This, you will say, is a very high, unattainable, if not inhuman, standard.  Quite so, and therefore, while Epicureanism often produced vicious men, this often produced pretenders and even hypocrites.  Nevertheless it is better to set oneself a high standard than a low one, and a Roman who endeavoured to control himself by reason, and to place himself above fear and pain, was thereby on the way to be brave, patient, truthful, and just.  Those who would see what high character could be associated with Stoicism—­whether as the result or as the motive of the choice of the school—­should read Epictetus, whose text, written early in the next century, was “sustain and abstain,” and also the great-minded gentle Emperor Marcus Aurelius.  A logical outcome of Stoicism was that you should say only the thing which reason approved, and say it unafraid.  A good republican virtue, this, but under the emperors a dangerous one, as an honest Stoic like Thrasea found out.  In practice there was naturally much qualifying or mellowing of the rigid Stoic attitude:  the exigencies of actual life had to be met part of the way, and both Greek and Roman Stoics were often only Stoics in part—­the complete “sage” was of course impossible.

As for the gods, it is obvious that the Stoics were pantheists; there was one God, and He was the soul of the universe.  They also, of course, recognised His providence.  What then of the gods of the state?  Some did not attempt to discuss them.  Others treated the various so-called separate deities in the list as being only so many manifestations or avatars of the same divine power, and whether they were content or not with that attempt at harmonisation, who shall say?

Meanwhile, at least in the eastern part of the empire, you might meet with another type of philosopher, the Cynic, belonging to the same school as the famous Diogenes, who had lived in that large earthenware jar commonly known as his “tub.”  Like the Stoic, the Cynic held that externals were of no value, and therefore he contented himself with a piece of bread, a wallet full of beans, and a jug of water.  Like the Stoic, he believed in perfect freedom of speech, and therefore he spoke loudly and often abusively of all and sundry who appeared to him to deserve it.  Some such men doubtless were sincere enough, like the earlier hermits or preaching friars, but many of them were simply idle and virulent impostors who thoroughly deserved that name of the “dog” which was commonly given to them, and which came to designate their school.

The mention of impostors and hypocrites brings us naturally to a point which may have been foreseen.  To the ancient world the professional philosophers were the nearest approach to our professional clergy.  They affected an appearance accordingly; and the philosopher was regularly known by his long beard, his coarse cloak, and his staff.  But, alas! there were many who disgraced their cloth.  There were Stoic teachers