have bought the things which he needed for the necessaries of life, and he would not, by reason of his poverty, have then been obliged to flatter the tyrant Dionysius, nor would he ever have been called by him a King’s dog. For this reason Horace, speaking of Damasippus when reviling Staberus for valuing riches very highly, says:
Insane indeed is he who makes more of riches than of virtue. Insane also is he who rejects them and considers them as worth nothing, instead of using them with reason. Yet as to the gold which Aristippus on another occasion flung into the sea from a boat, this he did with a wise and prudent mind. For learning that it was a pirate boat in which he was sailing, and fearing for his life, he counted his gold and then throwing it of his own will into the sea, he groaned as if he had done it unwillingly. But afterward, when he escaped the peril, he said: " It is better that this gold itself should be lost than that I should have perished because of it." Let it be granted that some philosophers, as well as Anacreon of Teos, despised gold and silver. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae also gave up his sheep-farms and became a shepherd. Crates the Theban too, being annoyed that his estate and other kinds of wealth caused him worry, and that in his contemplations his mind was thereby distracted, resigned a property valued at ten talents, and taking a cloak and wallet, in poverty devoted all his thought and efforts to philosophy. Is it true that because these philosophers despised money, all others declined wealth in cattle? Did they refuse to cultivate lands or to dwell in houses? There were certainly many, on the other hand, who, though affluent, became famous in the pursuit of learning and in the knowledge of divine and human laws, such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca. As for Phocion, he did not deem it honest to accept the gold sent to him by Alexander. For if he had consented to use it, the king as much as himself would have incurred the hatred and aversion of the Athenians, and these very people were afterward so ungrateful toward this excellent man that they compelled him to drink hemlock. For what would have been less becoming to Marcus Curius and Fabricius Luscinus than to accept gold from their enemies, who hoped that by these means those leaders could be corrupted or would become odious to their fellow citizens, their purpose being to cause dissentions among the Romans and destroy the Republic utterly. Lycurgus, however, ought to have given instructions to the Spartans as to the use of gold and silver, instead of abolishing things good in themselves. As to the Babytacenses, who does not see that they were senseless and envious? For with their gold they might have bought things of which they were in need, or even given it to neighbouring peoples to bind them more closely to themselves with gifts and favours. Finally, the Scythians, by condemning the use of gold and silver
- ↑ Horace. Satires, ii., 3, II., 99-102.
