CHAPTER XIII.

DAILY DUTIES. [Sidenote: From principles to practice.] =330.= As in our study of the Stoic philosophy we turn aside from the supreme problems of the universe, such as gather round the questions of the divine purpose, the existence of evil, and unfettered choice, our way becomes easier. Our new problems, dealing with the constitution of the human soul, and the ideals of human life in the state and in the individual, are perhaps not simpler in themselves, but they are of narrower range, and in finding our way over the first rough ground we learn to tread with some assurance, so that we now feel ourselves, as it were, on a downward path. For all that, the problems of the universal law and the perfect man must still be compared to mountain tops, if not to the highest peaks of all. But from this point on we steadily descend towards the plains, to that common and practical life by which the worth of philosophy is tested. We no longer gaze on the same bright sunlight or breathe the same invigorating air; philosophy enters a region of mists and shadows, and even learns to adapt her language to new neighbours. But her meaning is the same as before, and the pathway to the heights is not closed behind her. [Sidenote: The daily round.] =331.= The region we have now reached is that of ‘daily duties,’ by which phrase we propose to translate here the Greek καθήκοντα and the Latin _officia_[1]. This word is defined by Zeno as meaning ‘that which it comes in one’s way to do[2],’ and its quiet sound at once brings it into contrast with the proud claims of Virtue. The contrast is in fact great. Virtue, displaying itself in Right Action, is only possible for reasoning beings, that is, for gods and men; and within our view it is only attained, if at all, by the wise man. But daily duty is common to the wise and the unwise[3]; it not only extends to children, but also to the unreasoning animals[4] and to plants[5]. Virtue always contemplates the Universal law; for daily duty it is sufficient to follow the individual nature[6]. Virtue cannot even be understood except by the trained philosopher, whilst the principles of daily duty may be explained to the simple. To use a comparison from mathematics, daily duty is the projection of virtue upon the plane of ordinary life. Between the two there always remains an assured correspondence. Each Right Action which Virtue achieves is at the same time the performance of a daily duty, and that in the most complete manner[7]; each daily duty performed by the unwise is a step by which he may in the end climb to Wisdom[8]. [Sidenote: First laws of nature.] =332.= The subject of ‘daily duties’ was treated both by Zeno[9] and by Cleanthes[10], and is implied in the theory of Stoic ethics as a whole; it has also a special relation to the doctrine of advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless the Stoics do not directly say that daily duty consists in the seeking of advantages, but that it is based upon primary ends which nature sets up (πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν, _principia naturae_)[11]. This phrase indicates the source of this part of the Stoic philosophy; it marks teaching common to the Peripatetic school and the Academy, and accepted by Zeno from his teacher Polemo[12]. We are not informed how Zeno and Cleanthes elaborated this subject; and when we find it taken up in earnest, the spirit of the Academy is firmly established. Thus the Stoic demand for certain knowledge is here set aside; and we are told that the standard of daily duty is ‘that which when done can reasonably be defended[13]’; which definition closely corresponds with the definition of the supreme good by Diogenes of Babylon ‘to take a reasonable course in the choice of things according to nature[14].’ Thus strong will and assured conviction are no longer required; the door is thrown open for convention, opportunism, and respectability. The daring moral theories and bold paradoxes of the founders of Stoicism tend to disappear from sight, and are replaced by shrewd good sense and worldly wisdom: in short, by the doctrine of ‘making the best of both worlds.’ The subject was therefore congenial to Panaetius, who was both a practical statesman and an admirer of Plato and Aristotle; and it was from this standpoint that Stoicism so rapidly won its way with the Roman nobility of the last century of the republic. Panaetius’ book περὶ καθηκόντων was the basis of Cicero’s work _de Officiis_, which is the only systematic treatise which we possess on Stoic ethics, and therefore generally the most convenient source of information. As however this work leans very strongly towards Peripatetic views, it will frequently be necessary to refer to other authorities, amongst which Cicero’s _de Finibus_ best represents the older Stoics, and Seneca and Epictetus the Stoics of the Roman principate. [Sidenote: From the animals to man.] =333.= It is no departure from the fundamental principles of Stoicism when we learn that the ‘first lessons of nature’ are those which are imprinted upon every animal at its birth[15]; Zeno himself had sought for the natural law of marriage by a like method[16]. The first natural lesson is that each animal seeks, not indeed pleasure as the Epicureans hold, but its own preservation and the maintenance of its life in its completeness[17]. At a later stage is imparted the desire of sexual union for procreation’s sake, and with it some kind of affection for each one’s offspring[18]. But nature’s best lessons are reserved for man; as to look into the future, and regard life as a whole[19]; to interest himself in his fellows, to attend public festivities, and to procure the amenities of a civilized life for himself and those dependent upon him[20]; in spare hours, to acquire information on points of historical or philosophical interest[21]; in riper life to claim freedom, and to refuse to submit to any arbitrary commands[22]; and finally, to perceive in all things harmony and beauty, and to avoid any disturbance of it by wilful action[23]. ‘Such,’ says Cicero, ‘is the picture of a beautiful life; and could we see it with our eyes (as Plato says), great would be our desire to possess Wisdom for a bride[24].’ [Sidenote: Wavering as to the standard.] =334.= In this general sketch we miss a clear ethical standard. The first lessons of nature may easily be perverted, so far as they are common to men and animals, for they point towards the acts of eating, drinking, and sexual union, all of which are associated by the ordinary man with pleasure in a vicious sense. Hence arises a danger (from which many Stoics do not keep clear), that we may fall into the terrible error of the Epicureans, and hold that pleasure itself is a first law of nature[25]. It is therefore necessary to lay it down that man should aim specially at those results which are characteristic of human nature, that is at the development of powers which he does not share with the lower animals. So far the Academy and the Porch might travel together. But the only, higher capacities recognised by the Stoics are reason and the political sense, which is an aspect of the universal reason; such matters as antiquarian interests and the appreciation of beauty could only be introduced under Academic influence. The last, however, as we shall see, is to become with Panaetius the predominant consideration[26]. [Sidenote: The four virtues.] =335.= From the enunciation of general principles we pass on to the separate virtues. Virtue in the strict sense can only be possessed by the wise man; he therefore alone can practise the virtues; nevertheless we may use this and like terms in a secondary sense to describe those adumbrations or reflections of virtue which fall within the reach of the ordinary man[27]. The classification of the virtues varies. Panaetius divided virtue into two parts, theoretical and practical, and Seneca follows him on this point[28]. It was perhaps Chrysippus who distinguished between virtues that are ‘arts’ (τέχναι) and which are based on theoretical principles, and those which are ‘acquirements’ (δυνάμεις), being attained by practice[29]. But generally speaking the division of Virtue into the four cardinal virtues of Wisdom, Justice, Courage, and Soberness is accepted as sufficient; by subdivision the number of virtues may be increased to any extent; and in scholastic classifications of virtue we find lists which have multiplicity for their direct aim[30]. [Sidenote: Wisdom.] =336.= Wisdom (φρόνησις, _prudentia_) is considered by Zeno not only as the first of the virtues, but as the foundation of all; so that Courage is wisdom in suffering, Justice is wisdom in distribution, and Soberness is wisdom in enjoyment[31]. His successors treated Science (ἐπιστήμη, _scientia_) as the parent virtue[32], thus placing Wisdom side by side with the other cardinal virtues, yet losing the point of Zeno’s genealogy. The writers of the later periods desired to recognise separately contemplative wisdom, and therefore introduced as a subdivision of the first cardinal virtue ‘Speculation’ (σοφία, _sapientia_)[33]. But the Stoics generally held that all wisdom must justify itself by practical results. The study of the so-called ‘liberal arts’ has a value for children, for it prepares the way for virtuous training[34]. Logic is needed to protect us against fallacious reasoning[35], and physics that we may rightly understand the universe and its providential government, upon which the conception of duty depends[36]; in this sense we may speak of logic and physics as virtues, that is, as subdivisions of the virtue of wisdom[37]. The study of physics is also admirable because it elevates the soul[38]. Geometry, law, and astrology are useful in the several professions[39]. But study when carried to excess, as by antiquarians, bookworms, and other learned time-wasters, is nothing but folly[40]. [Sidenote: Justice.] =337.= The second cardinal virtue is Justice (δικαιοσύνη, _iustitia_), of which Chrysippus drew a striking allegorical picture. ‘She is of virgin form, to show that she is incorruptible and does not give way to bad men; ... of firm and fierce aspect, ... inspiring fear in the wicked, confidence in the good; her eyes are keen-sighted, her bearing is at once sad and awe-inspiring[41].’ Cicero distinguishes Justice in the narrower sense from ‘Beneficence.’ Justice proper is a political virtue, and consists in respect for the rights and property of individuals. By nature indeed all things are common; but since they have become private property by occupation, conquest, law, contract, and so forth, individuals may keep their own, provided they do not forget that they have always the duty of contributing to the common good[42], and that even slaves have reasonable claims upon them[43]. Beneficence needs the guidance of principle, and must be determined by considerations of person and occasion. The claims of persons upon us depend on propinquity; country, parents, wife and children must be first considered, then other relatives, then fellow-citizens, lastly men in general[44]. The consideration of the degrees of propinquity (σχέσεις) was a favourite subject with Epictetus, and a useful defence against those who maintained that the Stoic sage was lacking in natural affection[45]. The virtue of Justice appealed specially to the statesman in both its applications, and is dealt with fully by Panaetius, and by Cicero after him. [Sidenote: Courage.] =338.= The third cardinal virtue is Courage (ἀνδρεία, _fortitudo_), which retains the tradition of the ‘strength and force’ of Socrates. This again, according to Cicero, has two parts, one passive, which consists in despising fortune and its buffets, and is in harmony with the picture of the wise man as usually drawn; the other part, which we may call Greatness of Soul (μεγαλοψυχία, _magnitudo animi_) is shown in the undertaking of great enterprises. The virtue of Courage is characteristically Stoic, and may be considered, like its counterpart Wisdom, as the foundation and source of all the virtues; the knowledge of good and evil can only be attained by the soul that is duly strung to vigorous resolution[46]. The Stoics of the principate perhaps insist most of all on this virtue, which alone makes men independent of all that it lies with Fortune to give and to take away. The man of courage will therefore detach himself from fortune’s gifts; he will treat them as household furniture lent to him which may be at any moment recalled[47]. [Sidenote: Death not to be feared.] =339.= Courage appears in its highest development in the face of tyranny and death. It is the tyrant’s boast that he has men in his power: but the brave man is an exception. His rank and his property may be taken away; he may be subjected to the torture; his life may be forfeited; but the soul, that is the man himself, is beyond the tyrant’s reach[48]. To pain he answers ‘if I can bear it, it will be light; if I cannot bear it, it cannot be long[49].’ Amidst all the extremities of fire and rack men have been found who never groaned, never begged for mercy, never answered a question, and indeed laughed heartily[50]. Of death the Stoic has no fear; not only is it no evil, but it is to be welcomed as part of the course of nature[51]; it is the best of friends, for it offers a release from all troubles, and in particular from the oppression of the tyrant[52]. We do not indeed deny that normally life is an advantage, that nature’s first lesson is self-preservation, and that death in itself is a thing terrible to contemplate[53]; but life is not the more desirable for its length[54]; and when old age begins to shatter the powers of the mind, and to degrade the man to the life of a vegetable, nature is calling him to quit his mortal body[55]. At no period is life worth purchasing at the cost of the loss of honour, without which it loses its savour[56]. The philosopher therefore will not merely see with calm confidence the approach of death; he will go forward to meet it of his own free will, if only he is assured that reasonable choice points that way. [Sidenote: Reasonable departure.] =340.= The doctrine of ‘reasonable departure’ (εὔλογος ἐξαγωγή, _rationalis e vita excessus_) plays a prominent part in the Stoic ethics. It cannot rightly be described as the recommendation of suicide; for the Stoics do not permit a man to pass sentence of death upon himself, but only to cooperate in carrying out the decree of a higher power. The doctrine is intended in the first instance to justify death gloriously met in fighting for one’s country or one’s friends; next when intolerable pain or incurable disease plainly indicates the will of the deity[57]; in the development of Roman history a third reason was found in the loss of political freedom[58]. These reasons are not added to, but only systematized, when we are told that it is an ‘ordinary duty’ to quit life when a man’s natural advantages (τὰ κατὰ φύσιν) are outweighed by the corresponding disadvantages[59]; for amongst ‘natural advantages’ are included in this connexion all those considerations of which an honourable man will rightly take account; and the calculation may equally lead him to the conclusion that, in spite of old age and suffering, and though he has never attained to true wisdom, his simple duty is to wait quietly in life[60]. [Sidenote: Its dangers.] =341.= The practice of ‘reasonable departure’ was largely recommended to the Stoics by the examples of Socrates (whose death they regarded as voluntary[61]) and of Cato[62]; and it was at first no small matter of pride to them to find that these examples found imitators, and that their system thus showed its power over the greatest of the terrors that beset humanity. But under the Roman principate ‘free departure’ soon became so common that it was a reproach rather than a glory to its advocates, a social disease pointing to morbidity of soul rather than to healthy resolution[63]. Hence the philosophers turned from recommendation to reproof. ‘A brave and wise man must not flee from life, but quit it,’ says Seneca[64]; ‘nothing is more disgraceful than to long for death’[65]. ‘Friends,’ says Epictetus, ‘wait for God; when he shall give you the signal, then go to him[66].’ [Sidenote: Courage is active.] =342.= The ‘free departure’ is the most striking illustration of passive courage, but even before it was abused Cicero at least had perceived the attraction which this attitude of soul possesses, and its opposition to the spirit of active enterprise which he calls Greatness of Soul, and which he advocates perhaps more on Academic than on Stoic lines. Still the Stoics had already defined Courage as ‘virtue fighting in the front rank in defence of justice[67].’ A good man must indeed regard power and wealth as things indifferent; but he is to be blamed if he makes this an excuse for avoiding public life, and leaving to others magistracies at home or commands in the wars[68]. In the old world the love of glory and praise on the one hand, angry feeling against enemies on the other, has led men to seek these positions; but now they should seek them at home that they may have a wide field for the exercise of their virtues[69], and in the wars in order that all war may be brought to an end[70]. By the older Stoics this Greatheartedness was advocated by precept and example: Zeno had said that the wise man should take part in public life[71], and his hearers Persaeus and Philonides had taken service under Antigonus Gonatas[72], and Sphaerus with Cleomenes III, king of Sparta[73]. We shall see later how large was the part played in Roman political life by men who were Stoics or inclined to Stoicism, in an age in which there was a strong current of fashion in favour of a quiet life. We must therefore recognise in Courage, fully as much as in Wisdom or Justice, a political as well as a private virtue. [Sidenote: Soberness.] =343.= The fourth cardinal virtue is Soberness (σωφροσύνη, _temperantia_). Of this there are various definitions, and amongst them that it is the principle which regulates our natural appetites so that they are neither in excess nor in defect[74]. From Cicero’s point of view Soberness embraces all the virtues, for it is in the due regulation of the impulses that virtue consists. The standard to be attained is a healthy state of the soul; and this is to be judged, upon the analogy of the body, by the canon of that which is beautiful, symmetrical, and becoming (πρέπον, _decorum_)[75]. ‘Just as bodily beauty is symmetry established between the limbs mutually, and also between each and the whole body, so beauty of the soul is symmetry between the reasoning power and its parts, and mutually between each of those parts[76].’ Although this is in principle a doctrine accepted by the whole Stoic school, yet in its application we may easily find an entirely new departure, that is, if the appeal is made to an artistic standard which depends upon the taste of the individual. The door is then thrown open to an abandonment of the Cynico-Stoic theory of life according to reason, and to the acceptance of the standard of good feeling, which may easily be so stretched as to include existing prejudices and conventions. This danger is realized in Cicero’s treatment of the virtue of ‘decorum,’ which in its distinctive sense is defined as having the element of ‘gentlemanliness’ in itself[77]. It begins with respect for the feelings and opinions of others[78]; it avoids all rough games and obscene jests[79]; it makes choice of a profession adapted to the natural character of the individual[80]; it observes, as the actor does, the proprieties of youth and age, rich and poor, citizen and foreigner[81]; it prescribes dignity as fitting for men, gracefulness for women[82]. In particular decorum is displayed in modesty (_verecundia_). This is shown by keeping out of sight those parts of the body which nature, though she could not dispense with them, has concealed and covered; in attending to their functions with the utmost secrecy; and in referring both to these parts of the body and to their uses by words that do not properly describe them[83]. [Sidenote: Cynism or ‘decorum’?] =344.= Cicero’s treatment of ‘decorum’ is so full of good sense that his _de Officiis_ was the most widely-known textbook of Greco-Roman ethics in medieval schools, and has retained its importance in the classical public schools of the present day. But its logical justification on Stoic principles is far from easy. We are therefore not surprised to find that, just as Zeno and the main body of his followers had proclaimed in advance that such doctrine was false in principle and ridiculous in detail, so conversely the followers of Panaetius found it necessary expressly to repudiate the teaching of a large number of Stoics[84]. We have in fact here a sharp conflict between the cultured and Platonizing Stoics on the one side, and the general feeling of the school on the other. Cicero elsewhere treats it as an accepted Stoic doctrine that ‘the wise man will blurt things straight out[85]’; and the theory of ‘gentlemanly professions’ can never have appealed to any large social circle. In the period of the principate we find the theory of ‘decorum,’ as a whole, abandoned. Seneca, personally as sensitive as Cicero himself, recognises the absurdity of wasting time in hinting at a plain meaning[86], nor does he limit his choice of illustration even when addressing a lady of high social position[87]. We must look then in some other direction than the _de Officiis_ for a duly proportioned exposition of the Stoic virtue of Soberness. [Sidenote: The appetites.] =345.= Reverting to the definitions of this virtue, we find, amongst those that are generally accepted, first, that it is ‘the science of things that are to be sought or avoided or neither[88]’; secondly, that it is ‘concerned with the human appetites[89].’ Now the term ‘appetite’ or ‘impulse’ (ὁρμή, _appetitus_) includes in the Stoic philosophy all those first movements of the soul which draw us on towards some object, and which are adumbrations of right conduct requiring revision and control by reason. But it seems clear that Soberness has little to do with those higher impulses that are characteristic of man, such as the love of knowledge or of society, since other virtues are concerned with these. It remains that Soberness is the virtue which is concerned with the appetites common to men and the lower animals, which we may shortly call the ‘lower appetites’; they are, as we have already stated, the desires of eating, drinking, and sexual union. It is just in this sphere that Pleasure arises, in the sense in which it is condemned by the Cynics and popular moralists[90]. We may therefore shortly define Soberness as a right disposition of soul in relation to Pleasure. Its peculiar characteristic is that it is in the main a negative virtue, displaying itself in abstinence from indulgence[91]. [Sidenote: Two views of Pleasure.] =346.= In order then rightly to understand the virtue of Soberness, we need a clear idea of the attitude of the Stoics towards Pleasure. Zeno, as we have seen, whilst definitely placing Pleasure in the category of things indifferent, had nevertheless allowed it to be understood that it might be an advantage (προηγμένον), and the seeking after it natural (κατὰ φύσιν)[92]; and this is stated to have been the express teaching of Hecato, Apollodorus, and Chrysippus[93]. To other Stoics this appeared to be a disastrous concession to Epicurean views. Cleanthes, who had scornfully described the ideal of Epicurus by the picture of Pleasure enthroned as queen, with the Virtues submissively attending as her handmaidens[94], interpreted the word ‘indifferent’ more strictly; he refused to admit that pleasure was ‘natural’ or possessed any worth[95]. In this view he was supported by a great many Stoics, and practically by Archedemus, when he said that pleasure was natural but valueless, like the hairs under the armpit[96]. Hence followed the acceptable conclusion that no sensible man would pay much attention to so trivial a matter[97]. Thus the one word ‘indifferent’ came to include two views which were substantially opposed, the one inclining to the Academic standpoint, and the other to Cynism. [Sidenote: Pleasure an aftergrowth, or an evil.] =347.= From this contradiction an escape was sought by making a distinction. In one sense pleasure is an affection of the body, namely a tickling (_titillatio_) of organs of sense, most readily illustrated in the eating of dainties. This kind of pleasure, even if it is not an advantage naturally sought, yet has some likeness to one; though it is not directly to be aimed at, yet it may be welcomed when nature grants it to us as an extra[98]. This new view practically coincides with that of Aristotle, who calls pleasure an ‘aftergrowth’ (ἐπιγέννημα, _accessio_), which of itself follows on virtuous action, and is attached to it as the scent to a flower[99]. But much more commonly, in ethical discussions, ‘pleasure’ denotes the excitement which is more strictly termed ‘hilarity’ (ἔπαρσις, _sublatio animi_), and is the unhealthy condition of the soul when it is unduly attracted to an object of choice[100]. For this mischief Cicero suggests the Latin term _laetitia_, which is perhaps not altogether adequate[101]. This ‘pleasure’ may be unreservedly condemned as not merely indifferent, but actually contrary to nature[102]; whilst the virtuous and natural disposition is that of the man who not only contemplates toil and pain with calm mind, but actually welcomes them as possible stepping-stones towards his own true advantage[103]. [Sidenote: Active soberness.] =348.= Although the prevailing tendency in Stoic teaching is to consider Soberness as a negative virtue, and as opposed to the perturbation of Hilarity, there is not wanting some recognition of its positive side. For Soberness also demands that there shall be a healthy activity of the soul in matters such as eating, drinking, and the relations of sex; abstinence is not in itself an end, and if pursued out of season is both a folly and a fault. But this point of view is not adequately treated by any Stoic writer. Panaetius in discussing daily duties omitted to consider the proper care of the body, as was afterwards noticed by Antipater of Tyre; and Cicero gets little further than a general recommendation of common sense and self-restraint in all the circumstances of life[104]. The Romans of the principate were disposed to leave the matter to the physician, suggesting only that food should suffice to allay hunger, drink to put an end to thirst, and clothing to keep away cold[105]; but it is probable that popular moral discourses stopped short of this, and favoured some amount of endurance as a discipline for the soul[106]. [Sidenote: Sober love.] =349.= With regard to the relations of sex, the Socratic tradition was favourable to a more positive treatment. Accordingly the Stoics (not without some feeling that they are adopting a paradoxical position) assert that love (ἔρως, _amor_) is an essential, both for the maintenance of the State[107] and for the character of the good man. Zeno had laid it down that ‘the wise man will love[108].’ We must, however, make a sharp distinction between love as the desire of sexual union, and the higher Love (ἐρωτικὴ ἀρετή) which is defined anew as ‘an effort to make friends suggested by a beautiful object[109].’ Upon this impulse, which is natural in the widest sense, is based friendship in the young, and the more lasting tie between husband and wife. By imposing self-restraint on the man, and inviting the woman to share the lessons of philosophy, the Stoics introduced a new relation between husband and wife based upon equality and comradeship[110]. A notable precedent was furnished by the Cynic community, when the witty and learned Hipparchia joined Crates in the life of the beggar-preacher[111]; and Roman Stoicism supplies us with numerous instances of the same companionship[112]. Under such conditions marriage is no longer a matter of free choice; it is a civic duty incumbent on the young Stoic. The Stoics of the Roman principate well perceived the danger that threatened the society in which they lived through the growing practice of celibacy[113]. [Sidenote: Of marriage.] =350.= The Stoic attitude towards marriage is well illustrated by the following extract from a discourse by Antipater of Tarsus: ‘A youth of good family and noble soul, who has a sense of social duty, will feel that no life and no household is complete without wife and child. He will also bear in mind his duty towards the State, for how can that be maintained unless, as the fathers decay and fall away like the leaves of a fine tree, the sons marry in the flower of their age, and leave behind them fresh shoots to adorn the city, thereby providing for its protection against its enemies? He will look upon marriage also as a duty towards the gods; for if the family dies out, who will perform the accustomed sacrifices? Besides this he who knows nothing of wife and child has not tasted the truest joys of affection. For other friendships are like platefuls of beans or other like mixtures of juxtaposition, but the union of man and wife is like the mixing of wine and water, or any other case of penetration (κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλων); for they are united not only by the ties of substance and soul and the dearest bond of children, but also in body. Other alliances are for occasion, this is bound up with the whole purpose of life, so that the parents on each side gladly allow that the wife should be first in her husband’s affection, and the husband in his wife’s. But in these days of dissolution and anarchy all things change for the worse and marriage is thought a hard thing; and men call the celibate life divine because it gives opportunity for licentiousness and varied pleasures, and they bar the door against a wife as against an enemy. Others have their fancy taken by beauty or dowry, and no longer look for a wife who is piously brought up and obedient and a good manager; nor do they trouble to instruct their wives in these matters. But if a man would attend to the warnings of philosophers, of all burdens a lawful wife would be the lightest and sweetest. Such a man would have four eyes instead of two, and four hands instead of two, to supply all his needs: and if he desired leisure to write books or take part in politics, he could hand over the whole business of housekeeping to his partner[114].’ [Sidenote: Advantages sought.] =351.= The four cardinal virtues, however widely they are interpreted, do not exhaust the field of daily duties. All objects that are ‘advantages’ (προηγμένα) are _prima facie_ such that the good man aims at securing them; although if sufficient reason appears, he will entirely forego them. The advantages of the soul, good natural disposition, ‘art,’ and ‘progress’ are discussed elsewhere in this chapter; as advantages of the body are reckoned life, health, strength, good digestion, good proportions, and beauty; whilst external advantages are wealth, reputation, noble birth, and the like[115]. In all the details there is a lack of exactitude and of agreement amongst the teachers. According to Seneca, men may reasonably wish for tallness[116], and there is a kind of beauty (not dependent on youth) of which women may be proud without blame[117]. Fine clothes make no one the better man, but a certain degree of neatness and cleanliness in dress is an advantage[118]. For nobility the Stoics have little regard; all men are derived through an equal number of degrees from the same divine origin; virtue is the true nobility[119]. Good name (δόξα, _gloria_) is commonly reckoned amongst ‘advantages’[120]; but Chrysippus and Diogenes are said to have taught that a good man need not move a finger for the sake of reputation, unless some advantage can be obtained by it. Later teachers, influenced (as we are told) by the criticisms of Carneades, made it absolutely plain that they reckoned good name (apart from anything attainable by it) as an advantage, and they even considered it natural that a man should think of posthumous reputation[121]. The general feeling of the school seems to be that the approval of others is too uncertain to be a fitting aim; its place is taken by the approval of ‘conscience.’ This term, which originally expressed the burden of a guilty secret, became in the Roman period modified in meaning, and could thus express the approval awarded to a man by his inner and personal consciousness, even when all the world disapproves his acts: this self-approval is closely akin to peace of mind[122]. [Sidenote: Wealth.] =352.= On no subject would it be easier to find apparently contradictory views amongst Stoic writers than on that of wealth. To decry wealth and praise poverty is to some extent a commonplace with all the philosophical schools; and with Seneca in particular this was so frequent a practice[123] that his hearers found some inconsistency between his words and his deeds; for he was, as is well known, a rich man. But the position of the school is clear. ‘Riches are not a good’ is a Stoic paradox, emphasized in a hundred forms, and by every teacher[124]; but nevertheless they are an ‘advantage,’ and thus are rightly aimed at by the good man[125]. To the wealthy Stoics generally, and to the Romans of the republican period especially, the maintenance of the family property (_res familiaris_) was a duty of high importance; and the wasting of it in wholesale largess, a serious misdeed[126]. The Stoic view was sufficiently summed up in a proverb borrowed from Epicurus or one of his followers: ‘he who feels the need of wealth least, can make the best use of it[127].’ Although Panaetius did not write a special chapter on the acquisition and use of wealth[128], yet his views on the latter point are made sufficiently plain in his treatment of the virtue of Justice[129]. The justification of wealth lies in the intention to use it well, and this was a favourite subject with Hecato of Rhodes[130]. As to its acquisition and investment, Cicero is content to refer us to the high-principled men who conduct the financial affairs of the capital[131]. [Sidenote: Liberty.] =353.= Amongst those popular terms which hold an ambiguous place in the Stoic philosophy we must reckon ‘liberty’ (ἐλευθερία, _libertas_). In one sense liberty is a condition of soul such as characterizes the free-born citizen in contrast to the slave; this liberty differs but little from the virtue of Greatness of Soul already described[132], and in its full meaning is a good, which the wise man alone can possess[133]. But in another sense liberty is an external advantage, sometimes defined as ‘the power of living as you wish[134],’ and as such eagerly desired by the slave; more often perhaps it is conceived as ‘the right of saying what you please[135].’ In this sense liberty is equivalent to the παῤῥησία which was the watchword of the democracy of Athens, and was the equally cherished privilege of the nobility of Rome[136]; in a slightly different sense it was the boast of the Cynic missionary. The Stoics take a middle position; whilst all recognise that some sort of liberty is a precious privilege[137], and are prepared on occasion to sacrifice life or position for its sake[138], there are not wanting voices to remind us that it is unreasonable to speak out one’s mind without regard to persons or circumstances[139], that the wrath of tyrants ought not lightly to be provoked[140], and that the most terrible of all oppressors is the soul that has lost its self-control[141]. [Sidenote: Disadvantages.] =354.= Just as virtue chooses advantages in accordance with natural laws, so it refuses disadvantages in accordance with a disinclination (ἔκκλισις, _alienatio_), which is equally natural and right so long as it is controlled by reason[142]. Since to every advantage there is opposed a corresponding disadvantage, to choose the one is necessarily to refuse the other; and the doctrine of ‘reasonable refusal’ is that of reasonable choice in its negative form. It will therefore be sufficient to give a formal statement of the theory. Disadvantages, or things that have negative value (ἀπαξία), may be subdivided according as they are disadvantages in themselves, as an ungainly figure; or as they bring about other disadvantages, as shortness of ready money; or for both reasons, as bad memory or ill-health[143]. They may also be subdivided into three classes, according as they affect the soul, the body, or things external. Disadvantages of the soul are such things as inborn vulgarity or dulness of wit; of the body, ill-health, and dulness of the organs of sensation; of external things, poverty, loss of children, and the contempt of our neighbours[144]. [Sidenote: Healthy affections.] =355.= Since the virtues are permanent dispositions (διαθέσεις) of the soul, rooted in firm principles in which the wise man never wavers, but to which none else can attain, some other name is required to describe those more passing but yet wholesome moods which stand in contrast with the evil ‘affections’ or perturbations of the soul which will be discussed in our next chapter. A beginning is made in this direction with the three ‘good affections’ (εὐπάθειαι, _constantiae_, _sapientis affectiones_). Here a new use of terms is introduced. Strictly speaking an ‘affection’ is an evil state of soul; but as we have no corresponding word for a good and calm condition, the use of the word ‘affection’ is extended in this direction[145]. Each of these ‘good affections’ is introduced to us in contrast with a perturbation to which it bears a superficial resemblance. Thus contrasted with Fear is ‘Caution’ (εὐλάβεια, _cautio_), which is right avoidance, and is entirely consistent with Courage rightly understood. Subdivisions of Caution are (i) ‘Shame’ (αἰδώς, _verecundia_), the avoidance of deserved blame, and (ii) ‘Sanctity’ (ἁγνεία) the avoidance of offences against the gods[146]. Contrasted with Greed is ‘Readiness’ (βούλησις, _voluntas_), the reasonable stretching out after future advantages[147]; contrasted with Hilarity is Joy (χαρά, _gaudium_), the reasonable appreciation of present advantages[148]. Both Readiness and Joy are entirely consistent with Soberness rightly understood. To the perturbation of Grief no good affection is named as bearing any resemblance; but we need not for that reason question but that the wise man may entertain some quiet form of sympathy for the troubles of others, and of regret for the blows which fortune deals to him in political disappointment or personal bereavement[149]. The ‘good affections’ are possessed by the wise man only[150]; but not all wise men possess them, nor any at all times[151]. On the other hand it is a daily duty to approximate to them, so that on this ground the good citizen enters into competition with the wise man on not altogether uneven terms[152]. The whole doctrine of ‘good affections’ may be conceived as an answer to those who accuse the Stoic of lack of feeling[153]; for the much derided ‘apathy’ of the school is substituted the doctrine of ‘eupathy.’ Wisdom is not to be compared to the surface of a frozen sea, but to that of a rippling river. The lectures of Musonius and Epictetus bring out on every point the meaning of ‘eupathy’ in its various applications. [Sidenote: The ethical motive.] =356.= We have now sketched the Stoic system of daily duties in its main features, and this sketch will be made more complete in many particulars in the course of the next two chapters. To the modern reader the question here suggests itself—what compelling force has this system? what motive is supplied to the ordinary man for thus planning out his life? To this question the ancient philosophers did not directly address themselves; nevertheless their answers are implied in their teaching as a whole. Thus the Stoics would doubtless reply, first, that daily duties are prescribed to us by reason[154]; not perhaps always by reason in its highest sense, to which we must not appeal in every individual action, but at least by the spirit of reasonableness (εὐλογιστία). Secondly, that the common opinion of mankind, growing daily stronger, recommends them; they are, as we have seen from the beginning, things that it comes in our way to do, that every good citizen and good man will be sure to do. As to future rewards and punishments, though these are not excluded by Stoicism, they are certainly never pressed as motives for right living. But the strongest of all motives is undoubtedly the mental picture of the wise man, the vision of that which is ‘absolutely good.’ Critics may urge: ‘it is a picture that never has been or will be realized in men’s lives, a vision of that which is very far off and which you will never see or touch.’ This the Stoics hardly care to deny, but the difficulty does not disturb them. The vision attracts by its own beauty, the hope of attainment is cherished by all but the worst[155]. We have spoken of the ‘ordinary man,’ or, as the Stoics put it, of ‘us who are not wise men.’ But, strictly speaking, there is no room for the ordinary man in the system, but only for the ‘probationer’ (προκόπτων, _proficiens_). It remains for us to trace the upward path from daily duty to virtue, along which every good man is endeavouring to advance. [Sidenote: Progress.] =357.= The doctrine of progress (προκοπή, _progressio_) is not peculiar to Stoicism, but it is nevertheless an essential feature of it[156]. Critics may indeed dispute as to whether virtue has ever been in practice attained; but the Stoic must hold fast to the ethical principles that ‘virtue can be taught[157]’ and that ‘virtue is an art[158].’ Every man has from birth a capacity for acquiring virtue[159], which varies in degree according to his natural disposition of soul[160]; on this foundation every man builds by concurrent learning and practice[161]. The child is greatly helped if he possesses the trait of ‘modesty’ (αἰδώς, _verecundia_), which is essentially a readiness to defer to others and to learn from those who are older and wiser[162]; though later it may turn to ‘false shame,’ which is a hindrance[163]. He will then learn to understand and perform his daily duties; and as his character ripens, this performance will daily become easier and more pleasurable to him[164], more certain and more steady in itself. And now daily duties come near to Right Actions, which are indeed daily duties perfected (τέλειον καθῆκον, _perfectum officium_), and complete in every point[165]. In order to rise to this higher standard the good man must first perform his duty in all particulars[166]; he must do so with regularity and in harmony with the order of nature[167]; he will then need only a certain fixity, conviction, and stability to pass into the ranks of the wise[168]. [Sidenote: Conversion.] =358.= The stages of progress are variously expounded by Stoic writers[169]; but on one principle all are agreed. Progress is not a half-way stage between vice and virtue, as the Peripatetics teach[170]; it is a long preparation, to be followed by a change sudden and complete (μεταβολή, _conversio_)[171]. The final step, by which a foolish man becomes in an instant wise, is different in kind to all that have gone before. This position is a necessary consequence of the doctrine that ‘the good is not constituted by addition[172],’ and is enforced by various illustrations. The probationer is like a man who has long been under water; little by little he rises to the surface, but all in a moment he finds himself able to breathe. He is like a puppy in whom the organ of sight has been for days past developing; all at once he gains the power of vision[173]. Just so when progress reaches the end there dawns upon the eyes of the soul the complete and dazzling vision of the good, of which till now only shadows and reflections have been perceived. For a moment he is wise, but does not even yet realize his own wisdom; then again in a moment he passes on to the complete fruition of happiness[174]. [Sidenote: Duty.] =359.= Thus from the lowlier conception of ‘daily duties’ we have again climbed upwards to the supreme ethical end, to absolute goodness, which is Virtue in her full royalty and the Universal Law (κοινὸς νόμος) as it appeals to the individual man. In this connexion the ideal is familiar in modern times under the name of Duty. The ancient Stoics perhaps never quite reached to any such complete formulation of their ethical theory in a single word; but their general meaning is perfectly expressed by it. Just as the Socratic paradoxes mark the quarrel of philosophy with outworn ideas expressed in conventional language, so its reconciliation with the general opinion is marked by those newly-coined terms such as ‘conscience’ and ‘affection’ which are now familiar household words. We cannot indeed demonstrate that ‘Duty exists,’ any more than we can that deity or providence exists; but we may well say that without it ethical discussion would in our own day be hardly possible. The following stanzas from Wordsworth’s ‘Ode to Duty,’ based upon a Stoic text[175], may be a useful reminder, not only of the dominant position of this conception in modern thought, but also of the continued tendency of the human mind to express its supreme convictions in anthropomorphic language. ‘Stern daughter of the Voice of God! O Duty! if that name thou love Who art a light to guide, a rod To check the erring, and reprove: Thou who art victory and law When empty terrors overawe: From vain temptations dost set free; And calm’st the weary strife of frail humanity! Stern Lawgiver! yet thou dost wear The Godhead’s most benignant grace; Nor know we anything so fair As is the smile upon thy face: Flowers laugh before thee on thy beds And fragrance in thy footing treads: Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong; And the most ancient heavens, through thee, are fresh and strong. To humbler functions, awful Power! I call thee: I myself commend Unto thy guidance from this hour; O let my weakness have an end! Give unto me, made lowly wise, The spirit of self-sacrifice; The confidence of Reason give; And in the light of truth thy Bondman let me live!’[176] 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. [14] See above, § 110. [15] ‘quod secundum naturam est, quod contigit protinus nato, non dico bonum sed initium boni’ Sen. _Ep._ 124, 7. [16] See above, § 306. [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. [73] See above, § 91. [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,