of a high order of genius none will deny; and it is equally indisputable that both despised fame.

At first sight, this indifference or contempt, on the part of great minds, may seem unaccountable. But none who reflect on what generally constitutes fame will wonder at it, since in nine cases out of ten nothing is more spurious, nothing less reliable. If it was not quite as much the work of the charlatan in the times of Homer, Virgil, and Shakespeare, as it is now, it is certain that there were puffers and sycophants at each of those periods, who did not take much pains to examine whether the subjects of their eulogies possessed merit or not; and it is equally certain that many regarded it as a crime, at those times, to speak the truth, especially if the truth placed themselves in a position in which they did not wish to appear.

It is probable that there were not so many of the latter class in former times as there are now, since there were at least ten public instructors who gave their opinions freely and honestly, for every one who does so in our own time. But the old philosophers who performed their duties thus faithfully, fearless of frowns, blows, or even death itself, had, generally, to pay the penalty of their hardihood in one form or other. As for sustaining pecuniary loss to an extent that often deprived them even of the necessaries of life, that was one of the least of the evils which they expected to result to themselves from their highly useful and reformatory though self-imposed duties. We have sufficient evidence that many of them regarded it as a much greater injury to be traduced. It gave Socrates more pain to be accused of conduct of which he was incapable of being guilty, than to be condemned to the hemlock draught. But neither prevented him from denouncing the vicious and dishonest. Accordingly, he might have come down to posterity, not as one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived, but as one of the vilest of mankind, had it not so happened that there were men of genius among his disciples who were capable of vindicating his character, and whose eloquent voice is still heard. Plato and Xenophon not only saved his memory from infamy, but rendered him an object of admiration. and affection to all succeeding ages. However, he was but one out of a hundred; it is certainly no exaggeration to say

that for this justice done to the memory of Socrates, ninetynine other philosophers who were benefactors of mankind were branded as the basest of mankind; whereas a much larger number of persons who had no other claim than their impudence to be considered philosophers at all, were lauded to the skies as superior to all others.

It is true that it is only in rare instances that even the names of this class have come down to us; whereas, the truly great have seldom failed to triumph over time, as well as over the malice of those whose vicious conduct, or false dishonest pretensions they denounced. But even when thus successful they have by no means escaped unscathed-like brave warriors who, although they have been victorious in battle, have received painful wounds in the conflict. This may serve to explain why it is that the greatest thinkers of all ages have, as we have shown, despised fame, and we think it may also be regarded as satisfactory evidence that they were right in doing so.

But of all philosophers no one has been more grossly misrepresented by his contemporaries than Diogenes the Cynic, whose life and character we have chosen as the subject of the present article. We would not by any means introduce the Sinopean to our readers as a model worthy of imitation in all things, however. Even as portrayed by his friends and admirers, there are features in his character which are not to be commended. Perhaps no other philosopher of all antiquity more strikingly illustrates the inferiority of the Pagan to the Christian in his morality as well as in his religion, than Diogenes. But it would be unjust to judge him as a Christian. Even in comparing him with other pagan philosophers we must not be too exacting; if we find that others were better than he in some respects, we must not therefore condemn him.

There are several of the ancient philosophers whose character and teachings we admire ourselves much more than we do those of Diogenes the Cynic, but since he also did much good in his time, and deserved to be ranked among the benefactors of mankind, his having some faults is no reason why we should not learn what we can from his history, and those of his

moral precepts and apothegms alone which have reached us would amply repay us for the study. But Diogenes presents us a still stronger inducement. There have been few men of any age from whom more valuable lessons can be learned, altogether independently of his wit and wisdom, reminding us, as he does, by what he has accomplished, often under the most unfavorable circumstances, that no calamity is so great, no disgrace so notorious or overwhelming, but that it can be counteracted or repaired by a resolute, honest will.

Diogenes the Cynic was born at Sinope, a small town in Asia Minor, in the fourth year of the ninetieth Olympiad413 before Christ. Of his early life nothing is known; he is first heard of in connection with his father, Isecius, who being accused of counterfeiting the public money, while pursuing the business of a small banker at Corinth, was banished from the state. Some think that Diogenes was as guilty as his father, nor does he seem to deny the fact himself; at all events, the son fled as quickly as the father. He first appears to have wandered about without any fixed object, but with the determination of pursuing forever after an upright, honest course. That he had obtained a good education in his youth, is evident even from his conduct at this time. He knew there were other cities more wealthy than Athens, but he also knew that the latter had more knowledge than any of its rivals, and the lesson which he had learned at Corinth caused him to prefer knowledge to money.

On reaching Athens he was attracted by the fame of Antisthenes, who had for many years been a disciple of Socrates, and had recently established a school of his own which had already become famous, although so rigid was the discipline of the master that it had but few pupils. Diogenes was informed on inquiry, that the reason why Antisthenes had so few disciples was that he treated them as surgeons did their patients. Far from being deterred by this, it caused the Sinopean to apply to him all the more eagerly. Antisthenes refused to accept him on any conditions; Diogenes persisted in trying to in duce him; some say that he urged his case so strongly that the master threatened to strike him. "You may strike if you

will," said Diogenes, "you will find no stick hard enough to prevent me from coming to hear your lessons."*

Even the founder of the Cynic sect could not help being moved by this reply, and he at once accepted Diogenes as a disciple. Nor had he any other disciple who loved or esteemed him more, or took more zealous pains to propagate his doctrines. Such was the reverence of Diogenes for his master that he refused to open any school of his own as long as that of Antisthenes existed; but long after he had become much more illustrious than his teacher he continued to call himself a disciple of the latter; nor did he cease to do so while the latter lived.

All the earlier biographers of Diogenes represent him as having lived in a tub, or large vessel, and he frequently speaks of the tub himself as his house or place of residence. Both Juvenal and Seneca refer to it in a manner that leaves no doubt of their having accepted the story as true; and Lucian ridicules the sage for having gone to such extremes in his selfdenial and avoidance of luxuries. Others think, however, that the story is inconsistent with the references made by Diogenes himself to his house and to his servant. That he once had both is abundantly proved; but it is doubtful whether he had one or the other after his banishment. But whatever time he parted with his slave, it would appear that it was against his will he did so; for some of his friends having advised him to pursue the fugitive, his reply was, "Would it not be ridiculous that Menades could live without Diogenes, but that Diogenes could not live without Menades ?"

Elian explains the apparent inconsistency by showing that Diogenes had not yet become a philosopher at the time of the escape of his slave; and this view of the case is accepted by Seneca and all other authors save those who have given credence, without examination, to the calumnies of the philosopher's enemies.t

It is generally believed that Diogenes wandered about many years after parting with his servant before he made any place

* Diog. Laert. in Vita,

Vide Elian. Var. Hist. lib. xiii. cap. xviii.

his permanent home. The philosopher relates himself, in one of his letters, according to Laertes, how it was he came to live in a tub. He says that he ordered a friend to have a cell made for him; the friend forgot or neglected his wishes; he, growing impatient, took up his abode in a large tub which he found in one of the porticoes of the Temple of Juno. Laertes informs us that a mischievous youth broke the tub; and that the Athenians proved their affection and veneration for Diogenes by condemning the culprit to be publicly whipped, and furnishing a new tub to the philosopher.*

The enlightened citizens of Athens did not esteem the philosopher anything the less because he had often satirized them. He ridiculed their weaknesses much more cuttingly than Socrates had done. Thus, for example, when they decreed divine honors to Alexander under the name of Bacchus, he sarcastically said, "Decree also that I am Serapis."

Nor was it the Athenians alone that treated Diogenes and his tub with consideration, if we are to believe the most reliable historians. At Corinth, as well as at Athens, he was allowed peculiar privileges in consideration of his noble and highly successful efforts as a public instructor. We are informed that he happened to be in the former city when Philip, King of Macedon, threatened to attack it. Observing all the citizens laboriously and anxiously occupied in fortifying the place, and not wishing to be entirely idle while all others were at work, he amused himself by rolling his tub.

It seems that, notwithstanding the cheerful, happy disposition for which he was remarkable among his friends, he was subject to fits of despondency in the earlier part of his career as a philosopher. When in this frame of mind, he would say, according to Laertes, that all the imprecations of the tragic poets were applicable to him, since he belonged to no city, had no house, was banished from his country, was poor, a wanderer, barely subsisting from day to day.†

He had now become so much in the habit of teaching in public, in the market-place, at cross-roads, in the porticoes of the

*Diog. Laert. Vide also Lucianus de Conscrib. Historia.

† Απολις, ἄθικος, πατρίδα έστερημένος.

πτωχός, πλανήτης, βίον ἔχων τούφ' ἡμέραν.