“For my part I hold that the toadies are far
worse than the men they toady to, and that they
alone are to blame for the arrogance of the others.
When they admire their possessions, praise their
plate, crowd their doorways in the early morning
and go up and speak to them as a slave speaks to his
master, how can you expect the rich to feel? If by
common consent they refrained but a short time from
this voluntary servitude, don’t you think that the
tables would be turned, and that the rich would
come to the doors of the poor and beg them not to
leave their happiness unobserved and unattested and
their beautiful tables and great houses unenjoyed
and unused? It is not so much being rich that they
like as being congratulated on it. The fact is, of
course, that the man who lives in a fine house gets
no good of it, nor of his ivory and gold either, unless
someone admires it all. What men ought to do,
then, is to reduce and cheapen the rank of the rich
in this way, erecting in the face of their wealth a


 

breastwork of contempt. But as things are, they
turn their heads with servility.

 

“That common men who unreservedly admit
their want of culture should do such things might
fairly be thought reasonable; but that many selfstyled philosophers should act still more ridiculously
than they—this is the surprising thing! How do
you suppose I feel in spirit when I see one of them,
especially if he be well on in years, among a crowd
of toadies, at the heels of some Jack-in-office, in conference with the dispensers of his dinner-invitations?
His dress only marks him out among the rest and
makes him more conspicuous. What irritates me
most is that they do not change their costume:
certainly they are consistent play-actors in everything else. Take their conduct at dinners—to
what ethical ideal are we to ascribe it?

 

Do they
not stuff themselves more vulgarly, get drunk more
conspicuously, leave the table last of all, and expect
to carry away more delicacies than anyone else?
Some, more subtle than the rest, have often gone so
far as to sing.”
All this, he thought, was ridiculous: and he made
special mention of people who cultivate philosophy
for hire and put virtue on sale over a counter, as it
were: indeed, he called the lecture-rooms of these
men factories and bazaars. For he maintained that
one who intends to teach contempt for wealth
should first of all show that he is himself above
gain.
 

Certainly he used to put these principles into
practice consistently, not only giving instruction
without recompense to all who desired it, but
helping the needy and holding all manner of super-

 

fluity in contempt. So far was he from coveting the
property of others that even when his own property
was going to rack and ruin he did not concern
himself about it. Although he had a farm not far
from the city, he’ did not care to set foot on it for
many years. More than this, he used to say that it
was not his at all. His idea was, I take it, that we
are not “owners” of any of these things by natural
law, but that we take over the use of them for
an indefinite period by custom and inheritance, and
are considered their proprietors for a brief space;
and when our allotted days of grace are past
another takes them over and enjoys the title.
He likewise sets no mean example for those who
care to imitate him in his simple diet, his moderate
physical exercises, his earnest face, his plain clothes
and above all, his well-balanced understanding and
his kindly ways.