Fr.; Περὶ αὐταρκείας; p. 9: καὶ τί ἔχει δυσχερὲς ἣ ἐπίπονον ἡ πενία. Footnote 990: _Ibid._ Footnote 991: _Ibid._ Cephalus in _Rep._ i gives a more balanced judgment. Footnote 992: _Ibid._, pp. 6 f., citing Bion on the answer of poverty to her accusers. Cf. Aristoph. _Plutus_ 558 f. on the power of poverty, cited by Ruskin, _Aratra Pentel._, IV, 139 (Vol. XX, 296). Footnote 993: Fr. iv. B, p. 34, he attacks the opposite thesis. Footnote 994: _Ibid._, ll. 5 f.; p. 35, good doctrine for a tramp; p. 34. Footnote 995: _Ibid._, ll. 13 ff. Footnote 996: _Ibid._, pp. 36 f., a comparison of Aristides and Callias. Footnote 997: Fr. iv. A, p. 28, purporting to be the answer of Crates as to what he would gain by being a philosopher. Footnote 998: Cf. _infra_; also Cic. _De fin._ iii. 10. 33 f.; Zeller, _op. cit._, III, 1, 214. Footnote 999: Cic. _Paradox._ 6, on the thesis that only the wise are rich. Footnote 1000: Seneca _Benef._ vii. 3. 2 f.; 6. 3; 8. 1. Footnote 1001: Diog. L. vii. 125. On both the citations above, cf. Zeller, III, 1, 251. Footnote 1002: Called Citieus, born 320 B.C., of Semitic descent. Footnote 1003: _Stoic Vet. Fr._, ed. Arnim, 1905, I, 47, fr. 190 (Stob. _Ecl._ ii. 7. 5, pp. 57 f., ed. Wachs.); Diog. L. vii. 101 f., 103-5. Footnote 1004: Von Arnim, _op. cit._, p. 53, fr. 220; Cic. _De fin._ v. 84: “At Zeno eum (mendicum) non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est.” Footnote 1005: Von Arnim (p. 52, fr. 216 [Stob. _Ecl._ ii. 7. 11_g_, pp. 991., ed. Wachs.]) cites Zeno as placing among the goods of the σπουδαῖος man the fact that he is οἰκονομικός and χρηματιστικός, while the φαῦλοι are opposite; cf. also p. 100. Footnote 1006: Von Arnim, p. 61, fr. 264 (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. 12. 76, p. 691_p_). Footnote 1007: Von Arnim, p. 62, fr. 268 (Diog. L. vii. 33): νόμισμα δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν οἴεσθαι δεῖν κατασκευάζειν οὔτ᾽ ἀποδημίας ἕνεκεν. Oncken (_op. cit._, p. 48) thinks that the Stoics were forerunners of the physiocrats. Footnote 1008: Plut. _De Alex. Fort._ i. 6: ἡ πολὺ θαυμαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ ... Ζήνονος. He says that it agreed in principle with the states of Plato and Lycurgus. Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 341 ff., but cf. _infra_, p. 140 f. Cf. n. 2, above. Ar. _Pol._ ii. 4. 1266_a_: εἰσὶ δέ τινες πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄλλαι, etc., shows that a series of ideal states had preceded his, though he says Plato’s was the most radical. Footnote 1009: _Plut. De Alex. Fort._ i. 6. Footnote 1010: Diog. L. vii. 33, 131; cf. nn. 3 and 5 above. Footnote 1011: Diog. L. vii. 131; 33. Footnote 1012: Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 342, n. 1. Footnote 1013: Cf. above, n. 5; _Athen._ xiii. 561_c_. Footnote 1014: Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 11, n. 8; also 346. Footnote 1015: Diog. L. vii. 33. Footnote 1016: