Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book IX/Chapter 4

Chapter 4.—The Opinion of the Peripatetics and Stoics About Mental Emotions.

Among the philosophers there are two opinions about these mental emotions, which the Greeks call &#960;&#945;&#952;&#951;, while some of our own writers, as Cicero, call them perturbations, some affections, and some, to render the Greek word more accurately, passions.&#160; Some say that even the wise man is subject to these perturbations, though moderated and controlled by reason, which imposes laws upon them, and so restrains them within necessary bounds.&#160; This is the opinion of the Platonists and Aristotelians; for Aristotle was Plato&#8217;s disciple, and the founder of the Peripatetic school.&#160; But others, as the Stoics, are of opinion that the wise man is not subject to these perturbations.&#160; But Cicero, in his book De Finibus, shows that the Stoics are here at variance with the Platonists and Peripatetics rather in words than in reality; for the Stoics decline to apply the term “goods” to external and bodily advantages, because they reckon that the only good is virtue, the art of living well, and this exists only in the mind.&#160; The other philosophers, again, use the simple and customary phraseology, and do not scruple to call these things goods, though in comparison of virtue, which guides our life, they are little and of small esteem.&#160; And thus it is obvious that, whether these outward things are called goods or advantages, they are held in the same estimation by both parties, and that in this matter the Stoics are pleasing themselves merely with a novel phraseology.&#160; It seems, then, to me that in this question, whether the wise man is subject to mental passions, or wholly free from them, the controversy is one of words rather than of things; for I think that, if the reality and not the mere sound of the words is considered, the Stoics hold precisely the same opinion as the Platonists and Peripatetics.&#160; For, omitting for brevity&#8217;s sake other proofs which I might adduce in support of this opinion, I will state but one which I consider conclusive.&#160; Aulus Gellius, a man of extensive erudition, and gifted with an eloquent and graceful

style, relates, in his work entitled Noctes  Attic&#230; that he once made a voyage with an eminent Stoic philosopher; and he goes on to relate fully and with gusto what I shall barely state, that when the ship was tossed and in danger from a violent storm, the philosopher grew pale with terror.&#160; This was noticed by those on board, who, though themselves threatened with death, were curious to see whether a philosopher would be agitated like other men.&#160; When the tempest had passed over, and as soon as their security gave them freedom to resume their talk, one of the passengers, a rich and luxurious Asiatic, begins to banter the philosopher, and rally him because he had even become pale with fear, while he himself had been unmoved by the impending destruction.&#160; But the philosopher availed himself of the reply of Aristippus the Socratic, who, on finding himself similarly bantered by a man of the same character, answered, “You had no cause for anxiety for the soul of a profligate debauchee, but I had reason to be alarmed for the soul of Aristippus.”&#160; The rich man being thus disposed of, Aulus Gellius asked the philosopher, in the interests of science and not to annoy him, what was the reason of his fear?&#160; And he willing to instruct a man so zealous in the pursuit of knowledge, at once took from his wallet a book of Epictetus the Stoic, in which doctrines were advanced which precisely harmonized with those of Zeno and Chrysippus, the founders of the Stoical school.&#160; Aulus Gellius says that he read in this book that the Stoics maintain that there are certain impressions made on the soul by external objects which they call phantasi&#230;, and that it is not in the power of the soul to determine whether or when it shall be invaded by these.&#160; When these impressions are made by alarming and formidable objects, it must needs be that they move the soul even of the wise man, so that for a little he trembles with fear, or is depressed by sadness, these impressions anticipating the work of reason and self-control; but this does not imply that the mind accepts these evil impressions, or approves or consents to them.&#160; For this consent is, they think, in a man&#8217;s power; there being this difference between the mind of the wise man and that of the fool, that the fool&#8217;s mind yields to these passions and consents to them, while that of the wise man, though it cannot help being invaded by them, yet retains with unshaken firmness a true and steady persuasion of those things which it ought rationally to desire or avoid.&#160; This account of what Aulus Gellius relates that he read in the book of Epictetus about the sentiments and doctrines of the Stoics I have given as well as I could, not, perhaps, with his choice language, but with greater brevity, and, I think, with greater clearness.&#160; And if this be true, then there is no difference, or next to none, between the opinion of the Stoics and that of the other philosophers regarding mental passions and perturbations, for both parties agree in maintaining that the mind and reason of the wise man are not subject to these.&#160; And perhaps what the Stoics mean by asserting this, is that the wisdom which characterizes the wise man is clouded by no error and sullied by no taint, but, with this reservation that his wisdom remains undisturbed, he is exposed to the impressions which the goods and ills of this life (or, as they prefer to call them, the advantages or disadvantages) make upon them.&#160; For we need not say that if that philosopher had thought nothing of those things which he thought he was forthwith to lose, life and bodily safety, he would not have been so terrified by his danger as to betray his fear by the pallor of his cheek.&#160; Nevertheless, he might suffer this mental disturbance, and yet maintain the fixed persuasion that life and bodily safety, which the violence of the tempest threatened to destroy, are not those good things which make their possessors good, as the possession of righteousness does.&#160; But in so far as they persist that we must call them not goods but advantages, they quarrel about words and neglect things.&#160; For what difference does it make whether goods or advantages be the better name, while the Stoic no less than the Peripatetic is alarmed at the prospect of losing them, and while, though they name them differently, they hold them in like esteem?&#160; Both parties assure us that, if urged to the commission of some immorality or crime by the threatened loss of these goods or advantages, they would prefer to lose such things as preserve bodily comfort and security rather than commit such things as violate righteousness.&#160; And thus the mind in which this resolution is well grounded suffers no perturbations to prevail with it in opposition to reason, even though they assail the weaker parts of the soul; and not only so, but it rules over them, and, while it refuses its consent and resists them, administers a reign of virtue.&#160; Such a character is ascribed to &#198;neas by Virgil when he says,

“He stands immovable by tears,

Nor tenderest words with pity hears.”