difficult question. ‘Even the Cynics are forced to admit that not all “pleasure” is to be condemned (the evidence is in Zeller’s Socratics, p. 308), but the only form of it which deserves consideration is that which is the result and after-effect of πόνος. In other words, it may be argued that true pleasure is the cessation of pain (Plat. Phileb. 44 B). The glorification of Heracles the toilsome hero corresponds; but pleasure as understood by the vulgar is unhesitatingly to be rejected. Zeno was the inheritor of all this, and, if he ever said that ἡδονή was προηγμένον, his remark can only have applied to the ἀπονία-ἡδονή; and such certainly was the view of Chrysippus (Plut. Sto. rep. 30, 2).’ In the passage here referred to from Plutarch ἀπονία takes the place of ἡδονή as a προηγμένον; so also in Stob. ii 7, 7 e and Cic. Fin. iii 15, 51. See further §§ [347], [371].
[93] ἡδονή as an advantage is contrasted with πόνος (suffering) as a disadvantage in the list attributed to these writers in Diog. L. vii 102.
[94] Cic. Fin. ii 21, 69.
[95] Κλεάνθης μήτε κατὰ φύσιν αὐτὴν [ἡδονὴν] εἶναι μήτ’ ἀξίαν ἔχειν ἐν τῷ βίῳ Sext. math. xi 74 (Arnim iii 155).
[96] Arnim iii 136, 155.
[97] ‘sit impudens, si [voluptas] pluris esse contendat dulcedinem corporis, et titillationem, ex eave natam laetitiam, quam gravitatem animi’ Cic. Fin. iii 1, 1; ‘quis mortalium per diem noctemque titillari velit?’ Sen. Dial. vii 5, 4; ‘quidni ista bene penset cum minutis et frivolis et non perseverantibus corpusculi motibus?’ ib. 4, 4.
[98] ‘voluptas habet quiddam simile naturali bono’ Cic. Leg. i 11, 31; ‘[voluptas] condimenti fortasse nonnihil, utilitatis certe nihil habebit’ Off. iii 33, 120; ‘voluptatem natura necessariis rebus admiscuit, non ut illam peteremus, sed ut ea, sine quibus non possumus vivere, gratiora nobis illius faceret accessio’ Sen. Ep. 116, 3; ‘[virtus voluptatem] non praestat, sed et hanc; nec huic laborat, sed labor eius, quamvis aliud petat, hoc quoque adsequetur’ Dial. vii 9, 1. That this view was held by Chrysippus appears from Diog. L. vii 86 (cf. Arnim iii 229 a); see also above, notes 92 and 93.
[99] Eth. N. x 7.
[100] ἡδονὴ δέ ἐστιν ἄλογος ἔπαρσις ἐφ’ αἱρετῷ δοκοῦντι ὑπάρχειν Diog. L. vii 114 (of Chrysippus); ‘hoc interest, quod voluptas dicitur etiam in animo, vitiosa res, ut Stoici putant, qui eam sic definiunt; sublationem animi sine ratione, opinantis se magno bono frui’ Cic. Fin. ii 4, 13; ‘vitium esse voluptatem credimus’ Sen. Ep. 59, 1.
[101] ‘quam [perturbationem] Stoici ἡδονήν appellant, ego malo laetitiam appellare, quasi gestientis animi elationem voluptariam’ Cic. Fin. iii 10, 35. Sometimes Cicero translates with more fulness by laetitia gestiens or nimia; Tusc. disp. iv 6, 13.
[102] Παναίτιος δὲ [ἡδονήν φησί] τινα μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχειν, τινὰ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν Sext. math. xi 73 (Arnim iii 155).
[103] See below, §§ [371], [402], [403]. On the whole subject see further Hicks, Stoic and Epicurean, pp. 110 to 112.
[104] ‘Antipater Tyrius, Stoicus, qui Athenis nuper est mortuus, praeterit[am] censet a Panaetio valetudinis curationem. valetudo sustentatur notitia sui corporis et observatione, quae res aut prodesse soleant aut obesse, et continentia in victu omni atque cultu corporis tuendi causa, postremo arte eorum, quorum ad scientiam haec pertinent’ Cic. Off. ii 24, 86.
[105] ‘hanc sanam et salubrem formam vitae tenete, ut corpori tantum indulgeatis, quantum bonae valetudini satis est ... cibus famem sedet, potio sitim extinguat, vestis arceat frigus, domus munimentum sit adversus infesta corporis’ Sen. Ep. 8, 5; and so Musonius, below, § [381].
[106] Epict. Disc. iii 22 and 26.
[108] Diog. L. vii 129; ‘Stoici sapientem amaturum esse dicunt’ Cic. Tusc. disp. iv 34, 72.
[109] ἐπιβολὴν φιλοποιΐας διὰ κάλλος ἐμφαινόμενον Diog. L. vii 130; ‘[Stoici] amorem ipsum conatum amicitiae faciendae ex pulchritudinis specie definiunt’ Cic. as above. The ἐπιβολή or conatus is a variety of the ὁρμή or appetitio, Hirzel p. 390.
[110] Not of course new in any absolute sense; in the country at least such relations must always have been common.
[111] Diog. L. vi 96-98.
[112] See above, § [300], and § [306], note 29; and below, §§ [431], [439], [444], and [446].
[113] ‘in consensu vidui caelibatus nemo uxorem duxit, nisi qui abduxit’ Sen. Ben. i 9, 4.
[114] Stob. iv 22, 25; and see further, §§ [406], [407].
[115] Diog. L. vii 106.
[116] ‘non contemnet se sapiens, etiamsi fuerit minimae staturae; esse tamen se procerum volet’ Sen. Dial. vii 22, 2.
[117] ‘unicum tibi ornamentum pulcherrima et nulli obnoxia aetati forma’ ib. xii 16, 4.
[118] ‘contra naturam est, faciles odisse munditias’ Sen. Ep. 5, 4; ‘non splendeat toga, ne sordeat quidem’ ib. 5, 3.
[119] ‘unus omnium parens mundus est: ad hunc prima cuiusque origo perducitur’ Ben. iii 28, 2; ‘[philosophia] stemma non inspicit ... animus facit nobilem’ Ep. 44, 1 and 5.
[120] Diog. L. vii 106; Cic. Fin. iii 15, 51.
[121] ‘de bona autem fama ... Chrysippus quidem et Diogenes, detracta utilitate, ne digitum quidem eius causa porrigendum esse dicebant. qui autem post eos fuerunt, cum Carneadem sustinere non possent, hanc quam dixi bonam famam propter se praepositam et sumendam esse dixerunt’ ib. 17, 57. Cicero and Seneca were both keenly sensitive to the judgment of posterity: ‘paucis natus est, qui populum aetatis suae cogitat: multa annorum milia, multa populorum supervenient: ad illa respice. etiamsi omnibus tecum viventibus silentium livor indixerit, venient qui sine offensa sine gratia iudicent’ Sen. Ep. 79, 17.
[122] ‘pacem demus animo, quam dabit ... intenta mens ad unius honesti cupiditatem. conscientiae satis fiat; nil in famam laboremus’ Dial. v 41, 2.
[123] ‘multis ad philosophandum obstitere divitiae; paupertas expedita est, secura est’ Ep. 17, 3; ‘transeamus ad patrimonia, maximam humanarum aerumnarum materiam’ Dial. ix 8, 1.
[124] ‘Posidonius sic interrogandum ait: quae neque magnitudinem animo dant nec fiduciam nec securitatem, non sunt bona. divitiae autem ... nihil horum faciunt; ergo non sunt [bonum]’ Ep. 87, 35.
[125] ‘divitias nego bonum esse; nam si essent, bonos facerent. ceterum et habendas esse et utiles et magna commoda vitae adferentis fateor’ Dial. vii 24, 5; ‘[sapiens] non amat divitias, sed mavult. maiorem virtuti suae materiem subministrari vult’ ib. 21, 4.
[126] ‘largitio quae fit ex re familiari, fontem ipsum benignitatis exhaurit’ Cic. Off. ii 15, 52; ‘mentitur prodigus liberalem, cum plurimum intersit utrum quis dare sciat an servare nesciat’ Sen. Ep. 120, 8.
[127] ‘is maxime divitiis fruitur, qui minime divitiis indiget’ ib. 14, 17.
[128] Cic. Off. ii 24, 86.
[130] ‘Hecatonem quidem Rhodium, discipulum Panaeti, video in iis libris, quos de Officiis scripsit Q. Tuberoni, dicere “sapientis esse, nihil contra mores leges instituta facientem, habere rationem rei familiaris. neque enim solum nobis divites esse volumus, sed liberis propinquis amicis, maximeque reipublicae. singulorum enim facultates et copiae divitiae sunt civitatis”’ Cic. Off. iii 15, 63.
[131] ‘toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda pecunia, commodius a quibusdam optimis viris, ad Ianum medium sedentibus, quam ab ullis philosophis ulla in schola disputatur’ ib. ii 25, 90; and see further, § [408].
[133] τὴν μὲν κατ’ ἀλήθειαν ἐλευθερίαν ἀγαθόν, ... δι’ ὃ δὴ καὶ τὸν σπουδαῖον εἶναι μόνον ἐλεύθερον Stob. ii 7, 11 i.
[134] ‘quid est enim libertas? potestas vivendi ut velis’ Cic. Par. 5, 34.
[135] ‘asperitas agrestis | vult libertas dici mera’ Hor. Ep. i 18, 6 and 8.
[136] Juv. Sat. i 151-153.
[137] ‘non potest gratis constare libertas; hanc si magno aestimas, omnia parvo aestimanda sunt’ Sen. Ep. 104, 34, where the reference is to ‘libertas’ in both senses.
[138] ‘nec civis erat, qui libera posset | verba animi proferre, et vitam impendere vero’ Juv. Sat. iv 90 and 91.
[139] οὐ γὰρ ἀεὶ καὶ πανταχοῦ καὶ πρὸς ὁντινοῦν λεκτέον ἃ φρονοῦμεν Muson. apud Stob. iii 40, 9 (Hense, p. 754, 6).
[140] ‘sapiens nunquam potentium iras provocabit; immo declinabit, non aliter quam in navigando procellam’ Sen. Ep. 14, 7.
[141] ‘Can we abolish the acropolis that is in us, and cast out the tyrant within us, whom we have daily over us?’ Epict. Disc. iv 1, 86.
[142] Χρύσιππός φησι μαίνεσθαι τοὺς ... τὴν ἀπονίαν ἐν μηδενὶ ποιουμένους Plut. Sto. rep. 30, 2; ‘in aliis satis esse causae [Stoici voluerunt] quamobrem quibusdam anteponerentur, ut ... in doloris vacuitate’ Cic. Fin. iii 15, 51.
[143] Stob. ii 7, 7 b; Cic. Fin. iii 17, 56.
[144] Stob. as above.
[145] For a similar change in the meaning of the word ‘conscience’ see above, § [351]; the new use of this word as of the word ‘affection’ is that now commonly understood in ethical discussion.
[146] Diog. L. vii 116; ‘declinatio [malorum] si cum ratione fiet, cautio appelletur, eaque intellegatur in solo esse sapiente’ Cic. Tusc. disp. iv 6, 13.
[147] ‘eiusmodi appetitionem Stoici βούλησιν appellant, nos appellamus voluntatem: quam sic definiunt—voluntas est, quae quid cum ratione desiderat’ ib. 6, 12.
[148] ‘cum ratione animus movetur placide atque constanter, tum illud gaudium dicitur’ ib. 6, 13.
[149] See below, §§ [374], [379].
[150] ‘scio gaudium nisi sapienti non contingere. est enim animi elatio suis bonis verisque fidentis’ Sen. Ep. 59, 1 and 2; ‘sola virtus praestat gaudium perpetuum’ ib. 27, 3.
[151] χαρὰν δὲ καὶ εὐφροσύνην καὶ φρόνιμον περιπάτησιν [λέγουσιν] οὔτε πᾶσι τοῖς φρονίμοις ὑπάρχειν οὔτε αἰεί Stob. ii 7, 5 c.
[152] ‘in huius gaudii possessione esse te volo’ Sen. Ep. 23, 4.
[153] ‘ἀναλγησία enim atque ἀπάθεια quorundam etiam ex eadem porticu prudentiorum hominum, sicut iudicio Panaetii, inprobata abiectaque est’ A. Gellius N. A. xii 5, 10.
[154] τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον ἀκολουθητικὸν φύσει ἐστι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ὡς ἂν ἡγεμόνα πρακτικόν Galen plac. Hipp. et Plat. iv 2, p. 368 K.
[155] ‘negat [Zenon] Platonem, si sapiens non sit, eadem esse in causa, qua tyrannum Dionysium. huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae; illi propter spem vivere’ Cic. Fin. iv 20, 56.
[156] See above, §§ [289], [324].
[157] For the Socratic paradox ‘virtue can be taught,’ see above, § [46], also Diog. L. vii 91; ‘nemo est casu bonus. discenda virtus est’ Sen. Ep. 123, 16.
[158] Arnim iii 214.
[159] ‘omnibus natura fundamenta dedit semenque virtutum’ Sen. Ep. 108, 8.
[160] The emphasis occasionally laid on εὐφυΐα (bona indoles) reflects aristocratic and Platonic influences, see Pearson, pp. 205, 206; ‘those who have a good natural disposition (οἱ εὐφυεῖς), even if you try to turn them aside, cling still more to reason’ Epict. Disc. iii 6, 9.
[161] ‘Modest actions preserve the modest man, and immodest actions destroy him; actions of fidelity preserve the faithful man, and the contrary actions destroy him’ ib. ii 9, 11; ‘What then is progress? if any of you, withdrawing himself from externals, turns to his own will (προαίρεσις) to exercise it and to improve it by labour’ ib. i 4, 18.
[162] Cic. de Off. i 28, 99 (§ [343] above); ‘verecundiam, bonum in adulescente signum’ Sen. Ep. 11, 1.
[163] ‘[obstitit] verecundia, quae multorum profectus silentio pressit’ Dial. vi 24, 2; cf. Ep. 40, 14.
[164] ‘paulatim voluptati sunt quae necessitate coeperunt’ Dial. i 4, 15.
[165] Stob. ii 7, 8, 8 a, and 11 a; Cic. Off. i 3, 8 and iii 3, 14.
[166] ὁ δ’ ἐπ’ ἄκρον, φησὶ [Χρύσιππος], προκόπτων ἅπαντα πάντως ἀποδίδωσι τὰ καθήκοντα καὶ οὐδὲν παραλείπει Stob. iv (Flor.) 103, 22 M (Arnim iii 510).
[167] ‘primum est officium, ut se conservet in naturae statu; deinceps ut ea teneat, quae secundum naturam sint; ... deinde ea [selectio] perpetua; tum ad extremum constans consentaneaque naturae; in qua primum inesse incipit et intellegi, quid sit, quod vere bonum possit dici’ Cic. Fin. iii 6, 20.
[168] ἐπιγίγνεσθαι [τῷ προκόπτοντι] τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ὅταν αἱ μέσαι πράξεις αὗται προσλάβωσι τὸ βέβαιον καὶ ἑκτικὸν καὶ ἰδίαν πῆξίν τινα λάβωσι Stob. as above; ‘illud, quod ultimum venit, ut fidem tibi habeas et recta ire te via credas’ Sen. Dial. ix 2, 2. Epictetus uses the technical term ἀμεταπτωσία ‘unchangeable firmness of mind’ Disc. iii 2, 8.
[169] See especially Seneca, Epp. 75 and 95.
[170] Diog. L. vii 127.
[171] τὴν δὲ μεταστροφὴν τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ θεῖα οἱ μὲν Στωϊκοὶ ἐκ μεταβολῆς φασὶ γίνεσθαι, μεταβαλλούσης τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς σοφίαν Clem. Al. Strom. iv 6, 28 (Arnim iii 221).
[172] Cic. Fin. iii 14, 45; and see above, § [322].
[173] ‘ut qui demersi sunt in aqua, nihilo magis respirare possunt, si non longe absunt a summo, ut iam iamque possint emergere, quam si etiam tum essent in profundo; nec catulus ille, qui iam appropinquat ut videat, plus cernit quam is qui modo est natus; item, qui processit aliquantum ad virtutis aditum, nihilominus in miseria est, quam ille qui nihil processit’ Cic. Fin. iii 14, 48.
[174] As to the man who is ‘wise without knowing it’ (διαλεληθὼς σοφός) see Arnim iii 539 to 542, and Plut. Sto. rep. 19, 3 and 4.
[175] ‘iam non consilio bonus, sed more eo perductus, ut non tantum recte facere posset, sed nisi recte facere non posset’ Sen. Ep. 120, 10.
[176] Written in 1805.
CHAPTER XIV.
SIN AND WEAKNESS.
Sin.
360. The Stoic view of the universe is coloured by optimism. All comes from God, all works towards good. None the less the Stoic morals are stern. Men in the mass are both foolish and wicked; they defy God’s will and thwart his purpose. The world is full of sin, and all sins (to use the Socratic paradox) are equal. What then is sin? It is a missing of the mark at which virtue aims (ἁμάρτημα); it is a stumbling on the road (peccatum); it is a transgressing of the boundary line[1]. It is the child of ignorance, the outward expression of ill health of the soul. Everywhere and in every man it weakens, hampers, and delays the work of virtue. It cannot however finally triumph, for it is at war with itself. The Persians were wrong when they conceived an Evil Power, a concentration of all the powers of mischief in one personality. This cannot be, for sin lacks essential unity. It destroys but does not build; it scatters but it does not sow. It is an earth-born giant, whose unwieldy limbs will in the end be prostrated by a combatant, small to the outward view, but inspired with divine forcefulness. If we understand what sin is, we shall see its repulsiveness; if we learn how it spreads, we shall seek protection against its infecting poison; if we attack it in detail, in individual men and in their daily acts, we shall in the end lay it low. Philosophy then proceeds to arm itself for its task.
The four sinful conditions are errors.
361. Sin is ignorance; more accurately, it is that which appears to be knowledge, but is not knowledge; it is false judgment. If we follow the process by which knowledge is attained, we find that there is no error in the mind-picture (visum), whether it is sensory or partly sensory and partly rational; this is an adumbration automatically presented to the mind. But ‘assent is in our power’; it is both an intellectual and a moral act. A too hasty assent to that which appears to be but is not is both an error and an offence; and most particularly so when it lies in the application of the general conceptions (προλήψεις) of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ to particular cases[2]. In this way we quickly reach four sinful conditions, which come about by mistaking things indifferent, that is, advantages and disadvantages, for things good or evil. These are:
(i) Fear (φόβος, metus), in which a future disadvantage is mistaken for a future evil;
(ii) Greed (ἐπιθυμία, libido), in which a future advantage is mistaken for a future good;
(iii) Grief (λύπη, aegritudo), in which a present disadvantage is mistaken for a present evil;
(iv) Hilarity (ἡδονή, laetitia), in which a present advantage is mistaken for a present good[3].
In the case of the last two evils the title presents difficulty in all languages; thus for Grief we might substitute any term such as Discontent, Vexation, Worry or Fretfulness; it is a lack of Courage in bearing pain or disappointment. Again for Hilarity we might substitute Elation, Exaltation, Excitement: it is a lack of Soberness in the moment of pleasure.
They are also maladies.
362. From another point of view all sin is due to a lack of moral force, a want of tone in the moral sinews, an unhealthy condition of the soul[4]. Ultimately this point of view agrees with that just described: for it is the lack of health and strength which leads to hasty and ill-judged assent[5]. But for practical purposes we may use this distinction to lead up to a difference of grade. Thus we may associate ignorance with that rooted perversity of mind which is the exact opposite of virtue, and which is therefore in the strictest sense ‘vice’ (κακία, vitium)[5]; and want of tone with a passing condition which we cannot deny to be an evil, but may nevertheless describe by the gentler terms ‘perturbation’ and ‘affection[6].’ Such an evil is a disturbance of the soul’s calm, an ‘infection’ of its health. It may exist in three grades to be hereafter described, as a ‘ruffling,’ a ‘disturbance,’ a ‘disease’; and in both the latter forms it must be rooted out, for in both grades it is an evil, and in the last it is a vice which threatens to poison the man’s whole nature. Hence we reach the Stoic paradox that ‘the affections must be extirpated[7].’ But although this is our only ethical standard, we are not debarred from suggesting remedies which may alleviate the malady in particular persons and under special circumstances.
Fear.
363. The evil of Fear (φόβος, formido, metus) is practically opposed to the virtue of Courage. Here philosophy builds upon the foundations of common opinion, and its task is the easier. The youth who is brought up not to regard suffering, poverty, exile, or death as evils, will never be afraid. Since it is death that most alarms mankind by its grim aspect, he who can face this giant without trembling will not know fear, or at the most will only feel a slight ruffling of the soul. In asserting that ‘fear should be rooted out’ the Stoics cross no general sentiment; the tradition of the heroic age is the same.
Greed.
364. The treatment of Greed (ἐπιθυμία, libido) is similar. This fault is opposed to the Soberness with which men should aim at advantages; and when we have determined the standard of Soberness every transgression of it reveals Greed. But under this heading the Stoics include the vices of Anger[8] and Cruelty, for which the heroic age had no condemnation. In regard to the former they come into conflict with the Peripatetics also, who maintain that Anger serves useful ends, and should be controlled, not extirpated[9]. The consideration of this condition of mind will therefore bring out the divergence between the two schools.
Anger.
365. The Peripatetics assign Anger to the passionate part of the soul (τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν); they admit that it needs to be restrained by reason, but hold that within proper limits it is both natural and necessary. In war it is essential to heroic action; he who is filled with it despises danger, and rushes on to great achievements[10]. It is no less necessary in peace, in order that the wicked may not go unpunished[11]. Aristotle says compendiously that ‘anger is the spur of virtue[12],’ the armour of the man of high soul. To this point of view the Stoics are opposed alike on the ground of principle and of experience. We do not need disease as a means to health[13], or armour which sways instead of being swayed[14]. A good man will face danger unmoved, from the sense of duty; and will face it more firmly and more perseveringly than he whose passions are excited[15]. He will punish wrong-doers either for their amendment or for the protection of others, without being angry with them[16]. Fabius the Delayer conquered his own spirit before he overcame Hannibal[17]; and the very gladiators strike, not when their feelings move them, but when the opportunity has come[18].
Degrees of anger; remedies for it.
366. Anger is technically defined as ‘the greedy desire of avenging an injury,’ or (more precisely) as ‘the greedy desire to punish one whom you deem to have injured you unjustly[19].’ That it is a temporary madness has always been held by the wise[20]; and this is indicated by the appearance of the angry, the threatening look, the heightened colour, the gnashing teeth, the stamp of the foot[21]; also by the fact that children are specially prone to anger, even for frivolous causes[22], and that anger is often directed against harmless persons or objects[23]. Nevertheless anger does not consist of a merely instinctive feeling, but implies the assent of the will[24]; so that we can always trace the three stages, first the appearance of an injury done (species oblata iniuriae), secondly the assent (animus adsentit atque adprobat), thirdly the outbreak of anger (sequitur ira)[25]. To check anger the first necessity is time[26]: reflection will often show us that we have not been injured at all, or not so much as we supposed[27]. Then it is well to put ourselves in the place of the offender, and try to look at the offence from his point of view[28]. Where anger has become a disease (iracundia), more violent remedies must be used; some have been cured by looking at themselves in a mirror[29]; others must apply the ‘contrary twist[30],’ and learn when struck to turn quietly away[31].
Variations of anger.
367. Anger is an evil that has many varieties, and the precisians exercise their ingenuity in distinguishing the bitter-humoured (amarus), the fiery (stomachosus), the fierce (rabiosus), the man who is hard to get on with (difficilis), and many other shades of character. But one variety deserves special notice, because the evil disposition exists though its expression is checked. The angry man of this type does not allow himself to go beyond complaint and criticism, but he nurses his feeling in the depths of his heart[32]. He would on no account express himself in loud outcries, but his displeasure is easily excited and persistent. This evil we call moroseness; it is a feeling characteristic of a decadent society[33], and (like all other kinds of anger) it calls for unsparing repression.
Cruelty.
368. Cruelty, a tendency to excess in punishment[34], is an evil constantly attendant upon the possession of power, and directly opposed to the virtue of clemency. Roman history has exhibited many examples of it, beginning with Sulla who ordered seven thousand Roman citizens to be slain on one day[35], continuing with the many masters who are hated for cruelty to their slaves[36]. It cuts at the root of the ties of humanity and degrades man to the level of the beast[37]; in its extreme form it becomes a madness, when the slaying of a man is in itself a pleasure[38]. As a remedy for cruelty in its milder forms it is well to consider the true objects of punishment; first, to reform the offender; secondly, to make others better by a warning; thirdly, to give a sense of safety to the community by removing offenders[39]. All these objects are better effected if punishment is moderate and rare, and appears to be awarded with reluctance. When cruelty has become a disease it is necessary to remind the tyrant that his manner of life is a pitiable one[40], and that a complete cure can be worked by putting him to death[41].
Grief.
369. In reckoning Grief in its countless varieties as an evil the Stoics did not altogether run counter to public opinion. In the heroic age grief was indeed not forbidden, but it was sharply limited; women might grieve, men should remember. But in prescribing the total extinction of this state of mind the Stoics appeared to pass the bounds of human nature; public feeling revolted against what seemed impossible of attainment. Our position to-day is not greatly altered; but we may notice that whereas in ordinary social life Grief is not only tolerated but approved, yet in battle, earthquake, flood, and pestilence our ideal of the hero is one which almost entirely excludes the indulgence of this emotion.
Grief takes many forms, as Fretfulness, Disappointment, Restlessness, Pity, and Mourning; we proceed to examine them in order.
Fretfulness.
370. The simplest form of Grief is fretfulness under bodily pain, the effect of depression of the soul and contraction of its sinews[42]. In all ages and under all philosophies the capacity of bearing pain without flinching is the primary test of virtue; and in the Cynic and Stoic schools alike the dogma ‘pain is no evil’ is of critical importance. In this matter correct doctrine needs to be strengthened by life-long discipline; but it is not required by Stoic principles that general principles should be forced upon the acceptance of individual sufferers. Panaetius therefore acted quite correctly when, in writing to Quintus Tubero on the subject of the endurance of pain, he abstained from pressing the usual paradox[43]. But all who see this trial awaiting them will do well to consider how much hardship men willingly endure for evil purposes, such as those of lust, money-making, or glory. Cocks and quails will fight to the death for victory: jugglers will risk their lives swallowing swords, walking on tight ropes, or flying like birds, when in each case a slip means death[44]. If we compose our minds long before to meet suffering, we shall have more courage when the time comes[45].
Discipline of pain.
371. Still more effective is active training[46]. Happy was the Spartan youth who came to Cleanthes to ask him whether pain was not a good; his education had taught him that this was a more practical question than that other, whether pain is an evil[47]. Recruits cry out at the slightest wound, and are more afraid of the surgeon’s touch than of the sword; on the other hand veterans watch the life-blood draining away without a sigh[48]. Some men groan at a box on the ear, whilst others smile under the scourge[49]. Inexperience therefore is the chief cause for weakness under pain; familiarity with it brings strength[50].
Disappointed ambition.
372. The Grief that gives way to pain of mind has very various forms; but that which is due to disappointed ambition is perhaps the most typical. Even men who had overcome the fear of death were known to shudder at the bitterness of soul (aegritudo animi) which accompanies defeat in a contested election (repulsa) in a republic, or displacement from the favour of the powerful under a monarchy[51]. For this malady the complete remedy is found in the paradox that ‘the wise man is king,’ that virtue can never be unseated from the curule chair[52]; temporary alleviations may be found, even by philosophers, in biting sarcasms aimed at the incapacity of one’s fellow-citizens[53]. It may be in the abstract the duty of a good man to take part in politics; but experience shows that the State has yet to be discovered which can tolerate a sage, or which a sage can tolerate[54]. Hence we find even Stoic teachers relapsing into practical Epicureanism, and bidding their followers to let the community go hang, and to reserve their energies for some nobler occupation[55]. To these lapses from sound principle we need not attach any serious importance; the individual Stoic did not always live up to his creed.
Restlessness.
373. Restlessness is grief of mind without known cause; the unquiet soul rushes hither and thither, vainly seeking to be free from its own company[56]. The lesson that Horace had pressed a century earlier, that disquiet can only be cured by quiet, has not been learnt[57]. In Homer Achilles tosses on his bed in fever, lying first on his face, then on his back, never long at rest in any position; and so to-day our wealthy man first travels to luxurious Campania, then to the primitive district of the Bruttii; north and south are tried in turn, and alike disapproved, whilst after all the fault is not in the place, but in the man[58]. In this temper men come to hate leisure and complain that they have nothing to do[59]. This folly reaches an extreme when men trust themselves to the sea, take the chance of death without burial, and place themselves in positions in which human skill may avail nothing[60]. It even leads to great political disasters, as when Xerxes attacks Greece because he is weary of Asia, and Alexander invades India because the known world is too small for him[61]. The times will come, when men will seek novelty by travelling through the air or under the sea; they will force their way through the cold of the poles and the damp heat of the forests of Africa. The remedy lies either in humbler submission to the will of the deity, or in a sense of humour which sees the absurdity of taking so much trouble for so little advantage[62].
Pity.
374. Pity is that weakness of a feeble mind, which causes it to collapse at the sight of another man’s troubles[63], wrongly believing them to be evils. Pity looks at the result, not at the cause, and it is most keenly felt by women of all ages, who are distressed by the tears even of the most abandoned criminals, and would gladly burst open the doors of the gaols to release them[64]. The cause of pity lies in a too rapid assent; we are caught napping by every sight that strikes on our senses. If we see a man weeping, we say ‘he is undone’: if we see a poor man, we say ‘he is wretched; he has nothing to eat[65].’ Now we Stoics have a bad name, as though we recommended to governors a system of harsh punishments[66]; but, on the contrary, none value more highly than we the royal virtue of clemency[67]. Only let it be considered that a wise man must keep a calm and untroubled mind, if only that he may be ready to give prompt help to those who need it; a saving hand to the shipwrecked, shelter to the exile, the dead body of her son to a mother’s tears. The wise man will not pity, but help[68].
Sensibility.
375. Nearly akin to the evil of pity is that sensitiveness to the sufferings of others which leads men, contrary reason, to turn the other way and avoid the sight of them. Of this weakness Epictetus gives us a lively picture:
‘When he was visited by one of the magistrates, Epictetus inquired of him about several particulars, and asked if he had children and a wife. The man replied that he had; and Epictetus inquired further, how he felt under the circumstances. ‘Miserable,’ the man said. Then Epictetus asked ‘In what respect? For men do not marry and beget children in order to be wretched, but rather to be happy.’ ‘But I,’ the man replied, ‘am so wretched about my children that lately, when my little daughter was sick and was supposed to be in danger, I could not endure to stay with her, but I left home till a person sent me news that she had recovered.’ ‘Well then,’ said Epictetus, ‘do you think that you acted right?’ ‘I acted naturally,’ the man replied; ‘this is the case with all or at least most fathers.’ ‘Let us be careful,’ said Epictetus, ‘to learn rightly the criterion of things according to nature. Does affection to those of your family appear to you to be according to nature and to be good?’ Certainly.’ ‘Is then that which is consistent with reason in contradiction with affection?’ ‘I think not.’ ‘Well then, to leave your sick child and to go away is not reasonable, and I suppose that you will not say that it is; but it remains to inquire if it is consistent with affection.’ ‘Yes, let us consider.’ ‘Has the mother no affection for her child?’ ‘Certainly she has.’ ‘Ought then the mother to have left her, or ought she not?’ ‘She ought not.’ ‘And the nurse, does she love her?’ ‘She does.’ ‘Ought then she also to have left her?’ ‘By no means.’ ‘But if this is so, it results that your behaviour was not at all an affectionate act[69].’
Seneca draws for us the same picture of sentimental neglect of duty. ‘Of our luxurious rich,’ he says, ‘no one sits by the side of his dying friend, no one watches the death of his own father, or joins in the last act of respect to the remains of any member of his family[70].’
Sensitiveness.
376. Another form of the evil of Grief is that of undue sensitiveness to criticism and abuse. This mental weakness is illustrated by the case of Fidus Cornelius, who burst into tears because some one in the senate called him a ‘plucked ostrich’; and in an earlier period Chrysippus had been acquainted with a man who lost his temper merely because he was called a ‘sea-calf[71].’ Others are annoyed by seeing their eccentricities imitated, or by reference to their poverty or old age. The remedy for all these things is humour; no one can be laughed at who turns the laugh against himself[72]. Another is to cease thinking about oneself[73].
Mourning.
377. The hardest to bear of all distresses is the loss of friends by death, and most particularly, the loss by parents of their children. To meet this trouble a special class of literature, called consolationes, grew up, not confined to any one school of philosophers. The treatise of Crantor the Academic was famous in Cicero’s time[74]; and in the letter of Servius Sulpicius to Cicero upon his daughter’s death we have an admirable example of the ‘consolation’ in private correspondence[75]. Sulpicius bids Cicero think of all the grief and trouble in the world, the loss of political liberty at Rome, the destruction of so many famous cities of antiquity, until he feels that man is born to sorrow, and that his own loss is but a drop in the ocean of the world’s suffering. He also calls on the mourner to think of his own character, and to set an example of firmness to his household[76]. Cicero found his real comfort in none of these things, but in industrious authorship. We have unfortunately no example of a ‘Consolation’ by Musonius. Seneca has left us two treatises in this style, one a formal document addressed to the minister Polybius on the death of his brother, the other a more personal appeal to Marcia, a lady of an ‘old Roman’ family, on the death of a son. Besides the arguments already used by Sulpicius[77], he recommends to Polybius attention to the public service and the reading of Homer and Virgil[78]. Both to him and to Marcia he pictures the happiness of the soul now admitted to the company of the blest[79], or at any rate at peace and freed from all the pains of life[80]. In writing to Marcia he recalls with effect the examples of Octavia the sister, and Livia the wife of Augustus, each of whom lost a promising son in early manhood. Octavia gave herself up to her grief, never allowed her dead son to be mentioned in her presence, and wore mourning to the day of her death, though she was surrounded by her children and grandchildren. Livia, after paying the last tokens of respect, laid aside her grief, recalled with pleasure her son’s achievements, and (advised so to act by her philosopher Areius) devoted herself to her social duties, refusing to make all Rome sad because one mother had lost a son[81].
Resignation.
378. The consolations of Epictetus include less philosophical speculation, and more religious resignation. To begin with, preparation should be made for the loss of children. Parental affection should not pass the bounds of reason; every time that a father embraces his child, he should reflect ‘this child is only lent to me,’ ‘this child is mortal[82].’ If the child dies, his first thought should be ‘he who has given takes away[83].’ To others he will say ‘I have restored the child[84].’ His abiding mood will be that of resignation to the divine will. He will realize that in the course of a long life many and various things must happen; and that it is impossible to live to old age, without seeing the death of many whom we love[85].
Comfort.
379. All ‘consolations’ aim at diminishing the grief of mourners, nature being inclined rather to excess than to defect in this matter. But the Stoics could not altogether avoid the direct issue whether or not grief is a sin, and weeping a weakness. The plain teaching of the school was that ‘death is no evil,’ and therefore that grief for the dead is against reason. And to this view the teachers give from time to time formal adhesion, as being the better cause[86]. But in individual cases they find that to a certain extent there is not only excuse, but justification, for grief and tears; and thus they come into touch with the common feelings of humanity[87], whilst the plea of ‘natural necessity’ serves to ward off the criticism of sterner philosophers[88]. From this concession emerges in the Roman period the definite precept of a time-limit for grief[89]; and its undue continuance is sternly denounced as due to love of ostentation[90], and the morbid enjoyment of sorrow by an ill-balanced mind[91]. Grief in this shape is a dangerous disease; there must be no trifling with it, but it must be totally destroyed[92].
Misanthropy.
380. Lastly, we include under the heading of Grief a weakness which often developes into serious disease; that general discontent, which is voiced in complaints as to the wickedness of the age[93] and the degeneracy of young Rome. Such discontent has always been characteristic of the old[94]; but under the principate it has developed into a special evil, the ‘hatred of the human race’ (odium generis humani). Of this fault even philosophers may be suspected; for it must be admitted that men are bad, have been bad, and always will be bad[95]; in short, that the whole human race is made up of madmen[96]. But wise men will bear with this fact quietly and with a smile[97]. It is futile to bring accusations against the whole race[98], and a delusion to think our own times worse than those of our predecessors. The old Romans, to whom we look up as models of virtue, made just the same complaints of their own times; and as a matter of fact the standard of general morality never varies greatly from its average, either in an upward or a downward direction[99].
Eating.
381. The fault of Hilarity (ἄλογος ἔπαρσις, elatio animi) is a departure from Soberness and cheerful Joy with regard to the things that appeal to our appetites, and this in the direction of excess. With regard to food, it corresponds to ‘greediness’ in modern speech. The matter is but little discussed, but we have two interesting lectures by Musonius, which are chiefly concerned with this vice, from which we take the following extracts:
‘Greediness’ is an unpleasant fault, making men to resemble pigs and dogs: but on the other hand healthy eating requires much supervision and practice (ἐπιμέλεια καὶ ἄσκησις). Of all pleasures that tempt men, greediness is the hardest to contend against; for it assails us twice every day. To eat too much is wrong; to eat too fast is wrong; so it is also to take too much pleasure in food, to prefer the sweet to the wholesome, or not to give your companions a fair share. Another fault is to let meals interfere with business. In all these points we should look chiefly to health. Now we observe that those who use the simplest foods are generally the strongest; servants are stronger than their masters, countryfolk than townsmen, the poor than the rich. There is therefore good reason to prefer cheap food to that which is costly, and that which is ready to hand to that which is only obtained with great trouble. Further, some foods are more congenial than others to men’s nature; as those which grow from the earth, or can be obtained from animals without killing them. Food that requires no cooking has an advantage, as ripe fruit, some vegetables, milk, cheese, and honey. Flesh food is for many reasons objectionable. It is heavy and impedes thought; the exhalations from it are turbid and overshadow the soul. Men should imitate the gods, who feed on the light exhalations of earth and water. But to-day we have even worse corruptions. Many men are dainty and cannot eat food without vinegar or some other seasoning. Also we call in art and machinery to aid our pleasures, and actually have books written on cookery. All this may serve to titillate the palate, but is mischievous to health[100].’
The sarcasms of Seneca are aimed not so much against excess in quantity or fastidiousness in quality, as against the collection of dainties from all parts of the world[101].
Drinking.
382. As to drinking, the Stoic period marks a great change in feeling. In the times of Zeno, hard drinking had almost the honour of a religious ceremony; and the banquet (συμπόσιον) was the occasion of many a philosophical discussion. Zeno began by laying it down as a principle that ‘the wise man will not be drunken[102],’ and Chrysippus went so far as to name drunkenness as causing the loss of virtue[103]. But the prohibition was carefully guarded. The earlier teachers permitted ‘wininess[104]’; and Seneca justifies this means of banishing care, pointing out many instances of public men of drinking habits who discharged their duties admirably[105]. Yet on the whole he inclines to a stricter view, finding that ‘drunkenness is a voluntary madness,’ and that it removes that sense of shame which most hinders men from wrongdoing[106]. Meanwhile a change in public taste, and perhaps the continual example of Cynic missionaries, had produced a tide of feeling in favour of simple living. The philosophical discussions sketched by Cicero take place at all times of the day, but most usually in the morning hours; they are never associated with riotous banqueting, but if necessary the meal is cut short to make room for the talk. Under the principate the fare is of the simplest; Seneca himself was a vegetarian in his youth[107]; his teacher Attalus was well content with porridge and water, and found an audience ready to approve his taste[108].
Sexual indulgence.
383. A similar but more profound change had taken place at the same time in regard to sexual relations. In the time of Socrates courtesans and boy-favourites played a large part in social life; associated with the banquet, they formed part of the accepted ideal of cultured enjoyment; even moralists approved of them as providing a satisfaction to natural desires and indirectly protecting the sanctity of the home[109]. The same attitude of mind is shown by Seneca under similar circumstances, when he recommends that princes be indulged with mistresses in order to make their character more gentle[110]. But little by little a more severe standard prevailed[111]. From the first the Stoics set themselves against the pursuit of other men’s wives[112]. With regard to other relations, they did not feel called upon to condemn them in other men[113]; they were indeed, in themselves, matters of indifference[114]; but they found it contrary to reason that a man’s thoughts should be occupied with matters so low, or that he should bring himself into subjection to irregular habits and become a slave to a woman[115]. As the courtesan was gradually excluded by this rule[116], the general opinion fell back on the slave as the most accessible and least dangerous object of indulgence[117]. But the philosophers of the principate, following Zeno, who in these matters took the πρέπον (decorum) as his rule[118], find it in a high degree unfitting that the master, who should in all things be a model of self-control in his own household, should display so grave a weakness to his slaves.
Chastity.
384. Thus little by little there emerged the ideal of a strict chastity, to the principle of which not even the marriage relation should form an exception[119]. Every falling off from this ideal is sin or transgression[120]; and it is especially true in this matter that each act of weakness leaves its trace on the character, and that he who yields becomes a feebler man[121]. The Socratic paradox, that the wise man will be a lover[122], is consistently maintained by the Stoics; but the practical limitations of this doctrine are well illustrated by the following striking passage from the lectures of the Stoic Musonius:—
‘Men who do not wish to be licentious and bad should consider that sexual relations are only lawful in marriage, and for the begetting of children; such as aim at mere pleasure are lawless, even in marriage. Even apart from adultery and unnatural relations, all sexual connexions are disgraceful; for what sober-minded man would think of consorting with a courtesan, or with a free woman outside marriage? and least of all would he do so with his own slave. The lawlessness and foulness of such connexions is a disgrace to all who form them; as we may see that any man who is capable of a blush does his utmost to conceal them. Yet one argues: “in this case a man does no injustice; he does not wrong his neighbour or deprive him of the hope of lawful issue.” I might reply that every one who sins injures himself, for he makes himself a worse and less honourable man. But at any rate he who gives way to foul pleasure and enjoys himself like a hog is an intemperate man; and not least he who consorts with his own slave-girl, a thing for which some people find excuse. To all this there is a simple answer; how would such a man approve of a mistress consorting with her own man-servant? Yet I presume he does not think men inferior to women, or less able to restrain their desires. If then men claim the supremacy over women, they must show themselves superior in self-control. To conclude; sexual connexion between a master and his female slave is nothing but licentiousness[123].’
‘Bear and forbear.’
385. Thus our detailed study of the four perturbations has led us to lay little stress on Fear and Greed, the weaknesses of the heroic period when men’s minds were actively turned to the future, and to concentrate our attention on Grief and Hilarity, the two moods in which life’s troubles and temptations are wrongly met with as they arrive. As we follow the history of Stoic philosophy through the times of the Roman principate, we find that this tendency to lay stress on the training of the passive character increases: till Epictetus tells us that of all the vices far the worst are ‘lack of endurance’ (intolerantia), which is the developed form of Grief, and ‘lack of restraint’ (incontinentia), which is the persistent inclination towards Hilarity[124]. Hence the cure for vice is summed up by him in the golden word, ‘bear and forbear[125]’; that is, practise Courage and cast off Grief, practise Soberness and keep Hilarity far from you. ‘A good rule,’ a Peripatetic would reply, ‘for women and slaves.’
Avoidance of temptation.
386. This negative attitude is most strongly marked in Epictetus in connexion with the dangers of sexual passion. Thus his short advice to all young men with regard to the attractions of women is ‘Flee at once[126]’; and even in this his advice was countenanced in advance by the more tolerant Seneca[127]. It would appear from both writers that the battle between the sexes had become unequal at this period, so often is the picture drawn of the promising and well-educated youth literally and hopelessly enslaved by a mistress presumably without birth, education, or honour[128]. It causes us some surprise to find that the distinction between heavenly and earthly love[129] is not brought in as a corrective of the latter. Only in a general way the suggestion is made that seductive attractions should be driven out by virtuous ideals:
‘Do not be hurried away by the appearance, but say: “Appearances, wait for me a little; let me see who you are and what you are about; let me put you to the test.” And do not allow the appearance to lead you on and draw lively pictures of the things which will follow; for if you do, it will carry you off wherever it pleases. But rather bring in to oppose it some other beautiful and noble appearance and cast out this base appearance. And if you are accustomed to be exercised in this way, you will see what shoulders, what sinews, what strength you have.... This is the true athlete.... Stay, wretch, do not be carried away. Great is the combat, divine is the work; it is for kingship, for freedom, for happiness. Remember God; call on him as a helper and protector[130].’
Gradations of vice.
387. From the study of the separate evils we revert to the general theory of Vice. And here we must recall the point that so far as vice is weakness or ill-health of the soul, it admits of gradations, which may conveniently be stated as three, namely (i) rufflings of the soul; (ii) commotions, infections, or illnesses; (iii) diseases or vices proper[131]. It is not quite easy to classify the rufflings or first slight disturbances of the soul (prima agitatio animi) under the four perturbations; but the bodily indications of them seem to be more marked in the weaknesses of the active or heroic character, namely Fear and Greed. Thus in the direction of Fear we meet with hair standing on end—pallor of complexion—trembling limbs—palpitation, and dizziness, all of which are bodily indications that fear is not far off; in the direction of Anger (a form of Greed) we meet with heightened colour, flashing eyes, and gnashing teeth[132]. In the direction of Grief we meet with tears and sighs, and in that of Hilarity the automatic sexual movements, amongst which we must perhaps include blushing.
Rufflings.
388. It does not appear that the early Stoic masters occupied themselves much with the gradations of vice; although a text can be taken from Zeno for a discourse on this subject. Neither does the earnest and cynically-minded Epictetus care to dwell on such details. On the other hand Seneca lays the greatest possible stress on the doctrine that ‘rufflings’ are not inconsistent with virtue. For this two arguments are available, which are perhaps not quite consistent. First, the bodily indications are beyond the control of the mind; they are necessary consequences of the union of body and soul, that is, of our mortal condition[133]. Secondly, the ‘rufflings’ correspond to the mind-pictures presented to the soul in thought, and therefore are neither moral nor immoral until the soul has given its assent to them[134]. From either point of view we arrive at a result congenial to this philosopher. The wise man is, in fact, subject to slight touches of such feelings as grief and fear[135]; he is a man, not a stone. Secondly, the sovereignty of the will remains unimpaired; give the mind but time to collect its forces, and it will restrain these feelings within their proper limits[136]. The doctrine is in reality, though not in form, a concession to the Peripatetic standpoint; it provides also a convenient means of defence against the mockers who observe that professors of philosophy often exhibit the outward signs of moral weakness.
‘Commotions.’
389. If the soul gives way to any unreasoning impulse, it makes a false judgment and suffers relaxation of its tone: there takes place a ‘commotion’ or ‘perturbation’ (πάθος, affectus, perturbatio), which is a moral evil[137]. The Greek word πάθος admits of two interpretations; it may mean a passive state or a disease; we here use it in the milder sense. By an ‘emotion’ we mean that the soul is uprooted from its foundation, and begins as it were to toss on the sea; by ‘affection’ that it is seized or infected by some unwholesome condition[138]; by ‘perturbation’ that it has ceased to be an orderly whole, and is falling into confusion. When we regard these words in their true sense, and shake off the associations they carry with them in English, it is clear that all of them denote moral evils; nevertheless they cannot rightly be called ‘diseases’ of the soul[139]. The evils and weaknesses which have been discussed are commonly displayed in ‘commotions’ or ‘perturbations,’ and are normally equivalent to them.
Diseases of the soul.
390. The soul by giving way to perturbations becomes worse; it acquires habits of weakness in particular directions. This weakness from a passing disposition (ἕξις) changes into a permanent disposition or habit (διάθεσις), and this is in the full sense a ‘disease’ of the soul[140]. These diseases or vices are, strictly speaking, four in number[141]: but the Stoics run into great detail as regards their titles and subdivisions. Diseases in the ordinary sense (ἀρρωστήματα) display restlessness and want of self-control; such are ambition, avarice, greediness, drunkenness, running after women[142], passionate temper, obstinacy, and anxiety. An opposite class of maladies consists of unreasonable dislikes (κατὰ προσκοπὴν γινόμενα, offensiones); such are inhospitality, misogynism, and quarrelling with the world in general[143].
Men are good or bad.
391. The study of vice in its various forms and gradations leaves untouched the main positions of Stoic ethics, including the Socratic paradoxes. Men are of two classes only, the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad[144]. This bold dualism the Stoics hold in common with the Persians[145]; and though it is on the one hand tempered so as to meet the common opinion that most men are of middling character, and on the other hand subordinated to the monistic principle that good shall in the end prevail, it remains the key-stone of this department of philosophy. Virtue is a right state of mind; everything that falls short of it is therefore a wrong state of mind. Virtue and vice lie in the inward disposition, not in the outward act[146]; and one who has crossed the line is equally out of bounds whatever the distance to which he has travelled on the far side[147]. Each man has therefore an all-important choice to make. The great Stoic teachers were filled with a yearning after righteousness and reconciliation with the divine purpose and a disgust and horror of the condition of the man who is at variance with his Creator, his neighbour, and himself[148]. These convictions they encased as usual in paradoxes and syllogisms.
All sins are equal.
392. That ‘the affections must be extirpated[149]’ ceases to be a paradox, as soon as we have defined affections as states of mind contrary to reason, and have made room for the ‘reasonable affections’ of caution, good will, and joy[150]. That ‘all sins are equal[151]’ remains still, as of old, a stumbling block[152]. Yet this Socratic paradox has a simple interpretation; it is a protest against the light-heartedness which tolerates ‘petty’ acts of wrongdoing, and is indifferent to the evil habits of mind thus acquired[153]. Two of the Stoic teachers of the transition period, Heraclides of Tarsus and Athenodorus, are said to have abandoned the paradox[154], and all Stoics were ready to admit that sins are ‘unlike’[155]. But, as usual, the main body held firmly to a doctrine in which they had discovered a real practical value. Just the same principle is expressed by other paradoxes, as that ‘he who has one vice has all, though he may not be equally inclined to all[156]’; and again that ‘he who is not wise is a fool and a madman[157].’
Sin is curable.
393. In spite of the parallelism of virtue and vice the latter is destined to subordination, not only in the history of the universe, but also in the individual man. Even if sins are equal, vice as ill health of the soul has degrees. The first ‘rufflings’ of the soul are, as we have seen, not to be reckoned as real evils; its ‘perturbations’ give the hope of a coming calm; and grievous though its ‘diseases’ are, we have no suggestion of incurable sin, or of the hopeless offender. Even he who has most fallen retains the germs of virtue, and these may again ripen under a proper discipline[158].
Stoic austerity.
394. The attitude of the Stoic school towards sin and weakness exposed it, as we have seen, to constant criticism and ridicule. To some extent this was due to the profession of philosophy in itself: for every such profession implied some claim to clearer knowledge and more consistent action than that of the crowd[159]. But the Stoics also sought to be ‘austere’ with regard to social pleasures, and thus it seemed that they neither offered others a share in their own happiness nor sympathetically partook in that of others[160]; whilst at the same time they claimed exemption from the weaknesses and failings of their neighbours. We have seen both Seneca and Epictetus anxious to meet criticism on these points by laying stress on those touches of natural feeling in which wise and foolish alike share. But in addressing the members of the sect their tone is very different; they hold out, as a prize worth the winning, the prospect of attaining to that calm and unchanging disposition of mind which has for ever left behind the flutterings of fear and greed, of grief and hilarity, and which is attuned to reason alone[161]. Epictetus indeed often expresses elation and pride upon this theme:
‘I will show the sinews of a philosopher. What are these? A desire (ὄρεξις) never disappointed, an aversion (ἔκκλισις) which never meets with that which it would avoid, a proper pursuit (ὁρμή), a diligent purpose (πρόθεσις), an assent which is not rash. These you shall see[162].’
‘Men, if you will attend to me, wherever you are, whatever you are doing, you will not feel sorrow, nor anger, nor compulsion, nor hindrance, but you will pass your time without perturbations and free from everything. When a man has this peace (not proclaimed by Caesar, for how should he be able to proclaim it?) but by God through reason, is he not content when he reflects—Now no evil can happen to me[163]?’