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 nameThe 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 SinopeDiogenes. 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.