Panatius, then, who without controversy has discoursed most accurately about duties, and whom I, making some correction, have principally followed, having proposed three heads under which men were accustomed to deliberate and consult about duty-one, when they were in doubt whether that about which they were considering was virtuous or base; another, whether useful or unprofitable; a third, when that which had the appearance of virtue was in opposition to that which seemed useful, how this ought to be determined; he unfolded the two first heads in three books, but on the third head he said that he would afterward write, but did not perform what he had promised. At which I am the more surprised on this account, that it is recorded by his disciple Posidonius, that Panatius lived thirty years after he had published those books. And I am surprised that this matter should be only briefly touched on by Posidonius in some commentaries, especially when he writes that there is no subject in all philosophy so necessary. But by no means do I agree with those who deny that this subject was casually omitted by Panatius, but that it was designedly abandoned, and that it ought not to have been written at all, because utility could never be in opposition to virtue. On which point is one thing that may admit a doubt; whether this head which is third in the division of Panatius, ought to have been taken up, or whether it ought to have been altogether omitted. The other thing can not be doubted, that it was undertaken by Panatius, but left unfinished. For he who has completed two parts out of a three fold division, must have a third remaining. Besides, in the end of the third book he promises that he will afterward write about this third part. To this is also added a sufficient witness, Posidonius, who in a certain letter writes that Publius Rutilius Rufus, who had been a disciple of Panatius, had been accustomed to say, that as no painter could be found who could finish that part of the Coan Venus which Apelles had left unfinished (for the beauty of the countenance left no hope of making the rest of the body correspond), so no one could go through with those things which Panatius had omitted, on account of the excellence of those parts which he had completed.

III. Wherefore, there can not be a doubt about the opinion

of Panatius; but whether it was right in him, or otherwise, to join this third part to the investigation of duty, about this, perhaps, there may be a question. For whether virtue be the only good, as is the opinion of the Stoics, or whether that which is virtuous be, as it appears to your Peripatetics, so much the greatest good, that all things placed on the other side have scarcely the smallest weight; it is not to be doubted but that utility never can compare with virtue. Therefore we have learned that Socrates used to execrate those who had first separated in theory those things cohering in nature. To whom, indeed, the Stoics have so far assented, that they considered that whatever is virtuous is useful, and that nothing can be useful which is not virtuous. But if Panatius was one who would say that virtue was to be cultivated only on this account, because it was a means of procuring profit, as they do who measure the desirableness of objects either by pleasure or by the absence of pain, it would be allowable for him to say that our interest sometimes is opposed to virtue. But as he was one who judged that alone to be good which is virtuous, but that of such things as oppose this with some appearance of utility, neither the accession can make life better, nor the loss make it worse, it appears that he ought not to have introduced a deliberation of this kind, in which what seems profitable could be compared with that which is virtuous. For what is called the summum bonum by the Stoics, to live agreeably to nature, has, I conceive, this meaning-always to conform to virtue; and as to all other things which may be according to nature, to take them if they should not be repugnant to virtue. And since this is so, some think that this comparison is improperly introduced, and that no principle should be laid down upon this head. And, indeed, that perfection of conduct which is properly and truly called so, exists in the wise alone, and can never be separated from virtue. But in those persons in whom there is not perfect wisdom, that perfection can indeed by no means exist; but the likeness of it can. For the Stoics call all those duties about which we are discoursing in these books, mean duties (media officia). These are common, and extend widely, which many attain by the goodness of natural disposition, and by progressive improvement, But that duty which the same philosophers call right (rec

tum), is perfect and absolute, and, as the same philosophers say, has all the parts perfect, and can not fall to the lot of any but the wise man. But when any thing is performed in which mean duties appear, it seems to be abundantly perfect, because the vulgar do not at all understand how far it falls short of the perfect; but as far as they understand, they think there is nothing wanting. Which same thing comes to pass in poems, in pictures, and in many other matters, that those things which should not be commended, the unskillful are delighted with and commend; on this account, I suppose, that there is in these things some merit which catches the unskillful, who indeed are unable to judge what deficiency there may be in each. Therefore, when they are apprised of it by the initiated, they readily abandon their opinion.

IV. These duties, then, of which we are discoursing in these books, they' say are virtuous in some secondary degree -not peculiar to the wise alone, but common to every dcscription of men. By these, therefore, all are moved in whom there is a natural disposition toward virtue. Nor, indeed, when the two Decii or the two Scipios are commemorated as brave men, or when Fabricius and Aristides are called just, is either an example of fortitude looked for from the former, or of justice from the latter, as from wise men. For neither of these was wise in such a sense as we wish the term wise man to be understood. Nor were these who were esteemed and named wise, Marcus Cato and Caius Lælius, wise men; nor were even those famous seven,' but from the frequent performance of mean duties they bore some similitude and appearance of wise men. Wherefore, it is neither right to compare that which is truly virtuous with what is repugnant to utility, nor should that which we commonly call virtuous, which is cultivated by those who wish to be esteemed good men, ever be compared with profits. And that virtue which falls within our comprehension is as much to be maintained and preserved by us, as that which is properly called, and which truly is virtue, is by the wise. For otherwise, whatever advancement is made toward virtue, it can not be maintained. But these remarks are made 1 The Stoics

2 The seven wise men of Greece.

regarding those who are considered good men, cn account of their observance of duties; but those who measure all things by profit and advantage, and who do not consider that those things are outweighed by virtue, are accustomed, in deliberating, to compare virtue with that which they think profitable; good men are not so accustomed. Therefore, I think that Panatius, when he said that men were accustomed to deliberate on this comparison, meant this very thing which he expressed-only that it was their custom, not that it was also their duty. For not only to think more of what seems profitable than what is virtuous, but even to compare them one with the other, and to hesitate between them, is most shameful. What is it, then, that is accustomed at times to raise a doubt, and seems necessary to be considered? I believe, whenever a doubt arises, it is what the character of that action may be about which one is considering. For oftentimes it happens, that what is accustomed to be generally considered disreputable, may be found not to be disreputable. For the sake of example, let a case be supposed which has a wide application. What can be greater wickedness than to slay not only a man, but even an intimate friend? Has he then involved himself in guilt, who slays a tyrant, however intimate? He does not appear so to the Roman people at least, who of all great exploits deem that the most honorable.'

1 "Tyrannicide, or the assassination of usurpers and oppressive princes, was highly extolled in ancient times, because it both freed mankind from many of these monsters, and seemed to keep the others in awe whom the sword and poniard could not reach. But history and experience having since convinced us that this practice increases the jealousy and cruelty of princes, a TIMOLEON and a BRUTUS, though treated with indulgence on account of the prejudices of their times, are now considered as very improper models for imitation."-Hume's "Dissertation on the Passions." "The arguments in favor of tyrannicide are built upon a very obvious principle. Justice ought universally to be administered. Crimes of an inferior description are restrained, or pretended to be restrained, by the ordinary operations of jurisprudence. But criminals, by whom the welfare of the whole is attacked, and who overturn the liberties of mankind, are out of the reach of this restraint. If justice be partially administered in subordinate cases, and the rich man be able to oppress the poor with impunity, it must be admitted that a few examples of this sort are insufficient to authorize the last appeal of human beings; but no man will deny that the case of the usurper and the despot is of the most atrocious nature. In this instance, all the provisions of civil policy being super

Has expediency, then, overcome virtue? Nay, rather, expediency has followed virtue. Therefore, that we may be able to decide without any mistake, if ever that which we call expediency (utile) shall appear to be at variance with that which we understand to be virtuous (honestum), a certain rule ought to be established, which if we will follow in comparing such cases, we shall never fail in our duty. But this rule will be one conformable to the reasoning and discipline of the Stoics chiefly, which, indeed, we are following in these books, because, though both by the ancient Academicians and by your Peripatetics, who formerly were the same sect, things which are virtuous are preferred to those which seem expedient; nevertheless, those subjects are more nobly treated of by those' to whom whatever is virtuous seems also expedient, and nothing exseded, and justice poisoned at the source, every man is left to execute for himself the decrees of immutable equity.' It may, however, be doubted, whether the destruction of a tyrant be, in any respect, a case of exception from the rules proper to be observed upon ordinary occasions. The tyrant has, indeed, no particular security annexed to his person, and may be killed with as little scruple as any other man, when the object is that of repelling personal assault. In all other cases, the extirpation of the offender by self-appointed authority, does not appear to be the appropriate mode of counteracting injustice. For, first, either the nation, whose tyrant you would destroy, is ripe for the assertion and maintenance of its liberty, or it is not. If it be, the tyrant ought to be deposed with every appearance of publicity. Nothing can be more improper, than for an affair, interesting to the general weal, to be conducted as if it were an act of darkness and shame. It is an ill lesson we read to mankind, when a proceeding, built upon the broad basis of general justice, is permitted to shrink from public scrutiny. The pistol and the dagger may as easily be made the auxiliaries of vice as of virtue. To proscribe all violence, and neglect no means of information and impartiality, is the most effectual security we can have for an issue conformable to reason and truth. If, on the other hand, the nation be not ripe for a state of freedom, the man who assumes to himself the right of interposing violence, may indeed show the fervor of his conception, and gain a certain notoriety; but he will not fail to be the author of new calamities to his country. The consequences of tyrannicide are well known. If the attempt prove abortive, it renders the tyrant ten times more bloody, ferocious, and cruel than before. If it succeed, and the tyranny be restored, it produces the same effect upon his successors. In the climate

of despotism some solitary virtues may spring up; but in the midst of plots and conspiracies, there is neither truth, nor confidence, nor love, nor humanity."-Godwin's "Political Justice," book iv. chap. iv.

1 The Stoic3.