It was on the cards, it seems, that our modern
world should not be altogether destitute of noteworthy and memorable’ men, but should produce
enormous physical prowess and a highly philosophic
mind. I speak with reference to the Boeotian
Sostratus, whom the Greeks called Heracles and
believed to be that hero, and especially to Demonax,
the philosopher. Both these men I saw myself, and
saw with wonderment: and under one of them,
Demonax, I was long a student. I have written
about ‘Sostratus elsewhere,
 The treatise is lost. 
and have described his
size and excessive strength, his open-air life on
Parnassus, his bed that was no bed of ease, his
mountain fare and his deeds (not inconsistent with
his name The nickname Heracles. ) achieved in the way of slaying robbers,
making roads in‘untravelled country and bridging
places hard to pass.

 

It is now fitting to tell of
Demonax for two reasons—that he may be retained
in memory by men of culture as far as I can bring it
about, and that young men of good instincts who
aspire to philosophy may not have to shape themselves by ancient precedents alone, but may be able
to set themselves a pattern from our modern world
and to copy that man, the best of all the philosophers
whom I know about.





 
 
He was a Cypriote by birth, and not of common
stock as regards civic-rank and property. Nevertheless, rising above all this and thinking that he
deserved the best that life offers, he aspired to
philosophy. It was not at the instigation of
Agathobulus or his predecessor Demetrius or
Epictetus, though he studied with all these men and
with Timocrates of Heraclia besides, a wise man of
great sublimity in thought as well as in language.
As I was saying, however, Demonax was not
enlisted in the cause by any of these men, but even
from his boyltood felt the stirring of an individual
impulse toward the higher life and an inborn love for
philosophy, so that he despised all that men count
good, and, committing himself unreservedly to
liberty and free-speech, was steadfast in leading a
Straight, sane, irreproachable life and in setting an
example to all who saw and heard him by his good
judgment and the honesty of his philosophy.

 

You must not conceive, however, that he rushed
into these matters with unwashen feet, as the saying
goes: he was brought up on the poets and knew
most of them by heart, he was a practised speaker,
his acquaintance with the schools of philosophy was
not secured either in a short time or (to quote the
proverb) “with the tip of his finger,” he had trained
his body and hardened it for endurance and in
general he had made it his aim to require nothing
from anyone else. Consequently, when he found out
that he was no longer sufficient unto himself, he volun-
tarily took his departure from life, leaving behind
him a great reputation among Greeks of culture.

 
He did not mark out for himself a single form
of philosophy but combined many of them, and never


 

would quite reveal which one he favoured. Probably
he had most in common with Socrates, although he
seemed to follow the man of Sinope Diogenes. 
in dress and in
easy-going ways. He did not, however, alter the
details of his life in order to excite the wonder
and attract the gaze of men he met, but led the
same life as everyone else, was simple and not in the
least subject to pride, and played his part in society
and politics.