poverty, disgrace, anger, grief, desire, fear, and, above all, pleasure (Fr. 294).

In spite of a good deal of exaggeration and something of charlatanry, it is probable that the influence of the early Cynics was not without its use in awaking men to a higher view of life; but it was not till the time of the Roman Empire that Cynicism became a real power, fostering freedom of thought and speech in the midst of the soul-crushing despotism of a Nero or a Domitian'. If at times the Cynic reminds us of the 'all-licensed fool' of the Middle Ages, at other times, as in the striking discourse in which Epictetus bids a friend pause before he assumes that name, he rises almost to the sublimity of a Hebrew prophet. Epictetus there reminds his friend that 'to be a Cynic is not merely to wear coarse clothing, to endure hard fare, to beg his bread, to rebuke luxury in others; it is to stand forward as a pattern of virtue to all men, to be to them the ambassador of Zeus, showing them how far they have strayed from what is right and true, how they have mistaken good for evil, and evil for good. It is the duty of the Cynic to shame men out of their peevish murmurings by himself maintaining a cheerful and contented disposition under whatever pressure of outward circumstances. If reviled and persecuted, it is his duty to love his persecutors and, far from appealing to the courts against ill-usage, to render thanks to God for giving him an opportunity of exercising his virtue and setting a brighter example to others. While fearless in reproving vice, he should avoid giving

1 See Epict. Diss. III. 22, and Bernays' very interesting tract Lucian und die Kyniker.

unnecessary offence, and endeavour, as far as possible, to recommend his teaching, not only by persuasiveness of speech, but also by manner and personal appearance, never allowing hardness to degenerate into rudeness or coarseness. If the Cynic were living in a society of wise men, it might be his duty to marry and bring up children like himself; but as things are, he must look upon himself as a soldier in active service, and keep himself free from all ties which might interfere with his great work of delivering the Divine message to the blind and erring world.'

Aristippus of Cyrene the founder of the Cyrenaic school, resembled Antisthenes in dwelling exclusively upon the practical side of his master's teaching. Holding that we can never be conscious of anything beyond our own feelings, he held of course that it was impossible to attain objective knowledge. We each have feelings of what we call sweetness, whiteness, and so on, but what is the nature of the object which causes those feelings, and whether the feelings which others call by the same name are really the same as our feelings, on these points we know nothing. The only thing of which we can be sure, the only thing of importance is, whether our feelings are agreeable or disagreeable. A gentle movement of the mind is agreeable and we call it pleasure; a violent movement is disagreeable and we call it pain. Every pleasure is in itself equally desirable, but we may get a greater amount of pleasure by one sort of action than by another. Thus Aristippus interpreted the somewhat ambiguous language of Socrates about happiness in a purely eudaemonistic sense, and declared that the only rule of life was to enjoy

the present moment. But for such enjoyment it is not enough simply to follow the passing impulse. The immediate pleasure obtained by gratifying an impulse may be more than balanced by a succeeding pain. The mind must be trained by philosophy to estimate and compare pleasures and pains, to master its impulses where their indulgence would lead to an overplus of pain, to be able promptly to discern and to act upon the possibilities offered by every situation of life, keeping itself ever calm and free, unfettered by the prejudices and superstitions of the vulgar. Accordingly it was the boast of Aristippus, no less than of Antisthenes, ‘mihi res, non me rebus subjungere conor'. His apophthegms and witticisms were scarcely less famous than those of Diogenes. The following may suffice as specimens.

(Mullach, Fr. 6,) asked what good he had gained from philosophy, he replied 'to converse freely (@appaλéws) with all.' Fr. 8 and 15, asked why philosophers seek the rich and not the rich philosophers, he replied, 'because the former know what they need, the latter do not. The physician visits his patient, but no one would prefer to be the sick patient rather than the healthy physician.' Fr. 30, when reproached for his intimacy with Lais, he defended himself in the words ἔχω Λαΐδα ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἔχομαι. Fr. 53, He is the true conqueror of pleasure, who can make use of it without being carried away by it, not he who abstains from it altogether.' Fr. 50, Dionysius reminded him, on his begging for money, how he had once said that a philosopher could never be in want. 'Give the money,' said he, 'and we will discuss that point afterwards.'

1 See Horace Epp. 1. 17. 13—32.

The money being given, he said, 'You see it is true, I am not in want.' (Compare with this the manner in which he got his wants supplied in shipwreck, Fr. 61.)

Among the more prominent members of this school was Theodorus, surnamed the Atheist, who lived towards the close of the 4th century, B.C. Objecting to the doctrine of his predecessor on the ground that it did not leave sufficient scope to wisdom, since pleasure and pain are so much dependent on outward circumstances, he put forward as the chief good, not the enjoyment of passing pleasure, but the maintaining of a calm and cheerful frame of mind. The anecdotes related of him have quite a Stoic ring. Thus, when Lysimachus threatened to crucify him, he answers 'keep your threats for your courtiers: it matters not to Theodorus whether his body decays in the earth or above the earth.' Euhemerus, the rationalizing mythologist so much quoted by the Fathers, is said to have been a pupil of his. His contemporary, Hegesias, called Teσávatos from his gloomy doctrine, considered that, as life has more of pain than pleasure, the aim of the wise man should be not to obtain pleasure, but to steel himself against pain. Thus in the end the Cyrenaic doctrine blends with the Cynic.

Plato', the 'deus philosophorum' (Cic. N. D. 11 32), was born of a noble family at Athens 428 B.C. and, like his brothers, Glaucon and Adimantus, and his relations. Critias and Charmides, became a disciple of Socrates in 408 B.C. After the death of his master he left Athens and lived at Megara with Euclides. From thence he

1 The best complete edition is Stallbaum's with Latin notes, the best English translation Jowett's in 5 vols. Oxford, 1875.

visited Cyrene, Egypt, Magna Graecia and Sicily. After nearly ten years of travelling he took up his residence again at Athens in 389 B. C. and began to lecture in the gymnasium of the Academia. At the request of Dion he revisited Sicily in 367 with a view of winning over Dionysius the Younger to the study of philosophy, and again in 361 in the hope of reconciling him to Dion; but he was unsuccessful in both attempts, and indeed seems to have been himself in considerable danger from the mercenaries of the tyrant. He died in his eightieth year, B. C. 347.

Building on the foundation of Socrates, he insists, no less than his master, on the importance of negative Dialectic, as a means of testing commonly received opinions; indeed most of his Dialogues come to no positive result, but merely serve to show the difficulties of the subject discussed and the unsatisfactory nature of the solutions hitherto proposed'. As he makes Socrates the spokesman in almost all the Dialogues, it is not always easy to determine precisely where the line is to be drawn between the purely Socratic and the Platonic doctrine, but the general relation of the one to the other may be stated as follows.

In his theory of knowledge Plato unites the Socratic definition with the Heraclitean Becoming and the Eleatic Being. Agreeing with Heraclitus that all the objects of the senses are fleeting and unreal in themselves, he held

1 These are classified by Thrasyllus as λóyo TηTɩkoí, dialogues of search, in opposition to the λóya &ønyntɩkoí, dialogues of exposition. Among the sub-classes of the former are the paιEUTIKol (obstetric), and πειραστικοί (testing).

See Aristotle Met. A 6. 987, M 4. 1078.