This is an old revision of the document!

PlayGround

The Cyrenaics Handbook

The Cyrenaic school of philosophy, named from the city of Cyrene where the movement was founded, expanded in influence from about 400 BC to 300 BC and thereafter quickly dissipated. The Cyrenaics believe that Hedonism is the source of happiness and that pleasure is the chief good at which all things are intended. It is common wisdom that there are two main sources for Cyrenaism, namely Socrates and the sophists, in particular Protagoras. The ethical doctrines of the school are derived from Socrates' doctrine of the Chief Good. The Cyrenaics accepted this imperative but instead of fulfilling it through Virtue they choose to fulfill the Chief Good through a doctrine of pleasure. The supremacy of pleasure is to what all things aim. The epistemological foundations of Cyrenaism are derived from the skeptical views of Protagoras. The idea that knowledge is relative is prominent in Cyrenaic thought and is used to justify their hedonistic ethical doctrines.

Aristippus of Cyrene, ca. 400 BC, is considered to be the founder of the school. While it is unclear how much of later Cyrenaic doctrine is derived from his life and writings, he does provide a crucial link to Socrates who is considered the founder of many other schools of thought in Ancient Greece and it lends credibility and authority to the Cyrenaic endeavor. Through Aristippus, the school spread, on one hand through his daughter Arete - Aristippus the Younger - Theodorus the Atheist, and on the other, from Antipatros – Epitimides – Parabates – Hegesias & Anniceris. The exact details of each individual's significance and position are outlined throughout this compilation.

The Cyrenaics began their philosophical inquiry by agreeing with Protagoras that all knowledge is relative. On a very basic level, the elemental senses can determine what is true but things do not have meaning or significance in-and-of-themselves. From this premise, the Cyrenaics concluded that we can only understand our feelings or the impressions of what things produce upon us. When this insight is put to practical use, it is determined that happiness can only be obtained through pleasurable sensations (since they are real) and the avoidance of painful situations. Bodily pleasures are more intense than mental image-based pleasures. Likewise, physical pain is more intense than mental anguish. Pleasure, therefore, is the path to happiness. The measure of a good individual is if he or she can maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. Unlike the doctrine of the Cynics, Virtue is a not a shortcut to happiness; Virtue is a means to obtain more pleasure. It is not the end.

Many of the figures of the Cyrenaics subscribed to the ideas originally laid out by Aristippus and his immediate followers but also had other interests in using Cyrenaic doctrine. Theodorus took the doctrine to the extreme and was known as the atheist for his heterodox views on the divine. Euhemerus, although not normally grouped with the Cyrenaics, used their doctrine to develop a unique idea on how the divine mythology was formed from human, historical characters. Hegesias determined that life may not be worth living and became so influential being a “Death Persuader” he had to be silenced for the public good.

Over time, however, the Cyrenaic doctrine dissolved. The base sensist approach to happiness eroded over time. The pleasure doctrine shifted to reduce pleasure to a mere negative state where painlessness is considered to be the route to happiness. Others considered pleasure to be mere “cheerfulness and indifference”. The parallels to the Epicurean ideal position of emotional calm (sagicity) are manifest. Cyrenaism was loosely governed and a spectrum of what constitutes pleasure existed. As expectations of doctrine building took the place of Socratic questioning in philosophy, Cyreniacs failed to live up to the common expectations; their doctrines became a set of maxims for living rather than a solid philosophical school with systematic ideas. Because of the unraveling of Cyrenaic principles, it is assumed that the school eventually merged into Epicureanism which housed a more robust and systematic form of hedonism. ¹⁾

Author Disclaimer

This handbook contains the lives, writings, and doctrines of the Cyrenaic school by compiling the primary sources of the material. This handbook is not a summary or analysis of the Cyrenaic school. This handbook provides all of the (open and available) references to the Cyrenaic school within the ancient texts. Its main function is to put together in one place all of the references into one book. It is designed for the scholar and for the student. The scholar can use this resource to save time by having everything ready in one place. All references are taken from copyright-expired texts or open source (free) texts from places like Gutenberg and Archive.org. No copyrighted material is used in this book. All endnotes point to the source of each reference. The student of ancient philosophy will find this to be an aid to your understanding of the Cyrenaic school and may even influence your thinking. Many will undoubtedly use this book to aide their understanding of Hellenic Philosophy and Epicureanism.

Compiled, annotated, and edited by Frank Redmond.

Frank Redmond – 2012 (1^st Edition; 1.0)

Frank Redmond – 2015 (2^nd Edition; 2.0)

Frank Redmond – 2016 (2^nd Edition; 2.2)

2^nd Edition (2015) modifications – Fixed minor content bugs; corrected citations; added and replaced textual content.

2^nd Edition (2016) modifications – Changed style; standardized citations.

Work inspired by Inspired by Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes with Other Popular Moralists, Oxford World Classics, 2012.

Cyrenaic Genealogy

Cyrenaic Resources

Aristippus Overview

Aristippus: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Aristippus, son of Aritades, born at Cyrene, and founder of the Cyrenaic School of Philosophy, came over to Greece to be present at the Olympic games, where he fell in with Ischomachus the agriculturist (whose praises are the subject of Xenophon's Oeconomicus), and by his description was filled with so ardent a desire to see Socrates, that he went to Athens for the purpose (Plut. de Curios. 2), and remained with him almost up to the time of his execution, 399 BC. Diodorus (xv. 76) gives 366 BC as the date of Aristippus, which agrees very well with the facts which we know about him, and with the statement (Schol. ad Aristopli. Plut. 179), that Lais, the courtesan with whom he was intimate, was born 421 BC.

Though a disciple of Socrates, he wandered both in principle and practice very far from the teaching and example of his great master. He was luxurious in his mode of living; he indulged in sensual gratifications, and the society of the notorious Lais; he took money for his teaching being the first of the disciples of Socrates who did so (Diog. Laert. ii. 65), and avowed to his instructor that he resided in a foreign land in order to escape the trouble of mixing in the politics of his native city. (Xen. Mem. ii. 1.) He passed part of his life at the court of Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, and is also said to have been taken prisoner by Artaphernes, the satrap who drove the Spartans from Rhodes 396 BC. (Diod. Sic. xiv. 79) He appears, however, at last to have returned to Cyrene, and there he spent his old age. The anecdotes which are told of him, and of which we find a most tedious number in Diogenes Laertius (ii. 65, &c.), by no means give us the notion of a person who was the mere slave of his passions, but rather of one who took a pride in extracting enjoyment from all circumstances of every kind, and in controlling adversity and prosperity alike. They illustrate and confirm the two statements of Horace (Ep. i. 1. 18), that to observe the precepts of Aristippus is “milii res, non me rebus subjungere” and (i. 17. 23) that, “omnis Aristippum decuit color et status et res.” Thus when reproached for his love of bodily indulgences, he answered, that there was no shame in enjoying them, but that it would be disgraceful if he could not at any time give them up. When Dionysius, provoked at some of his remarks, ordered him to take the lowest place at table, he said, ”You wish to dignify the seat.” Whether he was prisoner to a satrap, or grossly insulted and even spit upon by a tyrant, or enjoying the pleasures of a banquet, or reviled for faithlessness to Socrates by his fellow-pupils, he maintained the same calm temper. To Xenophon and Plato he was very obnoxious, as we see from the Memorabilia (I. c.), where he maintains an odious discussion against Socrates in defence of voluptuous enjoyment, and from the Phaedo (p. 59, c), where his absence at the death of Socrates, though he was only at Aegina, 200 stadia from Athens, is doubtless mentioned as a reproach. Aristotle, too, calls him a sophist (Metaphys. ii. 2), and notices a story of Plato speaking to him. With rather undue vehemence, and of his replying with calmness (Rhet. ii. 23.) He imparted his doctrine to his daughter Arete, by whom it was communicated to her son, the younger Aristippus (hence called Mother-Taught), and by him it is said to have been reduced to a system. Laertius, on the authority of Sotion (205 BC) and Panaetius (143 BC), gives a long list of books whose authorship is ascribed to Aristippus, though he also says that Sosicrates of Rhodes (255 BC) states, that he wrote nothing. Among these are treatises “Concerning Education”, “Concerning Virtue”, “Concerning Fortune”, and many others. Some epistles attributed to him are deservedly rejected as forgeries. One of these is to Arete, and its spuriousness is proved, among other arguments, by the occurrence in it of the name of a city near Cyrene, Berenike, which must have been given by the Macedonians, in whose dialect Beta stands for Phi, so that the name is equivalent to Pherenike, the victorious.²⁾

Satirical & Poetical Interpretation of Aristippus

Lucian, Sale of Creeds 12

Zeus. Now for the Cyrenaic, the crowned and purple-robed.

Her. Attend please, gentlemen all. A most valuable article, this, and calls for a long purse. Look at him. A sweet thing in creeds. A creed for a king. Has any gentleman a use for the Lap of Luxury? Who bids?

Third D. Come and tell me what you know. If you are a practical creed, I will have you.

Her. Please not to worry him with questions, sir. He is drunk, and cannot answer; his tongue plays him tricks, as you see.

Third D. And who in his senses would buy such an abandoned reprobate? How he smells of scent! And how he slips and staggers about! Well, you must speak for him, Hermes. What can he do? What is his line?

Her. Well, for any gentleman who is not strait-laced, who loves a pretty girl, a bottle, and a jolly companion, he is the very thing. He is also a past master in gastronomy, and a connoisseur in voluptuousness generally. He was educated at Athens, and has served royalty in Sicily, where he had a very good character. Here are his principles in a nutshell: Think the worst of things: make the most of things: get all possible pleasure out of things.

Third D. You must look for wealthier purchasers. My purse is not equal to such a festive creed.

Her. Zeus, this lot seems likely to remain on our hands.³⁾

Horace, Satire 2.3.82-110

The Madness of Avarice

“Avarice should get the largest dose of medicine,

I’d say: all of Anticyra’s hellebore for the mad.

Staberius’ heirs had to carve his wealth on his tomb,

If not they’d to entertain the masses with a hundred

Paired gladiators, at a funeral feast, to be planned

By Arrius, plus all of Africa’s corn. His will said:

‘Whether I’m right or wrong in this, don’t criticise me.’

That’s what Staberius’ proud mind foresaw, I think.

‘So what did he mean when he willed that his heirs

Should carve his wealth in stone?’ Well, he thought poverty

Was a mighty evil, all his life, and guarded against it

Strongly, so if he’d chanced to die a penny poorer,

He’d have thought that much less of himself: he thought all things,

Virtue, reputation, honour, things human or divine

Bowed to the glory of riches: that he who’s garnered them

Is famous, just and brave. ‘And wise?’ Of course, a king,

Whatever he wishes. He hoped that wealth, won as if by

Virtue, would bring him great fame. Where’s the difference

Between him and Aristippus the Greek, who in deepest

Libya, ordered his slaves who travelled more slowly

Under its weight, to unload his gold? Which was crazier?

Useless examples explain one mystery by another.

If a man bought lutes, and piled them up together,

While caring not a fig for the lute or any art:

Or, though no cobbler, bought lasts and awls: or hating trade

Ships’ sails, all would think him insane and obsessed

And they’d be right. Why is the man who hoards gold

And silver any different from them? He’s no idea

How to use his pile, fearing to touch it as sacred.”⁴⁾

Horace, Epistles 1.1.1-19

An End to Verse

You, Maecenas, of whom my first Muse told, of whom my

Last shall tell, seek to trap me in the old game again,

Though I’m proven enough, and I’ve won my discharge.

My age, spirit are not what they were. Veianius

Hangs his weapons on Hercules’ door, stops pleading to

The crowd for his life, from the sand, by hiding himself

In the country. A voice always rings clear in my ear:

‘While you’ve time, be wise, turn loose the ageing horse,

Lest he stumbles, broken winded, jeered, at the end.’

So now I’m setting aside my verse, and other tricks:

My quest and care is what’s right and true, I’m absorbed

In it wholly: I gather, then store for later use.

In case you ask who’s my master, what roof protects me,

I’m not bound to swear by anyone’s precepts,

I’m carried, a guest, wherever the storm-wind blows me.

Now I seek action, and plunge in the civic tide,

The guardian, and stern attendant of true virtue:

Now I slip back privately to Aristippus’ precepts,

Trying to bend world to self, and not self to world.⁵⁾

Horace, Epistles 1.17.1-32

Humble Advice

Though you attend well enough to your own interests,

Scaeva, and know too how to behave with the great,

Hear the views of a dear friend, who’s still learning:

As if a blind man wished to show you the way: but see

If I’ve anything to say that you might care to own to.

If you love dearest peace, and to sleep till daybreak,

If dust, the sound of wheels, and tavern-life offend you,

I’ll order you off to silent Ferentinum:

Enjoyment’s not for the rich alone: he’s not lived

Badly, who’s escaped attention from birth to death.

But if you want to help your friends and help yourself

A little more, the hungry man head’s for the feast.

‘If Aristippus was happy to eat vegetables,

He wouldn’t woo princes.’ ‘If he knew how to woo

Princes, my critic would scorn vegetables.’ Which

Words and example do you approve? Tell me, or since

You’re younger, here’s why Aristippus is wiser.

This is the way, they say, he parried the fierce Cynic:

‘You play the fool for the people, I for myself:

It’s nobler and truer. I serve so a horse bears me,

A prince feeds me: you beg for scraps, but are still less

Than the giver, though you boast of needing no man.’

All styles, states, circumstances suited Aristippus

Aiming higher, but mostly content with what he had.

But I’d be amazed if a change in his way of life,

Would suit one austerity clothes in a Cynic’s rags.

The first won’t wait for a purple robe, he’ll walk

Through the crowded streets wearing anything he has,

And play either role without any awkwardness:

The second will shun a fine cloak made in Miletus,

As he would a dog or snake, and die of cold if you

Don’t return his rags. Do so, and let him be a fool.⁶⁾

Aristippus in the Suda

Suda, Alpha 3908

Son of Aritades, from Cyrene, a philosopher, a pupil of Socrates; by whom the sect called Cyrenaic began. He was the first of the Socratics to take wages. He was on bad terms with Xenophon, and he was able to adapt himself to both time and place. And he enjoyed what things were at hand and pursued pleasure, but he did not by toil chase after the enjoyment of things which he did not have. Hence Diogenes called him the “king's dog”. His sayings [were] the best and greatest. His daughter Arete learned [from him], whose [student was] her son the young Aristippus, who was named Mother-taught, and his [student was] Theodoros, who was called “Godless”, then “God”; and his [student was] Antipater, and his [student was] Epitimedes of Cyrene, his Paraibates, his Hegesias the Advocate of Death [by suicide], and his Anniceris, who ransomed Plato.⁷⁾

Suda, Alpha 3909

Companion of Socrates, who was charming and took pleasure in all things. It is said that when his child was carrying money and was burdened by the weight he said, “Then cast off what's weighing you down.” When he was being plotted against on a voyage he cast into the sea the things on account of which he was being conveyed. “For,” he said, “the loss is my salvation.” And he always ribbed Antisthenes for his dourness. And he came to Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily and won the drinking and led the dance for the others and put on purple clothes. But Plato, when the robe was brought to him, said some iambics of Euripides: “I would not put on feminine clothes, having been born male, and from a male line.” Aristippos took it and said with a laugh [some lines] of the same poet: “for the moderate mind will not be corrupted in Bacchic revelries.” Making a request on behalf of a friend and not obtaining it, he fell down to his [Dionysius'] feet and won him over: “I am not responsible for this flattery,” he said, “but Dionysius, who has ears in his knees.”⁸⁾

Aristippus: Synopsis

Diogenes Laertius, 2.65-66, 2.83-85

65. Aristippus was by birth a citizen of Cyrene and, as Aeschines informs us, was drawn to Athens by the fame of Socrates. Having come forward as a lecturer or sophist, as Phanias of Eresus, the Peripatetic, informs us, he was the first of the followers of Socrates to charge fees and to send money to his master. And on one occasion the sum of twenty minae which he had sent was returned to him, Socrates declaring that the supernatural sign would not let him take it; the very offer, in fact, annoyed him. Xenophon was no friend to Aristippus; and for this reason he has made Socrates direct against Aristippus the discourse in which he denounces pleasure. Not but what Theodorus in his work On Sects abuses him, and so does Plato in the dialogue On the Soul, as has been shown elsewhere.

66. He was capable of adapting himself to place, time and person, and of playing his part appropriately under whatever circumstances. Hence he found more favour than anybody else with Dionysius, because he could always turn the situation to good account. He derived pleasure from what was present, and did not toil to procure the enjoyment of something not present. Hence Diogenes called him the king's poodle Timon, too, sneered at him for luxury in these words:

Such was the delicate nature of Aristippus, who groped after error by touch.

He is said to have ordered a partridge to be bought at a cost of fifty drachmae, and, when someone censured him, he inquired, “Would not you have given an obol for it?” and, being answered in the affirmative, rejoined, “Fifty drachmae are no more to me.”

[…]

83. There have been four men called Aristippus, (1) our present subject, (2) the author of a book about Arcadia, (3) the grandchild by a daughter of the first Aristippus, who was known as his mother's pupil, (4) a philosopher of the New Academy.

The following books by the Cyrenaic philosopher are in circulation: a history of Libya in three Books, sent to Dionysius; one work containing twenty-five dialogues, some written in Attic, some in Doric, as follows:

84. Artabazus. To the shipwrecked. To the Exiles. To a Beggar. To Laïs. To Porus. To Laïs, On the Mirror. Hermias. A Dream. To the Master of the Revels. Philomelus. To his Friends. To those who blame him for his love of old wine and of women. To those who blame him for extravagant living. Letter to his daughter Arete. To one in training for Olympia. An Interrogatory. Another Interrogatory. An Occasional Piece to Dionysius. Another, On the Statue. Another, On the daughter of Dionysius. To one who considered himself slighted. To one who essayed to be a counsellor.

Some also maintain that he wrote six Books of Essays; others, and among them Sosicrates of Rhodes, that he wrote none at all.

85. According to Sotion in his second book, and Panaetius, the following treatises are his:

On Education. On Virtue. Introduction to Philosophy. Artabazus. The Ship-wrecked. The Exiles. Six books of Essays. Three books of Occasional Writings. To Laïs. To Porus. To Socrates. On Fortune.

He laid down as the end the smooth motion resulting in sensation.⁹⁾

Aelian, Various Histories Book 14.6

Aristippus his opinion concerning cheerfulness. Aristippus by strong arguments advised that we should not be anxious about things past or future; arguing, that not to be troubled at such things, is a sign of a constant clear spirit. He also advised to take care only for the present day, and in that day, only of the present part, wherein something was done or thought; for he said, the present only is in our power, not the past or future; the one being gone, the other uncertain whether ever it will come.¹⁰⁾

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae Book 12

We find also whole schools of philosophers which have openly professed to have made choice of pleasure. And there is the school called the Cyrenaic, which derives its origin from Aristippus the pupil of Socrates: and he devoted himself to pleasure in such a way, that he said that it was the main end of life; and that happiness was founded on it, and that happiness was at best but short-lived. And he, like the most debauched of men, thought that he had nothing to do either with the recollection of past enjoyments, or with the hope of future ones; but he judged of all good by the present alone, and thought that having enjoyed, and being about to enjoy, did not at all concern him; since the one case had no longer any existence, and the other did not yet exist and was necessarily uncertain: acting in this respect like thoroughly dissolute men, who are content with being prosperous at the present moment. And his life was quite consistent with his theory; for he spent the whole of it in all kinds of luxury and extravagance, both in perfumes, and dress, and women. Accordingly, he openly kept Lais as his mistress; and he delighted in all the extravagance of Dionysius, although he was often treated insultingly by him.¹¹⁾

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14.18

Now Aristippus was a companion of Socrates, and was the founder of the so-called Cyrenaic sect, from which Epicurus has taken occasion for his exposition of man's proper end. Aristippus was extremely luxurious in his mode of life, and fond of pleasure; he did not, however, openly discourse on the end, but virtually used to say that the substance of happiness lay in pleasures. For by always making pleasure the subject of his discourses he led those who attended him to suspect him of meaning that to live pleasantly was the end of man.¹²⁾

Socratic Aristippus

Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.11

Or again as Aristippus said in reply to Plato when he spoke somewhat too dogmatically, as Aristippus thought: 'Well, anyhow, our friend', meaning Socrates, 'never spoke like that'.¹³⁾

Plutarch, On Curiosity 2

And Aristippus, meeting Ischomachus at the Olympic games, asked him what those notions were with which Socrates had so powerfully charmed the minds of his young scholars; upon the slight information whereof, he was so passionately inflamed with a desire of going to Athens, that he grew pale and lean, and almost languished till he came to drink of the fountain itself, and had been acquainted with the person of Socrates, and more fully learned that philosophy of his, the design of which was to teach men how to discover their own ills and apply proper remedies to them.¹⁴⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.68,71,72,74,76,79,80

68. Being asked what he had gained from philosophy, he replied, “The ability to feel at ease in any society.” […] Being once asked what advantage philosophers have, he replied, “Should all laws be repealed, we shall go on living as we do now.”

71. An advocate, having pleaded for him and won the case, thereupon put the question, “What good did Socrates do you?” “Thus much,” was the reply, “that what you said of me in your speech was true.”

72. When he was reproached for employing a rhetorician to conduct his case, he made reply, “Well, if I give a dinner, I hire a cook.”

74. To the accusation that, although he was a pupil of Socrates, he took fees, his rejoinder was, “Most certainly I do, for Socrates, too, when certain people sent him corn and wine, used to take a little and return all the rest; and he had the foremost men in Athens for his stewards, whereas mine is my slave Eutychides.”

76. Being asked how Socrates died, he answered, “As I would wish to die myself.”

79. He was once staying in Asia and was taken prisoner by Artaphernes, the satrap. “Can you be cheerful under these circumstances?” someone asked. “Yes, you simpleton,” was the reply, “for when should I be more cheerful than now that I am about to converse with Artaphernes [having learned that from Socrates]?”

80. To the critic who censured him for leaving Socrates to go to Dionysius, his rejoinder was, “Yes, but I came to Socrates for education and to Dionysius for recreation.” When he had made some money by teaching, Socrates asked him, “Where did you get so much?” to which he replied, “Where you got so little.”¹⁵⁾

Aristippus: Opulence

Athenaeus, Book 8

Why, even Aristippus the Socratic was a fish-eater, and when reproached on one occasion by Plato for his love of dainties, as Sotion and Hegesander say — but here is what the Delphian writes: 'When Plato criticized Aristippus for buying so many fish, he replied that he had bought them for only fourpence. To this Plato said that he would have bought them himself at that price, whereupon Aristippus said: “You see, Plato! It isn't I who am a fish-lover, but you who are a money-lover.”¹⁶⁾

Seneca, On Benefits 7.25

Aristippus once, when enjoying a perfume, said: “Bad luck to those effeminate persons who have brought so nice a thing into disrepute.”¹⁷⁾

Clement of Alexandria, Pedogogy 2.8

I know, too, the words of Aristippus the Cyrenian. Aristippus was a luxurious man. He asked an answer to a sophistical proposition in the following terms: “A horse anointed with ointment is not injured in his excellence as a horse, nor is a dog which has been anointed, in his excellence as a dog; no more is a man,” he added, and so finished.¹⁸⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.66,68,75,76,77

66. He is said to have ordered a partridge to be bought at a cost of fifty drachmae, and, when someone censured him, he inquired, “Would not you have given an obol for it?” and, being answered in the affirmative, rejoined, “Fifty drachmae are no more to me.”

68. Being reproached for his extravagance, he said, “If it were wrong to be extravagant, it would not be in vogue at the festivals of the gods.”

75. To one who reproached him with extravagance in catering, he replied, “Wouldn't you have bought this if you could have got it for three obols?” The answer being in the affirmative, “Very well, then,” said Aristippus, “I am no longer a lover of pleasure, it is you who are a lover of money.”

76. When Charondas (or, as others say, Phaedo) inquired, “Who is this who reeks with unguents?” he replied, “It is I, unlucky wight, and the still more unlucky Persian king. But, as none of the other animals are at any disadvantage on that account, consider whether it be not the same with man. Confound the effeminates who spoil for us the use of good perfume.”

76-77. Polyxenus the sophist once paid him a visit and, after having seen ladies present and expensive entertainment, reproached him with it later. After an interval Aristippus asked him, “Can you join us today?”. On the other accepting the invitation, Aristippus inquired, “Why, then, did you find fault? For you appear to blame the cost and not the entertainment.”¹⁹⁾

Aristippus: Examining Wealth and Fortune

Vitruvius, On Architecture 6.1.1-2

6.1.1 It is related of the Socratic philosopher Aristippus that, being shipwrecked and cast ashore on the coast of the Rhodians, he observed geometrical figures drawn thereon, and cried out to his companions: “Let us be of good cheer, for I see the traces of man.” With that he made for the city of Rhodes, and went straight to the gymnasium. There he fell to discussing philosophical subjects, and presents were bestowed upon him, so that he could not only fit himself out, but could also provide those who accompanied him with clothing and all other necessaries of life. When his companions wished to return to their country, and asked him what message he wished them to carry home, he bade them say this: that children ought to be provided with property and resources of a kind that could swim with them even out of a shipwreck.

6.1.2 These are indeed the true supports of life, and neither Fortune's adverse gale, nor political revolution, nor ravages of war can do them any harm. Developing the same idea, Theophrastus, urging men to acquire learning rather than to put their trust in money, states the case thus: “The man of learning is the only person in the world who is neither a stranger when in a foreign land, nor friendless when he has lost his intimates and relatives; on the contrary, he is a citizen of every country, and can fearlessly look down upon the troublesome accidents of fortune. But he who thinks himself entrenched in defences not of learning but of luck, moves in slippery paths, struggling through life unsteadily and insecurely.”²⁰⁾

Plutarch, On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander the Great 8

It is a strange thing; we applaud Socratic Aristippus, because, being sometimes clad in a poor threadbare cloak, sometimes in a Milesian robe, he kept a decency in both.²¹⁾

Plutarch, On Tranquility of the Mind 8

For most men leave the pleasant and delectable things behind them, and run with haste to embrace those which are not only difficult but intolerable. Aristippus was not of this number, for he knew, even to the niceness of a grain, to put prosperous against adverse fortune into the scale, that the one might outweigh the other. Therefore when he lost a noble farm, he asked one of his dissembled friends, who pretended to be sorry, not only with regret but impatience, for his mishap: ”[You have] but one piece of land, but have I not three farms yet remaining?” He assenting to the truth of it: “Why then, [he said], should I not rather lament your misfortune, since it is the raving only of a mad man to be concerned at what is lost, and not rather rejoice in what is left?”²²⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.67,73,77

67. Hence the remark of Strato, or by some accounts of Plato, “You alone are endowed with the gift to flaunt in robes or go in rags.”

73. Being asked on one occasion what is the difference between the wise man and the unwise, “Strip them both,” said he, “and send them among strangers and you will know.”

77. When his servant was carrying money and found the load too heavy – the story is told by Bion in his Lectures – Aristippus cried, “Pour away the greater part, and carry no more than you can manage.” […] Being once on a voyage, as soon as he discovered the vessel to be manned by pirates, he took out his money and began to count it, and then, as if by inadvertence, he let the money fall into the sea, and naturally broke out into lamentation. Another version of the story attributes to him the further remark that it was better for the money to perish on account of Aristippus than for Aristippus to perish on account of the money.²³⁾

Aristippus: Examining Sexuality

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae Book 13

But Lais was so beautiful, that painters used to come to her to copy her bosom and her breasts. And Lais was a rival of Phryne, and had an immense number of lovers, never caring whether they were rich or poor, and never treating them with any insolence. And Aristippus every year used to spend whole days with her in Aegina, at the festival of Poseidon. And once, being reproached by his servant, who said to him, “You give her such large sums of money, but she admits Diogenes the Cynic for nothing”. He answered, “I give Lais a great deal, that I myself may enjoy her, and not that no one else may.” And when Diogenes said, “Since you, Aristippus, cohabit with a common prostitute, either, therefore, become a Cynic yourself, as I am, or else abandon her”. Aristippus answered him, “Does it appear to you, Diogenes, an absurd thing to live in a house where other men have lived before you?” “Not at all,” said he. “Well, then, does it appear to you absurd to sail in a ship in which other men have sailed before you?” “By no means,” said he. “Well, then,” replied Aristippus, “it is not a bit more absurd to be in love with a woman with whom many men have been in love already.”²⁴⁾

Plutarch, On Love 4

As Aristippus testified to one that would have put him out of conceit with Lais, for that, as he said, she did not truly love him; no more, said he, am I beloved by pure wine or good fish, and yet I willingly make use of both.²⁵⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.67,69,74,75

67. And when Dionysius gave him his choice of three courtesans, he carried off all three, saying, “Paris paid dearly for giving the preference to one out of three.” And when he had brought them as far as the porch, he let them go.

69. One day, as he entered the house of a courtesan, one of the lads with him blushed, whereupon he remarked, “It is not going in that is dangerous, but being unable to go out.”

74. To one who accused him of living with a courtesan, he put the question, “Why, is there any difference between taking a house in which many people have lived before and taking one in which nobody has ever lived?” The answer being “No,” he continued, “Or again, between sailing in a ship in which ten thousand persons have sailed before and in one in which nobody has ever sailed?” “There is no difference.” “Then it makes no difference,” said he, “whether the woman you live with has lived with many or with nobody.”

74-75. He enjoyed the favors of Laïs, as Sotion states in the second book of his Successions of Philosophers. To those who censured him his defense was, “I have Lais, not she me; and it is not abstinence from pleasures that is best, but mastery over them without ever being worsted.”²⁶⁾

Aristippus: Tyrant Dionysius

Plutarch, Life of Dion 19.7

Thereupon Aristippus, jesting with the rest of the philosophers, said that he himself also could predict something strange. And when they besought him to tell what it was, “Well, then,” said he, “I predict that before long Plato and Dionysius will become enemies.”²⁷⁾

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae Book 12 544.c-d

Accordingly, Hegesander says that once, when he was assigned a very mean place at a banquet by Dionysius, he endured it patiently; and when Dionysius asked him what he thought of his present place, in comparison of his yesterday's seat, he said, “That the one was much the same as the other; for that one,” says he, “is a mean seat today, because it is deprived of me; but it was yesterday the most respectable seat in the room, owing to me: and this one today has become respectable, because of my presence in it; but yesterday it was an inglorious seat, as I was not present in it.” And in another place Hegesander says - “Aristippus, being ducked with water by Dionysius' servants, and being ridiculed by Antiphon for bearing it patiently, said, 'But suppose I had been out fishing, and got wet, was I to have left my employment, and come away?'”²⁸⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.67,69,70,73,75,77-78,79,80,81,82

67. And when Dionysius gave him his choice of three courtesans, he carried off all three, saying, “Paris paid dearly for giving the preference to one out of three.” And when he had brought them as far as the porch, he let them go. To such lengths did he go both in choosing and in disdaining. Hence the remark of Strato, or by some accounts of Plato, “You alone are endowed with the gift to flaunt in robes or go in rags.” He bore with Dionysius when he spat on him, and to one who took him to task he replied, “If the fishermen let themselves be drenched with sea-water in order to catch a gudgeon, ought I not to endure to be wetted with negus in order to take a blenny?”

69. When Dionysius inquired what was the reason that philosophers go to rich men's houses, while rich men no longer visit philosophers, his reply was that “the one know what they need while the other do not.” When he was reproached by Plato for his extravagance, he inquired, “Do you think Dionysius a good man?” and the reply being in the affirmative, “And yet,” said he, “he lives more extravagantly than I do. So that there is nothing to hinder a man living extravagantly and well.”

70. In answer to one who remarked that he always saw philosophers at rich men's doors, he said, “So, too, physicians are in attendance on those who are sick, but no one for that reason would prefer being sick to being a physician.”

73. Being once compelled by Dionysius to enunciate some doctrine of philosophy, “It would be ludicrous,” he said, “that you should learn from me what to say, and yet instruct me when to say it.” At this, they say, Dionysius was offended and made him recline at the end of the table. And Aristippus said, “You must have wished to confer distinction on the last place.”

75. One day Simus, the steward of Dionysius, a Phrygian by birth and a rascally fellow, was showing him costly houses with tesselated pavements, when Aristippus coughed up phlegm and spat in his face. And on his resenting this he replied, “I could not find any place more suitable.”

77-78. Dionysius once asked him what he was come for, and he said it was to impart what he had and obtain what he had not. But some make his answer to have been, “When I needed wisdom, I went to Socrates; now that I am in need of money, I come to you.”

78. One day Dionysius over the wine commanded everybody to put on purple and dance. Plato declined, quoting the line:

I could not stoop to put on women's robes.

Aristippus, however, put on the dress and, as he was about to dance, was ready with the repartee:

Even amid the Bacchic revelry

True modesty will not be put to shame.

79. He made a request to Dionysius on behalf of a friend and, failing to obtain it, fell down at his feet. And when someone jeered at him, he made reply, “It is not I who am to blame, but Dionysius who has his ears in his feet.”

80. To the critic who censured him for leaving Socrates to go to Dionysius, his rejoinder was, “Yes, but I came to Socrates for education and to Dionysius for recreation.”

81. He received a sum of money from Dionysius at the same time that Plato carried off a book and, when he was twitted with this, his reply was,, “Well, I want money, Plato wants books.” Someone asked him why he let himself be refuted by Dionysius. “For the same reason,” said he, “as the others refute him.”

82. Dionysius met a request of his for money with the words, “Nay, but you told me that the wise man would never be in want.” To which he retorted, “Pay! Pay! and then let us discuss the question;” and when he was paid, “Now you see, do you not,” said he, “that I was not found wanting?” Dionysius having repeated to him the lines:

Whoso betakes him to a prince's court

Becomes his slave, albeit of free birth,

he retorted:

If a free man he come, no slave is he.²⁹⁾

Aristippus: Xenophon's Testimony

Xenophon, Memorabilia Book 2.1

Now, if the effect of such discourses was, as I imagine, to deter his hearers from the paths of quackery and false-seeming, so I am sure that language like the following was calculated to stimulate his followers to practise self-control and endurance: self-control in the matters of eating, drinking, sleeping, and the cravings of lust; endurance of cold and heat and toil and pain. He had noticed the undue licence which one of his acquaintances allowed himself in all such matters. Accordingly he thus addressed him:

Tell me, Aristippus (Socrates said), supposing you had two children entrusted to you to educate, one of them must be brought up with an aptitude for government, and the other without the faintest propensity to rule—how would you educate them? What do you say? Shall we begin our inquiry from the beginning, as it were, with the bare elements of food and nutriment?

Ar. Yes, food to begin with, by all means, being a first principle, without which there is no man living but would perish.

Soc. Well, then, we may expect, may we not, that a desire to grasp food at certain seasons will exhibit itself in both the children?

Ar. It is to be expected.

Soc. Which, then, of the two must be trained, of his own free will, to prosecute a pressing business rather than gratify the belly?

Ar. No doubt the one who is being trained to govern, if we would not have affairs of state neglected during his government.

Soc. And the same pupil must be furnished with a power of holding out against thirst also when the craving to quench it comes upon him?

Ar. Certainly he must.

Soc. And on which of the two shall we confer such self-control in regard to sleep as shall enable him to rest late and rise early, or keep vigil, if the need arise?

Ar. To the same one of the two must be given that endurance also.

Soc. Well, and a continence in regard to matters sexual so great that nothing of the sort shall prevent him from doing his duty? Which of them claims that?

Ar. The same one of the pair again.

Soc. Well, and on which of the two shall be bestowed, as a further gift, the voluntary resolution to face toils rather than turn and flee from them?

Ar. This, too, belongs of right to him who is being trained for government.

Soc. Well, and to which of them will it better accord to be taught all knowledge necessary towards the mastery of antagonists?

Ar. To our future ruler certainly, for without these parts of learning all his other capacities will be merely waste.

Soc. Will not a man so educated be less liable to be entrapped by rival powers, and so escape a common fate of living creatures, some of which (as we all know) are hooked through their own greediness, and often even in spite of a native shyness; but through appetite for food they are drawn towards the bait, and are caught; while others are similarly ensnared by drink?

Ar. Undoubtedly.

Soc. And others again are victims of amorous heat, as quails, for instance, or partridges, which, at the cry of the hen-bird, with lust and expectation of such joys grow wild, and lose their power of computing dangers: on they rush, and fall into the snare of the hunter?

Aristippus assented.

Soc. And would it not seem to be a base thing for a man to be affected like the silliest bird or beast? as when the adulterer invades the innermost sanctum of the house, though he is well aware of the risks which his crime involves, the formidable penalties of the law, the danger of being caught in the toils, and then suffering the direst revilement. Considering all the hideous penalties which hang over the adulterer's head, considering also the many means at hand to release him from the thraldom of his passion, that a man should so drive headlong on to the quicksands of perdition —what are we to say of such frenzy? The wretch who can so behave must surely be tormented by an evil spirit?

Ar. So it strikes me.

Soc. And does it not strike you as a sign of strange indifference that, whereas the greater number of the indispensable affairs of men, as for instance, those of war and agriculture, and more than half the rest, need to be conducted under the broad canopy of heaven, yet the majority of men are quite untrained to wrestle with cold and heat?

Aristippus again assented.

Soc. And do you not agree that he who is destined to rule must train himself to bear these things lightly?

Ar. Most certainly.

Soc. And whilst we rank those who are self-disciplined in all these matters among persons fit to rule, we are bound to place those incapable of such conduct in the category of persons without any pretension whatsoever to be rulers?

Ar. I assent.

Soc. Well, then, since you know the rank peculiar to either section of mankind, did it ever strike you to consider to which of the two you are best entitled to belong?

Yes I have (replied Aristippus). I do not dream for a moment of ranking myself in the class of those who wish to rule. In fact, considering how serious a business it is to cater for one's own private needs, I look upon it as the mark of a fool not to be content with that, but to further saddle oneself with the duty of providing the rest of the community with whatever they may be pleased to want. That, at the cost of much personal enjoyment, a man should put himself at the head of a state, and then, if he fail to carry through every jot and tittle of that state's desire, be held to criminal account, does seem to me the very extravagance of folly. Why, bless me! states claim to treat their rulers precisely as I treat my domestic slaves. I expect my attendants to furnish me with an abundance of necessaries, but not to lay a finger on one of them themselves. So these states regard it as the duty of a ruler to provide them with all the good things imaginable, but to keep his own hands off them all the while. So then, for my part, if anybody desires to have a heap of pother himself, and be a nuisance to the rest of the world, I will educate him in the manner suggested, and he shall take his place among those who are fit to rule; but for myself, I beg to be enrolled amongst those who wish to spend their days as easily and pleasantly as possible.

Soc. Shall we then at this point turn and inquire which of the two are likely to lead the pleasanter life, the rulers or the ruled?

Ar. By all means let us do so.

Soc. To begin then with the nations and races known to ourselves. In Asia the Persians are the rulers, while the Syrians, Phrygians, Lydians are ruled; and in Europe we find the Scythians ruling, and the Maeotians being ruled. In Africa the Carthaginians are rulers, the Libyans ruled. Which of these two sets respectively leads the happier life, in your opinion? Or, to come nearer home—you are yourself a Hellene—which among Hellenes enjoy the happier existence, think you, the dominant or the subject states?

Nay, I would have you to understand (exclaimed Aristippus) that I am just as far from placing myself in the ranks of slavery; there is, I take it, a middle path between the two which it is my ambition to tread, avoiding rule and slavery alike; it lies through freedom—the high road which leads to happiness.

Soc. True, if only your path could avoid human beings, as it avoids rule and slavery, there would be something in what you say. But being placed as you are amidst human beings, if you purpose neither to rule nor to be ruled, and do not mean to dance attendance, if you can help it, on those who rule, you must surely see that the stronger have an art to seat the weaker on the stool of repentance both in public and in private, and to treat them as slaves. I daresay you have not failed to note this common case: a set of people has sown and planted, whereupon in comes another set and cuts their corn and fells their fruit-trees, and in every way lays siege to them because, though weaker, they refuse to pay them proper court, till at length they are persuaded to accept slavery rather than war against their betters. And in private life also, you will bear me out, the brave and powerful are known to reduce the helpless and cowardly to bondage, and to make no small profit out of their victims.

Ar. Yes, but I must tell you I have a simple remedy against all such misadventures. I do not confine myself to any single civil community. I roam the wide world a foreigner.

Soc. Well, now, that is a masterly stroke, upon my word! Of course, ever since the decease of Sinis, and Sciron, and Procrustes, foreign travellers have had an easy time of it. But still, if I bethink me, even in these modern days the members of free communities do pass laws in their respective countries for self-protection against wrong-doing. Over and above their personal connections, they provide themselves with a host of friends; they gird their cities about with walls and battlements; they collect armaments to ward off evil-doers; and to make security doubly sure, they furnish themselves with allies from foreign states. In spite of all which defensive machinery these same free citizens do occasionally fall victims to injustice. But you, who are without any of these aids; you, who pass half your days on the high roads where iniquity is rife; you, who, into whatever city you enter, are less than the least of its free members, and moreover are just the sort of person whom any one bent on mischief would single out for attack—yet you, with your foreigner's passport, are to be exempt from injury? So you flatter yourself. And why? Will the state authorities cause proclamation to be made on your behalf: “The person of this man Aristippus is secure; let his going out and his coming in be free from danger”? Is that the ground of your confidence? or do you rather rest secure in the consciousness that you would prove such a slave as no master would care to keep? For who would care to have in his house a fellow with so slight a disposition to work and so strong a propensity to extravagance? Suppose we stop and consider that very point: how do masters deal with that sort of domestic? If I am not mistaken, they chastise his wantonness by starvation; they balk his thieving tendencies by bars and bolts where there is anything to steal; they hinder him from running away by bonds and imprisonment; they drive the sluggishness out of him with the lash. Is it not so? Or how do you proceed when you discover the like tendency in one of your domestics?

Ar. I correct them with all the plagues, till I force them to serve me properly. But, Socrates, to return to your pupil educated in the royal art, which, if I mistake not, you hold to be happiness: how, may I ask, will he be better off than others who lie in evil case, in spite of themselves, simply because they suffer perforce, but in his case the hunger and the thirst, the cold shivers and the lying awake at nights, with all the changes he will ring on pain, are of his own choosing? For my part I cannot see what difference it makes, provided it is one and the same bare back which receives the stripes, whether the whipping be self-appointed or unasked for; nor indeed does it concern my body in general, provided it be my body, whether I am beleaguered by a whole armament of such evils of my own will or against my will—except only for the folly which attaches to self-appointed suffering.

Soc. What, Aristippus, does it not seem to you that, as regards such matters, there is all the difference between voluntary and involuntary suffering, in that he who starves of his own accord can eat when he chooses, and he who thirsts of his own free will can drink, and so for the rest; but he who suffers in these ways perforce cannot desist from the suffering when the humour takes him? Again, he who suffers hardship voluntarily, gaily confronts his troubles, being buoyed on hope —just as a hunter in pursuit of wild beasts, through hope of capturing his quarry, finds toil a pleasure—and these are but prizes of little worth in return for their labours; but what shall we say of their reward who toil to obtain to themselves good friends, or to subdue their enemies, or that through strength of body and soul they may administer their households well, befriend their friends, and benefit the land which gave them birth? Must we not suppose that these too will take their sorrows lightly, looking to these high ends? Must we not suppose that they too will gaily confront existence, who have to support them not only their conscious virtue, but the praise and admiration of the world? And once more, habits of indolence, along with the fleeting pleasures of the moment, are incapable, as gymnastic trainers say, of setting up a good habit of body, or of implanting in the soul any knowledge worthy of account; whereas by painstaking endeavour in the pursuit of high and noble deeds, as good men tell us, through endurance we shall in the end attain the goal. So Hesiod somewhere says:

Wickedness may a man take wholesale with ease, smooth is the way and her dwelling-place is very nigh; but in front of virtue the immortal gods have placed toil and sweat, long is the path and steep that leads to her, and rugged at the first, but when the summit of the pass is reached, then for all its roughness the path grows easy.

And Ephicharmus bears his testimony when he says:

The gods sell us all good things in return for our labours.

And again in another passage he exclaims:

Set not thine heart on soft things, thou knave, lest thou light upon the hard.

And that wise man Prodicus delivers himself in a like strain concerning virtue in that composition of his about Heracles, which crowds have listened to. This, as far as I can recollect it, is the substance at least of what he says:

“When Heracles was emerging from boyhood into the bloom of youth, having reached that season in which the young man, now standing upon the verge of independence, shows plainly whether he will enter upon the path of virtue or of vice, he went forth into a quiet place, and sat debating with himself which of those two paths he should pursue; and as he there sat musing, there appeared to him two women of great stature which drew nigh to him. The one was fair to look upon, frank and free by gift of nature, her limbs adorned with purity and her eyes with bashfulness; sobriety set the rhythm of her gait, and she was clad in white apparel. The other was of a different type; the fleshy softness of her limbs betrayed her nurture, while the complexion of her skin was embellished that she might appear whiter and rosier than she really was, and her figure that she might seem taller than nature made her; she stared with wide-open eyes, and the raiment wherewith she was clad served but to reveal the ripeness of her bloom. With frequent glances she surveyed her person, or looked to see if others noticed her; while ever and anon she fixed her gaze upon the shadow of herself intently.

“Now when these two had drawn near to Heracles, she who was first named advanced at an even pace towards him, but the other, in her eagerness to outstrip her, ran forward to the youth, exclaiming, 'I see you, Heracles, in doubt and difficulty what path of life to choose; make me your friend, and I will lead you to the pleasantest road and easiest. This I promise you: you shall taste all of life's sweets and escape all bitters. In the first place, you shall not trouble your brain with war or business; other topics shall engage your mind; your only speculation, what meat or drink you shall find agreeable to your palate; what delight of ear or eye; what pleasure of smell or touch; what darling lover's intercourse shall most enrapture you; how you shall pillow your limbs in softest slumber; how cull each individual pleasure without alloy of pain; and if ever the suspicion steal upon you that the stream of joys will one day dwindle, trust me I will not lead you where you shall replenish the store by toil of body and trouble of soul. No! others shall labour, but you shall reap the fruit of their labours; you shall withhold your hand from nought which shall bring you gain. For to all my followers I give authority and power to help themselves freely from every side.'

“Heracles hearing these words made answer: 'What, O lady, is the name you bear?' To which she: 'Know that my friends call me Happiness, but they that hate me have their own nicknames for me, Vice and Naughtiness.'

“But just then the other of those fair women approached and spoke: 'Heracles, I too am come to you, seeing that your parents are well known to me, and in your nurture I have gauged your nature; wherefore I entertain good hope that if you choose the path which leads to me, you shall greatly bestir yourself to be the doer of many a doughty deed of noble enterprise; and that I too shall be held in even higher honour for your sake, lit with the lustre shed by valorous deeds. I will not cheat you with preludings of pleasure, but I will relate to you the things that are according to the ordinances of God in very truth. Know then that among things that are lovely and of good report, not one have the gods bestowed upon mortal men apart from toil and pains. Would you obtain the favour of the gods, then must you pay these same gods service; would you be loved by your friends, you must benefit these friends; do you desire to be honoured by the state, you must give the state your aid; do you claim admiration for your virtue from all Hellas, you must strive to do some good to Hellas; do you wish earth to yield her fruits to you abundantly, to earth must you pay your court; do you seek to amass riches from your flocks and herds, on them must you bestow your labour; or is it your ambition to be potent as a warrior, able to save your friends and to subdue your foes, then must you learn the arts of war from those who have the knowledge, and practise their application in the field when learned; or would you e'en be powerful of limb and body, then must you habituate limbs and body to obey the mind, and exercise yourself with toil and sweat.'

“At this point, (as Prodicus relates) Vice broke in exclaiming: 'See you, Heracles, how hard and long the road is by which yonder woman would escort you to her festal joys. But I will guide you by a short and easy road to happiness.'

“Then spoke Virtue: 'Nay, wretched one, what good thing hast thou? or what sweet thing art thou acquainted with—that wilt stir neither hand nor foot to gain it? Thou, that mayest not even await the desire of pleasure, but, or ever that desire springs up, art already satiated; eating before thou hungerest, and drinking before thou thirsteth; who to eke out an appetite must invent an army of cooks and confectioners; and to whet thy thirst must lay down costliest wines, and run up and down in search of ice in summertime; to help thy slumbers soft coverlets suffice not, but couches and feather-beds must be prepared thee and rockers to rock thee to rest; since desire for sleep in thy case springs not from toil but from vacuity and nothing in the world to do. Even the natural appetite of love thou forcest prematurely by every means thou mayest devise, confounding the sexes in thy service. Thus thou educatest thy friends: with insult in the night season and drowse of slumber during the precious hours of the day. Immortal, thou art cast forth from the company of gods, and by good men art dishonoured: that sweetest sound of all, the voice of praise, has never thrilled thine ears; and the fairest of all fair visions is hidden from thine eyes that have never beheld one bounteous deed wrought by thine own hand. If thou openest thy lips in speech, who will believe thy word? If thou hast need of aught, none shall satisfy thee. What sane man will venture to join thy rablle rout? Ill indeed are thy revellers to look upon, young men impotent of body, and old men witless in mind: in the heyday of life they batten in sleek idleness, and wearily do they drag through an age of wrinkled wretchedness: and why? they blush with shame at the thought of deeds done in the past, and groan for weariness at what is left to do. During their youth they ran riot through their sweet things, and laid up for themselves large store of bitterness against the time of eld. But my companionship is with the gods; and with the good among men my conversation; no bounteous deed, divine or human, is wrought without my aid. Therefore am I honoured in Heaven pre-eminently, and upon earth among men whose right it is to honour me; as a beloved fellow-worker of all craftsmen; a faithful guardian of house and lands, whom the owners bless; a kindly helpmeet of servants; a brave assistant in the labours of peace; an unflinching ally in the deeds of war; a sharer in all friendships indispensable. To my friends is given an enjoyment of meats and drinks, which is sweet in itself and devoid of trouble, in that they can endure until desire ripens, and sleep more delicious visits them than those who toil not. Yet they are not pained to part with it; nor for the sake of slumber do they let slip the performance of their duties. Among my followers the youth delights in the praises of his elders, and the old man glories in the honour of the young; with joy they call to memory their deeds of old, and in to-day's well-doing are well pleased. For my sake they are dear in the sight of God, beloved of their friends and honoured by the country of their birth. When the appointed goal is reached they lie not down in oblivion with dishonour, but bloom afresh—their praise resounded on the lips of men forever. Toils like these, O son of noble parents, Heracles, it is yours to meet with, and having endured, to enter into the heritage assured you of transcendant happiness.'”

This, Aristippus, in rough sketch is the theme which Prodicus pursues in his “Education of Heracles by Virtue,” only he decked out his sentiments, I admit, in far more magnificent phrases than I have ventured on. Were it not well, Aristippus, to lay to heart these sayings, and to strive to bethink you somewhat of that which touches the future of our life?³⁰⁾

Xenophon, Memorabilia Book 3.8

Once when Aristippus set himself to subject Socrates to a cross-examination, such as he had himself undergone at the hands of Socrates on a former occasion, Socrates, being minded to benefit those who were with him, gave his answers less in the style of a debater guarding against perversions of his argument, than of a man persuaded of the supreme importance of right conduct.

Aristippus asked him “if he knew of anything good,” intending in case he assented and named any particular good thing, like food or drink, or wealth, or health, or strength, or courage, to point out that the thing named was sometimes bad. But he, knowing that if a thing troubles us, we immediately want that which will put an end to our trouble, answered precisely as it was best to do.

Soc. Do I understand you to ask me whether I know anything good for fever?

No (he replied), that is not my question.

Soc. Then for inflammation of the eyes?

Aristip. No, nor yet that.

Soc. Well then, for hunger?

Aristip. No, nor yet for hunger.

Well, but (answered Socrates) if you ask me whether I know of any good thing which is good for nothing, I neither know of it nor want to know.

And when Aristippus, returning to the charge, asked him “if he knew of anything beautiful.”

He answered: Yes, many things.

Aristip. Are they all like each other?

Soc. On the contrary, they are often as unlike as possible.

How then (he asked) can that be beautiful which is unlike the beautiful?

Soc. Bless me! for the simple reason that it is possible for a man who is a beautiful runner to be quite unlike another man who is a beautiful boxer, or for a shield, which is a beautiful weapon for the purpose of defence, to be absolutely unlike a javelin, which is a beautiful weapon of swift and sure discharge.

Aristip. Your answers are no better now than when I asked you whether you knew any good thing. They are both of a pattern.

Soc. And so they should be. Do you imagine that one thing is good and another beautiful? Do not you know that relatively to the same standard all things are at once beautiful and good? In the first place, virtue is not a good thing relatively to one standard and a beautiful thing relatively to another standard; and in the next place, human beings, on the same principle and relatively to the same standard, are called “beautiful and good”; and so the bodily frames of men relatively to the same standards are seen to be “beautiful and good,” and in general all things capable of being used by man are regarded as at once beautiful and good relatively to the same standard—the standing being in each case what the thing happens to be useful for.

Aristip. Then I presume even a basket for carrying dung is a beautiful thing?

Soc. To be sure, and a spear of gold an ugly thing, if for their respective uses—the former is well and the latter ill adapted.

Aristip. Do you mean to assert that the same things may be beautiful and ugly?

Soc. Yes, to be sure; and by the same showing things may be good and bad: as, for instance, what is good for hunger may be bad for fever, and what is good for fever bad for hunger; or again, what is beautiful for wrestling is often ugly for running; and in general everything is good and beautiful when well adapted for the end in view, bad and ugly when ill adapted for the same.

Similarly when he spoke about houses, and argued that “the same house must be at once beautiful and useful”—I could not help feeling that he was giving a good lesson on the problem: “how a house ought to be built.” He investigated the matter thus:

Soc. “Do you admit that any one purposing to build a perfect house will plan to make it at once as pleasant and as useful to live in as possible?” and that point being admitted, the next question would be:

“It is pleasant to have one's house cool in summer and warm in winter, is it not?” and this proposition also having obtained assent, “Now, supposing a house to have a southern aspect, sunshine during winter will steal in under the veranda, but in summer, when the sun traverses a path right over our heads, the roof will afford an agreeable shade, will it not? If, then, such an arrangement is desirable, the southern side of a house should be built higher to catch the rays of the winter sun, and the northern side lower to prevent the cold winds finding ingress; in a word, it is reasonable to suppose that the pleasantest and most beautiful dwelling place will be one in which the owner can at all seasons of the year find the pleasantest retreat, and stow away his goods with the greatest security.”

Paintings and ornamental mouldings are apt (he said) to deprive one of more joy than they confer.

The fittest place for a temple or an altar (he maintained) was some site visible from afar, and untrodden by foot of man: since it was a glad thing for the worshipper to lift up his eyes afar off and offer up his orison; glad also to wend his way peaceful to prayer unsullied.³¹⁾

Aristippus: Other Testimony

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.68,70,71,72,73,82-3

68. Diogenes, washing the dirt from his vegetables, saw him passing and jeered at him in these terms, “If you had learnt to make these your diet, you would not have paid court to kings,” to which his rejoinder was, “And if you knew how to associate with men, you would not be washing vegetables.” Being asked what he had gained from philosophy, he replied, “The ability to feel at ease in any society.” Being reproached for his extravagance, he said, “If it were wrong to be extravagant, it would not be in vogue at the festivals of the gods.”

70. Someone brought him a knotty problem with the request that he would untie the knot. “Why, you simpleton,” said he, “do you want it untied, seeing that it causes trouble enough as it is?” “It is better,” he said, “to be a beggar than to be uneducated; the one needs money, the others need to be humanized.” One day that he was reviled, he tried to slip away; the other pursued him, asking, “Why do you run away?” “Because,” said he, “as it is your privilege to use foul language, so it is my privilege not to listen.” In answer to one who remarked that he always saw philosophers at rich men's doors, he said, “So, too, physicians are in attendance on those who are sick, but no one for that reason would prefer being sick to being a physician.”

71. It happened once that he set sail for Corinth and, being overtaken by a storm, he was in great consternation. Someone said, “We plain men are not alarmed, and are you philosophers turned cowards?” To this he replied, “The lives at stake in the two cases are not comparable.”

72. He gave his daughter Arete the very best advice, training her up to despise excess. He was asked by someone in what way his son would be the better for being educated. He replied, “If nothing more than this, at all events, when in the theatre he will not sit down like a stone upon stone.”

73. Being asked on one occasion what is the difference between the wise man and the unwise, “Strip them both,” said he, “and send them among strangers and you will know.”

82-83. This is stated by Diocles in his work On the Lives of Philosophers; other writers refer the anecdotes to Plato. After getting in a rage with Aeschines, he presently addressed him thus: “Are we not to make it up and desist from vapouring, or will you wait for someone to reconcile us over the wine-bowl?” To which he replied, “Agreed.” “Then remember,” Aristippus went on, “that, though I am your senior, I made the first approaches.” Thereupon Aeschines said, “Well done, by Hera, you are quite right; you are a much better man than I am. For the quarrel was of my beginning, you make the first move to friendship.” Such are the repartees which are attributed to him.³²⁾

Plutarch, Concerning Anger 14

And Aristippus, when there happened to be a falling out between him and Aeschines, and one said to him, O Aristippus, what is now become of the friendship that was between you two? answered, It is asleep, but I will go and awaken it. Then coming to Aeschines, he said to him, What? do you take me to be so utterly wretched and incurable as not to be worth your admonition? No wonder, said Aeschines, if you, by nature so excelling me in everything, did here also discern before me what was right and fitting to be done.³³⁾

Plutarch, Sensibility in the Progress of Virtue 9

Aristippus was a great example of this; for when in a set disputation he was baffled by the sophistry and forehead of an impudent, wild, and ignorant disputant, and observed him to be flushed and high with the conquest; Well! says the philosopher, I am certain, I shall sleep quieter to-night than my antagonist.³⁴⁾

Aelian, Various Histories Book 9.20

Of Aristippus. Aristippus being in a great storm at Sea, one of those who were aboard with him said, “Are you afraid too, Aristippus, as well as we of the ordinary sort?” “Yes, answered he, and with reason; for you shall only lose a wicked life, but I, Happiness.”³⁵⁾

Relations of Aristippus: Doctrines and Persons

Arete: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Arete, daughter of Aristippus, the founder of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy. She was instructed by him in the principles of his system, which she transmitted to her son, Aristippus the “Mother-taught”, to whom Ritter ascribes the formal completion of the earlier Cyrenaic doctrine. We are told by Diogenes Laertius (ii. 72), that her father taught her contentment and moderation, both by precept and practice, and the same duties are insisted on in an epistle now extant, said to be addressed to her by him. This letter is certainly spurious, although Laertius mentions among the writings of Aristippus a “letter to his daughter Arete”. Whether the letter to which he refers was the same as that which we possess, is uncertain; but the fact that it was extant in his time would not prove its authenticity, Aelian (H. A. iii. 40) calls Arete the sister of Aristippus, but this assertion is opposed to the statement of all other writers; and, besides, the passage which contains it is corrupt (Diog. Laert. ii. 72, 86).³⁶⁾

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14.18

Among his other hearers was his own daughter Arete, who having borne a son named him Aristippus, and he from having been introduced by her to philosophical studies was called his mother's pupil. He quite plainly defined the end to be the life of pleasure, ranking as pleasure that which lies in motion. For he said that there are three states affecting our temperament: one, in which we feel pain, like a storm at sea; another, in which we feel pleasure, that may be likened to a gentle undulation, for pleasure is a gentle movement, comparable to a favourable breeze; and the third is an intermediate state, in which we feel neither pain nor pleasure, which is similar to a calm. So of these feelings only, he said, we have the sensation. Now against this sect the following objections have been urged (by Aristocles).³⁷⁾

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14.19

'Next in order will be those who say that the feelings alone are conceptional, and this was asserted by some of the Cyrenaics. For they, as if oppressed by a kind of torpor, maintained that they knew nothing at all unless someone standing by struck and pricked them; for when burned or cut, they said, they knew that they felt something, but whether what burned them was fire, or what cut them iron, they could not tell.

'Men then who talk thus one might immediately ask, whether they at all events know this that they suffer and feel something. For if they do not know, neither could they say that they know only the feeling: if on the other hand they know, the feelings cannot be the only things conceptional. For “I am being burned” was a statement, and not a feeling.³⁸⁾

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 15.62

These, then, were the opinions of Socrates. And next after him Aristippus of Cyrene, and then later Ariston of Chios, undertook to maintain that morals were the only proper subject of philosophy; for these inquiries were practicable and useful, but the discussions about nature were quite the contrary, neither being comprehensible, nor having any use, even if they were clearly understood.³⁹⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.81,85-93

81. Someone accused him of exposing his son as if it was not his offspring. Whereupon he replied, “Phlegm, too, and vermin we know to be of our own begetting, but for all that, because they are useless, we cast them as far from us as possible.”

85-93. Having written his life, let me now proceed to pass in review the philosophers of the Cyrenaic school which sprang from him, although some call themselves followers of Hegesias, others followers of Anniceris, others again of Theodorus. Not but what we shall notice further the pupils of Phaedo, the chief of whom were called the school of Eretria. The case stands thus. The disciples of Aristippus were his daughter Arete, Aethiops of Ptolemais, and Antipater of Cyrene. The pupil of Arete was Aristippus, who went by the name of mother-taught, and his pupil was Theodorus, known as the atheist, subsequently as “god.” Antipater's pupil was Epitimides of Cyrene, his was Paraebates, and he had as pupils Hegesias, the advocate of suicide, and Anniceris, who ransomed Plato.

Those then who adhered to the teaching of Aristippus and were known as Cyrenaics held the following opinions. They laid down that there are two states, pleasure and pain, the former a smooth, the latter a rough motion, and that pleasure does not differ from pleasure nor is one pleasure more pleasant than another. The one state is agreeable and the other repellent to all living things. However, the bodily pleasure which is the end is, according to Panaetius in his work On the Sects, not the settled pleasure following the removal of pains, or the sort of freedom from discomfort which Epicurus accepts and maintains to be the end. They also hold that there is a difference between “end” and “happiness.” Our end is particular pleasure, whereas happiness is the sum total of all particular pleasures, in which are included both past and future pleasures.

Particular pleasure is desirable for its own sake, whereas happiness is desirable not for its own sake but for the sake of particular pleasures. That pleasure is the end is proved by the fact that from our youth up we are instinctively attracted to it, and, when we obtain it, seek for nothing more, and shun nothing so much as its opposite, pain. Pleasure is good even if it proceed from the most unseemly conduct, as Hippobotus says in his work On the Sects. For even if the action be irregular, still, at any rate, the resultant pleasure is desirable for its own sake and is good. The removal of pain, however, which is put forward in Epicurus, seems to them not to be pleasure at all, any more than the absence of pleasure is pain. For both pleasure and pain they hold to consist in motion, whereas absence of pleasure like absence of pain is not motion, since painlessness is the condition of one who is, as it were, asleep. They assert that some people may fail to choose pleasure because their minds are perverted; not all mental pleasures and pains, however, are derived from bodily counterparts. For instance, we take disinterested delight in the prosperity of our country which is as real as our delight in our own prosperity. Nor again do they admit that pleasure is derived from the memory or expectation of good, which was a doctrine of Epicurus. For they assert that the movement affecting the mind is exhausted in course of time. Again they hold that pleasure is not derived from sight or from hearing alone. At all events, we listen with pleasure to imitation of mourning, while the reality causes pain. They gave the names of absence of pleasure and absence of pain to the intermediate conditions. However, they insist that bodily pleasures are far better than mental pleasures, and bodily pains far worse than mental pains, and that this is the reason why offenders are punished with the former. For they assumed pain to be more repellent, pleasure more congenial. For these reasons they paid more attention to the body than to the mind. Hence, although pleasure is in itself desirable, yet they hold that the things which are productive of certain pleasures are often of a painful nature, the very opposite of pleasure; so that to accumulate the pleasures which are productive of happiness appears to them a most irksome business.

They do not accept the doctrine that every wise man lives pleasantly and every fool painfully, but regard it as true for the most part only. It is sufficient even if we enjoy but each single pleasure as it comes. They say that prudence is a good, though desirable not in itself but on account of its consequences; that we make friends from interested motives, just as we cherish any part of the body so long as we have it; that some of the virtues are found even in the foolish; that bodily training contributes to the acquisition of virtue; that the sage will not give way to envy or love or superstition, since these weaknesses are due to mere empty opinion; he will, however, feel pain and fear, these being natural affections; and that wealth too is productive of pleasure, though not desirable for its own sake.

They affirm that mental affections can be known, but not the objects from which they come; and they abandoned the study of nature because of its apparent uncertainty, but fastened on logical inquiries because of their utility. But Meleager in his second book On Philosophical Opinions, and Clitomachus in his first book On the Sects, affirm that they maintain Dialectic as well as Physics to be useless, since, when one has learnt the theory of good and evil, it is possible to speak with propriety, to be free from superstition, and to escape the fear of death. They also held that nothing is just or honourable or base by nature, but only by convention and custom. Nevertheless the good man will be deterred from wrong-doing by the penalties imposed and the prejudices that it would arouse. Further that the wise man really exists. They allow progress to be attainable in philosophy as well as in other matters. They maintain that the pain of one man exceeds that of another, and that the senses are not always true and trustworthy.⁴⁰⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Epicurus 10.131-132

When we [Epicureans] say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual love, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul⁴¹⁾

Hegesias the "Death Persuader"

Hegesias: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Hegesias, a Cyrenaic philosopher, said by Diogenes Laertius (ii. 86, &c.) to have been the disciple of Paraebates. He was the fellow-student of Anniceris, from whom, however, he differed by presenting in its most hateful form the system which Anniceris softened and improved. He followed Aristippus in considering pleasure the object of man's desire; but, being probably of a morose and discontented turn of mind, the view which he took of human life was of the gloomiest character, and his practical inferences from the Cyrenaic principles were destructive alike to goodness and happiness. The latter he said could not be the aim of man, because it is not attainable, and therefore concluded that the wise man's only object should be to free himself from inconvenience, thereby reducing the whole of human life to mere sensual pleasure. Since, too, every man is sufficient to himself, all external goods were rejected as not being true sources of pleasure, and therefore all the domestic and benevolent affections. Hence the sage ought to regard nothing but himself; action is quite indifferent; and if action, so also is life, which, therefore, is in no way more desirable than death. This statement is, however, less strong than that of Cicero (Tusc. i. 34), who tells us that Hegesias wrote a book called Death by Starvation, in which a man who has resolved to starve himself is introduced as representing to his friends that death is actually more to be desired than life, and that the gloomy descriptions of human misery which this work contained were so overpowering, that they drove many persons to commit suicide, in consequence of which the author received the surname of Peisithanatos, “Death Persuader”. This book was published at Alexandria, where he was, in consequence, forbidden to teach by king Ptolemy. The date of Hegesias is unknown, though Ritter thinks that he was contemporaneous with Epicurus.⁴²⁾

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.34.83-84

If, then, our inquiry is after truth, death withdraws us from evil, not from good. This subject is indeed so copiously handled by Hegesias, the Cyrenaic philosopher, that he is said to have been forbidden by Ptolemy from delivering his lectures in the schools, because some who heard him made away with themselves. There is, too, an epigram of Callimachus on Cleombrotus of Ambracia, who, without any misfortune having befallen him, as he says, threw himself from a wall into the sea, after he had read a book of Plato’s. The book I mentioned of that Hegesias is called A Man who Starves Himself, in which a man is represented as killing himself by starvation, till he is prevented by his friends, in reply to whom he reckons up all the miseries of human life. I might do the same, though not so fully as he, who thinks it not worth any man’s while to live. I pass over others. Was it even worth my while to live, for, had I died before I was deprived of the comforts of my own family, and of the honors which I received for my public services, would not death have taken me from the evils of life rather than from its blessings?⁴³⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.93-96

The school of Hegesias, as it is called, adopted the same ends, namely pleasure and pain. In their view there is no such thing as gratitude or friendship or beneficence, because it is not for themselves that we choose to do these things but simply from motives of interest, apart from which such conduct is nowhere found. They denied the possibility of happiness, for the body is infected with much suffering, while the soul shares in the sufferings of the body and is a prey to disturbance, and fortune often disappoints. From all this it follows that happiness cannot be realized. Moreover, life and death are each desirable in turn. But that there is anything naturally pleasant or unpleasant they deny; when some men are pleased and others pained by the same objects, this is owing to the lack or rarity or surfeit of such objects. Poverty and riches have no relevance to pleasure; for neither the rich nor the poor as such have any special share in pleasure. Slavery and freedom, nobility and low birth, honour and dishonour, are alike indifferent in a calculation of pleasure. To the fool life is advantageous, while to the wise it is a matter of indifference. The wise man will be guided in all he does by his own interests, for there is none other whom he regards as equally deserving. For supposing him to reap the greatest advantages from another, they would not be equal to what he contributes himself. They also disallow the claims of the senses, because they do not lead to accurate knowledge. Whatever appears rational should be done. They affirmed that allowance should be made for errors, for no man errs voluntarily, but under constraint of some suffering; that we should not hate men, but rather teach them better. The wise man will not have so much advantage over others in the choice of goods as in the avoidance of evils, making it his end to live without pain of body or mind. This then, they say, is the advantage accruing to those who make no distinction between any of the objects which produce pleasure.⁴⁴⁾

Plutarch, On Natural Affection for Offspring 5

But this natural affection, like many other good qualities in men, may be choked and obscured by vices; as when a wild forest is sown with garden-seeds. Can we say that man loves not himself, because some hang themselves, others break their own necks, Oedipus put out his own eyes, and Hegesias, by his disputation, persuaded many of his auditors to pine themselves to death?⁴⁵⁾

Anniceris and His School

Anniceris: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Anniceris, a Cyrenaic philosopher, of whom the ancients have left us very vague and contradictory accounts. He is said to have ransomed Plato for 20 minae from Dionysius of Syracuse (Diog. Laert. ii. 86); but we read, on the other hand, that he was a disciple of Paraebates, whose succession from Aristippus in the order of discipleship was as follows :—Aristippus, Arete, Aristippus the younger, Antipater, Epitimedes, Paraebates. Plato, however, was contemporary with the first Aristippus, and therefore one of the above accounts of Anniceris must be false. Hence Menage on Laertius (I. c.) and Kuster on Suidas (s. v.} have supposed that there were two philosophers of the name of Anniceris, the one contemporary with Plato, the other with Alexander the Great. If so, the latter is the one of whose system some notices have reached us, and who forms a link between the Cyrenaic and Epicurean schools. He was opposed to Epicurus in two points: (1) he denied that pleasure was merely the absence of pain, for if so death would be a pleasure; and (2) he attributed to every separate act a distinct object, maintaining that there was no general end of human life. In both these statements he reasserted the principle of Aristippus. But he differed from Aristippus, inasmuch as he allowed that friendship, patriotism, and similar virtues, were good in themselves; saying that the wise man will derive pleasure from such qualities, even though they cause him occasional trouble, and that a friend should be closer not only for our own need, but for kindness and natural affection. Again he denied that reason alone can secure us from error, maintaining that habit was also necessary.⁴⁶⁾

Suda, Alpha 2466

Anniceris: A Cyrenean, a philosopher, who became an Epicurean despite being an acquaintance of Paraebatus, the student of Aristippus. Anniceris also had a brother by the name of Nicoteles, [sc. also] a philosopher, and his student [was the] famous Posidonius. The sect called Annicerean [sc. originates] from him. He lived at the time of Alexander [sc. the Great].⁴⁷⁾

Suda, Pi 1707

Plato: A certain Libyan named Anniceris bought him [Plato] and released him.⁴⁸⁾

Strabo, Geography 17.3

Remarkable persons of Cyrene were Aristippus, the Socratic philosopher, who established the Cyrenaïc philosophy, and his daughter named Arete, who succeeded to his school; she again was succeeded by her son Aristippus, who was called Metrodidactos, (mother-taught,) and Anniceris, who is supposed to have reformed the Cyrenaic sect, and to have introduced in its stead the Anniceric sect.⁴⁹⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.96-97

96-97. The school of Anniceris in other respects agreed with them, but admitted that friendship and gratitude and respect for parents do exist in real life, and that a good man will sometimes act out of patriotic motives. Hence, if the wise man receive annoyance, he will be none the less happy even if few pleasures accrue to him. The happiness of a friend is not in itself desirable, for it is not felt by his neighbour. Instruction is not sufficient in itself to inspire us with confidence and to make us rise superior to the opinion of the multitude. Habits must be formed because of the bad disposition which has grown up in us from the first. A friend should be cherished not merely for his utility – for, if that fails, we should then no longer associate with him – but for the good feeling for the sake of which we shall even endure hardships. Nay, though we make pleasure the end and are annoyed when deprived of it, we shall nevertheless cheerfully endure this because of our love to our friend.⁵⁰⁾

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 2.21

Diotimus declared the end to be perfection of what is good, which he said was termed well-being. Again, Antisthenes, that it was humility. And those called Annicereans, of the Cyrenaic succession, laid down no definite end for the whole of life; but said that to each action belonged, as its proper end, the pleasure accruing from the action. These Cyrenaics reject Epicurus' definition of pleasure, that is the removal of pain, calling that the condition of a dead man; because we rejoice not only on account of pleasures, but companionships and distinctions; while Epicurus thinks that all joy of the soul arises from previous sensations of the flesh.⁵¹⁾

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 4.38

For it is the mind which is entertained by what we see; but the mind may be entertained in many ways, even though we could not see at all. I am speaking of a learned and a wise man, with whom to think is to live. But thinking in the case of a wise man does not altogether require the use of his eyes in his investigations; for if night does not strip him of his happiness, why should blindness, which resembles night, have that effect? For the reply of Antipater the Cyrenaic to some women who bewailed his being blind, though it is a little too obscene, is not without its significance. “What do you mean?” saith he; “do you think the night can furnish no pleasure?”. [Antipater is in the line to Anniceris].⁵²⁾

Theodoros the Atheist

Theodorus the Atheist: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Theodorus, a philosopher of the Cyrenaic school, to one branch of which he gave the name of “Theodorians”. He is usually designated by ancient writers atheus, the Atheist, a name for which that of theus was afterwards substituted. He was apparently a native of Cyrene (comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 103), and was a disciple of the younger Aristippus (ib. ii. 86), who was grandson of the elder (Suidas, s. v. Aristippus) and more celebrated Aristippus, by his daughter Arete. Theodore belonged to the age of Alexander and his successors, a circumstance which, as well as the opposite character of his opinions, distinguishes him from the subject of the preceding notice. He heard the lectures of a number of philosophers beside Aristippus; as Anniceris, and Dionysius the dialectician (Laert. ii. 98), Zeno of Citium, Bryson, and Pyrrhon; but not Crates, as Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 189) has from a hasty and inaccurate interpretation of a passage in Diogenes Laertius (iv. 23) erroneously stated. Nor could he have been, as Suidas states a hearer of Socrates. He was banished from Cyrene, but on what occasion is not stated (Laert. ii. 103) ; and it is from the saying recorded of him on this occasion, ”Ye men of Cyrene, ye do ill in banishing me from Cyrene to Greece ” (ib.), as well as from his being a disciple of Aristippus, that we infer that he was a native of Cyrene. Of his subsequent history we have no connected account; but unconnected anecdotes of him show that he was at Athens, where he narrowly escaped being cited before the court of Areiopagus. The influence, however, of Demetrius Phalereus shielded him (ib. ii. 101) ; and this incident may therefore probably be placed during Demetrius' ten years' administration at Athens, b.c. 317 —307. As Theodore was banished from Athens, and was afterwards in the service of Ptolemy son of Lagus, first king of the Macedonian dynasty in Egypt, it is not unlikely that he shared the overthrow and exile of Demetrius. The account of Amphicrates cited by Laertius (ii. 101), that he was condemned to drink hemlock and so died, is doubtless an error. While in the service of Ptolemy, Theodore was sent on an embassy to Lysimachus, whom he offended by the freedom of his remarks. One answer which he made to a threat of crucifixion which Lysimachus had used, has been celebrated by many ancient writers: — “Employ such threats to those courtiers of yours; for it matters not to Theodore whether he rots on the ground or in the air.” From the court or camp of Lysimachus he returned apparently to that of Ptolemy (Diog. Laert. ii. 102). We read also of his going to Corinth with a number of his disciples (ibid.): but this was perhaps only a transient visit during his residence at Athens. He returned at length to Cyrene, and lived there, says Diogenes Laertius (ii. 103), with Marius. This Roman name is very questionable; and Grantmesnil not improbably conjectures that we should read Magas, who was stepson of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, and ruled over Cyrene for fifty years (from 308 BC to 258 BC), either as viceroy or king. The account of Laertius leads to the inference that Theodore ended his days at Cyrene. Athenaeus (xiii. p. 611, a) states that he died a violent death, but this is probably only a repetition of the erroneous statement of Amphicrates already noticed. Various characteristic anecdotes of Theodore are preserved by the ancients, from which he appears to have been a man of keen and ready wit, unrestrained either by fear or a sense of decency.

It has been already noticed that Theodore was the founder of that branch of the Cyrenaic sect which was called after him “Theodorei”, “Theodoreans.” The general characteristics of the Cyrenaic philosophy are described elsewhere. The opinions of Theodore, as we gather them from the perplexed statement of Diogenes Laertius (ii. 98, foil.) partook of the lax character of the Cyrenaic school. He taught that the great end of human life is to obtain joy and avoid grief, the one the fruit of prudence, the other of folly; that prudence and justice are good, their opposites evil; that pleasure and pain are indifferent. He made light of friendship and patriotism, and affirmed that the world was his country. He taught that there was nothing really disgraceful in theft, adultery, or sacrilege; but that they were branded only by public opinion, which had been formed in order to restrain fools. But the great charge against him was atheism. He did away with all opinions respecting the Gods,” says Laertius (ib.), but some critics doubt whether he was absolutely an atheist, or simply denied the existence of the deities of popular belief. The charge of atheism is sustained by the popular designation of Theodoras ”Atheus,” by the authority of Cicero (de Nat. Deor. i. 1), Laertius, Plutarch (De Placit. Philos. i. 7), Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii.), and some of the Christian Fathers; while some other authorities speak of him as only rejecting the popular theology. Theodore wrote a book “Concerning God”, De Diis which Laertius who had seen it, says (ii. 97) was not to be disdained; and he adds that it was said to have been the source of many of the statements or arguments of Epicurus. According to Suidas he wrote many works both on the doctrines of his sect and on other subjects.⁵³⁾

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.97-104

97-104. The Theodoreans derived their name from Theodorus, who has already been mentioned, and adopted his doctrines. Theodorus was a man who utterly rejected the current belief in the gods. And I have come across a book of his entitled Of the Gods which is not contemptible. From that book, they say, Epicurus borrowed most of what he wrote on the subject.

Theodorus was also a pupil of Anniceris and of Dionysius the dialectician, as Antisthenes mentions in his Successions of Philosophers. He considered joy and grief to be the supreme good and evil, the one brought about by wisdom, the other by folly. Wisdom and justice he called goods, and their opposites evils, pleasure and pain being intermediate to good and evil. Friendship he rejected because it did not exist between the unwise nor between the wise; with the former, when the want is removed, the friendship disappears, whereas the wise are self-sufficient and have no need of friends. It was reasonable, as he thought, for the good man not to risk his life in the defence of his country, for he would never throw wisdom away to benefit the unwise.

He said the world was his country. Theft, adultery, and sacrilege would be allowable upon occasion, since none of these acts is by nature base, if once you have removed the prejudice against them, which is kept up in order to hold the foolish multitude together. The wise man would indulge his passions openly without the least regard to circumstances. Hence he would use such arguments as this. “Is a woman who is skilled in grammar useful in so far as she is skilled in grammar?” “Yes.” “And is a boy or a youth skilled in grammar useful in so far as he is skilled in grammar?” “Yes.”

“Again, is a woman who is beautiful useful in so far as she is beautiful? And the use of beauty is to be enjoyed?” “Yes.” When this was admitted, he would press the argument to the conclusion, namely, that he who uses anything for the purpose for which it is useful does no wrong. And by some such interrogatories he would carry his point.

He appears to have been called Theos (god) in consequence of the following argument addressed to him by Stilpo. “Are you, Theodorus, what you declare yourself to be?” To this he assented, and Stilpo continued, “And do you say you are god?” To this he agreed. “Then it follows that you are god.” Theodorus accepted this, and Stilpo said with a smile, “But, you rascal, at this rate you would allow yourself to be a jackdaw and ten thousand other things.”

However, Theodorus, sitting on one occasion beside Euryclides, the hierophant, began, “Tell me, Euryclides, who they are who violate the mysteries?” Euryclides replied, “Those who disclose them to the uninitiated.” “Then you violate them,” said Theodorus, “when you explain them to the uninitiated.” Yet he would hardly have escaped from being brought before the Areopagus if Demetrius of Phalerum had not rescued him. And Amphicrates in his book Upon Illustrious Men says he was condemned to drink the hemlock.

For a while he stayed at the court of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, and was once sent by him as ambassador to Lysimachus. And on this occasion his language was so bold that Lysimachus said, “Tell me, are you not the Theodorus who was banished from Athens?” To which he replied, “Your information is correct, for, when Athens could not bear me any more than Semele could Dionysus, she cast me out.” And upon Lysimachus adding, “Take care you do not come here again,” “I never will,” said he, “unless Ptolemy sends me.” Mithras, the king's minister, standing by and saying, “It seems that you can ignore not only gods but kings as well,” Theodorus replied, “How can you say that I ignore the gods when I regard you as hateful to the gods?” He is said on one occasion in Corinth to have walked abroad with a numerous train of pupils, and Metrocles the Cynic, who was washing chervil, remarked, “You, sophist that you are, would not have wanted all these pupils if you had washed vegetables.” Thereupon Theodorus retorted, “And you, if you had known how to associate with men, would have had no use for these vegetables.”

A similar anecdote is told of Diogenes and Aristippus, as mentioned above. Such was the character of Theodorus and his surroundings. At last he retired to Cyrene, where he lived with Magas and continued to be held in high honour. The first time that he was expelled from Cyrene he is credited with a witty remark: “Many thanks, men of Cyrene,” said he, “for driving me from Libya into Greece.” Some twenty persons have borne the name of Theodorus: (1) a Samian, the son of Rhoecus. He it was who advised laying charcoal embers under the foundations of the temple in Ephesus; for, as the ground was very damp, the ashes, being free from woody fibre, would retain a solidity which is actually proof against moisture. (2) A Cyrenaean geometer, whose lectures Plato attended. (3) The philosopher above referred to. (4) The author of a fine work on practising the voice. (5) An authority upon musical composers from Terpander onwards. (6) A Stoic. (7) A writer upon the Romans. (8) A Syracusan who wrote upon Tactics. (9) A Byzantine, famous for his political speeches. (10) Another, equally famous, mentioned by Aristotle in his Epitome of Orators. (11) A Theban sculptor. (12) A painter, mentioned by Polemo. (13) An Athenian painter, of whom Menodotus writes. (14) An Ephesian painter, who is mentioned by Theophanes in his work upon painting. (15) A poet who wrote epigrams. (16) A writer on poets. (17) A physician, pupil of Athenaeus. (18) A Stoic philosopher of Chios. (19) A Milesian, also a Stoic philosopher, (20) A tragic poet. ⁵⁴⁾

Philo, That Every Good Man Shall Be Free 127-130

It is said that Theodorus, who was surnamed the Atheist, when he was banished from Athens, and had come to the court of Lysimachus, when one of those in power there reproached him with his banishment, mentioning the cause of it too, namely, that he had been expelled because he had been condemned for atheism and for corrupting the youth, replied, “I have not been banished, but the same thing has befallen me which befell Hercules, the son of Jupiter; for he also was put ashore by the Argonauts, without having done anything wrong, but only because as he himself was both crew and ballast enough for a vessel, so that he burdened the ship, and caused fear to his fellow voyagers lest the vessel should become water-logged; and I too have been driven from my country because the bulk of the citizens at Athens were unable to keep pace with the loftiness and greatness of my mind, and therefore I was envied by them.” And when, after this reply, Lysimachus asked him, “Were you also banished from your native land through envy?” he replied a second time, “Not indeed through envy, but because of the exceedingly high qualities of my nature, which my country could not contain; for as when Semele, at the time that she was pregnant with Bacchus, was unable to bear her offspring until the appointed time for her delivery, Jupiter pitied her, and saved from the flames the offspring which she bore in her womb, being as yet imperfect, and granted it equal honours with the heavenly deities, so also some deity, or some god, has made me leave my country by reason of its being too narrow to contain the ample burden of a philosophic mind, and decided on transporting me to a place more fortunate than Athens, and settling me there.”⁵⁵⁾

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.43

What, then, have we not reason to admire Theodorus the Cyrenean, a philosopher of no small distinction, who, when Lysimachus threatened to crucify him, bade him keep those menaces for his courtiers? “To Theodorus it makes no difference whether he rot in the air or underground.”⁵⁶⁾

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.40

Theodorus said to Lysimachus, who threatened him with death, “It is a great matter, indeed, for you to have acquired the power of a Spanish fly!”⁵⁷⁾

Seneca, On Tranquillity of the Mind 14.3

A tyrant was threatening the philosopher Theodorus with death and even with lack of burial: “You have the right,” he replied, “to please yourself, you have within your power only a half pint of my blood; for as to burial, you are a fool if you think it makes any difference to me whether I rot above ground or beneath it.”⁵⁸⁾

Plutarch, On Exile 16

But the last and greatest absurdity is that banishment should deprive the exile of free speech: it is astonishing if Theodorus was without free speech, the man who, when King Lysimachus said to him: “Did your country cast out a man of your qualities?” replied: “Yes I was too much for it, as Dionysus was for Semelê.” And when the king showed him Telesphorus in a cage, his eyes gouged out, and said: “To this plight I bring those who injure me,” Theodorus replied: “What cares Theodorus whether he rots above the ground or under it?”⁵⁹⁾

Plutarch, Life of Phocion 38

This son of his, we are told, was in general of an indifferent character, and once when enamoured of a slave girl kept by a common harlot merchant, happened to hear Theodorus, the atheist, arguing in the Lyceum, that if it were a good and honourable thing to buy the freedom of a friend in the masculine, why not also of a friend in the feminine, if, for example, a master, why not also a mistress? So putting the good argument and his passion together, he went off and purchased the girl's freedom.⁶⁰⁾

Dionysius the Renegade

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Dionysius 7.166-167

Dionysius, the Renegade, declared that pleasure was the end of action; this under the trying circumstance of an attack of ophthalmia. For so violent was his suffering that he could not bring himself to call pain a thing indifferent.

He was the son of Theophantus and a native of Heraclea. At first, as Diocles relates, he was a pupil of his fellow-townsman, Heraclides, next of Alexinus and Menedemus, and lastly of Zeno.

At the outset of his career he was fond of literature and tried his hand at all kinds of poetry; afterwards he took Aratus for his model, whom he strove to imitate. When he fell away from Zeno, he went over to the Cyrenaics, and used to frequent houses of ill fame and indulge in all other excesses without disguise. After living till he was nearly eighty years of age, he committed suicide by starving himself.

The following works are attributed to him:

Of Apathy, two books

On Training, two books.

Of Pleasure, four books.

Of Wealth, Popularity and Revenge.

How to Live amongst Men.

Of Prosperity.

Of Ancient Kings.

Of those who are Praised.

Of the Customs of Barbarians.

These three, then, are the heterodox Stoics. The legitimate successor to Zeno, however, was Cleanthes: of whom we have now to speak.⁶¹⁾

Euhemerus

In the ancient skeptic philosophical tradition of Theodorus of Cyrene and the Cyrenaics, Euhemerus forged a new method of interpretation for the contemporary religious beliefs. Though his work is lost, the reputation of Euhemerus was that he believed that much of Greek mythology could be interpreted as natural or historical events subsequently given supernatural characteristics through retelling. Subsequently Euhemerus was considered to be an atheist by his opponents, most notably Callimachus.⁶²⁾

Euhemerus: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Euhemerus. A Greek writer, who flourished about 300 b.c. Under the title of Hera Anagraphe, or Sacred History, he wrote a work which purported to explain the whole mythology, on the theory of the apotheosis of men who by their bravery and cleverness had deserved well of mankind. Zeus, for instance, his kinsfolk and children, he represented as in reality an ancient family of Cretan kings. To prove his assertion he appealed to a representation of the whole primitive history of the world, from the time of Uranus onwards, given on a golden pillar in the temple of Zeus on the island of Panchaea. This, he said, he had discovered in the neighbourhood of India, when sailing round the coast of Arabia on the commission of king Cassander. The work of Euhemerus, of which only fragments now remain, was well known in Rome, where it was translated and adapted by Ennius. The method of rationalizing or analysing mythology into the history of human kings, heroes and adventurers, is called Euhemerism, after its founder.⁶³⁾

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 5.41-46

41. But now that we have described the lands which lie to the west and those which extend toward the north, and also the islands in the ocean, we shall in turn discuss the islands in the ocean to the south which lie off that portion of Arabia which extends to the east and borders upon the country known as Cedrosia. Arabia contains many villages and notable cities, which in some cases are situated upon great mounds and in other instances are built upon hillocks or in plains; and the largest cities have royal residences of costly construction, possessing a multitude of inhabitants and ample estates. And the entire land of the Arabians abounds with domestic animals of every description, and it bears fruits as well and provides no lack of pasturage for the fatted animals; and many rivers flow through the land and irrigate a great portion of it, thus contributing to the full maturing of the fruits. Consequently that part of Arabia which holds the chief place for its fertility has received a name appropriate to it, being called Arabia the Blest.

On the farthest bounds of Arabia the Blest, where the ocean washes it, there lie opposite it a number of islands, of which there are three which merit a mention in history, one of them bearing the name Hiera or Sacred, on which it is not allowed to bury the dead, and another lying near it, seven stades distant, to which they take the bodies of the dead whom they see fit to inter. Now Hiera has no share in any other fruit, but it produces frankincense in such abundance as to suffice for the honours paid to the gods throughout the entire inhabited world; and it possesses also an exceptional quantity of myrrh and every variety of all the other kinds of incense of highly fragrant odour. The nature of frankincense and the preparing of it is like this: In size it is a small tree, and in appearance it resembles the white Egyptian Acacia, its leaves are like those of the willow, as it is called, the bloom it bears is in colour like gold, and the frankincense which comes from it oozes forth in drops like tears. But the myrrh-tree is like the mastich-tree, although its leaves are more slender and grow thicker. It oozes myrrh when the earth is dug away from the roots, and if it is planted in fertile soil this takes place twice a year, in spring and in summer; the myrrh of the spring is red, because of the dew, but that of the summer is white. They also gather the fruit of the Christ's thorn, which they use both for meat and for drink and as a drug for the cure of dysentery.

42. The land of Hiera is divided among its inhabitants, and the king takes for himself the best land and likewise a tithe of the fruits which the island produces. The width of the island is reputed to be about two hundred stades. And the inhabitants of the island are known as Panchaeans, and these men take the frankincense and myrrh across to the mainland and sell it to Arab merchants, from whom others in turn purchase wares of this kind and convey them to Phoenician and Coelesyria and Egypt, and in the end merchants convey them from these countries throughout all the inhabited world. And there is yet another large island, thirty stades distant from the one we have mentioned, lying out in the ocean to the east and many stades in length; for men say that from its promontory which extends toward the east one can descry India, misty because of its great distance.

As for Panchaea itself, the island possesses many things which are deserving to be recorded by history. It is inhabited by men who were sprung from the soil itself, called Panchaeans, and the foreigners there are Oceanites and Indians and Scythians and Cretans. There is also a notable city on the island, called Panara, which enjoys unusual felicity; its citizens are called “suppliants of Zeus Triphylius,” and they are the only inhabitants of the land of Panchaea who live under laws of their own making and have no king over them. Each year they elect three chief magistrates; these men have no authority over capital crimes, but render judgment in all any other matters; and the weightiest affairs they refer of their own accord to the priests.

Some sixty stades distant from the city of Panara is the temple of Zeus Triphylius, which lies out on a level plain and is especially admired for its antiquity, the costliness of its construction, and its favourable situation.

43. Thus, the plain lying around the temple is thickly covered with trees of every kind, not only such as bear fruit, but those also which possess the power of pleasing the eye; for the plain abounds with cypresses of enormous size and plane-trees and sweet-bay and myrtle, since the region is full of springs of water. Indeed, close to the sacred precinct there bursts forth from the earth a spring of sweet water of such size that it gives rise to a river on which boats may sail. And since the water is led off from the river to many parts of the plain and irrigates them, throughout the entire area of the plain there grow continuous forests of lofty trees, wherein a multitude of men pass their time in the summer season and a multitude of birds make their nests, birds of every kind and of various hues, which greatly delight the ear by their song; therein also is every kind of garden and many meadows with varied plants and flowers, so that there is a divine majesty in the prospect which makes the place appear worthy of the gods of the country. And there were palm trees there with mighty trunks, conspicuous for the fruits they bore, and many varieties of nut-bearing trees, which provide the natives of the place with the most abundant subsistence. And in addition to what we have mentioned, grape-vines were found there in great number and of every variety, which were trained to climb high and were variously intertwined so that they presented a pleasing sight and provided an enjoyment of the season without further ado.

44. The temple was a striking structure of white marble, two plethra in length and the width proportionate to the length; it was supported by large thick columns and decorated at intervals with reliefs of ingenious design; and there were also remarkable statues of the gods, exceptional in skill of execution and admired by men for their massiveness. Around about the temple the priests who served the gods had their dwellings, and the management of everything pertaining to the sacred precinct was in their hands. Leading from the temple an avenue had been constructed, four stades in length and a plethrum in width. On each side of the avenue are great bronze vessels which rest upon square bases, and at the end of the avenue the river we mentioned above has its sources, which pour forth in a turbulent stream. The water of the stream is exceedingly clear and sweet and the use of it is most conducive to the health of the body; and the river bears the name “Water of the Sun.” The entire spring is surrounded by an expensive stone quay, which extends along each side of it four stades, and no man except the priests may set foot upon the place up to the edge of the quay. The plain lying below the temple has been made sacred to the gods, for a distance of two hundred stades, and the revenues which are derived from it are used to support the sacrifices.

Beyond the above-mentioned plain there is a lofty mountain which has been made sacred to the gods and is called the “Throne of Uranus” and also “Triphylian Olympus.” For the myth relates that in ancient times, when Uranus was king of the inhabited earth, he took pleasure in tarrying in that place and in surveying from its lofty top both the heavens and the stars therein, and that at a later time it came to be called Triphylian Olympus because the men who dwelt about it were composed of three peoples; these, namely, were known as Panchaeans, Oceanites, and Doians, who were expelled at a later time by Ammon. For Ammon, men say, not only drove this nation into exile but also totally destroyed their cities, razing to the ground both Doia and Asterusia. And once a year, we are told, the priests hold a sacrifice in this mountain with great solemnity.

45. Beyond this mountain and throughout the rest of the land of Panchaeitis, the account continues, there is found a multitude of beasts of every description; for the land possesses many elephants and lions and leopards and gazelles and an unusual number of other wild animals which differ in their aspect and are of marvellous ferocity. This island also contains three notable cities, Hyracia, Dalis, and Oceanis. The whole country, moreover, is fruitful and possesses in particular a multitude of vines of every variety. The men are warlike and use chariots in battle after the ancient manner.

The entire body politic of the Panchaeans is divided into three castes: The first caste among them is that of the priests, to whom are assigned the artisans, the second consists of the farmers, and the third is that of the soldiers, to whom are added the herdsmen. The priests served as the leaders in all things, rendering the decisions in legal disputes and possessing the final authority in all other affairs which concerned the community; and the farmers, who are engaged in the tilling of the soil, bring the fruits into the common store, and the man among them who is thought to have practised the best farming receives a special reward when the fruits are portioned out, the priests deciding who had been first, who second, and so in order to the tenth, this being done in order to spur on the rest. In the same manner the herdsmen also turn both the sacrificial animals and all others into the treasury of the state with all precision, some by number and some by weight. For, speaking generally, there is not a thing except a home and a garden which a man may possess for his own, but all the products and the revenues are taken over by the priests, who portion out with justice to each man his share, and to the priests alone is given two-fold.

The clothing of the Panchaeans is soft, because the wool of the sheep of the land is distinguished above all other for its softness; and they wear ornaments of gold, not only the women but the men as well, with collars of twisted gold about their necks, bracelets on their wrists, and rings hanging from their ears after the manner of the Persians. The same kind of shoes are worn by both sexes, and they are worked in more varied colours than is usual.

46. The soldiers receive a pay which is apportioned to them and in return protect the land by means of forts and posts fixed at intervals; for there is one section of the country which is infested with robber bands, composed of bold and lawless men who lie in wait for the farmer and war upon them. And as for the priests, they far excel the rest in luxury and in every other refinement and elegance of their manner of life; so, for instance, their robes are of linen and exceptionally sheer and soft, and at times they wear garments woven of the softest wool; furthermore, their headdress is interwoven with gold, their footgear consists of sandals which are of varied colours and ingeniously worked, and they wear the same gold ornaments as do the women, with the exception of the earrings. The first duties of the priests concerned with the services paid to the gods and with the hymns and praises which are accorded them, and in them they recite in song the achievements of the gods one after another and the benefactions they have bestowed upon mankind. According to the myth which the priests give, the gods had their origin in Crete, and were led by Zeus to Panchaea at the time when he sojourned among men and was king of the inhabited earth. In proof of this they cite their language, pointing out that most of the things they have about them still retain their Cretan names; and they add that the kinship which they have with the Cretans and the kindly regard they feel toward them are traditions they received from their ancestors, since this report is ever handed down from one generation to another. And it has been their practice, in corroboration of these claims, to point to inscriptions which, they said, were made by Zeus during the time he still sojourned among men and founded the temple.

The land possesses rich mines of gold, silver, copper, tin, and iron, but none of these metals is allowed to be taken from the island; nor may the priests for any reason whatsoever set foot outside of the hallowed land, and if one of them does so, whoever meets him is authorized to slay him. There are many great dedications of gold and of silver which have been made to the gods, since time has amassed the multitude of such offerings. The doorways of the temple are objects of wonder in their construction, being worked in silver and gold and ivory and citrus-wood. And there is the couch of the god, which is six cubits long and four wide and is entirely of gold and skillfully constructed in every detail of its workmanship. Similar to it both in size and in costliness in general is the table of the god which stands near the couch. And on the centre of the couch stands a large gold stele which carries letters which the Egyptians call sacred, and the inscription recounts the deeds both of Uranus and of Zeus; and to them there were added by Hermes the deeds also of Artemis and of Apollo.

As regards the islands, then, which lie in the ocean opposite Arabia, we shall rest content with what has been said.⁶⁴⁾

Diodorus Siculus, Epitome of Library of History 6.1

1. The foregoing is told by Diodorus in the Third Book of his history. And the same writer, in the sixth Book as well, confirms the same view regarding the gods, drawing from the writing of Euhemerus of Messenê, and using the following words:

“As regards the gods, then, men of ancient times have handed down to later generations two different conceptions: Certain of the gods, they say, are eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and moon and the other stars of the heavens, and the winds as well and whatever else possesses a nature similar to theirs; for of each of these the genesis and duration are from everlasting to everlasting. But the other gods, we are told, were terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour and fame because of their benefactions to mankind, such as Heracles, Dionysus, Aristaeus, and the others who were like them. Regarding these terrestrial gods many and varying accounts have been handed down by the writers of history and mythology; of the historians, Euhemerus, who composed the Sacred History, has written a special treatise about them, while, of the writers of myths, Homer and Hesiod and Orpheus and the others of their kind have invented rather monstrous stories about the gods. But for our part, we shall endeavour to run over briefly the accounts which both groups of writers have given, aiming at due proportion in our exposition.

“Now Euhemerus, who was a friend of King Cassander and was required by him to perform certain affairs of state and to make great journeys abroad, says that he travelled southward as far as the ocean; for setting sail from Arabia the Blest he voyaged through the ocean for a considerable number of days and was carried to the shore of some islands in the sea, one of which bore the name of Panchaea. On this island he saw the Panchaeans who dwell there, who excel in piety and honour the gods with the most magnificent sacrifices and with remarkable votive offerings of silver and of gold. The island is sacred to the gods, and there are a number of other objects on it which are admired both for their antiquity and for the great skill of their workmanship, regarding which severally we have written in the preceding Books. There is also on the island, situated upon an exceedingly high hill, a sanctuary of Zeus Triphylius, which was established by him during the time when he was king of all the inhabited world and was still in the company of men. And in this temple there is a stele of gold on which is inscribed in summary, in the writing employed by the Panchaeans, the deeds of Uranus and Cronus and Zeus.

“Euhemerus goes on to say that Uranus was the first to be king, that he was an honourable man and beneficent, who was versed in the movement of the stars, and that he was also the first to honour the gods of the heavens with sacrifices, whence he was called Uranus or “Heaven.” There were born to him by his wife Hestia two sons, Titan and Cronus, and two daughters, Rhea and Demeter. Cronus became king after Uranus, and marrying Rhea he begat Zeus and Hera and Poseidon. And Zeus, on succeeding to the kingship, married Hera and Demeter and Themis, and by them he had children, the Curetes by the first named, Persephonê by the second, and Athena by the third. And going to Babylon he was entertained by Belus, and after that he went to the island of Panchaea, which lies in the ocean, and here he set up an altar to Uranus, the founder of his family. From there he passed through Syria and came to Casius, who was ruler of Syria at that time, and who gave his name to Mt. Casius. And coming to Cilicia he conquered in battle Cilix, the governor of the region, and he visited very many other nations, all of which paid honour to him and publicly proclaimed him a god.”

After recounting what I have given and more to the same effect about the gods, as if about mortal men, Diodorus goes on to say: “Now regarding Euhemerus, who composed the Sacred History, we shall rest content with what has been said, and shall endeavour to run over briefly the myths which the Greeks recount concerning the gods, as they are given by Hesiod and Homer and Orpheus.” Thereupon Diodorus goes on to add the myths as the poets give them.⁶⁵⁾

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 2.2

These the Greeks also are said to borrow. So Diodorus writes in the third volume of his histories: and in the sixth, the same author confirms the same theology from the writings of Euhemerus the Messenian, speaking word for word as follows:

'With regard then to gods the men of old have handed down to their posterity two sets of notions. For some, say they, are eternal and imperishable, as the Sun and Moon and the other heavenly bodies, and besides these the winds, and the rest who partake of the like nature with them; for each of these has an eternal origin and eternal continuance. Other deities they say were of the earth; but, because of the benefits which they conferred on mankind, they have received immortal honour and glory, as Heracles, Dionysus, Aristaeus, and the others like them.

'Concerning the terrestrial gods many various tales have been handed down in the historical and mythological writers. Among the historians Euhemerus, the author of the Sacred Record, has written a special history; and of the mythologists Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, and such others as these, have invented very marvellous myths concerning the gods: and we shall endeavour to run over what both classes have recorded concisely and with a view to due proportion.

'Euemerus, then, was a friend of King Cassander and, having boon constrained for his sake to perform some important services for the king, and some long journeys, says that he was carried away southwards into the ocean; for, having started on his voyage from Arabia Felix, he sailed many days across the ocean, and landed on some oceanic islands, one of which is that called Panchaea, in which he saw the Panchaean inhabitants, who were eminent in piety, and honoured the gods with most magnificent sacrifices and notable offerings of silver and gold.

'The island also was sacred to the gods; and there were many other things to be admired both for their antiquity, and for the ingenuity of their manufacture, the particulars concerning which we have recorded in the books preceding this.

'Also therein on a certain exceedingly high hill is a temple of Zeus Triphylius, erected by himself at the time when he reigned over the whole inhabited world, being still among men. In this temple there is a golden pillar, on which is inscribed in the Panchaean language a summary of the acts of Uranus, Kronos, and Zeus.

'After this he says that Uranus was the first king, a gentle and benevolent man, and learned in the motion of the stars, who also was the first to honour the celestial deities with sacrifices, on which account he was called Uranus.

'By his wife Ilestia he had sons Pan and Kronos, and daughters Rhea and Demeter: and after Uranus, Kronos became king and, having married Rhea, begat Zeus and Hera and Poseidon.' And Zeus, having succeeded to the kingdom of Kronos, married Hera and Demeter and Themis, of whom he begat children, of the first the Curetes, of the second Persephone, and of the third Athena.

'And when he had come to Babylon he was entertained as a guest by Belus: and afterwards on arriving at the island Panchaea, which lay by the ocean, he built an altar to his own grandfather Uranus: and thence he came through Syria to the sovereign of that time Casius, of whom mount Casius is named; and came into Cilicia and conquered in war Cilix the ruler of the country; and visited very many other nations and was honoured among all, and was proclaimed a god.'

After narrating these and similar tales concerning the gods as if they were mortal men, he further says:

'With regard to Euhemerus who composed the Sacred Record, we will be satisfied with what has been said; but the legends of the Greeks concerning the gods we will try to run over briefly, following Hesiod and Homer and Orpheus.'

Then he appends in order the mythologies of the poets. Let it suffice us, however, to have made these extracts from the theology of the Greeks, to which it is reasonable to append an account of the initiatory rites in the inner shrines of the same deities, and of their secret mysteries, and to observe whether they bear any becoming mark of a theology that is truly divine, or arise from regions below out of long daemoniacal delusion, and are deserving of ridicule, or rather of shame, and yet more of pity for those who are still blinded. These matters are unveiled in plain terms by the admirable Clement, in his Exhortation to the Greeks, a man who had gone through experience of all, but had quickly emerged from the delusion as one who had been rescued from evil by the word of salvation and through the teaching of the Gospel. Listen, then, to a brief statement of these matters also.⁶⁶⁾

Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 1.62

Euhemerus, whom our Ennius translated, and followed more than other authors, has particularly advanced this doctrine, and treated of the deaths and burials of the Gods; can he, then, be said to have confirmed religion, or, rather, to have totally subverted it?⁶⁷⁾

Polybius via Strabo Id. II.4.1-3

But Polybius says it is far better to believe the Messenian Euhemerus than Pytheas, for Euhemerus says that he sailed only to one country, Panchaia, but Pytheas says that he personally visited the whole northern coast of Europe as far as the ends of the world, a thing we would not even believe of Hermes himself if he told us so. Eratosthenes, however, he says, calls Euhemerus a Bergaean, but believes Pytheas whom not even Dicaearchus believed.⁶⁸⁾

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 1.14

What the Sacred History of Euhemerus and Ennius Teaches Concerning the Gods.

Now, since the sacred history differs in some degree from those things which we have related, let us open those things which are contained in the true writings, that we may not, in accusing superstitions, appear to follow and approve of the follies of the poets. These are the words of Ennius: “Afterwards Saturn married Ops. Titan, who was older than Saturn, demands the kingdom for himself. Upon this their mother Vesta, and their sisters Ceres and Ops, advise Saturn not to give up the kingdom to his brother. Then Titan, who was inferior in person to Saturn, on that account, and because he saw that his mother and sisters were using their endeavours that Saturn might reign, yielded the kingdom to him. He therefore made an agreement with Saturn, that if any male children should be born to him, he would not bring them up. He did so for this purpose, that the kingdom might return to his own sons. Then, when a son was first born to Saturn, they slew him. Afterwards twins were born, Jupiter and Juno. Upon this they present Juno to the sight of Saturn, and secretly hide Jupiter, and give him to Vesta to be brought up, concealing him from Saturn. Ops also brings forth Neptune without the knowledge of Saturn, and secretly hides him. In the same manner Ops brings forth twins by a third birth, Pluto and Glauca. Pluto in Latin is Dispater; others call him Orcus. Upon this they show to Saturn the daughter Glauca, and conceal and hide the son Pluto. Then Glauca dies while yet young.” This is the lineage of Jupiter and his brothers, as these things are written, and the relationship is handed down to us after this manner from the sacred narrative. Also shortly afterwards he introduces these things: “Then Titan, when he learned that sons were born to Saturn, and secretly brought up, secretly takes with him his sons, who are called Titans, and seizes his brother Saturn and Ops, and encloses them within a wall, and places over them a guard.”

The truth of this history is taught by the Erythraean Sibyl, who speaks almost the same things, with a few discrepancies, which do not affect the subject-matter itself. Therefore Jupiter is freed from the charge of the greatest wickedness, according to which he is reported to have bound his father with fetters; for this was the deed of his uncle Titan, because he, contrary to his promise and oath, had brought up male children. The rest of the history is thus put together. It is said that Jupiter, when grown up, having heard that his father and mother had been surrounded with a guard and imprisoned, came with a great multitude of Cretans, and conquered Titan and his sons in an engagement, and rescued his parents from imprisonment, restored the kingdom to his father, and thus returned into Crete. Then, after these things, they say that an oracle was given to Saturn, bidding him to take heed lest his son should expel him from the kingdom; that he, for the sake of weakening the oracle and avoiding the danger, laid an ambush for Jupiter to kill him; that Jupiter, having learned the plot, claimed the kingdom for himself afresh, and banished Saturn; and that he, when he had been tossed over all lands, followed by armed men whom Jupiter had sent to seize or put him to death, scarcely found a place of concealment in Italy.⁶⁹⁾

Augustine, City of God 6.7

Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus, who, not with the garrulity of a fable-teller, but with the gravity of an historian who had diligently investigated the matter, wrote that all such gods had been men and mortals?⁷⁰⁾

Augustine, Sermon on the Mount 32

But was that Euhemerus also a poet, who declares both Jupiter himself, and his father Saturn, and Pluto and Neptune his brothers, to have been men, in terms so exceedingly plain that their worshippers ought all the more to render thanks to the poets, because their inventions have not been intended so much to disparage them as rather to dress them up? Albeit Cicero mentions that this same Euhemerus was translated into Latin by the poet Ennius.⁷¹⁾

Cyrenaic Doctrines

Doctrines from Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

We shall now give a short view of the leading doctrines of the earlier Cyrenaic school in general, though it is not to be understood that the system was wholly or even chiefly drawn up by the elder Aristippus; but, as it is impossible from the loss of contemporary documents to separate the parts which belong to each of the Cyrenaic philosophers, it is better here to combine them all. From the fact pointed out by Hitter, that Aristotle chooses Eudoxus rather than Aristippus as the representative of the doctrine that Pleasure is the summum bonum (Eth. Nic. x. 2), it seems probable that but little of the Cyrenaic system is due to the founder of the school.

The Cyrenaics despised Physics, and limited their inquiries to Ethics, though they included under that term a much wider range of science than can fairly be reckoned as belonging to it. So, too, Aristotle accuses Aristippus of neglecting mathematics, as a study not concerned with good and evil, which, he said, are the objects even of the carpenter and tanner. (Metaphys. ii. 2.) They divided Philosophy into five parts, viz. the study of (1) Objects of Desire and Aversion, (2) Feelings and Affections, (3) Actions, (4) Causes, (5) Proofs. Of these (4) is clearly connected with Physics, and (5) with Logic.

The first of the five divisions of science is the only one in which the Cyrenaic view is connected with the Socratic. Socrates considered happiness (i.e. the enjoyment of a well-ordered mind) to be the aim of all men, and Aristippus, taking up this position, pronounced pleasure the chief good, and pain the chief evil; in proof of which he referred to the natural feelings of men, children, and animals; but he wished the mind to preserve its authority in the midst of pleasure. Desire he could not admit into his system, as it subjects men to hope and fear: the telos of human life was momentary pleasure. For the Present only is ours, the Past is gone, and the Future uncertain; present happiness therefore is to be sought, and not eudaimonia, which is only the sum of a number of happy states, just as he considered life in general the sum of particular states of the soul. In this point the Cyrenaics were opposed to the Epicureans. All pleasures were held equal, though they might admit of a difference in the degree of their purity. So that a man ought never to covet more than he possesses, and should never allow himself to be overcome by sensual enjoyment. It is plain that, even with these concessions, the Cyrenaic system destroys all moral unity, by proposing to a man as many separate tele as his life contains moments.
The next point is to determine what is pleasure and what pain. Both are positive, i. e. pleasure is not the gratification of a want, nor does the absence of pleasure equal pain. The absence of either is a mere negative inactive state, and both pleasure and pain are motions of the soul. Pain was deemed to be a violent, pleasure a moderate motion,—the first being compared to the sea in a storm, the second to the sea under a light breeze, the intermediate state of no-pleasure and no-pain to a calm—a simile not quite apposite, since a calm is not the middle state between a storm and a gentle breeze. In this denial of pleasure as a state of rest, we find Aristippus again opposed to Epicurus.
Actions are in themselves, morally indifferent, the only question for us to consider being their result; and law and custom are the only authorities which make an action good or bad. This monstrous dogma was a little qualified by the statement, that the advantages of injustice are slight; but we cannot agree with Brucker, that it is not clear whether the Cyrenaics meant the law of nature or of men. Whatever conduces to pleasure, is virtue—a definition which of course includes bodily exercise; but they seem to have conceded to Socrates, that the mind has the greatest share in virtue. We are told that they preferred bodily to mental pleasure; but this statement must be qualified, as they did not even confine their pleasures to selfish gratification, but admitted the welfare of the state as a legitimate source of happiness, and bodily pleasure itself they valued for the sake of the mental state resulting from it.
There is no universality in human conceptions; the senses are the only avenues of knowledge, and even these admit a very limited range of information. For the Cyrenaics said, that men could agree neither in judgments nor notions, in nothing, in fact, but names. We have all certain sensations, which we call white or sweet; but whether the sensation which A calls white is similar to that which B calls by that name, we cannot tell; for by the common term white every man denotes a distinct object. Of the causes which produce these sensations we are quite ignorant; and from all this we come to the doctrine of modern philological metaphysics, that truth is what each man troweth. All states of mind are motions; nothing exists but states of mind, and they are not the same to all men. True wisdom consists therefore in transforming disagreeable into agreeable sensations.
As to the Cyrenaic doctrine of proofs, no evidence remains.

In many of these opinions we recognize the happy, careless, selfish disposition which characterized their author; and the system resembles in most points those of Heracleitus and Protagoras, as given in Plato's Theaetetus. The doctrines that a subject only knows objects through the prism of the impression which he receives, and that man is the measure of all things, are stated or implied in the Cyrenaic system, and lead at once to the consequence, that what we call reality is appearance; so that the whole fabric of human knowledge becomes a fantastic picture. The principle on which all this rests, viz. that knowledge is sensation, is the foundation of Locked modern ideology, though he did not perceive its connexion with the consequences to which it led the Cyrenaics. To revive these was reserved for Hume.⁷²⁾

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.13

Do you, then, think that it can befall a wise man to be oppressed with grief, that is to say, with misery? for, as all perturbation is misery, grief is the rack itself. Lust is attended with heat, exulting joy with levity, fear with meanness, but grief with something greater than these; it consumes, torments, afflicts, and disgraces a man; it tears him, preys upon his mind, and utterly destroys him: if we do not so divest ourselves of it as to throw it completely off, we cannot be free from misery. And it is clear that there must be grief where anything has the appearance of a present sore and oppressing evil. Epicurus is of opinion that grief arises naturally from the imagination of any evil; so that whosoever is eyewitness of any great misfortune, if he conceives that the like may possibly befall himself, becomes sad instantly from such an idea. The Cyrenaics think that grief is not engendered by every kind of evil, but only by unexpected, unforeseen evil; and that circumstance is, indeed, of no small effect on the heightening of grief; for whatsoever comes of a sudden appears more formidable. Hence these lines are deservedly commended:

I knew my son, when first he drew his breath,

Destined by fate to an untimely death;

And when I sent him to defend the Greeks,

War was his business, not your sportive freaks.⁷³⁾

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.22

What remains is the opinion of the Cyrenaics, who think that men grieve when anything happens unexpectedly. And that is indeed, as I said before, a great aggravation of a misfortune; and I know that it appeared so to Chrysippus—“Whatever falls out unexpected is so much the heavier.” But the whole question does not turn on this; though the sudden approach of an enemy sometimes occasions more confusion than it would if you had expected him, and a sudden storm at sea throws the sailors into a greater fright than one which they have foreseen; and it is the same in many other cases. But when you carefully consider the nature of what was expected, you will find nothing more than that all things which come on a sudden appear greater; and this upon two accounts: first of all, because you have not time to consider how great the accident is; and, secondly, because you are probably persuaded that you could have guarded against it had you foreseen if, and therefore the misfortune, having been seemingly encountered by your own fault, makes your grief the greater. That it is so, time evinces; which, as it advances, brings with it so much mitigation that though the same misfortunes continue, the grief not only becomes the less, but in some cases is entirely removed. Many Carthaginians were slaves at Rome, and many Macedonians, when Perseus their king was taken prisoner. I saw, too, when I was a young man, some Corinthians in the Peloponnesus. They might all have lamented with Andromache,

All these I saw……;

but they had perhaps given over lamenting themselves, for by their countenances, and speech, and other gestures you might have taken them for Argives or Sicyonians. And I myself was more concerned at the ruined walls of Corinth than the Corinthians themselves were, whose minds by frequent reflection and time had become callous to such sights. I have read a book of Clitomachus, which he sent to his fellow-citizens who were prisoners, to comfort them after the destruction of Carthage. There is in it a treatise written by Carneades, which, as Clitomachus says, he had inserted into his book; the subject was, “That it appeared probable that a wise man would grieve at the state of subjection of his country,” and all the arguments which Carneades used against this proposition are set down in the book. There the philosopher applies such a strong medicine to a fresh grief as would be quite unnecessary in one of any continuance; nor, if this very book had been sent to the captives some years after, would it have found any wounds to cure, but only scars; for grief, by a gentle progress and slow degrees, wears away imperceptibly. Not that the circumstances which gave rise to it are altered, or can be, but that custom teaches what reason should—that those things which before seemed to be of some consequence are of no such great importance, after all.⁷⁴⁾

Plutarch, Against Colotes 24

But he who has so often employed his pen against Socrates, Plato, and Parmenides, evidently demonstrates that it is through cowardice he dares not attack the living, and not for any modesty or reverence, of which he showed not the least sign to those who were far more excellent than these. But his meaning is, as I suspect, to assault the Cyrenaics first, and afterwards the Academics, who are followers of Arcesilaus. For it was these who doubted of all things; but those, placing the passions and imaginations in themselves, were of opinion that the belief proceeding from them is not sufficient for the assuring and affirming of things; but, as if it were in the siege of a town, abandoning what is without, they have shut themselves up in the passions, using only it seems, and not asserting it is, of things without. And therefore they cannot, as Colotes says of them, live or have the use of things. And then speaking comically of them, he adds: ‘These deny that there is a man, a horse, a wall; but say that they themselves (as it were) become walls, horses, men,’ or ‘are impressed with the images of walls, horses, or men.’ In which he first maliciously abuses the terms, as calumniators are usually wont to do. For though these things follow from the sayings of the Cyrenaics, yet he ought to have declared the fact as they themselves teach it. For they affirm that things then become sweet, bitter, lightsome, or dark, when each thing has in itself the natural unhindered efficacy of one of these impressions. But if honey is said to be sweet, an olive-branch bitter, hail cold, wine hot, and the nocturnal air dark, there are many beasts, things, and men that testify the contrary. For some have an aversion for honey, others feed on the branches of the olive-tree; some are scorched by hail, others cooled with wine; and there are some whose sight is dim in the sun but who see well by night. Wherefore opinion, containing itself within these impressions, remains safe and free from error; but when it goes forth and attempts to be curious in judging and pronouncing concerning exterior things, it often deceives itself, and opposes others, who from the same objects receive contrary impressions and different imaginations.⁷⁵⁾

Plutarch, Table Talk 2

It is unpleasant to see a sick man, or one that is at his last gasp; yet with content we can look upon the picture of Philoctetes, or the statue of Jocasta, in whose face it is commonly said that the workmen mixed silver, so that the brass might represent the face and color of one ready to faint and yield up the ghost. And this, said I, the Cyrenaics may use as a strong argument against you Epicureans, that all the sense of pleasure which arises from the working of any object on the ear or eye is not in those organs, but in the intellect itself. Thus the continual cackling of a hen or cawing of a crow is very ungrateful and disturbing; yet he that imitates those noises well pleases the hearers. Thus to behold a consumptive man is no delightful spectacle; yet with pleasure we can view the pictures and statues of such persons, because the very imitating hath something in it very agreeable to the mind, which allures and captivates its faculties. For upon what account, for God's sake, from what external impression upon our organ, should men be moved to admire Parmeno's sow so much as to pass it into a proverb? Yet it is reported, that Parmeno being very famous for imitating the grunting of a pig, some endeavored to rival and outdo him. And when the hearers, being prejudiced, cried out, Very well indeed, but nothing comparable to Parmeno's sow; one took a pig under his arm and came upon the stage. And when, though they heard the very pig, they still continued, This is nothing comparable to Parmeno's sow; he threw his pig amongst them, to show that they judged according to opinion and not truth. And hence it is very evident, that like motions of the sense do not always raise like affections in the mind, when there is not an opinion that the thing done was not neatly and ingeniously performed.⁷⁶⁾

Plutarch, It is Impossible to Live Pleasantly in the Manner of Epicurus 4

See now how much more temperate the Cyrenaics are, who, though they have drunk out of the same bottle with Epicurus, yet will not allow men so much as to practise their amours by candle-light, but only under the covert of the dark, for fear seeing should fasten too quick an impression of the images of such actions upon the fancy and thereby too frequently inflame the desire.⁷⁷⁾

Cicero, On Ends, Book 1

He lays the very greatest stress upon that which, as he declares, Nature herself decrees and sanctions, that is the feelings of pleasure and pain. These he maintains lie at the root of every act of choice and of avoidance. This is the doctrine of Aristippus, and it is upheld more cogently and more frankly by the Cyrenaics; but nevertheless it is in my judgment a doctrine in the last degree unworthy of the dignity of man. Nature, in my own opinion at all events, has created and endowed us for higher ends.

11. Yet at Athens, so my father used to tell me when he wanted to air his wit at the expense of the Stoics, in the Ceramicus there is actually a statue of Chrysippus seated and holding out one hand, the gesture being intended to indicate the delight which he used to take in the following little syllogism: 'Does your hand want anything, while it is in its present condition?' Answer: 'No, nothing.' — 'But if pleasure were a good, it would want pleasure.' — 'Yes, I suppose it would.' — 'Therefore pleasure is not a good.' An argument, as my father declared, which not even a statue would employ, if a statue could speak; because though it is cogent enough as an objection to the Cyrenaics, it does not touch Epicurus.⁷⁸⁾

This chapter appears to be an unintelligent transcript of a summary of the Epicurean answers to the following Cyrenaic criticisms: (1) pleasure is sometimes rejected, owing to mental perversion, (2) all pleasure is not bodily, (3) bodily pleasures are stronger than mental ones, (4) absence of pain is not pleasure, (5) memory and anticipation of pleasure are not real pleasures.

18. “The doctrine thus firmly established has corollaries which I will briefly expound. (1) The Ends of Goods and Evils themselves, that is, pleasure and pain, are not open to mistake; where people go wrong is in not knowing what things are productive of pleasure and pain. (2) Again, we aver that mental pleasures and pains arise out of bodily ones (and therefore I allow your contention that any Epicureans who think otherwise put themselves out of court; and I am aware that many do, though not those who can speak with authority); but although men do experience mental pleasure that is agreeable and mental pain that is annoying, yet both of these we assert arise out of and are based upon bodily sensations. (3) Yet we maintain that this does not preclude mental pleasures and pains from being much more intense than those of the body; since the body can feel only what is present to it at the moment, whereas the mind is also cognizant of the past and of the future. For granting that pain of body is equally painful, yet our sensation of pain can be enormously increased by the belief that some evil of unlimited magnitude and duration threatens to befall us hereafter. And the same consideration may be transferred to pleasure: a pleasure is greater if not accompanied by any appreciation of evil. This therefore clearly appears, that intense mental pleasure or distress contributes more to our happiness or misery than a bodily pleasure or pain of equal duration. (4) But we do not agree that when pleasure is withdrawn uneasiness at once ensues, unless the pleasure happens to have been replaced by a pain: while on the other hand one is glad to lose a pain even though no active sensation of pleasure comes in its place: a fact that serves to show how great a pleasure is the mere absence of pain. (5) But just as we are elated by the anticipation of good things, so we are delighted by their recollection. Fools are tormented by the memory of former evils; wise men have the delight of renewing in graceful remembrance the blessings of the past. We have the power both to obliterate our misfortunes in an almost perpetual forgetfulness and to summon up pleasant and agreeable memories of our successes. But when we fix our mental vision closely on the events of the past, then sorrow or gladness ensues according as these were evil or good.⁷⁹⁾

Cicero, On Ends, Book 2

39. “Guided by the authority of Reason I will now adopt a similar procedure myself. As far as possible I will narrow the issue, and will assume that all the simple theories, of those who include no admixture of virtue, are to be eliminated from philosophy altogether. First among these comes the system of Aristippus and the Cyrenaic school in general, who did not shrink from finding their Chief Good in pleasure of the sort that excites the highest amount of actively agreeable sensation, and who despised your freedom from pain.

40. They failed to see that just as the horse is designed by nature for running, the ox for ploughing, and the dog for hunting, so man, as Aristotle observes, is born for two purposes, thought and action: he is as it were a mortal God. The Cyrenaics held on the contrary that this godlike animal came into being, like some dull, half-witted sheep, in order to feed and to enjoy the pleasure of procreation, — a view that seems to me the climax of absurdity.

41. So much in answer to Aristippus, who considers pleasure in the only sense in which we all of us employ the term to be not merely the highest but the sole pleasure that exists. Your school holds a different view. However, as I said, Aristippus is wrong. Neither man's bodily conformation nor his surpassing mental faculty of reason indicates that he was born for the sole purpose of enjoying pleasure. Nor yet can we listen to Hieronymus, whose Chief Good is the same as is occasionally, or rather only too frequently, upheld by yourselves, freedom from pain. If pain is an evil, to be without this evil is no

t enough to constitute the Good Life. Let Ennius say if he likes that

Enough, and more, of good Is his who hath no ill;

but let us reckon happiness not by the avoidance of evil but by the attainment of good. Let us seek it not in the idle acceptance whether of positive delights, like Aristippus, or of freedom from pain, like Hieronymus, but in a life of action or of contemplation.⁸⁰⁾

Cicero, On Ends, Book 3

Can anything be expedient, then, which is contrary to such a chorus of virtues? And yet the Cyrenaics, adherents of the school of Aristippus, and the philosophers who bear the name of Annicerians find all good to consist in pleasure and consider virtue praiseworthy only because it is productive of pleasure. Now that these schools are out of date, Epicurus has come into vogue — an advocate and supporter of practically the same doctrine. Against such a philosophy we must fight it out “with horse and foot,” as the saying is, if our purpose is to defend and maintain our standard of moral rectitude.⁸¹⁾

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 7c

Aristoxenus, the Cyrenaic philosopher, practised literally the system of philosophy which arose in his country, and from him a kind of ham specially prepared is called Aristoxenus; in his excess of luxury he used to water the lettuce in his garden at evening with wine and honey, and taking them up in the morning used to say that they were blanched cakes produced by the earth for him.⁸²⁾

Endnotes

MLA (7^th Edition)

¹⁾

Turner, William. “Cyrenaic School of Philosophy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 15 Nov. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04591a.htm>.

²⁾ , ³⁶⁾ , ⁴²⁾ , ⁴⁶⁾ , ⁵³⁾ , ⁶³⁾ , ⁷²⁾

Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1867. Internet resource.

³⁾

Lucian, , H W. Fowler, and F G. Fowler. The Works of Lucian of Samosata: Complete with Exceptions Specified in the Preface. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. Print. 1905. http://lucianofsamosata.info/

⁴⁾ , ⁵⁾ , ⁶⁾

Horace. A. S. Kline, Epistles. <http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Horacehome.htm.>

⁷⁾

“Aristippus.” Suda On Line. Tr. Jennifer Benedict. 31 July 2001. 15 November 2015. <http://www.stoa.org/sol-entries/alpha/3908>.

⁸⁾

“Aristippus.” Suda On Line. Tr. Jennifer Benedict. 31 March 2002. 15 November 2015. <http://www.stoa.org/sol-entries/alpha/3909>.

⁹⁾ , ¹⁵⁾ , ¹⁹⁾ , ²³⁾ , ²⁶⁾ , ²⁹⁾ , ³²⁾ , ⁴⁰⁾ , ⁴¹⁾ , ⁴⁴⁾ , ⁵⁰⁾ , ⁵⁴⁾ , ⁶¹⁾

Diogenes Laertius. Hicks, Robert D. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. New York: Harvard U. Press, 1925. Print.

¹⁰⁾ , ³⁵⁾

Aelian, Claudius, and Thomas Stanley. Claudius Ælianus His Various History. London: Printed for Thomas Dring, 1665. Print.

¹¹⁾ , ¹⁶⁾ , ²⁴⁾ , ²⁸⁾ , ⁸²⁾

Athenaeus, , and Charles D. Yonge. The Deipnosophists: Or, Banquet of the Learned of Athenaeus. London: H.G. Bohn, 1853. Print.

¹²⁾ , ³⁷⁾ , ³⁸⁾ , ³⁹⁾ , ⁶⁶⁾

Eusebius, , and Edwin H. Gifford. Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri Xv: Ad Codices Manuscriptos. Oxonii: E Typographeo academico, 1903. Print.

¹³⁾

¹⁴⁾ , ²¹⁾ , ²²⁾ , ²⁵⁾ , ³³⁾ , ³⁴⁾ , ⁴⁵⁾ , ⁷⁵⁾ , ⁷⁶⁾ , ⁷⁷⁾

Plutarch, , William W. Goodwin, and Ralph W. Emerson. Plutarch's Morals. Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1878. Print.

¹⁷⁾

Seneca, Lucius A, and Aubrey Stewart. L. Annaeus Seneca on Benefits: Addressed to Aebutius Liberalis. London: George Bell & Sons, 1887. Print.

¹⁸⁾ , ⁵¹⁾

Clement. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson. Ante-nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.d. 325. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1882. Print.

²⁰⁾

Vitruvius Pollio; Morris Hicky Morgan, Ed. Books on Architecture. Morris Hicky Morgan, Ed. Harvard University Press: 1914.

²⁷⁾

Plutarch, , and Bernadotte Perrin. Plutarch's Lives. London: W. Heinemann, 1914. Print.

³⁰⁾ , ³¹⁾

Xenophon, ; H. G. Dakyns. The Memorabilia Recollections of Socrates. Gutenberg Release Date: August 24, 2008. < http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1177/old/mmrbi10.txt>.

⁴³⁾ , ⁵²⁾ , ⁵⁶⁾ , ⁵⁷⁾ , ⁷³⁾ , ⁷⁴⁾

Cicero, ; C. D. Yonge. Tusculan Disputations.New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877. Print.

⁴⁷⁾

“Plato.” Suda On Line. Tr. Oliver Phillips. 3 February 2003. 15 November 2015. <http://www.stoa.org/sol-entries/pi/1707>.

⁴⁸⁾

“Anniceris.” Suda On Line. Tr. Jennifer Benedict. 6 July 2000. 15 November 2015. <http://www.stoa.org/sol-entries/alpha/2466>.

⁴⁹⁾

Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. London: George Bell & Sons, 1903. Print.

⁵⁵⁾

Philo, ; Charles Duke Yonge. The Works of Philo Judaeus. London, H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890. Print.

⁵⁸⁾

Seneca, Lucius A, and John W. Basore. Moral Essays. London: W. Heinemann, 1928. Print.

⁵⁹⁾

Plutarch, . Plutarch's Moralia. London: Loeb Classical Library, 1959. Print.

⁶⁰⁾

Plutarch, , John Dryden, and Arthur H. Clough. Plutarch's Lives of Illustrious Men: Corrected from the Greek and Revised. Boston: Little, Brown, 1876. Print.

⁶²⁾

Various. Wikipedia. Entry: “Euhemerus”. //https:%%//%%en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus// Accessed: November 15, 2015.

⁶⁴⁾ , ⁶⁵⁾

Diodore, de S, and Charles H. Oldfather. Diodorus of Sicily: Iii. London: William Heinemann, 1939. Print.

⁶⁷⁾

Cicero, ; C. D. Yonge. On the Nature of the Gods. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877. Print.

⁶⁸⁾

Polybius, , Ludwig A. Dindorf, Theodor Büttner-Wobst, W R. Paton, Polybius, and Polybius. The Histories. , 1922. Print.

⁶⁹⁾

Lactantius, , Venantius H. C. Fortunatus, and William Fletcher. The Works of Lactantius. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871. Internet resource.

⁷⁰⁾ , ⁷¹⁾

Augustine, , and Philip Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Vol. 2. New York: Christian literature Co, 1887. Print.

⁷⁸⁾ , ⁷⁹⁾ , ⁸⁰⁾ , ⁸¹⁾

Cicero, Marcus T, and H Rackham. De Finibus Bonorum Et Malorum. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1931. Print.

Table of Contents

PlayGround

The Cyrenaics Handbook

Table of Contents

Introduction

Author Disclaimer

Cyrenaic Genealogy

Cyrenaic Resources

Aristippus Overview

Aristippus: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Satirical & Poetical Interpretation of Aristippus

Lucian, Sale of Creeds 12

Horace, Satire 2.3.82-110

Horace, Epistles 1.1.1-19

Horace, Epistles 1.17.1-32

Aristippus in the Suda

Suda, Alpha 3908

Suda, Alpha 3909

Aristippus: Synopsis

Diogenes Laertius, 2.65-66, 2.83-85

Aelian, Various Histories Book 14.6

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae Book 12

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14.18

Socratic Aristippus

Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.11

Plutarch, On Curiosity 2

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.68,71,72,74,76,79,80

Aristippus: Opulence

Athenaeus, Book 8

Seneca, On Benefits 7.25

Clement of Alexandria, Pedogogy 2.8

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.66,68,75,76,77

Aristippus: Examining Wealth and Fortune

Vitruvius, On Architecture 6.1.1-2

Plutarch, On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander the Great 8

Plutarch, On Tranquility of the Mind 8

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.67,73,77

Aristippus: Examining Sexuality

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae Book 13

Plutarch, On Love 4

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.67,69,74,75

Aristippus: Tyrant Dionysius

Plutarch, Life of Dion 19.7

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae Book 12 544.c-d

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.67,69,70,73,75,77-78,79,80,81,82

Aristippus: Xenophon's Testimony

Xenophon, Memorabilia Book 2.1

Xenophon, Memorabilia Book 3.8

Aristippus: Other Testimony

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.68,70,71,72,73,82-3

Plutarch, Concerning Anger 14

Plutarch, Sensibility in the Progress of Virtue 9

Aelian, Various Histories Book 9.20

Relations of Aristippus: Doctrines and Persons

Arete: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14.18

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14.19

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 15.62

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.81,85-93

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Epicurus 10.131-132

Hegesias the "Death Persuader"

Hegesias: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.34.83-84

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.93-96

Plutarch, On Natural Affection for Offspring 5

Anniceris and His School

Anniceris: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Suda, Alpha 2466

Suda, Pi 1707

Strabo, Geography 17.3

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.96-97

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 2.21

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 4.38

Theodoros the Atheist

Theodorus the Atheist: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology

Diogenes Laertius, Life of Aristippus 2.97-104

Philo, That Every Good Man Shall Be Free 127-130

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.43

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.40

Seneca, On Tranquillity of the Mind 14.3