When some one may exalt himself in that he is able to understand and expound the works of Chrysippus, say then to thyself: If Chrysippus had not written obscurely, this man would have had nothing whereon to exalt himself. But I, what do I desire? Is it not to learn to understand Nature and to follow her? I inquire, then, who can expound Nature to me, and hearing that Chrysippus can, I betake myself to him. But I do not understand his writings, therefore I seek an expounder for them. And so far there is nothing exalted. But when I have found the expounder, it remaineth for me to put in practice what he declares to me, and in this alone is there anything exalted. But if I shall admire the bare exposition, what else have I made of myself than a grammarian instead of a philosopher, save, indeed, that the exposition is of Chrysippus and not of Homer? When, therefore, one may ask me to lecture on the philosophy of Chrysippus, I shall rather blush when I am not able to show forth works of a like nature and in harmony with the words.
When someone takes pride in being able to understand and explain the works of Chrysippus, say to yourself: If Chrysippus had written clearly, this man would have had nothing to boast about. But what do I want? Isn’t it to learn to understand Nature and follow her? So I ask who can explain Nature to me. When I hear that Chrysippus can, I turn to him. But I do not understand his writings, so I look for someone to explain them. So far, there is nothing to be proud of. Once I have found someone to explain them, I still have to put what he teaches me into practice. That alone gives me something to be proud of. But what if I admire only the explanation? Then I have made myself a scholar of texts rather than a philosopher. The only difference is that I am interpreting Chrysippus instead of Homer. So when someone asks me to lecture on the philosophy of Chrysippus, I should blush instead. That is, if I cannot show actions that match and agree with his words.