[Footnote 10:  This also might truly be said of the Epicureans; though with them it is not so much pride, as a quiet self-satisfaction in escaping pains and disappointments that they saw others enduring.  See the beginning of Lucretius’ second book, and the last epistle of Epicurus to Idomeneus.]

[Footnote 11:  This was a later development of Stoicism:  the earlier theorists laid it down that there were no graduating marks below the level of wisdom; all shortcomings were on a par. Good was a point, Evil was a point; there were gradations in the praeposita or sumenda (none of which were good), and in the rejecta or rejicienda (none of which were evil), but there was no more or less good.  The idea of advance by steps towards virtue or wisdom, was probably familiar to Sokrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus; the Stoic theories, on the other hand, tended to throw it out of sight, though they insisted strenuously on the necessity of mental training and meditation.]

[Footnote 12:  This theory (taken in its most general sense, and apart from differences in the estimation of particular pleasures and pains), had been proclaimed long before the time of Epicurus.  It is one of the various theories of Plato:  for in his dialogue called Protagoras (though in other dialogues he reasons differently) we find it explicitly set forth and elaborately vindicated by his principal spokesman, Sokrates, against the Sophist Protagoras.  It was also held by Aristippus (companion of Sokrates along with Plato) and by his followers after him, called the Cyrenaics.  Lastly, it was maintained by Eudoxus, one of the most estimable philosophers contemporary with Aristotle.  Epicurus was thus in no way the originator of the theory:  but he had his own way of conceiving it—­his own body of doctrine physical, cosmological, and theological, with which it was implicated—­and his own comparative valuation of pleasures and pains.]

[Footnote 13:  The soul, according to Epicurus, was a subtle but energetic compound (of air, vapour, heat, and another nameless ingredient), with its best parts concentrated in the chest, yet pervading and sustaining the whole body; still, however, depending for its support on the body, and incapable of separate or disembodied continuance.]

[Footnote 14:  Aristot.  De Coelo.  II.a.12, p. 292, 22, 6, 5.  In the Ethics, Aristotle assigns theorizing contemplation to the gods, as the only process worthy of their exalted dignity and supreme felicity.]

[Footnote 15:  Xenophon Memor.  I. 1—­10; IV. 3—­12.]