meant here seems rather doubtful. There is no doubt about the
emperor's meaning. Compare Epictetus, Enchiridion, c. i., &c.;
and the doctrine of the Brachmans (Strabo p. 713, ed. Cas.):
[Greek: agathon de e kakon meden einai ton sumbainonton
anthropois].

[B] Seneca (Ep. 102) has the same, whether an expression of his
own opinion, or merely a fine saying of others employed to
embellish his writings, I know not. After speaking of the child
being prepared in the womb to live this life, he adds, "Sic per
hoc spatium, quod ab infantia patet in senectutem, in alium
naturae sumimur partum. Alia origo nos expectat, alius rerum
status." See Ecclesiastes, xii. 7; and Lucan, i. 457:--

"Longae, canitis si cognita, vitae
Mors media est."

Antoninus' opinion of a future life is nowhere clearly expressed. His
doctrine of the nature of the soul of necessity implies that it does not
perish absolutely, for a portion of the divinity cannot perish. The
opinion is at least as old as the time of Epicharmus and Euripides; what
comes from earth goes back to earth, and what comes from heaven, the
divinity, returns to him who gave it. But I find nothing clear in
Antoninus as to the notion of the man existing after death so as to be
conscious of his sameness with that soul which occupied his vessel of
clay. He seems to be perplexed on this matter, and finally to have
rested in this, that God or the gods will do whatever is best, and
consistent with the university of things.

Nor, I think, does he speak conclusively on another Stoic doctrine,
which some Stoics practised,--the anticipating the regular course of
nature by a man's own act. The reader will find some passages in which
this is touched on, and he may make of them what he can. But there are
passages in which the emperor encourages himself to wait for the end
patiently and with tranquillity; and certainly it is consistent with all
his best teaching that a man should bear all that falls to his lot and
do useful acts as he lives. He should not therefore abridge the time of
his usefulness by his own act. Whether he contemplates any possible
cases in which a man should die by his own hand, I cannot tell; and the
matter is not worth a curious inquiry, for I believe it would not lead
to any certain result as to his opinion on this point. I do not think
that Antoninus, who never mentions Seneca, though he must have