of _Justice_, will find him out.[61] Anaxagoras, whom Sextus Empiricus will one day describe as “the most _physical_” of all the philosophers, began his book on Nature with the words “All things were in confusion together; then came Intelligence, and gave them order and arrangement;” thus laying the foundation of his Natural Philosophy in a principle which could not fail of early application to the sphere of Conduct.[62] The denial of blind Chance, or of immutable Fate, in the realm of physical phenomena easily leads to its repudiation in the sphere of Ethics, and to a recognition of the personal responsibility of the individual mind for the consequences of its own decisions.[63] It was probably a conviction of the ethical fruitfulness of the principle thus laid down by Anaxagoras in the sphere of Physics which induced Aristotle, the greatest of all ethical philosophers, to assert that its author, as compared with his predecessors, was a sober thinker by the side of random babblers.[64] The physical investigations of Democritus were utilized by the Epicureans to free man from superstitious fears of another world, in order that he might direct all his powers to making the best of this world, in a moral, infinitely more than in a physical, sense. He specifically discussed Virtue, and concluded that happiness consisted in Temperance and Self-Control.[65] In a book which he wrote under the significant title of “Tritogeneia,” or “Minerva,” he appears to have applied the principle of Intelligence to the domain of Ethics, as Anaxagoras had applied it to the realm of Physics, pointing out that there wanted three things to the perfection of human society—“to reason well, to speak well, and to do one’s duty;” and that these three powers all spring from the directing influence of Intelligence. The author of the “Magna Moralia” says that Pythagoras was the first to discuss Virtue, and indicates in what manner the Pythagoreans attempted to apply their theory of Number to the sphere of Ethics. Their method was wrong, according to the “Magna Moralia,” since there is a special and appropriate method for the analysis and discussion of the virtues, and “Justice is not a number evenly even.”[66] Such a definition, thus crushed by way of a point-blank negative, has, of course, nothing but a metaphorical significance as applied to Ethics; but the metaphorical conception of Justice as a perfect number will not be totally devoid of inspiration to justice of conduct in the mind of one who loves perfection even when represented by an arithmetical abstraction; and if by this definition “it was designed to express the correspondence between action and suffering,”[67] a fruitful, though incomplete, ethical principle is embodied in their mathematical phrasing.[68] In a more general sense, Epicharmus has sung how the Pythagorean Doctrine of Number may be applied to the domain of practice:—