The solution was more commonly found in a denial of the reality of apparent evils. They were all either forms of good, or incidental to its operation or essential to its production. This was the common solution of the Stoics. It had many phases. One view was based upon the teleological conception of nature. The world is marching on to its end: it realizes its purpose not directly but by degrees: there are necessary sequences of its march which seem to us to be evil.[402] Another view, akin to the preceding, was based upon the conception of the world as a whole. In its vast economy there are subordinations and individual inconveniences. Such subordinations and inconveniences are necessary parts of the plan. The pain of the individual is not an evil, but his contribution to the good of the whole. “What about my leg being lamed, then?” says Epictetus,[403] addressing himself in the character of an imaginary objector. “Slave! do you really find fault with the world on account of one bit of a leg? will you not give that up to the universe? will you not let it go? will you not gladly surrender it to the Giver?” The world, in other words, was regarded as an _economy_ (οἰκονομία), like that of a city, in which there are apparent inequalities of condition, but in which such inequalities are necessary to the constitution of the whole.[404] “What is meant, then,” asks Epictetus, “by distinguishing the things that happen to us as ‘according to nature’ and ‘contrary to nature’? The phrases are used as if we were isolated. For example, to a foot to be ‘according to nature’ is to be clean; but if you consider it as a _foot_, a member of the body, and not as isolated, it will be its duty both to walk in mud, and to tread on thorns—nay, sometimes even to be cut off for the benefit of the whole body; if it refuse, it is no longer a foot. We have to form a similar conception about ourselves. What are you? A man. If you regard yourself as isolated, it is ‘according to nature’ to live until old age, to be rich, to be in good health; but if you regard yourself as a _man_, a part of a certain whole, it is your duty, on account of that whole, sometimes to be ill, sometimes to take a voyage, sometimes to run into danger, sometimes to be in want, and, it may be, to die before your time. Why then are you discontented? Do you not know that, as in the example a discontented foot is no longer a foot, so neither are you a man. For what is a man? A member of a city, first the city which consists of gods and men, and next of the city which is so called in the more proximate sense, the earthly city, which is a small model of the whole. ‘Am I, then, now,’ you say, ‘to be brought before a court: is so-and-so to fall into a fever: so-and-so to go on a voyage: so-and-so to die: so-and-so to be condemned?’ Yes; for it is impossible,