Historians, even historians of philosophy, have tended to dismiss Stoicism lightly, and popular opinion has taken the cue. No doubt, relevant reasons abound. The riches of Socrates, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle served to accentuate the comparative poverty of the next age. Its effort over, Hellenic genius was no longer capable of following the argument whithersoever it led. Serene, fearless treatment of fundamental problems gave place to subjective musings, which ran to whim sometimes. Sanity and balance gone, extravagant or, eventually, fantastic theories found audience. The barbarians—so the Attic Greek would have reckoned them — had their revenge when asianism waxed, raising irrelevant issues. Above all, pregnant social changes displaced the centre of interest. 

Nevertheless, it was a far cry (more than five centuries intervene) from the earliest to the latest Stoics and, thanks precisely to social changes, philosophy did acquire fresh significance. Hence, although a protest rather than a science, an outgrowth of emotional stress rather than of intellectual curiosity, Stoicism was destined to rank among the formative ethico-political movements characteristic of the western world. Despite its obvious shortcomings, despite its lack of originality, circumstances lent it an influence destined to survive for generations.