Man’s ways are chance and not sagacity. From Chaeremon: Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 782. Cf. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations , v. 9 (25). Is it true also that man’s ways are not justice either, or equality, or self-control, or decorum, but was it the result of chance and because of chance that Aristeides Cf. Plutarch’s Life of Aristides , chap. xxv. (p. 334 B). persevered in his poverty when he could have made himself master of great wealth, and that Scipio, Cf. Plutarch’s Moralia 200 B. having captured Carthage, neither took nor saw any of the spoil? Was it the result of chance and because of chance that Philocrates, Demosthenes, Or. xix. ( De falsa legatione ), 229 (p. 412). The money was the price of treason according to Demosthenes. having received money from Philip, proceeded to spend it on trulls and trout, and was it due to chance that Lasthenes and Euthycrates lost Olynthus, measuring happiness by their bellies and the most shameless deeds ? Demosthenes, Or. xviii. ( De corona ), 296 (p. 324). These men also Demosthenes puts in his list of traitors. Was it the result of chance that Alexander, Cf. Plutarch’s Life of Alexander , chap. xxi. (p. 676 B ff.). the son of Philip, forbore to touch the captive women himself and punished those who offered them insult, and, on the other hand, was it because the Alexander who was the son of Priam yielded to the dictates of an evil genius or of chance that he lay with the wife of his host, and by her abduction filled two of our three continents with war and woes? For if these things happen because of chance, what is to hinder our saying that cats, goats, and apes because of chance are given over to greediness, lustfulness, and mischievous tricks?