- "What is the suitable occupation for a philosopher?"
(1) There is another occupation no worse than this, and perhaps one might reasonably consider that it is even better for a man strong in body-namely, earning one's living from the land, if one owns some, and, indeed, even if one doesn't. Many of those who farm someone else's land, whether publicly or privately owned, are able to support not only themselves but also their children and wives. Because they work with their own hands and are industrious, some earn a very good living this way. The earth repays most beautifully and justly those who care for her, giving back many times what she receives. For someone willing to work, she supplies an abundance of all the things necessary for life and does so in a seemly and shame-free manner.
(2) Only someone decadent or soft would say that agricultural tasks are shameful or unsuitable for a good man. How could planting trees, plowing, and working with vines not be a good thing? Aren't sowing, harvesting, and threshing all compatible with freedom and suitable for good men? Just as being a shepherd did not shame Hesiod or keep him from being loved by both the gods and muses, so it would hinder no one else.
(3) To me, this is the main benefit of all agricultural tasks: they provide abundant leisure for the soul to do some deep thinking and to reflect on the nature of education. Tasks that stretch and bend the whole body force the soul to be focused on them alone or on the body alone. Tasks that don't require excessive physical exertion don't prevent the soul from contemplating the better things and thus from becoming wiser than it was-which is the goal of every philosopher. Because of this, I very much approve of the shepherd's life. But if a person studies philosophy and farms at the same time, I would not offer any other way of life to him; nor would I advocate another occupation.
(4) Isn't it more in accordance with nature to be nourished from the earth, which is both our nurse and mother, than from some other source? Isn't living in the country more suitable for a man than sitting in the city like the sophists? Isn't living outside more healthy than being secluded in the shade? What is more characteristic of a free person than that he provide necessities for himself rather than receive them from others? Clearly, not having to ask someone else to provide for one's needs is much more seemly than having to ask. Consequently, earning one's living from farming is noble, blessed, and god-favored, as is paying attention to nobility of character. For this reason, the god declared that Myson of Chen was wise and announced that Aglaos of Psophis was blessed; they lived in the country, worked with their own hands, and avoided spending time in the city. Isn't it worthwhile both to praise and imitate them and to embrace farming with zeal?
(5) But someone might say: "Isn't it a terrible thing for an educated man-one who is able to introduce young people to philosophy-to work the land and engage in manual labor like country people?" Yes, this would really be terrible if working the land prevented him from doing philosophy or helping others to do philosophy. But I think that young people would benefit less by being with their teacher in the city or by listening to him speak in a formal presentation than they do by watching him work in the country and actually do what reason teaches us to do-namely, to work and endure pain ourselves rather than ask someone else to support us. What, after all, prevents the pupil who is working with his teacher from simultaneously listening to him speak about self-control, justice, or bravery? Those who want to do philosophy properly do not need many words. Nor do young people need to absorb the multitude of theories that we see sophists inflating themselves with-theories that truly are enough to consume a man's life. Those who do farm work can learn the most essential and useful things, especially if they will not be working all the time but can take some breaks. I fully realize that few people will want to learn in this way, but it is better for most of the young people who claim to be studying philosophy not to go near a philosopher-at least not those philosophers who are decadent and soft, and by whom, when they come near, philosophy is tainted.
(6) All true lovers of philosophy would be willing to spend time in the country with a good man, even if the place happened to be quite primitive. He would, after all, benefit greatly from the time he spends there by being with his teacher night and day and by being away from those urban evils that interfere with the study of philosophy. He would also be unable to conceal whether he is doing something well or badly, which is highly beneficial for those who are being educated. Likewise, to eat, drink, and sleep while being observed by a good man is very beneficial. These things, which would necessarily result from being together in the country, Theognis also praises:
"Drink and eat and sit with them whose power is great and please them too."
Theognis also makes it clear that only good men can greatly benefit those who eat, drink, and sit with them:
"From good men you will learn good things. If you mix with bad men, you will destroy even your existing sense."
Indeed, don't let anyone say that farming gets in the way of learning or teaching essential things. This is unlikely to happen as long as the student can be with the teacher and interact in the manner described above for as long as possible. Under these circumstances, farming seems to be the ideal occupation for a philosopher.
