[141] For the technical terms see above, § [362], note 6.

[142] Cic. Tusc. disp. iv 11, 25.

[143] εἶναι δέ τινα [νοσήματα] κατὰ προσκοπὴν γινόμενα, οἷον μισογυνίαν, μισοινίαν, μισανθρωπίαν Stob. vii 7, 10 e; ‘offensionum autem definitiones sunt eius modi, ut inhospitalitas sit opinio vehemens valde fugiendum esse hospitem, eaque inhaerens et penitus insita, et mulierum odium, ut Hippolyti, et ut Timonis generis humani’ Cic. Tusc. disp. iv 11, 27.

[144] ἀρέσκει γὰρ τῷ τε Ζήνωνι καὶ τοῖς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ Στωϊκοῖς φιλοσόφοις δύο γένη τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἶναι, τὸ μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων, τὸ δὲ τῶν φαύλων Stob. ii 7, 11 g.

[145] See above, § [8].

[146] See above, § [317].

[147] ‘cum [lineam transilieris] culpa commissa est; quam longe progrediare, cum semel transieris, ad augendam culpam nihil pertinet’ Cic. Parad. iii 20.

[148] Here we must altogether part company from Bishop Lightfoot, who writes ‘the Stoic, so long as he was true to the tenets of his school, could have no real consciousness of sin’ Philippians, p. 290. It may however be admitted that the feelings we ascribe to the Stoics are more forcibly expressed by Cleanthes, Antipater, Musonius and Epictetus than by Seneca.

[149] See above, § [362], note 7.

[150] See above, § [355].