desires, or natural impulses, on the one hand, and a limit, or check, or measure imposed on that operation, on the other hand. The passion without the limit is lawless and unbounded; viewed in itself, or per se, it is to be regarded as a form of insanity, and as not conducive to felicity. Again, the limit without the passion is empty and unsubstantial; viewed per se, it is a form without any contents, just as the passion per se is contents without any form: each, therefore, is required in order to supplement the other. The question is, which is the more essential element of the two in the formation of our wellbeing? The Stoics, as I understand them, maintain the limit is the essential element, and that the passion itself is the accidental constituent, just as we might suppose a person to hold that the beauty of a statue was essentially due to the form, and not to the matter of which it was composed; while the Epicureans, on the contrary, maintain that the passion is the essential element, and that the limit is the accidental constituent, just as we may suppose another person to maintain that the beauty of a statue essentially depends, not on the form, but on the matter of which it is composed.
32. This difference of opinion in regard to the constitution of happiness or wellbeing—a difference of opinion which goes to this extent, that the Stoic regards as essential what the Epicurean regards as accidental, while, conversely, the Epicurean regards as
