Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 396

TRANSLATOR'S

PREFACE.

THIS

is

translation

of

the

second

section

of

Dr.

Zeller's

tf

Philosophic

der

Gbriechen,

Dritter

Theil,

Erste

Abtheilung/

The

first

section

of

the

volume,

concerning1

the

Stoics,

Epicureans,

and

Sceptics,

has

already

been

translated

by

Dr.

Reichel.

The

present

translation

has

been

made

from

the

third

and

latest

edition

of

the

German

work.

S.

CLIFTON

Seirfeniber

14

1883.

Errata.

Page

83,

line

15
:

for

belonged

read

belongs

95,
"
"

26
:

for

fundamental

impulse

read

impulse

116,
" "

2
:

for

their

read

its

162,
"
"

19
:

for

read
we

205,
"

31
:
"

for

effects

read

affect

206,
9, "

6
:

for

enquires

read

asks

207,
"

2
:
"

substitute
a

semicolon

for
a comma^

after

'doctrine,'

210,
"

13
:
"

substitute
a

note

of

interrogation

for
a

after
comma

'ourselves.'

294,
" "

3
:

for

under

read

in

357,
"

lines

and

for
:

that

universal,

which

he

claims

for

all
men as

their

inborn

conviction

read

that

universal
viction con-

which

he

claims

for

all
men

innate
as

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER

I.
PAGE

ORIGIN

AND

CHAKACTEK

OF

ECLECTICISM
.

Gradual
causes

blending
of

of 1 sg.

the

schools
causes

of

philosophy:
:

Internal of of character of the Greek that

this,

External the

diffusion Reaction and the

philosophy
diffusion of later eclectic upon

among-

Romans,
14.
17.

6.

philosophy,

Principle

philosophy,
21 ;

Contained

germs
22

scepticism,

and

of

Neo-Platonism,

CHAPTEB,

II.

ECLECTICISM

INT

THE

SECOND

AND

FIRST

CENTURIES

BEFORE

CHRIST

THE

EPICUREANS

ASCLEPIADES

24

Relation
ades

of

the

later

Epicureans
29 sq.

to

Epicurus,

24.

Aeclepi-

of

Bithynia,

CHAPTER

III.

THE

STOICS

BOETHUS,

PAN^ETIUS,

POSIDONIUS
.

34:

Successors
Character 43

of

Ohrysippus,
of his

34.

Boethus,
42.

35. Deviations and

Pansetius,
from

39. ism, Stoicof


dencies, ten-

philosophy,
47.

sff.

Ethics,
52.

Contemporaries
56. 64. 7O

disciples

Panaetius,
50. first

Posidonius,
His before

H^s

philosophic
Other Stoics of

anthropology,
Chrisfe,

the

century

vi

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER
THE

IV.
PAGE

ACADEMIC CENTURY

PHILOSOPHERS

IN

THE

FIRST

BEFORE

CHRIST

.75
.

Pbilo

of

Larissa,

75.

His

His theory of scepticism of of 85. Polemic Antiochus 81. Ascalon, knowledge, essential Eclecticism 87. : against scepticism, ment agreeof of the various 91 theory knowledge, 93. systems, j of the

practical bias, 77. the 79. Academy,

Modification

Physics Potamo,

and

Antiochus,
109

metaphysics, 99. Eudoras,

94. 103.

Ethics,
Arms

95.

School

of 106.

Didymus,

CHAPTER
THE PERIPATETIC

V.
IN

SCHOOL BEFORE

THE

FIRST

CENTURY

CHRIST

.112
.

The

Commentators: of

Andronicus

of

Rhodes,

113.

Boethus

Siclon, 117.
and theories 132.
on

Aristo, others,
as

Staseas,
s%.
The

Xenarchus,
various

121 its and

Cratippus, Nicolaus, treatise /cdo-yuou irepl ;


125. of Nature of the 138.

to

origin,
date
145

treatise,
Treatise

Origin
and

composition,

virtues

vices,

CHAPTER
CICERO
-

VI.
VARRO

.146

Cicero,

Practical Its limits, 151. scepticism, 149. of philosophy, 156. view Eclecticism of innate : doctrine pology, Anthro159. Ethics, 162. knowledge, Theology, 167. of His 171. 169. view Yarro, philosophy and the various schools, 172. Ethics, 173. Anthropology and philosophy, 176
146. His

CHAPTER,
THE

SCHOOL

OF

THE

SEXT1I

.180
and

History

of

the

school,

80.

Its

philosophic character

standpoint, 183

CONTENTS.

Tii

CHAPTER
THE FIRST SCHOOL CENTURIES OF THE

VIII.
PAGE

AFTER STOICS
"

CHRIST SENECA

"

THE
.

.189

Philosophy in the Imperial period : study of the ancient of Endowment of public chairs philosophers, 189. of the Stoics from The the first school philosophy, 190.
to

the

third His

century,
of

194 of the

SQ.

Cornutus,

199.

Seneca,

202.

conception
merely

Uselessness of

problem of philosophy, 205. theoretic Opinion inquiries,206.


209.

dialectic, 207.

Physics,

Metaphysical

and

world The and nature, 217. theological views, 212. speculative theories, Uncertainty of Seneca's Man, 219. His 225, ethics essentially Stoic in principle, 226. of Stoic Modification Application of pardogmas, 227. ticular
moral

doctrines,
Love

235.

Independence
239.

of

things
perament, tem-

external, 236.
242

of

mankind,

Religious

CHAPTER

THE

STOICS

CONTINUED
MARCUS

MTTSONIUS,
.

EPICTETUS, 246
.

AURELIUS

Musonius,
255.

246.

His

-practical standpoint,
and

248.

His

ethics,
end of 260.

Epictetus philosophy, 258.


Religious view
268. of

Arrian,
world,

256.

Practical of

Inferior the of

value 268.

knowledge,
266.
;

Man,

Ethics,
clination In-

Independence
and
to

things
of 272. the

external

resignation to
270

destiny
mankind,
His

the

course

universe,
Gentleness

sq. love

Cynicism,
275.

and

of 276.

274,

Marcus of

Aurelius
277.

Antoninus,
His

practical
of the

view
all

philosophy,
; the

theoretic

opinions
order

; flux of

things, 279
sgr*

Deity, Providence,
of
man

world,

280

Kinship
into

to

God,

283.

Ethics, 284.
to the

Withdrawal 285.

self, 284.

Eesignation
286

will of God,

I^ove of mankind,

viii

CONTENTS.

CHAPTEB
THE

X.
PAGE

CYNICS

OF

THE

IMPERIAL

ERA

.288
.

Revival

of

Cynicism,
291. 299.

289.

Its 294. 301

adherents,
Bemonax,

290 296.

sq.

metrius, DePere-

(Enomaus,
Later

grinus,

Cynics,

CHAPTER
THE PERIPATETICS
AFTER

XI.
THE

OF

FIRST
.

CENTURIES
.

CHRIST

.304
304%

The

Peripatetic school
Commentators
of

of

the

first and

second
:

century,
Aristocles
318.
on

Aristotle's

works

Aspasius, Adrastus,
of

Herminus,

Sosig-enes, Alexander 314. of Aphrodisias, Messene, for Aristotle's writings and commentaries
Achaicus,
The 324. Particular The soul of and the
vovs,

306.

Apologies
them,
322.

Universal,
324.

Form and the

and

Matter,
329.

and the

God

world,

Extinction

Peripatetic School, 332

CHAPTEB
THE PLATONIC
AFTER

XII.
IN
CHRISTIAN

SCHOOL
THE

THE

FIRST ERA
.

CENTURIES
.

334
.

Platonists

of

this
337.
.

period,
Atticus,

334.

Commentators of alien

of

Platonic

writings,
"by
Taurus

Introduction
340.

doctrines

and

Eclecticism
344

opposed exemplified, in

Theo^ Nigrinus, Severus, Albinus,

CHAPTER
ECLECTICS Dio
WHO BELONG TO

XIII.
MO DEFINITE SCHOOL

351

Lucian, 357. Chrysostom, 353. Galen, 360. Character of his philosophy, 362. Theory of knowledge, 362 sg. Logic, 363. Physics and metaphysics, 365. Contempt for theoretic Ethics, 370 enquiry, 369.

IKDEX

373

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTEE

I.

ORIGIN

AND

CHARACTER

OF

ECLECTICISM.

THAT

form

of

philosophy
the the
its had
to

which

appeared period

about

the
in

CHAP.

beginning
the
course

of
of in

post- Aristotelian
third three
and

had,

second

centuries,

perThese

@m.

fected three each

itself

principal branches.
existed itself in side its

^ald.
Of the

schools

hitherto
maintain

by

side,

striving

purity, and
and
or

^f^s.
totetiau

merely
the

adopting

towards
an

the

others,

towards

previous philosophy,
But it lies in

aggressive
nature of

defensive that
dred kin-

attitude. mental

the have

things
from
a

tendencies, soil,
cannot

which
very

sprung
in

long

continue first

this

ally mutu-

exclusive

position.
immediate

The

founders
in

of fervour upon
;

\
of this.

school of

and

their

successors,

the

original enquiry, usually lay


which
is

excessive mode of

weight thought
from

that

peculiar

to
see

their

in

their their have


same

opponents
truth
not
:

they

only
on

deviations

this who the with

later

members,
this

the

contrary,
with
it

sought

peculiar
have
B

element

zeal, and

therefore

not

grasped

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

the

same

and rigidity in adverse

more one-sidedness,

easily
which
is

"

even perceive,
common

statements, that
are more

and

akin,and

ready
own

to

sacrifice

subordinate

of peculiarities

their

standpoint ;

the strife of schools will itself

exaggerated accusations and of that in by the stronger enforcement with others, which they coincide to give up or put
aside untenable
and
to

obligethem to repel nations, unqualifiedcondem-

to soften offensive propoassertions, sitions,

break

off

from

their

systems

the

of the adversary an sharpestangles objection ; many maintains its ground, and in seekingto elude it by another
it is found interpretation,

that

the

positions presup-

have been partially ceded, conobjection together with the objectionitself. It is, natural a therefore,
in the conflict of and

of the

universal

experience that
their the
in and

parties and

schools

tions opposicommon
more

become blunted, that gradually which underlies them all is principle

time

clearlyrecognised,and attempted. Now,


is still
so

mediation

fusion

is

long as philosophic productivity


in
a

livingand
never

active
or

people,the

case

will

either

arise science

arise

only temporarily,that

its whole because


are

is

infected

by

this

eclecticism,
new

alreadyin
them

its

youthful

course,

tions direcceding preAs

attempted before those immediately


have

decidedly begun
the of

to

grow

old.

soon,

on

the

contrary, as

scientific

is spirit of
new

exhausted,and
cieations,is
the

long space merely filled


a

time, devoid
discussions result

with
natural

among of

existingschools, the

these

ITS

ORIGIN.

discussions, the

partial blending

of

the

hostile

will appear to a greater extent, and the parties, that eclectic character whole philosophywill assume is always the prewhich, in its universal diffusion, monitory

or

deeply seated revolution, the posiof scientific decay. This was precisely tion Greek in which philosophyfound itself in the
sign
of
a

either

last centuries

before

Christ. the
a

All

the

causes

which
cal of classion

to speaking, led,generally

dissolution

had culture, the

also

had

paralysinginfluence
after

centuries philosophic spirit ; for of transformation philosophy, whieh

the the third

marks of the

end

of the
no

fourth
new

and

the

beginning
;

century already
to

system
in

arose

and

if the

posthad in

Aristotelian lost

systems
the of

and

for

themselves
interest their

contemplation
the life and discontinuance
cessation
to dull

purely theoretic things, and by


aims

the

restriction

of men,

had

announced
-

the

of

scientific

endeavour, the
and

long

of

productioncould only serve philosophic


scientific
sense

the

still more,

to call in

question general.

of scientific knowledge in possibility This, state of things found its proper' expression which opposed the dogmatic in scepticism, The and more signal success. systems with more which since the beginning of the first eclecticism had Christ repressed scepticism century before

the

and

united of side

dencies together the previouslyseparate tenverse thought, was, however, merely the reof scepticismitself. Scepticism had
B

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

placedall dogmatic
a
__

theories

on

an

in equality to

such

manner
'

as

to
one
c

deny
nor as

scientific truth
'

all alike.

This

neither

another well

in eclecticism

One

(Weder-noch)became the other as {Sowohl'

als-aucli) ; but
had rest

for that way;

very

transition

scepticism
able
to

paved the
in

for it

had had up
once

not

been

pure
of
as

doctrine conviction
was

negation,and set probability,


a

in therefore,
more a

its

positive
to full

practical postulate. This conviction


to
we

not

indeed but

come

forward fail to

with

claim

certainty ;

cannot

velopmen perceivein the de-

of the
and Arcesilaus, estimation it to further,
was

from

from Pyrrho to theory, sceptical Arcesiiaus to Carneades, a growing

of the value

of the

knowledge of probability:

only necessaiy to advance one step bring forward practical necessitymore


the
true

decidedly as against the sceptical theory,and of the probable would receive the significance
"

scepticismwould
acceptance of truth

be transformed

into

dogmatic
this

In (Furwahrhalten*). would

matism, dog-

however, doubt
to

continue inevitably that


no

exercise
as

such

an

influence
be

individual

system
the
true

such
out

would
all

recognisedas
would

true, but

of

systems
of

be

separated

accordingto
and of

the

measure

opinion.
the
as

This

had

subjectivenecessity been exactly the procedure


ascertainment of

sceptics in the

they develop their doubt in the criticism of existing do they seek the so theories, in the existing probable primarily systems, among which they have reserved to themselves the rightto

the

probable;

ITS

ORIGIN,

decide. the

Carneades,
former
more

as

we

ethical

questions to
and
more

know,1 had which, we are


restricted

so

treated

CHAP.

told,abanhimself with

Tl

doning his

for combating hostile predilection

he opinions,

advancing years.2 Similarly Clitomachus, while to contending with the dogmatic schools, seems
have
learn

sought a positiverelation to them ; 3 and we of Carneades, another that ^Eschines, disciple


to

adhered

ing.4 only of his master's teachThus scepticismforms the bridge from the one-sided dogmatism of the Stoic and Epicurean that
side
to eclecticism philosophy cannot regard it as a mere
; and

in

this respect that from

we

accident

the

followers of Carneades

this mode
in

of
it
was

thought chiefly
immediately
the Stoics
and and

emanated,
connected

and with had

that the

them
on

point

which
their

Epicureans
even

sustained

dogmatism,
definite

in the last resort,their doctrine the Platonists,

of

viz. probability, life. for practical

the

of necessity

theories

It was,

however, generallyspeaking,

the the

condition the

of

strife of
the

at that time, and philosophy schools,which first philosophic

caused

and in spreadof scepticism, the eclectic tendency in philosophy. sequel, most The important est-ernal impulse to rise and

the

this

ii.Ester

der Grie/ta^r^r aXXa. r6re ye, cTrev, eyik Zeller, Philosojrftie SL^KOVOV -rty ore le Kapj/ea"ou Theil, Abttieilung, 3CT ehen,
1

p. 517 sq. 2 An, Pint.

seni
5 p*v

s.
ovy

ge-v. resj?.

6 faxtav Kal rbv $6(pov atyetK"s S*a T" y^pas els rb x6yos avrov

13, 1. p. 791
8ri tey6j"T"avt

'A/caS??-

a-vvrjKTO ^p^crt/J-ov
3

Kal KOLV^VIK"V.

Tivcav "ro$ta'T"v puiiKbsAto-x^TjSj

PHI.

der

Grieclim, III. i.
2.

TrpoffiroieLrat yeyo-

viva*

^ Kapj/ea5ov,

yeyov"s,

p. 524, note 4 Vide note

2.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

was cliange

given by
culture

the stood

relation in which
to

Greek
world.1

science
_ _

and

the

Eoman

The
came

first knowledge of Greek


to the

Romans

of the Italian School whose the have


and doctrines
name

doubtless philosophy from Lower : the founder Italy is the first philosopher (Pythagoras)
is mentioned in

Eome.2

But

of the

Greek
in

been

heard

of there

can philosophers only an superficial entirely

Diffusion
of Green
')iiiu)sophy
mg the

beginning of the second century before Christ. This state of things chancre(i however, when, after the second j^g mus"
manner fragmentary

before the

07

77

PunicWax, the Eoman


forwar(j farther and

and Eoman policy

arms

pressed

farther towards
and

the east ; when

the

wars

'with Macedonia Eomans

while,on
state

the

other

and

and prisoners,3 more commonly

tinguishe Syria brought disin great numbers to Greece, and hand, Greek ambassadors also slaves, soon appeared more in

Eome

| when

men

of the

T. Quinctius Africanus, importanceof the elder Scipio

Flamininus, and JEmilius


!

themselves Paulus, applied


he discoursed
the

For

what

follows,cf Hitter, suppositionthat


.

iv. 79 sq. 2 The arguments

to the Eomans

on

physics of
Achse-

for this Griech.

axe

that
3

philosopher.
Such
as

given
I. pp.

in Phil, der

Part
ans

the thousand

287, 3
2 ; and

450,

1 ; cf. ibid,

who,

313,

Part

III. ii. p. 77

"%. A still earlier date (ifthis is historical) be must statement fixed of who the tables
even

away for seventeen


men

carried B,c," were into Italy,and kept there of

168

repute

years, all of them and culture


we

Hermodorus assisted

for the presence the the up


were

in Eome (among them whose Bphesian, Polybius), in but the for the in if the

know

was

long residence
could not have

decemviri of the indeed of

country
the had

drawing
if he have

twelve

been

without

(Part I. 566, 2) :
friend
no

even

influence on, Borne least considerable


their actual

of them in that

abode

celebrated tus,
we

Heraclei-

city.

ground

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

IN

ItOMK

with

delightto

Greek

literature ; when,

from

the
was

CHAP.

beginning of the second to Eoman transplanted


imitations and
in

century, Greek
soil in

poetry
or

^_

the

more

less free

of

Ennius,

Pacuvius, Statins,Plautus,
Eoman
was history

their
the

successors

; and

related
other

Greek

annalists. stood
in
"

language by Fabius Pictor The philosophic literature


close
a

and

of

Greece

far too

connection

with

the other

occupied far too important a philosophy place in the whole Hellenic sphere of culture,as a and object of universal interest of instruction means found for such as had once it possible to make intellectual life to shut themselves in Greek pleasure it very small the need for long,however up from We scientific enquiry might be in them. find, then^
branches
"

even

before the middle


various
traces

of the second

century,many
of the
a

and

of the commencement

ledge know-

of
Ennius

Greek

philosophy among
that he
was

Eoraans.

shows

acquainted with it,and

adopts from
181
B.C.
an

it isolated

attempt

was

propositions. In the year made, in the so-called Books

dogmas of Greek philosophy into the Eoman religion.2 Twenty-six years later the activity of the to others only eight) (according their Epicurean philosophersin. teaching caused
of Numa,1
to introduce

banishment
of the the
1

from

Borne.3 in

In

161

B.C., by
was

decree
to

senate, residence

Eome
;

forbidden and this

and philosophers
Cf
.

rhetoricians
4

always
is DG 11

PUl.

der.

Grieoli. III.
to CL

This be

decree in

of the senate

ii. p. 8B.
"

found

Suetonius,
xv.

Cf. 1. G. III. ii. p. 85. Cf. I.e. III. 1 p. 372, 1.

Rhetor.

I ; G-ell.JV.l.

(cf.also Clinton,

Fasti

Hellen.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

proves
to

that

there

was

reason

for

anxietyin regard
youth. Macedonia, gavcpurpose
toot of

their

influence

upon

the

education
of

Paulus,
his
sons

the

conqueror

Greek
on

and instructors,

for that

with

him

his

Metroexpeditionsthe philosopher Macedonian


paign, cam-

dorus.1

companion in the Sulpicius Grallus, besides


for which also he
was

His

the

astronomical

knowledge
have the Greeks.2

distinguished, may, haps, pertheories of adopted certain philosophic


all these
are

But

merely
the
a

isolated of

signs
the

of the second
extent.

movement

which

from

middle

century manifested
Hitherto
with

itself to

much had

greater

comparatively
Greek

few
now

occupied

themselves
in

philosophy;
more

the interest

that

philosophy was

universally diffused.
Borne
in
P.

Greek
161
us

philosopherscome
These edict
of

to
tell

order
6. The the

to

try

B.C.).
of
: an

authors the

cf. Pint. Mm. mentions


with

latter Greeks

another

similar Ahenobarbus

enactcensor

among
j^Emilius

ment

whom

surrounded

On. L.

Domitius Licinius

and

Crassus, in which

his sons, grammarians, sophists, and rhetoricians. Pliny gives,


the
more

they express their serious displeasure with the teachers and frequenters of the newly-arisen
Latin account

that from

after the
sent
was

Perseus

information, victory over (168 B.C.) he requested


the Athenians
an

definite

schools consuetude
to

of rhetoricians

on

of this mention

the
not

departure from ma/jorwn. But,


that the rJietores affected alone

painter and They


who

able him
in

good philosopher.
a

Metrodorus,
one

both d. Gr.

person.

Latini, who

were

Cf. PMl.
2

by
to
were

decree, according also Cicero, De Orat. iii. 24, 93 sg.,

this

Cicero of

III. i. p. 525. praises his know-*

ledge
6, 19.
37
;

with

decree
until

only indirectlyconnected Greek philosophy, the not was promulgated


the year 95
a

astronomy, Cic. Off.iAccording to Livy, xliv.


Plin. Hist.
an

and before

Nat. of

53, he
sun

foretold the in detailed


is

eclipseof
account

ii. 12, the. the this,

we B.C., as of Cicero, i. 7, 24. loe. eit. with Clinton, Fasti Bellen., dates it in 92 B.C. see

battle

Pydna.
of
to

from

comparison

more

authorities
event

regard
3,

given by Martin, Revue

Plin. Hist.

Nat.

xxxv.

135

ArcUolog. 1864, No,

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

IN

ROME.

their fortune,, or
men.

are

sent

for thither
desirous of

"by distinguished

CHAP.
"

Young
state,
or

Eomans,
of

playinga part in

gaining distinction in cultivated that think do without the they cannot society, of a philosopher, instruction and it soon became usual to seek this not only in Borne, but in Athens
the the chief itself,
the famous

school

of Greek

science.

Already

156 which Greek

in the year deputation of philosophers B.C.1 showed, by the extraordinary influence

Carneades

obtained, how especially


was

philosophy
we

regarded
overrate

in

favourably and Kome;


this that

though
it gave

should
we

not may,

the

effect of

passing event,
a

nevertheless, suppose impetus


permanent,
to to

considerable
interest in

the

previously
the

awakened
in wider

and spread it abroad philosophy,


no

circles.

More

doubt, was
been

influence

of the

Stoic Pansetius
seem

during his residence,


have for many

prolonged as
years, in the
a man

it would

of the capital

Eoman the

empire, he being
character
for Stoicism of

fitted by peculiarly to effect an entrance philosophy his Eoman


of in auditors.2
a

his

among Blossius
was

Soon

after him

Caius

Cumse,

disciple of Antipater the


friend
and counsellor

Stoic,
of

Borne, the

Tiberius have

Gracchus,3 who
1

through
for this
are

him

must

likewise

The

authorities

of Gracchus
was

d. GT. II. ii. p. 928, cited PMl. 1 ; cf, p. 498, 1 ; cf. Part III. i. p. 498, 1. 2 Further ter iii.
3

also
to

in

(133 B.C.) Blossius danger. He left


went

Eome,
Minor whose himself. tion

and fall A of him

into

Asia after killed in

details Til.

infra,chap8, 17,

Andronicus, (130 B.C.) he

thorough
is to be

exazninafound

Plut.

6fracc7i.

20 ; Val.

Max.

Lcel. 11, 37.

iv. 7, 1 ; Cicero, After the murder

Kal Aio"pdEXocraiov irepl 'Peviepy vovs (Leipzig, 1873). Mean-

10

ECLECTICISM.

CFTA.P. I

become

acquainted with
Greek

Stoicism.1 learned
men

And

now

that

begins, which, in time, assumed greater and greater proportions.2 who the Eomans themselves, men by Among their intellect so and decidedly position were Scipio Africanus, his pre-eminent as the younger immigrationof
friend Philus and Laelius,L. Furius Tiberius Gracchus, took philosophicstudies under connected "With them their protection.3 are Scipio's the
wise

nephew
while

Tubero,4

disciple of
eruditissimos

Pansetius, who.
homines
ex

he himself Kal

calls his work the ter lat-

Grcccia

kaftuerutit. De palam, semper "p"vvai P. 5 iii. : 3, Quid so Seijtwne, Rep. decidedly preponderate, historical that our Quid C. Lcelio, quid Jj. Pliilo knowledge is scarcely extended of the man perfeetius cogitari potest ? qni ad do?nesticum the treatise. 'niajorumque by
and eiKaa-tat,
. .

That

care

Gracchus, through the guished his of mother, had distinGreeks tors for his instruc-

tnorem

etiam Cicero

Jianc, a Socrate there puts the he while


same

adstance sub-

v"nticiam
runt.

doctrinam

adMbue-

(Cic.
Plut. known.
2

Tib.

Brut. 27, 104 ; cf. GraecJi. 20) is well

of Carneades' which against justice, had of

discourse
self himhe mouth

heard, into the

however, Polyhius (xxxii. 10), much when earlier, only eighteen (166 Scipio was and his he said to him B.C.),
relates that brother:

Furius him the in the

Philus,
at

makes follow

the

time

Academic
consmtudo

pher philosocontra-

rias in paries disserendi ; loe,. repljub'y"pT"/ia(%uara, " cit. vvy c. 5, 8 sq, ; Lact. Inst. v. 6p"" crvov'Sd^ovras Trepl vjj,as Kal "pL\ori/JLov/n,"Vovs, OVK cbrop^o-ere 14. Concerning the connection of Lselius with Scipio and Kal (rol Ka.K"LV(f'
7TOA.T/

yap

PanEetius

we on.

shall
Cic. Fiti. the

have

to
cording ac-

fyvKov cbrb TTJS eE,\\d$o$


rb irapbv T"V "pu Kara which avOpdaircov, agrees

speak
with p.

later
to

Laelius,

had
of
no

also attended

ii. 8, 24, lectures


we

what
note
3

is
4.

quoted

sugra,

7,
:

Diogenes,
doubt,
in

which in

must,
his year the

connect

with

Cicero,De Orat.
oerte aut
non

ii. 37, 154 ullos

J^t

tulit

Jicec Jiu-

presence 156 B.C.


4

Home

cwitas manitate .C.

aut gloriaclariores,

Q. JSlius
mother

Tubero, through
a

"uctoritate

gramores,

a/at

his

grandson
was
a

of very
out

P. African, politiores L"liOi Z. FwrWj qui secum,

JEmilius zealous

Paulus,
who Stoic,

carried

12

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

series
same

of

Eoman

Stoics.
a

time, obtained
"books earlier those

Epicureanism, at the still wider diffusion, having,


in

through
at
an

written

Latin, gained entrance


the

period than
who had
not

other

systems,
a

even

among

received

Greek
and
not

cation.1 edu-

Somewhat

later the

Academic

patetic Peri-

whose schools,
remained

could principles hearers teachers

have

unknown

to the

of Panaetius,were
in Eome.

by celebrated represented
the
Eome

Among
in

Platonists
is known

Philo
to
us

is the

first whose

presence

of the deputation (irrespective

of

; of philosophers)
a

the

Staseas.2 Peripatetics,

But

already,at
dedicated
we himself,

much
to

earlier
two

works
are

period,Clitornachus had Carneades Eomans ;3 and

was told,

sought out
after the

in

Athens

by

beginning of the first century before (vide Christ, Posidonius infra) visited the metropolisof the world; before
Eoman

travellers.4

Soon

the middle
Mummiiis,

of the
of

same

century we
cons

encounter

there

brother

the

queror of Corinth, who, to judge by the date (Cic. J3rut. 25, 94),
must

102 L.
in

also have Vide Cic.

owed

his Stoicism iv.

(148B.c), previously to consul Censorinus, who was 149 B.C.; Cic. Acad. ii. 32,
and So much the truth may
un-

To

the

poet Lucilius

to Pansetius.
1

102.

Fuse,
vercs

3,

6:

of Cicero eUgantisque iii. Orat. (the Stoic, Peripa- (JDe 18, 68) even jphilosophiof and nulla itself Academic) supposing the statement teticj statement
. . .

Itaque illius

derlie

fere
termi

sunt

aut

yoauca
.
.

admodum
.

to

be

untrue
to the

that
as
a

Q. Metellus
young
man

Latina

monumenta

cum

inAma-

(Numidicus)
listened

illis silentibus Further


came
as

C.

finius extitit
2

for several dicens,"c, details, infra. Respecting Catulus' in 88 from


B.C.

aged Carneades days in Athens.


relation
to

Philo De

to Eome
we

Carneades,
the ". 6V. Part

cf. the last pages

of

Btaseas,
Orat.
there

find

Cic.

chapter on Carneades. Phil


III. i

i. 22, in 92 B.O.

104, appeared

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

IN

ROME.

13

the

Epicureans
was

Philodemus

and

Syro.1
very
common

Meanfor

CHAP,

Awhile,it
^'' Roman
and tjiead,
^

alreadyat
for
to

this time Greek

_____

youths to seek
the the

science

at its fountainto

sake

of their studies

betake

themselves
and

seats principal

of that

science,

At the commencement to Athens,2 especially of the imperial era, at any rate, Rome swarmed with Greek savants of every kind,3and among these who were not merely turning to account were many 4 a superficial knowledge in a mechanical manner ; in various places of the west while contemporaneously of Greece became naturalised together the philosophy

with other

and sciences,

from the

these

centres

spread

itself still further.5 that of philosophy, in hand, and hand Cicero


1

With

Greek
from

knowledgeof Greek literature went naturally


of Lucretius
up
of

the time

and

Roman

literature sprang
IH.
i. 374. of

at

its

side,5
and will of

Phil. d. Gr. Part The those


we

the

time

Augustus
on.

" Xare
"rf^
i

best shall

known

examples
andAtticus,
with many

Tiberius, residingin Rome,


come
5

of Cicero
meet

before The
was

us

further ancient

but

most

important

Of others later on. ir ral practice, cf.

the geneCic. Fin. v. 1, his


own

For

these

the

Greek

where in

Cicero

describes

life in Athens

with companions study (77 B.C.); and in relater time, gard to a somewhat Aead. YaiTO i. 2, 8, where Sed meos :
ut

city Massilia, of which Strabo (iv. 1, 5, p. 181) says: irdvres rb Xeyew irpbs ycc,p of "x.apiwrss
Kal fyiXoffo"fTw. An Tpe'-nwrcu

he

says

to in

early colony of Greek culture in Gaul, this city had now


made Eomans here
6

amicos,

such instead That

advances

that noble their studies the


on

quibus est

stiidium, in Grcec-iam
ea a

pursued
these

fi

mitto,
t"ntwr.
8

fontibits potius
rivulos
consec-

of in Athens.
two
were

Jiawiant, qitam
The fact

Qr
X*

first is notorious
; for

noteworthy philosophyin the

writers Latin

tongue

examples cf. Strabo, xiv. 5, 15, is certain ; the few earlier atykp Kal 'AXe"az/-tempts (cf.III. i. 372, 2) seem p. 675. TccpcreW to have been ear* SpeW fj.ea'T'fj [y *Pc6/Mj]. very unsatisfac4 Several Greek philosophers tory. Both, moreover, expressly

14

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

which

I.

scarcelyinferior to the contemporary Greek, though not to be compared with the earlier, either in scientific acumen creative individuality. or
was

At
were

the

beginning of
to the

this movement,

the Eomans who disciples


;

related

Greeks

merely

as

adopted and imitated the science and, to a certain degree,this throughoutits whole course ; for
genius
much
Inevitable reaction

of their teachers relation


in Eome

continued the
even

tific sciento
so

and

spiritnever

attained

of that diffusion
upon

it had in Greece as self-dependence still preservedin the latter period. But in the end could not remain this influence of Greek philosophy without itself. Though Eomans reaction a on by like Cicero and birth, Lucretius, might rehabilitate

force and

Greek

science

for

their

countrymen

and

Greek

like Panaetius and Antiochus, might philosophers, it was lecture to the Eomans, in both cases able unavoid-

that the character be and


Even
more
or

of their

presentationsshould
to

less determined

by regard
hearers

the

spirit

requirementsof
the

their Eoman

and

readers.

schools of philosophy in purely Greek could not free themselves Athens, Ehodes, and other places,
from of the

this

determining influence,on
of young
; for it
was

account

great number
them

Eomans

of

position
these

who

visited

from naturally

claim

for

themselves

this

habuit

lumen*
, . .

literamm

Lati-

honour, cf. Lucr. v. 336 : Hano in- quo narum co magis nolis (the Epicurean doctrine) priest mus elaborandwn, quod cum jprimis ipse repertus tnulti jam esse libri Latini dinwnc in putrias qui cuntur ego sum scripti i/nconsider cite ah Cic. Tune. joossimvertere voces. optimis illls quidem vlris, sod i. 3, 5 : PMlosopMa jacuit satis eruditis. non 'usque
ad 7ianc
fetatem
nee

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

IN

JtOMU.

15

scholars
the than

that

honour Of

and

teachers.
these

still

mostly accrued to profit higher importance, however,


must

CHAP.

___'__

considerations of the who

be rated

the
not

scious uncon-

influence
upon upon

Eoman

spirit ;
the Eoman

merely
also
;

the
the

Romans

but pursued philosophy,

Greek

in philosophers

empire
culture

for,however
over

great the
however

of Greek superiority

Eoman,

complete the literary dependence


upon

of the conquerors inevitable


influence
astuteness

the

conquered, it
receive that in

was

that from and

Greece, too, should


her force
had of will
to

spiritual
the

and proud scholars,

which,
should

spite of
that It
to

science, she

succumbed,
value of
as

necessarily

acquire
science
was

considerable eyes with

compared with

in the

the

subjugated nations.
however, spirit,

consistent the

the
of

Eoman

estimate

worth

as philosophy,

of all other
of practical ascribe
no no

things,primarilyaccordingto the standard the utility contrary, to ; and, on importance great


them. From
to

scientific
on

opinions as
life
was

such, when
those
even

influence

human
source

perceptible in prejudices
to

this

sprang

which againstphilosophy, The interposition.1


1

at first led
same

terial magiswas

point
of

of view

Cf. Cato's

on

Plutarch of of

subject what (Cato Maj. 22) relates


behaviour
to the
as

this

contents

their

lectures, he
away Also
as

advised

should
as

be sent

em-

quickly
ap. Gell. Lactant. edict supra,
sures

possible.

id.

bassy
whom ot

philosophers
the

to

he feared from v4oL

outset

-rb "f"t\6TL[jt,oi/ evravda fji^j


res

rptyavXeyeiv

xviii. 7, 3 ; Nepos ap. the 15, 10 ; and of the censors quoted iiL
cen:

rfy

eirl T$

86"av ayaTT'ficr'"a'i paKkov


epycav Kal T"V after he whom, r"v

TTJS airb and ffTparetuv,

7, note 43 which p the rhetorical schools


adolescentulos To the Eoman
totos

ibi dies

homines desidere*

had

heard

the

states-

10

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

also,however, maintained

even as

in

the

pursuit

and
cerned con-

___!_

study

of

philosophy.

So far

was philosophy

it merely with scientific questions, than be regarded as anything more scarcely to recreation ; it only attained serious
as

could
a spectable re-

more

value

in

the
an

eyes

of the

Eoman,
of

inasmuch

it

proved
The

itself

instrument

tion. educapractical

and strengthening of moral principles of orator and statesman, the trainingfor the calling and principally these are the aspectswhich primarily

recommended
But
on

to treat

studies to his attention. philosophic he was this very account inclined necessarily them with reference to these points of view. little for the

He

cared

scientific establishment

and

development of a philosophic system ; that logical him was which alone, or almost alone, concerned its practical utility ;
turned the strife of he thought, schools,
and things,
to

mostly on

non-essential hesitate
of the

he himself the

could not
various

therefore

select from

systems, careless

deeper

tion interconnec-

that which seemed to him definitions, particular The who made serviceable. the proconsul Grellius, to the philosophers in Athens well-meaning proposal that they should amicably settle their points of

of

and offered himself difference,

as

mediator,1expressed

the

trulyEoman
too

somewhat

conception of philosophy, though candidly. Though the influence of


doubtless
*

this
man

standpointwould
and soldier have
waste

have

affected Greek
53.

must
even

naturally
greater
rhetoric.

philosophy appeared
of time

Cic. Vide

L"gg. i. 20,
in 682

Gellius
=

was

consul

A.u.O.

72

'

B.C.

Clinton, Fasti

H"llen.

than

for that

year.

ITS

PRINCIPLE

AND

CHARACTER.

17

philosophyvery
earlier

little had
was

it been

exerted

at

an

CEAP.
'_

period, it

quite otherwise
the the of direction

when which

philoally especiWhen

sophy had itself taken corresponded with


the and

Eoman the

nature.

internal

condition last

philosophic schools,
in this

the especially
"

important phenomenon
of Carneades
"

sphere
only the
concurrence

the

doctrine
must

eclecticism,it
more

have necessarily

already led to developed itself


external
fluences. in-

speedilyand
of internal

successfully through the


with

motives

But

although this
as

eclecticism

primarilyappears
'

B.

merelyJ

the

product of historical relations,which


L

L''lfl
cliaractcr

rather conduced the internal


is
not

to the

external

connection

than

to

of edeet'w

it harmonisingof different standpoints, characteristic a wholly without principle, had


not

which
enquire

till then

existed

in this form. view

If

we

accordingto

what

point of
were

the doctrines
we

of the
not

different systems

chosen,

find it in then

was

sufficient to maintain
were

those

doctrines would

which

all

agreed;
to
a

for the very few

eclectics

have

been

limited

of propositions

indefinite

universality.
theories
could

But
not

even

the

practical utilityof
as

be

considered

the

final of

mark

of their truth ; for the and


the way

practical problem
was was

mankind,

of its solution

itself

of the standard

strife ; the

question
and

object therefore, by what


a

main

aims practical

relations standard

should could

selves them-

be be

determined?
in

This

only

ultimately sought

immediate individual

consciousness.

If it be

required that

the
c

shall choose

18

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

out of the various


own

systems that which


that each for decision
is and

is true
man

for his

J
v

use,

this presupposes
the

carries in
true
man

himself

standard

between

and

and that truth false, self-consciousness


;

directly given to
it

in

his

in this preis'precisely suppositio and importance that the individuality eclectic philosophy seem chieflyto lie. of the that the soul brought assumed Plato had indeed with it from a previouslife into its present existence the Stoics of ideas ; and similarly the consciousness which are implanted in had spoken of conceptions

by nature ; but had thereby intended


man

neither
to teach

Plato
an

nor

the

Stoics ledge knowminiscence re-

immediate
term
;

in the

strict

sense

of the

for the

tic of ideas coincides in Plato with the dialecand forming of conceptions,

arises, according to
scientific activities
"

him, by
which he

means

of the moral

and

as preliminary stagesof philosophy regards of the Stoics are not, as and the natural conceptions tific been shown, innate ideas ; but, like scienhas already derived merely in a natural manner are thoughts, velop from experience. Knowledge here also has to deand itself from experience,and is attained ment conditioned by intercourse with things. This attainfirst denied of knowledge was by scepticism, declared the relation of our which conceptions to to be unknowable, and made the things conceived al] our convictions exclusively jective dependent upon sub-

bases.

But

if in this way,
in

of the

truth,but only belief

this belief takes the established,

knowledge be can probability place of knowledge


not
a

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, T'

out

importance for the further


As

course man

of
is

philosophic
regarded as
essential maintained

development.
the

the interior of

placewhere
to opposition

the

knowledge

of the most

truth
in

has originally

its seat, it is herein

the Stoic and


a

that in self-consciousness
is

Epicurean sensualism, of knowledge source specific


this

is

given: and though something actual, a fact

higherknowledge
experience
"

of inner

though this
into the

rationalism, so far,again resolves itself

yet it is empiricismof direct consciousness, from which all truth is perception no longer the mere to the immediately certain may? derived. This appeal
be regarded as therefore,
a

reaction

against the

sen-

sualistic because
as

empiricismof
not

it does

such, and

go is nevertheless
and

precedingsystems. But beyond the internally given,


the

scientificestablishment convictions
from
are

wanting in any deeper development,philosophic

not

the hnman
on man

in their origin actually recognised stowed mind, but appear as something beby a power standing above him ; and

thus innate
form of

knowledge

forms

the transition

to

that

which philosophy

only goes back

to self-consciousness,

in order to receive in it the revelation

of the

God.

How

the belief in external

revelations

and

allied are religion leaning of philosophyto positive later on ; at present it is to this, will be shown of fact, in a enough to remark that,as a matter

Plutarch,an Apuleius,a Maximus,


the Platonists generally among eclecticism after Christ, centuries

Numenius,
the

and

of

first two

and the

philosophy

of revelation

went

hand

in hand.

ITS

PRINCIPLE

AND

CHARACTER.

21

But

as

eclecticism of the mode itself

in this of

aspect

bore

within

it
__.

CHAP.

the germ

developed
from

thought which so powerfully subsequently in Neo-Platonism ; i.


view it also contained its

"__
"

Edec-

another

point of
in

the
own

^"^'tfo
germs

to which scepticism,

great part
in
:

it owed

of

origin. For that thought to be at


its ultimate doubt it cannot

dissatisfaction which
peace any definite

will not

allow

system, has
come overfully

basis in this in the

that it has not of

truth
to

dogmatic systems, that

recognisedoubt as to certain even though it does not approve of it particulars, not merely in principle. Scepticism is consequently
refuse
one

of

the

causes

which

have

conditioned has
own

the
it

development
and

of

eclecticism;
itself
as a

eclecticism
its
to

continually within
its
own

phase of
tends

tence; exisit

behaviour
vacillation

keep

awake

the
is

eclectic

between
unrest

different

systems

nothing else
of

than

the

of

sceptical original
are

thought,a
consciousness to be

little moderated

by

belief

in the

truth,the
The

utterances

of which and

broughttogetherout
more was

of the many

various

scientific theories. doubt devoid stilled

by. a

mode less
was

however, superficially, of philosophising so


it to be If

of

the principle,
be

expected that
which
to be

it should

for

ever

silenced.
no

the truth

could

be

found

in

individual

system

was

gleaned out
attention
to

of all

systems,it required only moderate


of various
so

perceivethat the fragments


not

systems would
united
"

allow themselves

to be

directly
with

that

eaxsh. philosophical propositionhas its


in its interconnection

definite

meaning only

22

ECLECTICISM.

imp.

some

definite

system; while,

on

the

other

hand,

from different systems, like the systems propositions another : that one themselves, mutually exclude the
contradiction of

opposite theories annuls


a

their

and authority, of the


as

that

the attempt to make the

basis out

of harmonising propositions

philosophers^

the fact of their on truth,is wrecked recognised disagreement. Therefore after the scepticismof the Academy had been extinguishedin the eclecticism of the first century before Christ, doubt arose anew in the school of JEnesidemus to lose itself only in the with third century, simultaneously
in

all other

theories,
greater

Neo-Platonism

and

no

argument

has

than that which the weight with these new sceptics precedent of eclecticism readilyfurnished to them : the impossibility of knowledge is shown by the contradiction of the systems of philosophy; the pretended harmony of these systems has resolved

itself into

the

perception of

their

mutual

patibility. incom-

ii. And

of

however, as the renewal Justifiable,


aPPears of in relation
to

of

scepticism
ment treat-

imtm"'

the

uncritical

eclectic

it could no philosophy, longer attain the importance which it had had in the school of the exhaustion of thought which new academy, The
can

be shown

even

in too

this later necessary,

made scepticism,
to allow many

conviction positive return


to

to in

pure

doubt.

the belief If, therefore,


in

the

truth

of the
if
even

systems hitherto

vogue

was

shaken, and
not

their eclectic combination

could for

while entirely satisfy,

strengthwas

wanting

ITS

PRINCIPLE

AND

CHARACTER.

23

the

independent
result
was

production only
for
a

of

new

system

the

CHAP.
*"

general
more

that

thought
of

began knowledge

to

long
_

and

more

source

lying

outside which the the


in

itself

and

science

as

hitherto
inner

existing
revelation of Thus

was

sought
and

partly partly
in

in

the

Deity
way
was

religious
which

tradition.

entered

upon,
more

Neo-Platonisrn

the

next

period
last

definitely
of Greek

pursued,

and

so

opened

the

epoch

philosophy.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTEE
ECLECTICISM BEFORE
IN THE THE

II.
AND FIRST CENTURIES

SECOND

CHRIST.

EPICUREANS.

ASCLEPIADES.

CHAP. II.

OF

the schools themselves

of

philosophywhich
on

had

tained still mainup


to

the

theatre

of history

I. EclectJte two
centuries
B.C.

the ticism
in

middle of

the

second

that century before Christ,


least affected time.

of the

Epicureanswas,

to all appearance,

by the
its had

scientific movement

of the

Though
tendencies
seem

A.

Tlie

with juxtaposition left upon


been it
some

other intellectual

jEpieureans.

traces, it does

not

to

have
a no

influenced

by

any

of these
manner.
v

tendencies
We

in

deeper and more doubt, suppose


all

permanent
that
even

must,
of the

the the
to

refutation

which objections
on

encountered occasion

Epicurean doctrine
new

sides, gave

some

phases

in

the

conception and
subordinate

establishment further

of it ; that

the
in

system perhapswas
certain

developed or modified
one

pointsby

and

another have

of its

adherents,and that alien doctrines


more

may

been

by thoroughlyinvestigated
But when
we seem

them

than followed

by
up that

himself. Epicurus"
of
tJie later

have
to

Epito

all the

traces

which

cureans individual
1

might

indicate

JSpicurm.

of Epicurus had departed, either disciples from their master,1the sum formallyor materially,
A collection of these
"

and the

examinavalue

which

we

cannot
we

but

acknowmay not

tion

of

ledge, though

THE

EPICUREANS.

total of such

departures which,
inconsiderable Seneca
the

can

be the

historically CHAP.
well-known
j

proved is so judgments of orthodoxy of


limitation

that

concerningthe Epicureans1 scarcelysuffers any


and Numenius We
was as

from

them.

learn from
not

Cicero

that

the his

theory of Epicurus
Eoman
to

seldom

conceived ascribed
and

by
an

compatriots
Cicero
in
no

if he

had

independent value
virtue
to
; but

intellectual

culture
this

to

himself

adds, that
tells

opinion is
the

be

found

scientific

of representative
us

Epicurean philosophy.3 He
of his time who

of

some

cureans Epi-

separatedthemselves from Epicurus 4 by their theory of a disinterested love to this It is doubtful, however, whether friends.
should be

regarded
of
asserts

as

radical deviation
statement

from in

the

Eudaemonism

Epicurus ; the
that friends may when

tion ques-

only
own

be loved
us no

for their

sake, even
not

they bring

advantage ; 5
intercourse

but this does


is based

exclude

the idea that love to them

upon

the

pleasure secured
these be 'later and

by

with, all the inferences agree from and conjectures deduced them i.
"

philosophers'
Philodemus
be

to

Siro

; but

has

been

undertaken
zu

by
Cio.

Hirzel, Tfntermehungen

though this idea is not it cannot able in itself,


taioed dation.
5

improbascer-

with 165-190, in connection vita et Diining, De Metrodori scriptis, p. 18 sgq. 1 Phil. (Lev 6fr.III. i. p. 379, 4.
2

whether
L

it has

any

foun-

Cic. Fin.
it
:

20, 69, thus

ex-

presses

Primos

conyressus

Fin.

Phil, der
3

i. 7, 25; 17, 55; Gr. III. i. 4:45,2.

cf.

Quos quidem (he makes Torquatus, i. 17, 55, observe video esse respecting them)
multos
4

(and so forth) fieri propter autem itsus wlwptat"m,, cum famiMaritatem effeyrogrediens
cerit,
turn
amorem

efflorescere
si

tantitm, lit, etiam


utilitas amioi
ex

milla

sit

sed

iniperitos.
der

amidtia,
se

tamen

ipsi

Qr, III. i. 460, 2. Hirzel,loc. cit. 170 s#., supposes


Phil,

propter

ipsosamentw.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

with of

them.1
much,

Such

difference
Nor

cannot
are
we

be considered

II.

importance.
alteration

an ascribing

of the

in justified Epicurean theology

to

it

have carried Philodemus, though he may, perhaps, self:2 than Epicurus himfurther in certain particulars and

from deviations pure though many perceptible3in Lucretius, on Epicureanism are closer which

they will inspection merely


but
concern

be

found

to refer to traits

the affect

form the

of the

poetic

sentation pre-

do not

scientific theories.4
all. The of is described

In
as

the of
more

amare

gropter
to

se

over
as an

sun

ijjsos,
because

opposed

the the

love lies
ception con-

essence

which the

generates

utility,there
than the
an

the

births

world;

the

nothing
upon

of

affection person not

based
of
on
a a

delight in
of the this
can

earth, in animated language, as of living creatures the mother ; the even conjecture that the
stars not
are

friend, and
calculation such based
an

merely
benefits.
can

But
be

cast

affection
on

also

This
to
own
v.

living beings he does aside (v. 523 *#".)" however, last, according
122 is

motive

of

sure. plea-

sqg., cannot
What he
same
x.

be

his"
that also

To

only

the

further

opinion.

really

argument
J"tenim, si
si

be

applied :

says

loca,sifana, si wbes, si gymnasia, si campum,

only the Epicurus (ap.Diog.


expresses
in
one

112)
his

of

thetical hypo-

canes, si dc[iws ludicra, escercendi adcon"uetudine venavidi ant


amare

explanations
with reference

of Nature

to earlier theories

soleniiis, quanto
consMetudine 6V.

Jiomimtm
8 3 4

(Phil,der Gr. 1. 245). Concernfacilius ing^theremaining points,Bitter


in

id

! jieri potuerit etjustius Phil, der III. i. 435, 1.

himself

remarks of the

that

the

scriptions de-

Hitter,iv.
Kitter and
are

89-106.

be that this

intended is the which

poet can only figuratively; and


case

thinks her in described


a

(p. 94)

with

the would

Nature

parts

component tius by Lucremuch in


a

perhaps

passages be

most

at times

more

vivid, and
more

at times

much than

to an Epicurean surprisiDg Lucretius s^.)" where defends the Epicurean theory

(v.

534

detailed

manner,

that the

the air

earth

is borne
x,

the lifeless and of the

uniform

physics

(Diog.

74)
the

up by with the

seem Epicureans would is to have permitted. Nature conceived as a by Lucretius rules absolutely Unity, which

observation

that the

air is not

oppressed by
the earth
was

earth, because
one

of originally

piece with

it,justas the weight

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. II.

we

also

find with

Demetrius
an

meeting
which

an

objection of
us

Cameades that this

answer

leads

to

suppose

training gained in logical through the dialectic of the Academy.1 But that definition of in any either of these philosophers doctrine diverged from the doctrine of materially Epicurean
had

their When
men

master

is

not

maintained his

in

any

quarter.

Diogenes in
who

certain cataloguementions called Sophistsby the genuine Epicureans were these Sophists to consider have no reason we

as

more

than

isolated

offshoots of the
any

school,or
seated

to

argue

from

their appearance within

deeply

agreement dis-

it,or

any

change

in its

general

character.2
3

In

the in Part NatTi.

tioned exposition (menin. L 371,

4)

Sext

viii. 348, where

ap. he the
6

Kal 6 tevK6s.

6* 6 Z'fji/cav

maintains, in oppositionto
statement

about
at p.

argumentation
504, and
distinction harin mony of

eVz/cArffisis AaKow,
ras

discussed
"yevLKT] and

6 Tapcreiis

0' 6 Aioye^s exiAe/crovs1 crxoAas

with whenever the To what

the
valid

that e2?u/C7) owo""i"is,


a

Kal 'Qploov Kal a\\OL crvyypd^/as, ots oi yvficriOL 'ETTLKotipeioi cro"J!"icrras

separate
once

proof

aTTO/caAoiJcriv. Hirzel 180

(lew.
that

is adduced, him is

the

admissibilityof
shown.

cit.

sqq.)

believes

argument

is at

those
true

also, perhaps, belongs quoted by Sextus, viii.

Sophists by the include Epicureans must


named the from and
men

all

here

tioned, men-

what it shows 330 ; in any case of Carinfluence the objections had made neades even upon the

wards, Apollodorus ontherefore lodorus Apol-

Epicureans.
2

himself, the two Ptoleof Sidon, "c. Zeno But msei,


this from Had the have is very improbable, even the mode of expression, such said been he the
must 8e

The

25 ceed prothe enumeration thus: (after

words

in

Diog.x.

of of

several

immediate
OI"TOI

Epicurus) KCU

disciples ^kv e\\6yi-

meaning
at
rovrovs

of
ol

writer,
:

least

irdvras

%v BatnAet 8775-. A.LOVUCTLOS, "5i"5e'"aro 'EiriKovpeioi ffQfyicrr"s yvficrioi, airo6 KyTrortipav$' if he wished Mai iA.iroXX6^ct}pos to KaXovtriv ; and
yos

yeyovev

ttsvirep eAA^yiyUOS,

ra

express

himself

clearly even
been insuffi-

fii"Aia,'dvo T"ETpaK6ffia ffuysypafye

this would

have

ASCLEPIADES.

The stands
He

famous
in

is not any

of Bithynia,1 CHAP. physician, Asclepiades II. another relation to the Epicurean school, its members expresslyenumerated Ascleamong

by
had

of the
would

authors

who

mention
us

the him, but his jriades

yltt/sioian

theories
some

lead certainly

to

suppose
He
and

that
is at
is it

he
one

n'"t

an

connection
must

with
:

the
of

school. Epicurus;

Epicu-

rean,
but shows school.

cient. rby
5e

He

have

written

avrbjs

would that he /ecu *A.iro\\6$capojf rovs per ot after apply the yvfjcriOL 'ETHKroiJpeioi
a.iroK.a\ov(nv.

likely affi/iith'$ immediately with the


predicate
ledged acknownot

same

ffofyLcrras
we ovs

As

it

is,

to

those

who

were

can

only refer
or

the

words
to

by the
as

cbro/mA-outru/

either
to the

the and number

genuine Epicureans belonging to their


This is in itself very

"XX.OL alone, the


names

aAAoi

genes.
case

the immediately ability improbceding improbable, but preand Biobecomes them, Orion greater still when find that among in this these we Diogenes may the
same

be this
as

person

tioned men-

by
but
case,

Strabo, xiv. 5, 15 ; is not necessarily the


Strabo in the does
as
an

Sophists are two of the most distinguished leaders, Apollodorus and Zeno. Hirzel shown has that

not

scribe just before de-

Diogenes
and of

rean, Epicu-

the

tion enumera-

(p. 170) ooly Epicureans of the purest selected as overseers type were
school
we ; and to him can

Tarsus, the been have may


well Stoic
as

philosophers of Epicurean Diogenes


passed
more

of the

all
an

the less concede his

that
"

over,

as

Apollodorusanda
as a

Zeno

the former,

the Zeno. of

far

celebrated the

But

positive
sition suppostill more

arguments
decisive.

against the
Hirzel
are

designation proves, head of the highly- esteemed school ; the latter regarded by
Cicero and Plrilodemus
as one

ties According to this, of the first Epicurean authoricould have the the been, in the Epicurean with whom of Diogenes originates judgment of the mention yvficrioi only have must pseudo-Epicurean Sophists. pointed out a whole 1 ries theowhose This physician, of series Epicurean philosophers,
"

whom

he

himself

calls

are

constantly mentioned
Placita, and
in

who as men were "\\6yifj.QL the named genuine Sophists by consequently Epicureans, and members become of the school
to

in the

ascribed the

tarch, to Plu-

writings of
K,

Galen, is counted
as one

by the pseudoleaders of Sext.


a

who

had

Galen, Isag.c. 4, vol. xiv. 683


of the of

unfaithful

its true

the

? logical school How is this conceivable spirit. had he As eAA^iaoi, previously According to mentioned

physicians.
MatJi. vii. Vide

Metrodorus,
"

Her-

marchus, word, the

in a Polysenus, "c. most loyal disciples p. 30, note

20 "?., ne was of Antiochus 1.

contemporary

of Ascalon.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. II.

"with the that the the

Epicurean sensualism l in sensible perceptiongives a

his
true

statement

image

of

the conthat reason, but on trary, thing perceived, of knowledge, is not an independent source
all its
content

borrows
to

from

perception,and
connection

has
with

be

verified

by perception.2In
reason

this he found of the

as an superfluous,3

integral part
:

soul, herein said, was


senses

going beyond Epicurus only the whole


to

the
of
as

soul, he
all the

compounded
he gave
animo

4 collectively ;

which

Sext. Math.
were

vii. 201.
some

That the

principale,dum
esse

in

ipso

there

also

who
to be

clared Tolunt dedicatur

sensations

mnquorum principals, in favour of

sensus,"

of criterion truth, Antiochus 5e in these words shows : "\\os ovdzybs larpiKri tv vis fJ.ev ry

which

Asclepiades
live
or

animals many without head

argues for a

that time

heart

(the two

5e KOI of the a-TrrSfM^vos """zAo- parts regarded as seats fievrepos, eireiQero See cucrfl^creis ras 5iyeij.ovLK6v}. next note. "ro(f)ias, fJ.ev 4 This aA7j0"Ss ayriA^eis etvcu, results ovrcas KOI conception from the passage in Tertullian, \6ycp Se Here Asclepiades the which therefore compares piades AscleAayujSaz/e**'. with can Dicasarchus ; and contemporary of Antiochus

alone
2

be referred and real


on

to.

still more else


can

from distinctly De Mori),


aciut.
on

Gal. i. 14 Sext.

This the

nothing
opinion

Aurel.

be

of

piades, Ascle-

(quoted
Math.

by

Fabric,

Asclepiacles animcs regmim aliquaparte conis based, for he, like Epicurus, stitutum (a TjyejAoviKdv dwelling denominated his atoms patrol, in a definite part of the body) (infra,p. 31 n. 5), negat. JEtenim niJiil aliud esse X6ycp eewpyrol
:

which

the statement,

vii.

380)

and

also believed

in

an

tual intellechidden from the


4.

'dieit animam
omnium autem
rerum

quam
:

sensmtm

knowledge
of by means perceived.
3

of

the

costum

intellectual vel latentium

inferences "Vide
vii. 202
.

occitltarum per soluUlem

infra,note
:
. .

Sext. Math.
rb

'AcrK\vj380,
15
:

rbv larpbv TTidSrjv


pet?

avatpovvra

fierimotum qui ab accidentifa(s sensilili'bus atque awtecedenti


sensuitm,

Ibid. 7]yefj.oviK6v.
:

m perspectioneperfcitur

emoriam dic.it. i. in the

he says Messenius

ou"Je 0Ao"s

n virdpx*iv

i:ero

alterno
Plao.

eorum

exerdtio the
:

Tert. v)j"/jLoviK6y.

De

an.

Plut.

iv. 2, 8

(Stob. Eel.
same

aliquis Dictzarcktis, 496) expresses Andreas autem et ex m edicts followingwords abstulerunt Ascleyiades ita

'Acr/cA. 6

tarpbs

ASCLEPIADES.

si

substratum round
memory of

the

Trvev/jia

consistingof
traced

light
the

and
__

CHAP. IJ"

He particles.1
and

also

the
in

activities of organs

intellect to
If

movements

sense.2

piades 3 is Pontus,4 it
this

the atomistic lastly theory of Ascleprimarilyallied to that of Heraclides of


is not
to

be

supposed that he
tradition of

arrived

at

theory without
which
was

the

the

atomistic

system
The small

stillliving in the

Epicurean school.
held to be

primary
bodies

constituents

of all

thingshe

distinguishedfrom the atoms of Democritus and Epicurus in that they From all eternity they strike todivisible. were gether in constant and motion berless splitup into numparts, of which sensiblyperceptiblethings consist.5 But even in compound bodies their ceasewere

which

the

whether alffO^arecav, mean crvyyvfj.vacria. may 'common or practice, "practice,' work


in
a

vao-iav r""v

from, and
3

complex

of

motions,
these

cer-

tain motions that


On

detach

themselves,
arise Lasshis

through

done
sense

or together,'

whether
not

abstract

otherwise

de-

presentations. this subject cf.


discusses
on

monstrable, corresponding with denote a society cactus, it may


of
1

witz, who
treatise p. 425 sq. wissensch.

it in

"rvyyvfjiva,"6iL"voi.
Chalcid. moles
sunt in

Tim. leves

213

Aut

Bennett, fur {VierteljaJtrscJir. PMlos. iii.408 sqq.},


restorer

Daniel

eniwi

vide (J"yKoi,
et

guceda/m

infra) for this globo"ce atomistic


in
4

German

of the

delicate ex admodimi ecBcLemqiie anima sufisistit, quod, quibus

philosophy (he died 1637) allied himself chiefly

with
5

Asclepiades.
PMl. The
d. most

spirttm ypiadtis putat, "c. analogous, though


totum

est, ut
On of
.

Asclethe

GT.

ii. i. 886

sq.

somewhat

of this Aurel. de-r of

complete account theory is given by Cgel.


loo. cit. : Primordia wnstituerat
;
cor-

different
rus

definitions

Epicu-

and
2

Democritus,
;

cf PMl.

poris primo

atomus did not that

Gr. III. i. 418


His
exact

also I. 808.

(thisis
call them

inaccurate
so

he
reason

conception
from The the Aurelius 30.
to

for the

this is not age of in note motus

clear

the pass-

they
ulla

are

not

corindivisible)

Cselius

quoted
solubilis
idea that

pmcula

intellects

setwa,

sine

4, p. points

qualitate solita (without colour,and so forth) atque ex

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

less motion of time,


initio even
_

continues, so that nothing in


remains the smallest, (?)
aeternum
se

any

section If

__^1

unchanged.1

comitata

moventia mutuis
tium

itself). That these 07*0* (as offensa Epicurus had said of the atoms) qua suo iimmu 5i* alcoves and are \6y"y deuprjrol ictil)us in infimta parsolvantur eundo mag-

fragment"
rursiim

nitud'me

atqiiescJwmate conjunct"
in

entia, differsibi omnia


semet

avnp"[j.r)Toi, we Hi. 5. Math.

are

told also What

by

Sext. and of

He

speaks
Caelius

quce adjeeta vel

220) (viii.
VOTITO.

of

vorjrol UJKOL

apatcapara.

faoiant sensiMlia, vim


niutationis Jiabentia mtudincm dinem ordinem.
ant

autper

sui met per schema per

wiagnudtituaut

says of the receives the atoms Aurel. from


the words

shattering

confirmation
witz Lass-

quoted by
from
c.

per
ca-

(p. 426)
Galen,
698 7(5 : Introd.
Kara

the

pseudo-

ratione Nec" ingulf,

9, vol. xiv.

videtur quod mdliusfaGiant rere (that being corpora quiditatis without generate bodies quality, of definite quality) ; silver is is which that white, whereas is black it off from rubbed ; the

"e -r'by ^AffKXrjTTid^T]^

tiyicoi avQptairov Qpavtrrol (TroL-^ela


Kal TTopoi; and from Stob.JSbZ.
i.

350, according to which the predecessor of Asclepiades (Herato be elides)declared Opada-para,


the smallest
also

goat's
of

horn it

sawdust

is black, the These white.

bodies
to

(the theories
Heracleitus in
the

ascribed
the

primeval bodies Asclepiadesjike


Heracleitus, called ampftoi
oywi

in

foregoing,and
"

passages ever, der Gr. II i. 886, 3 ; where, howin Eus. Par. ev. xiv. 23, 3, instead

(of. the

quoted, Phil,

^y/xarxa atuep7) seemy however, originally to belong to Heraclides). This divisibility


"

Placita, i. 13, 2 TLVCL eAaxzcrra Kal

cf.

of the OJKOL is referred to when of "u,eybvofj.d.craj'TGS, /*eroSextus ing is to be read, accord(Math. x. 318) observes vofj.d"ravres and Epicurus to Diels, jDoxogr. 252, 2). that Democritus the expression represent things as I previouslyunderstood arising "=| (i,e. TQLS yzwojfjLGVQis*) avo^oLcoy as applying to bodies Kal axraQcav. Heraclides and not re not i.e., joined together
"

divisible ; but I must that the to Lasswitz


atoms

concede
not

Asclepiades, on
yuev

the

contrary,
The

primitive """ avo{JLQitov


are

Se KaQdTraBrjrSiy side and

of

Asclepiades

irep with
same

r"v

aydpju.(ay oytttav.
are

this.
f

which loclte)\Trdpot., The interpretations

by
the

side
the void
tioned men-

loose'

(therefore capable
seem

of

the

oyKoi,

have also

separation), and
e

imgeordnet,
to me,

significance as
the atoms,
are

unordered,'
I

ever, how-

beside Pis.
1

'in point of

language, questionable.
therefore,
combined each the from
c.

by
Sext.

Galen,
Math.

Theriac.
K.

ad.

should,
to not
'
*

11, vol. xiv. 250


viii. 7.
to true

prefer to give signification,


with
oyvos
one

the "vapfj"os

Plato
not-

ascribes sensible

Being

the
state

another and

(so that

is

separated
moves

alone, because things are always in a

sensible of

other

itself for

Becoming:

A8CLEP1A"ES.

these

theories
member

had
of

been the

attributed

to

an

acknow-

CHAP,
IL

ledged
no

Epicurean

school,

they
from

would

doubt

contain

noteworthy
but
as

departure Asclepiades only


itself of show

the
is

doctrine described individual

of

the

master,

not

as

an

Epicurean,
what that the
seems

they
in

in

one

case

natural

and

probable,
of other

viz.,

influence

Epicureanism,
confined within

as

systems,
of

was

not

strictly

the

limits

the

school.

Trjs
TOUS

Qvtr'ias,
eAa^icrrous"

Sxrre

Tavrb

["%

5uo

r^jv
of

o^vrTjra
tlie

rrjs

pays

(on
of itself

account

xp6vovs
KaQdirep
5vo

imo^v^iv
"\eje
5xa

swiftness
can

tlie

flow

^77^6

sTTLdexecrdaL,
idfi
7]$,

nothing

sliow

twice),

Ka.rA.fftth.7j7r

eTriSei^eiS

34

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTEE

III.

THE

STOICS

BOETHUS,

PAN^ETIUS, schools of
in

POSIDONIUS.

CHAP.

AMONG

the Stoics

remaining
was

philosophy,
foreign
to
a

that

of

the
B. TJie

the

first

which,

partial divergence
elements.
still from seat
more

from This

its older

teachers, admitted

Stoics.

occurred, however, subsequently


extent

considerable
first

in

the

Academy
was

/which,
the chief
on

the of

century

before The

Christ,

eclecticism.
to

Peripatetics
the
we

seem,

the

whole,
in
even

have

preserved
;
were

tradition
shall find

of

their that
an

school
some,

greater purity
among

but

them,

inclined school of the the with

towards
other

eclectic

bination com-

of that In

standpoints.
rise of eclecticism

the

school
with

Stoics,the
names

is connected and

of

Boethus,

Pansetius,

Posidonius.

Supposed
vaciUfi-

Already
tjie
,~"

at

the
of
p. /-XT

beginning
,-,

of Zeno

the
of of
"

second

century
.

tionofthe

successor

Cnrysippus,
as

Tarsus,
the of

is

said

to

have

been of his

perplexed
school
so
:
"

to

one

distinctive
destrucof
?

ipjrus

doctrines tion its of

the that
*

doctrine
ne

the

tlie world" undecided


ap. Eus. Pr.

left

the
J

question
him
of

truth
Numen. 2.

and
of world

similarly, after
the
:

tion

of the
l

icorld.

ev.

xv.

18,

Zeno,

Cleanthes,
the

and

rbv

Chrysippns

taught

doctrine

r^v

Kal

conflagration p.(-v yhp TOVTO SidSoxov rtj$

the

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. III.

with

the

Stoic
with

empiricisn^ though it perfectly


the

harmonised But
is still

doctrine.1 Peripatetic
to the Stoic

the attitude of Boethus


more

theology
he

antagonistic.For
was an

although
ethereal the
to

held,

with

that (rod others,


not

substance,2
world
as

he would

admit he
a

that

He

dwelt in

its sonl; and the world


abode -of
as

consequentlyrefused

describe

being ; 3 he rather assignedthe living presented rethe Deity to the highest sphere, and the Him as working from thence upon
As
to the
reasons

universe.4

which

determined

the

In

respect
in Phil

to

vovs

this

Is

sLown

d. 6fr. II. ii. 190

Diog. vii. 148 : HOTI"OS *f-ri Trepl Overseas ovtriav deov


4 Ttov

Se 3v

rfyv
is to

sqq. describes but and he

Aristotle the
traces

nowhere,
as upej-ts
or a

indeed,
source

cLirX".vS)vcrQcfipay, which

of

be understood
as

presentations
aims of
must to be

cognitions ;
to

the

same way definitions corresponding

in the

practicalends
natural
stitution con-

of other

Stoics

(Phil, d, Gr. III.

partly

desires,and

partlyto the

i.137, 1, 2),the ^^oviKlv of the world is said to have its seat in the This that thence the the which But

depend

the will, on which consider what we


3 ; 586,
2 ;

purest
would
the It

part of
not

the

ether.

clude necessarilyex-

good (La. 582,

ancient

Stoic doctrine itself


in

631, 2 ; 653 ; cf. Mh. 1098, ~b, 3).


2

JV". i. 7 ;

spreads
all But would and

from of

through

the^ parts
that
a

Stob.

Mel. i. 60

Ed^Qos rbv
his he

world.
world

case

aldepa Qebv aire^yaro. In opinion of the soul also


remained
3

be

living
allow.

creature

the

Deity its soul",


did
not

faithful
143.

to

the The
'

Stoic Stoics

Boethus

materialism.

if this
there

conception
remains far the from

be

jected, rea

Diog. vii.
the

only
out, withextract
sponds corre-

declare

world
:

to

be

motion

of the world and


so

living and
$t](nv Bern.
K'ara
OVK

animate *Tj"cu

Bo^fos 16, p.

""o
c. rov
i

given by
Stoic
:

Philo, JEtern.
:

m.

Philo with the

(I

c.)

view

of

out

fyvxfy "e
a v r

[_6
oTa
real

r'obs
"

6 Bets

Zo |o vi/ras if these words belong to


to
me

the
now

excerpt from Boethus, which


appears
most

KvBepj/'firov

i Kal probable, at least according to the re iraj/ra, ri\ie^

sense.

Kal creK^vr), "c. Kal floret, irapiarrdfjisyos (TvvSpwv

BOETHUS.

philosopherto
tradition
no

this
us

rejection of
the fear of

Stoic

pantheism,
cause

CHAP.

tells have

nothing: the
lain in

decisive

must

_.__!_.

doubt

sublimity and according


world. his In
to

of unchangeableness His

imperillingthe Grod, if He were,


with the
in

substance,
theories with

connected

these

Boethus,

school,agreed
him God that from

but Aristotle,
in his

oppositionto he essentially
in the
*"

differs from

both
not

materialism.,and

opinion
universe

every denies world.3 between of

part

of

only directs and guides the the ruling point, but stands beside Aristotle it, ready to help ; whereas Deity
every

.to the
Boethus

activitydirected

to

the

is therefore

seekinga

middle

course

the

pantheism of
that the

Aristotle; like
from

Stqicsand the theism which was subsequently


the in the
"

attempted
With

side Peripatetic

Book

of

the Universe.92 this is connected


of

Boethus'

contradiction the world. this

of

the doctrine the four the world world


must

the

of conflagration

Of
trine,3 doc-

arguments by which
first shows that
a

he opposes
destruction for

the

of the
the

result without

cause,

outside

nothing but the void,and in the world to it. there is nothing which could bring destruction The second seeks to prove, not altogether conclusively,
there is that of
all the different kinds of destruction
4

none

a Kal fiXov "5tafj.ov$]v According to Ps.-Philo, I.e. Trpbs rfyv rov avvirainov 16 c. HOLT TV X6yov opeby sg., p. 249-253, Bern. (952, 0. *#. H., 503 *$. M.). SLolK-riffiv. * 1 Kar" avcdpscriv Kal rots Kara. $Laipe"riv, jjXlcare Kal ffeX-fivr)

"\Xots
8* aepi

%ri Kal airXavtffiv, vhdvijcrt

rys

Kal rots fjiepecrtrov K6crp.ov the Kal crvvSpcav (Philo, Kara -jrapicrrd/jievQs loc. eit.}. Vide infra, chapter
*

eTre^oi/crsjs irotdTTjTOS(as ill of a destruction figure), (rvyxycrw

(chemical
cL

mix-

ture, of. PML


v,

Gr.

III. i. 127,

1).

;J3

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

could
_

be

to applicable

the

world.1

The

third main-

TIL

tains that after the destruction would

of the world the


must

Deity
sequently con-

have

no

and objectfor his activity,


into he inaction
must
; nay,

sink the

world-soul,

Lastly,the fourth
annihilation

contends

Deity be be himself destroyed. that,after the complete


if the
tire must
2

of the

world, this
world

itself be then the

for want extinguished


new

of nourishment

and

formation

of the

would concluded

be

impossible.
from

But

Boethus
the

had

doubtless
was

this not
also that

only that
it had
no

world

beginning ; 3
for doctrine

but imperishable, he exchanged the

Stoic

mology cos-

not
/

the Platonic
of the

but for the Aristotelian

theory,the
his transition
to

eternity of the
here

world
also

departurefrom
That Boethus

the

Stoic

that of the
likewise

dogma is Peripatetics. opposed the

Stoic

belief in

utterances on prophecy is not asserted ; 4 his own to an confined this subject are enquiry concerning the similar and the prognosticsof weather things,
1

For

that which

only
is

Is

capable of

G"r III. i.153, 2),and


.

this would

division
or "K

dieo-rdr^y, or only ffvvaarroiJLev"v,


l/c united
"

presuppose 3 This appears

luminous

body,

weakly
is
An

not

that

which of is the
not

superiorto
entire of the

all else in force. world

from especially the third argument; thepseudoPhilo also (p.249, 4) represents him sition
4

annihilation

quality
maintained of fire.
were

by the other view, for subsist in the form still to this is


If

attacking the yevijThs KOL K^or^os.


as

presuppo6 "{"6aprb$

el

The

contrary would
from

rather

finallyall elements

simultaneously abolished there would through trfryxvffis,


a

Cic. Divin. seem ii. 42, 88, according1to which Panastius units " Stolois astroloto result

be
"

transition Because

of the oj/into the fire it could but 4"Ab", cf PMl.


.

#y. (JL)J
2

prcedicta rejecit ; but goruin this only implies that Boethus


did
not

as

pure

expressly
not

be

nor avQpa.% (on which only avyl]

neither

belief,
shared

that

the oppose himself he

d.

it.

PANJETIUS.

connection he

of
to

which

with

the

phenomena
his his

portended

CHAP.
'"

sought
With

discover.1
Is
not

Boethus

associated

celebrated
to

co-

Panc?tiu":

disciple Pansetius,2
doctrine

only
he
in

in

opposition
world, hut
to

the
in

^Si^es
ISO
B.C.

o"

the

destruction attitude and views.

of the
assumed his

also

the

independent
of his
to

the
to

tion tradiallow -and

school,
other

readiness

entrance

This chief
seem, to

distinguished
founder
about

influential

philosopher,
was

the

of
180

Koman
B.C., in

Stoicism,

born,
was

it would

Ehodes,

and

introduced

the

Stoic

philosophy
went to
after

by Diogenes
1

and

Antipater.4
8, 13
:

He

afterwards longer
Van between

Cic.

Divin. elicere

L
causas

Quis

and 110 his The

was

no

living
185-112

igitur
sionum tJiuvi

i"otest?
Stoieutri

Etsi
esse so

prfssenBo'evideo

B.C.

Lynden

places
B.C.

life Ind.

oonatum^

c[ui,
rerum

Hero.
d.

Camp.
as

Col. 51
i. 33,

hactenus

{only
earwn

far) aliquid, (of. Phil.


names

""r. III.

effit,itt Jierent.
et prog

rationem in

Nicagoras
in

his

2) father,
his That

cxplicaret, qiice
Ibid. nostieorum

niari 47

coslove
:

and
two

Col.

55

mentions

ii. 21,
causas

-ZV"m

perse. . .

he

was

younger of good

brothers.

family,
When

we

know

cutismitet
et
. . .

Boetlius Posidonius. th.e

Stoicus In both,
on

from

Strabo,
roce,

I.e.

Suidas,
from
a

sub
and

distinguishes
Pansetius

the

passages
the
causce

emphasis

falls

celebrated

second

jyrognosticorwm,
connection
between

the

natural

friend

the Panastius, younger of Scipio, this is merely


as

prognostic and result. De Van Lynden,


2

Pa.ncQtio

Rlwdio,
3

Leiden,
is
no

1802. his

Concerning
doubt p.
we

native

place
Strabo,
the

a proof of his ignorance, shown by abundantly Lynden, p. 5 sgg. 4 is mentioned Diogenes

is

Van

as

there xiv.

(vide

Ms

teacher

in

the

Ind.

Here.

2, 13, other hand,


of the year

655).
are

On

Col.
Dii'in. wards the

51,

told of
can

nothing
his birth be

Tlavair.

either

or

death,
facts

and
that

they
he

only

Suidas, by Cicero, by ; Antipater, His i. 3, 6. piety to* latter is praised by the 2;


Hero.

and

approximately
the discourses cia
; in

determined
attended

from the

Ind.

Col. 60.
to

Besides his
own

these,
statement

according

of Diogenes
143
B.C.
as an

of Seleu-

(ap.

Strab.

siv. Crates

5, 16,
of

openlypanied accom-

recognised philosopher, Scipio to Alexandria,

heard 676), he p. in Mallos Pergamus.

Polemo clirono-

also, thePeriegete,is, on

40

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
III.

Kome,1 where
household
and
over

of

of the inmate an long remained ScipioAfricanus,the younger.2 Scipio lie his friends
3

Mu Home,

dence resi-

Lselius
many

were

and

and he hearers,

won

ill

zealous

chose
was

him

for
at the

sent

Scipioalso youths to Stoicism.4 in 143 B.C. he his companion when head of a deputationto the East,
After the
the

and

to Alexandria.5 particularly

death

of
the

Appointed
head school
in

Pansetius undertook Antipater, school


in

of leadership
was

of

ike Stoic Athens.

Athens/
rather
text

of which
as

apparentlyhe
135-130 that B.C., he worked
we

the

logical grounds, regarded


his which teacher than of

must

Ms

here that dond Here.


as

suppose for a considerable of years.

disciple. The
asserts

Suidas

number

the latter

(EoAe^.
Bern36 s%. after and Kome does

Vellejus
him and
seems

says

seems Ei/Tjy.) corrupt. Of. Van Lynden, hardy in loc.,


1

with the
to

him Ind.

Scipio had niUitiaque"


Col. 56, 2,
panied accom-

Whether

this occurred visited


was

speak

if he the

the

Alexandrian Pansetius

journey,

whether
of his own

there
not

accord,or by others,tradition
us.

invited

Of.
JV.

army. Cic. Mn. iv. 9, 23 ; ii. i. 26, 90 ; ii. 22, 76.


A.

Scipioto

8, 24. Gell,

xvii.

21,

1.

Suidas

inform

Plutarch
i. 12, p. Pansetius

(O.
777)
was

TLavair. Tlo\v@ios.
4 5

PriiiG.
not

PMlowpJi.
that
to

presupposes
in Kome him

Vide supra, p. 10 s$. Cic. Acad. ii. 2, 5 ; Position. I. c.} and Apophthegm. imp. Scrip. Min. 13 s#.

when

vited Scipio inhim. been with


an

ap. Prut. Teg. et p.

accompany

But have Scipio must already well acquainted him


to have invitation.
3

xii. 549, d. 200; Athen. is in any (where JHoffei^c^vios


a

given

such

case

slip of

the

memory

for is Gf.

Vide Cic.

the

following note,
Mur.

HavairLos, which, however, repeated xiv. 657 $#.).


Justin.
6

and Veil.

Pro

31,

66;

i. 13, 3. How long Pantetius was in Eome we do not know but he as came ;

Paterc.

Ind.

Hist, xxxviii. 8. Here. Col. 53 : StdSoxos


.

Cf. that that that

these he he he did

further

statements
return

thither
in 142 that other who
to

; to ;

at

latest

after

the

died in Athens
not

(Suid.);
37, 107)
the

Alexandrian

journey,therefore
probably
and 81 him as, before the
on

again
v.

B.C., and

Ehodes of
did

(Cic. Tmo.
was

journey,
hand,
died after

offered

right

Rutilius
in

Eufus,
Kome
can

B.C., seems

citizenship in Athens, but noc accept it (Procl. in


SE.

have

heard

Hesiod.
no

Kal
after in

'H,u. 707,

(supra, p. 11, 3), which have scarcely happened

doubt

Plutarch) ;
Athens
a

before

that

there

was

PANJETITTS.

41

head
been
not

until about
active in
a

110

B.C.1

That

he had

previously

CRAP. III.

similar

likely.2As
for
The
common

capacityin his native cityis and teacher author/ scholar and


meals Posidonius had
successor

HlS

ICHTi
and

ing society
called been the mediate imPansetiasts Position.

(Athen.
of

v.

of Panagtins

tioti.

186, a).

attempt
p.
not

pig, De
dersh. Panaatius

SchepAgain. (Son-

in Ehodes, which the dates would if Pansetius the head


not

according to only be possible


had been
at

1869),
the and and

3 sq. to make of the head

of

the

Rhodian,
towards

and

Khodian,

of

the the

nian Athe-

the of

Athenian

school, and
the

school

is

settled

by

the

had end
3

filled this the

post
his

foregoing, ( Mnesarchus
1

by

proofs
p. 52, 3

second

century.

"iven infra,p. 42, 1, and


and We
cannot

Concerning
Lynden,
best

writings vide

Dardanus). place his death much earlier, as, according to Cic Off. iii. 2, 8, he lived after the composition of his work on have Duty (which he cannot
written

Van The Phil

p. 78-117, 62 sqq. known of these are

the books

d. Gr. in. i. 273, 3, 27G be the that


most

KadriKOvros (cf. ireplrav *#.)"

acknowledged,
Cicero,to
work of also
on

young),

he when was very for 30 years ; but especially could because Posidonius

according to profound the model subject,


There
work
on

Cicero's

own. a

are

quoted

the

otherwise his who found


not

scarcely
much
as

have
it

been have

disciple;nor
came

can

occurred

for Crassus, later, quasstor to Athens

Mnesarchus Pan?etius and

there,

and i.

of philosophy (TT.alpeif. evdv/jitas, "rea"j"), v. Trpoyoias^ a politicaltreatise (Cic. Legg. iii. 6, 14) and a letter to Tubero. From the .treatise v. vpo-voias Cicero
seems

schools

(Cic. De

Orat,

to have

taken

his

criticism of Crassus, born, astrology, De ; ii. 42, 87"46, 97. according to Cicero, Brut. 43, Dimn. (Of. 161, under the Consuls Q. Caepio I c. " 88, 97; Schiche, p. 37 and C. Laelius (140 B.C.) could sgg; Hartf elder, p. 20 s##. of

11, 45)

not

have 110

become

quasstor
also
not

fore be-

his

treatise Hirzel
to

Die

long
Zumpt,
Hist.
3

B.C., but after that "1

date.

very Vide

Cic. ; Biich, De

Dnin.

Quellen wti Freiburg,


that
source

1878).
treatise

Alfi. d. BerLAead. S. 104

1842;

be

supposes also the


Nat.

PJdl Suidas

of Cicero's De (80). and 'Aira/i.)75-61, 154, (IlocreiSitjy this when


:

DC. is

ii. 30t

he

presupposes of Posidonius

he

says

while right, PJdlol. this the


v.

Schwenke

cr%oA^v5J %"rxw fur


But rest

1879, book,

p.

probably (Jahrb* 135 *".)"


the donius Posito

derives

section, with
from The been letter used book

Uavairiov.
Two. among
v.

Cicero, him 37, 107, reckons

of

Qe"v.

those

g%i

semel hand

egressi
;

Tubero Cicero the


.

do'immi nungwwri and on the other

revertemmt

have may for the second De

by
of

Suidas that

Tiiseulana

Disputationes
Tusc. J)is~

manifestly

presupposes

(cf Zietzschmannj

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

he philosopher,
no

and enjoyed great reputation,1


one

it is

I?L__probable that
with
i* did-

since

Chrysippus had

worked

greater success
The Stoic

for the

spreadof
had

Stoicism.
con-

system, however,

undergone

siderable

alteration in his hands.

Though

Panaetius

and found no part of it agreed with its principles with consistently interest, yet his own superfluous,2 directed to the of the period, the spirit was chiefly 3 and he therefore endeavoured side of philosophy practical ;

departing from (herein


to bring that aspect nearer school) comprehensionby presentingit in

the
to

usage the

of his

and when

attractive the

form.4

But

this

general a more intelligible interest, practical


to
com-

scientific
an

objects are

subordinated
and

it,

always involves
put.
other the Font. hand

attempt
on

to harmonise

Halle, 1868) ;
the chief Heine of the

the of

"hiewas 71
we

held
are

in

Athens

; in

Col,

source

told of his honourable

first book

Titsculan. thinks 8 of di;

burial pares
2

33, i, Seneca, Ej).


and

coni-

Disp.
(De
to

is not, as Font. Tuso.

him

Posidonius
and from the

with his

Disp. p.
a

s^.)* Zeno,Cleanthes,
Which of title and tions
3

Chrysippus.
Stoicorum.,

be

sought

in

treatise view
is

is evident

Pansetius, biit,as
H7wd. tise of
1

whose

rectlyopposed
Corssen

to that

of Gieero

is confirmed

princess by

quota-

says

(De Po^id.
in
a

in Part

III. i. 61, 3. have but 'the been the


most

Bonn,

1878),

trea-

A few

physical propositions
handed
us;

Posidonius,

of

Pansetius
to

has been This, after what said, scarcely requiresa special proof. Cicero, e.g., calls him (Divin. i. 3, 6) vel prineeps

down number him

greater
charac-

and that

teristic of the
we

quotations from
possess
relate to

anthropology, theology, and ; ejus [sc. Stoiocs]disciplines Jwrno et (Legg. 1. "?.)magnus morality. Such of his writings know either historical, as we are ; (Fin. iv. 9, imprints eruditm %$)iniprimu ingemus et gruvis; ethical,or theologicalin their (Off. ii. 14, 51) ffravissiviuscontents; whereas not a single
StoicO'Tum
;

the

Ind.

Hero,

dialectic been
4

definition from him.

has

ever

Gimp.
sided

Col. 66, praiseshis manyknowledge, and mentions

quoted
Cic. Fin.
; ii.

iv. 28, 79 ;

Off, i.

68) the

esteem

in which

2, 7

10, 35.

44

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. III.

like the ings

Boethus, the doctrine


world;1
of Ariston in

of the he
avrbs
.

of conflagration
said

and
of Phil.

though
Chios d.
are

only

that

the

r}VTO/jL6\"r)(rcw. Epiph.
iil 2,9, p. 1090, D With this Eel.
:

discussed

6fr.

ttavair.

III. i. 35, 1. II. 1, 206, 1, and from We Plutarch, Artst. see

27, and
that
seems,

Athen.
was

xiii the

556,
as

Z", in
it of
he

substance

Stob,

agrees i. 414

he
to

first,

dispute the story


of Arist.

elvou vo/Aifci (TLav. IT iday are pav Kal IJLO.X.XQV apeffKovffav avrq" TTJV aWiOTyra
oAwy
we
TOV

the
from

bigamy
Plut.
a

Socrates, and
1, that
of

fyrfyv TU"V K6cr/j.ov

corrected Demetrius
a

statement wrong Phalerius ing concern""

els Trvp /zeraj8oA7?v), though learn from it that Pansetius


manner

after his himself

had

expressed
upon the

x"P^y^a
closer the
matter

Aristides
too

guardedly

through
It is far in

investigation. point
he went of Ariston 's

possiblethat
and his

it is also quite consistent ; and disthat in a sertation therewith


on

the

universe

pro-.

writings, respecting Archelaus d. Gr. I. 860) may


unfounded,
in {Sclwl.
as

conjecture

(cf,Phil.
have his been 1493

bably emanating from Pansetius ii. 45, 115, 46, (ap. Oic. N. D is asserted it emphatically 119),
.

in

opinion

that framed

the with

whole
a

universe view
to

is in-

Ran. AristojjJi.

the

sqq. ; cf. Hirzel, Unters. zu Cic. I. c., i. 234) that Aristophanes,


is

colwmatas is

nmndi, and
in it
so

that there admirable

nothing

speaking of
the fact

another

Socrates

but

that

Pansetius

felt

nation, necessity of critical examirarely felt in his time, On the is not affected by this. the other hand it is in the

qiwciita stabilis est mimguam dus atqiie ita eoliferet ad permane-ndim, tit niltil UB excogitcLri quide-mpossit aptius, for a

philosopher who
destruction had does
no

assumed world
to

the would

highest

of the

sertion have degree improbable that the aschief of his having denied

occasion
on

lay the

stress

its JV. D.

durability.
ii. 33, 85, : if the
come

Plato's
rests

authorship of thePhado
any other

Nor

Cic.

upon
a

ground

than have

misunderstanding, as I shown concisely in Part


at

offer any contradiction Stoic do.es not here decision last for whether
ever or

to

the world

will

II. a, 384, 1, and more in the Commentationes

length
Momm5'

only for

an

definitel in-

seniants, p. 407 sq.',cf. 405. 1 Dwg. vii. 142 : Havainos

long notprove that he had no about it,but only that


necessary for the his

this does period,

opinion
it is not

immediate of
a

Philo,
yovv
"ray

Mtevn.

m.
"

c.

35, p. 24-8, purpose,


. . .

proof

world

forming intelligence to bring 6 3,L$c"vto$Kal HavairLOS discussion. this question into Kal In is true that the burning of eKTrvp"creis TraXtyycvGffias
is mentioned, "56y- the world 46, 118, with the comment I.
;
c.

da

SIS

ItELATIOy

TO

STOICISM,

of the eternity can able? we Platonic In


or

world
see

was,

that

probhe decidedlypreferred the


3

in his

opinion

more

CHAP.

__._IIL_

Aristotelian with

theoryto
not to

that of the Stoics.1

connection existence but denied

this, he
death

only limited
a

the of

soul's

after it

certain

space

time,
quo

entirely/2 It
dipression ex-

is also stated

that

Pancetium
but
can

addubitare
this mode
be

word
as

aiStoTTjs (nor in
no as

cebant)
from

of

having
was

end.
a

But

as

the

neither from have

taken of

former
d. Or.

rule admitted

Pansetiusnor
cannot

Cicero's learned

by the Platonic
II. i. 876

school

(cf PML
.

Greek

original,the

author

sq.\
were

and the

as

the

which

chief opponents
since Zeno

of the Stoic doctrine

merely by hearsay that Pangetius was sceptical concerning the world's conflagration. The
words account
are

tetics Peripa-

(PMl.

d.

Gr.

to be
can even

laid
we

to Cicero's

; nor

infer from
was tain uncer-

to me 929)rit seems he had once Paasetius, when given up the Stoic dogma, did not
over

II. ii. 836, probable that

them

that about this

he

remain
to

half

way,
was

but

went

Panaetius's may
of
as

real
ployed em-

the

which Peripatetic,

meaning*, for he
form
to

have

at

that
2

perk "I
is
of

generally
from Cic.

language
speaking
of oral

the next This Tusc. of the Cicero


nostros

alternative. clear limited


M.

represent
his

Balbus

from

recollection

i. 32, 78.
a

After

the Stoic duration

communications

(cf. Comment.

doctrine

That 40'3 sq. Moitvnmen. p. Adv. Nat. ii. 9, names Arnob.


Pansetius of the among the defenders
is

soul

has been
:

continued
causes,

repudiated, Nwrnguid,
amicns

est iffitiir

qmn

dimittavnw* conflagration theory eos only a proof of his superficialitydicOj qui ajunt animos manere, e cum (cf.Diels, Doxogr. 172 sq.'). excesserint, sed coTpore
Stotcos
i

For which he had

of these
"

two

ries theohe the


we

non

decided
a

whether

semper JiT. Send

A.

Istos rero,
.

"c.
ore-

rep'relienclAs
a

repudiated
world
are
varov as

well told.

beginning of an as ending
The

damns
suo

igiturPanaatio
dissentienH locis
?

Platone
enim

"

quern

not

words,

o:0a-

omnibus

divininn,

aal

ayfjpa in Epiphanras,
emanate
us

sapientiss^mium^ quern

g/uem, sanetis-

if

they really

from Plato's

Pansetius, remind
ayripcav

of

simwiij quern Somernm pMlohanc sopTiorum appellat^ Jiujus


imam

and do of of
so

even

Kal tidvotfov {Tiwi.33, A) j the further statements carry the


us

sententiam animorum

de immortalinon,

tate

probat.
negat*
interire
. .

not

with

certainty
the notion is not in the

Vult
nasci autem esse,

enim,
autem

quod
anivnos

nemo

beyond
the

question of the end


since

quicquid

natum

sit
.

world,
no

alterant:
:

having

beginning
included

adfert rationem

nihil

completely

quod doleat,quin

id (egrum

40

ECLECTICISM,

CHAP.

he reckoned
the the

III.

only six divisions in the soul instead of traditional eight; for he included speech under voluntarymotions, and ascribed sexual propagation, not to the soul,but to the vegetablenature.1
not to internal

: quod autem qitoqiiepossit in morbum, cacLat, id etiam, inexse

disease

and

solution dis-

but

to

external

force.
doned aban-

twiturum
mos,
as

dolere

autem

ani-

When,

at

last,Panastius

ergo etiam

interire.
to

Now,

the

of conflagration

the

I must

concede Tuscul. Stoic

Heine

(He
an

Fontibw*.
orthodox

mar, Disput. Weieven

motive for world, he had no attributing to the soul a limited


existence choice
;

1863, p. 8 sq.\
would
oppose the

he

had

only

the

sarily neces-

between

absolute

denial

doctrine

of

and
its

immortality so far as this main* tains not merely continuance


after

unlimited acceptance of Tusc. From immortality.


that appear in the lution disso-

death, but
But of Pansstius

an

eternal
the had
we

tinuance. con-

i. 18, 42, it would believed Paneetius of the


after

that

tions objecthis
see

soul
Is

immediately
animus,
est Jiorum

not
can

death.

autem,

meaning
from Cicero the

merely,
manner

it is here

said, qui, si
esc are

in them.

introduces

which He

g_uatuorgenerum^
nia, const

quibus owi-

Pansetius, indeed, distinguishes those Stoics from quite clearly

i%dieuntur, ex anima constat, ttt flammata, video videri Pana'tio, potissimvm

qui ajnnt animos


are

manere.

Thes

swperiora cajjessatnecesse
JVi7i.ilenim
genera,

eat*

disposed of, and previously ~?H remain there en only two that of Plato possibleviews,
and which duration and that it.
even

habent
et

JICPC

diM

$roni)

that

that Pansetius endless maintains an of


"

petunt. Ita, procml a terris


permanent
turn
cesse

super a semper siv-e dissipantur, id evenit


erv

sire,

et

cons

ant

liahine~

of

life

after

death,
evident

suum, est

IIOG etiam

magis
in

which The
the
same

nies altogetherdeis which objections

ferantur
here

ccelitm,. that
cerning con-

When

Cicero view

remarks

from

'the

of

Pansetius

Panaetius, quotes from especially the second : he who till represents souls as lasting
Cicero the
must

the
admit Heaven its it that
even

nature it in is

of the
we

soul
must to

being presupposed,
the

exalted
event,

of conflagration
not

base

the world, his denial of existence


on

of after

their the also

unlimited
that

being annihilated death/ the inference


was

is that with trine docof the

argument die,but
are

they become
view

Pansetius he of had such De


a

himself found

diseased, and
on

therefore the the his able

may that of
cumb, suc-

whom
the
1

dissolution Iffom.

they

not

to withdraw fate would

soul.
Nemes. 96 Nat.
c.

themselves the whole;

from for

15,

they
to

according

theory,

: Tlaz/ainos p. rb /iev $wr)riK.bv ryjs itaQ*

$6 "5

RELATION

TO

STOICISM.

47

The

first of these
i
l

theories

is not in

of

much

tance imporof

CHAP.
II L

but

the

second,

the

discrimination

duala psychological (j"vcrt,$" presupposes Panseto Stoicism.2 foreign ism5 which is originally in his tius here follows the Peripatetic as doctrine, of theory of immortality. "We are again reminded it in his ethics,, "bythe division of the virtues into That he also departed theoretical and practical.3 from the severity of the Stoics and approximated to the view of the Academy and the- Peripatetics, in his definition of the highest good, is not probable ;

^t%?7 from

His

Ethics.

pepos
Se

able

how
to

far

this

dependence
it is
here that this the

extends An. and


may

details, and
follows
to

nbv
TTJS

ov

TTJS fyvxris j"epo


Tertull.
autem De

perfectlyconceivable
in what

(pva-ecas.
:

he himself
un-

14

Dimditur
nunc

\_anima\
duas
. . .

first have

given
of the

in
mine

partes
in

in

Stoical which Stoic of

meaning
notion

truly
the

quingue
205,

(to
from

dominion
over

Biels, Doxogr.

the

the

\6yos (ratio)

parallel passage
CUT. Or.

in Theodoret, dpfjify (temeritas). 1 Bitter (iii. 698) undoubtedly Aff. v. 20, adds : ah in it. et in sex Pancetio, seeks too much a Aristotele} 2 old The Stoic psychology storation reThrough Diel's luminous derives all practical activities the of text, those

conjectures
which

are,1 set
20

at

rest

from

the

and Tjyt/jLovLKbv, has


no

in its and

Zietzschmann
Font. Mine the
:

(De
of the

Tusc.

materialism for the

occasion

Disp.
with

connects sgq.')
scripts manu-

distinction
to

of

^v%^

reading
in

"f"vfri$ ; the latter is rather


in former be

et qiiingiie Tusc. in

changed
f

supposed into the


d. Gr.

sex

Pan. from
enwi

When Cic. animus

this author ii. 21,

afterbirth

Phil,

infers 47 tributus

(est

jpartes
altera in his of

III. i. 197, 1). 3 Diog. vii. 92.

duos,
est

giiarum
Pansetius the

ration-is

pa/rticeps^ altera
Platonic

Diogenes indeed maintains (vii.128) : "5 /leVroiTlavalnos


4

expert}
ethics and
a

that

followed

Aristotelian

distinction irrational

rational the him.

and
I
Even

part

of

soul,

cannot

with

agree if Cicero in
to Panastius

Kal Kdl vyieicLS q"a"rl But this ment stateas xopriyias. in regard to Posidonius (vide proofs in Phil. d. @r. III. elvai Kal i. p. 214, 2 ; 216, false, Tennemann

this section

holds

1) is decidedly

throughout, it

is still

question-

{GeschicJite

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

though

he

_^__distinction
the

the strongly perhaps emphasisedmore and things to be desirable things between


statement
be

the and similarly rejected;

that he denied

fadeeta
he

of the

wise,,1 may

traceable

to

the

fact that
between

the difference clearly brought out more over pain and the the Stoic superiority

But we to it. may, Cynic insensibility he tried to soften gatherfrom these statements that the among of the Stoic ethics, and the asperities gave the views of their propositions, possible many brought him least into to those which preference

nevertheless,

collision with

the

ordinary theory.2 The

same

deavour en-

is also evinced

brated by the tendency of his celethat of Cicero


;

work
for this is

on

of Duty, the prototype

not designed, expressly

for the

perfected
to nature when
in we

d in ine

Phil

iv.
we

382)

is

right

in

pleasure according
not

is the
ot

sayino- that

cannot

trust to it

inconsistent

; but

regard
to

to Pansetius. Plutarch {Demosth. 13), to

AccordDemos-

understand
narrower

by pleasure
sense

the

emotion

he tried
thenes

prove
the he

that

held would

Katin* alone
: atperbv

to

be less

81* autb

all the have

himself
Cicero

every emotion Of. ibid. III. nature. to contrary 218, 3. 1 10: am\A. (Ml. xii.

$5"w^, it

is like

5%

doubted

it; and

iuqnit,sed giwrwnineo "pressly (infra,,p. 49, 2) eadem etiam ex portion dam Bitter (iii. 699) did not. When sicuti Jwmitmm finds in the proposition(ap. prudentiorum
he

says that

ex-

yntria enim
tantum,

atgue

airaGeia

non,

Sext. is not

Math.

xi.
a

only

there 73) that pleasure contrary


"

fadicioPanatfo
est. abjec-kaque
2

vnyprolxtia
the
cir-

to nature, but

pleasureaccord-

This

is

seen

from

ino- to nature,'a'manif est de viaolder Stoicism, the tion from both questionable, this seems from the

cumstance

Cicero, Fin.
letter declare
to

that, according to iv. 9, 23, in the


Tubero did
not

de

dolore,

passage
in

itself

and

paticndo, he
that

expressly

pain is not an the quotation Stoic The evil,but only enquired: Quid i. p. 219 III sq. in en esset et quale,$ uantumgue that is pleasure only doctrine
Phil.
d.

Gfr.

esset ali"ni, isathingindifferent(a5*a"j"ojooi/},

deinde

qiue

ratio

with

which

the

theory

of

esset

perferendi.

'

PANMTIU"

RELATION

TO

STOICISM,

49

wise

man,

but wisdom the

only

for those
for

who

are reason

making
it

pro'

CHAP,

gress
treat

in of

; and

this

does
f

not

but only /caropdcoj^a^

of

the
no are

Meanwhile,
from told
in

however,
Stoic the

all this

contains
we

real deviation

the

and what ethics, moral doctrines His

otherwise
Panastius is

concerning
with

of

harmony
It

them.2

divergences from
more

the

traditional

theology of his school were can only be the doctrine


Mucius scholar,
a

able. considerPansetius
His

of

which
Varro
are

his
3

Scsevola, puts forward


he says
4

(like

at

later

when period),

that there

gods, those spoken of by the and by the statesmen. poets, by the philosophers, of the poets concerning the gods are The narratives and unworthy fables : they represent full of absurd the gods as stealing, committing adultery,changing dren, chilinto beasts, swallowing their own themselves the other hand, philosophic theology "c. On is valueless to states (it does not adopt itself to a
classes
1

three

of

This

at

least

results

from

sets

forth

the
to

claim

of

life

exposition, Off. iii. 3, 13 s$. ; also ap. Sen. Ep. 116, 5, would first of all give Pancetius who those not for are precepts the In to wise. reply quesyet the tion of a youth as to whether
Cicero's wise
says better
man

according Off. iii. 3,


Jwnestum;
he with

nature; ap. Cic. 11 $q. ; 7, 34, he cle-

clares id solutti lornim,, qiwd esset ap. Stob. _BuZ.ii. 112, compares marksmen
mark.

will

fall in

love, he

different
same

particular duties aiming from standpoints at the


What Cicero

that
to
an

such
as

do they will both from keep themselves agitation of the mind,


are

quotes

(Off. ii. 1-4, 51) has also an analogy (Pliil.d. 6rr. III.i. 263)
with

they

not

yet

wise

men.

the

ancient in

Stoics.

The

For the Phil. sq.


2

further

details
of

concerning
see

utterance

Off.

ii. 17, 60, is vii.Varro.

treatise
d.

Panaetius

truly
4

Zenonian.

6rr. III. i. p.
Clem. Stob. Alex. Ucl

273, 276
Strom,
ii.

**CLi"fra, chapter
According
iv. to

Ap.

Civ. D.
was

27, whose
Varro.

Augustine, authority

416, B;

ii. 114, he

doubtless

'

50

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IIL

for it contains things the many public religion), or dicial prejuknowledge of which is either superfluous the latter category, the people; under to of that many Scsevola places the two propositions honoured as the gods as Heracles, personages
"

Dioscuri the .ZEseulapius, beings,and the gods are not


"

were

merely
has
no

human
as no

in appearance

they
age,

are

for represented,
no

the

true

God

sex,

and

members.1

From

this it

that the
a

could religion existing

resulted 2 naturally only be regarded as


in

convenient

public institution
of the

the

service

of

order, and

that the authors

of it must

selves regulatethemthe
we

in their doctrine power do not of

comprehensionin
whether this discrimination

to gods according the masses. Though


was a

know

Pansetius

the first to threefold

bring

forward of the

of

doctrine

must at any rate that assume gods,3we in that of the men who for in his theology,as the most part adoptedv it Scsevola,Varro, and Seneca a thoroughlyfree attitude to the popular and found expression was : though justified religion either of them, in the that known it is not of myths, which was so interpretation allegorical
" "

much
1

in

favour
those

with

the
of

Scoics
6fr.
Stoics Stoic of the IIL
as

and
i.

from
317, 3)

which
this
to

Among

portions

is the the his

theology philosophical
are

which

treated

belonging
whom here the

cone

for the people, unnecessary ^Mch Augustine is era ing


we

universally ;
from Plaeitacan

but takes

author

silent,

must

reckon

the

purely philosophic doctrines, incomprehensibleto him.


2

Varro In the

says

this

more

defi-

nitely.
3

only have belonged to the later period, which is also indicated by the appeal to Plato, i. 6, 3.
excerpt

Placita

(cf Phil, d.
.

52

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. III.

That did not


is

in adoptingthis Pansetius,

mode

of

thought,
above

stand

alone among

the
we

Stoics of that time, have the


seen

Contemand

poraries the deviations


disci-

proved,not
also

only by what
of Boethus
we are

of

from

Stoic

doctrine,

of jples
Pancetius.

but

Heraelides.

disciples, Heraclides and Sosigenes. The former opposed the Stoic proposition concerning the equality of all faults ; ] the latter,like others, is said to have
by what attempted, not without
the Aristotelian with that
to combine inconsistencies,

told of his fellow

further of
In

theoryof the mingling of substances of Chrysippus.2 But know we nothing of Pansetius. either of these contemporaries
school
we

his

own

may

suppose

that

the

ception con-

and

treatment

of

the

Stoical

doctrine,
But

which

he himself
we

favoured, was
have
to

predominant.

here, again,
of the with

historical tradition. the


names

regret the Though only


to the
.

meagreness
we are quainted ac-

of many
is

of his
one

numerous

Posidonius disciples,3
so

the

concerning

far

as

his

character concerned.

as

philosopheris
Lyndon
among

Van

(72
these
comets

s^O
his

mentions

specting d6"r)s opinion reSuvTjflevres, v"rrepov aitovcrai r""v eipyuLsvcav UTT' eAcet^ou (Sen. Nat. Qu. TroAAa vii. 30, 2) ; his theory that Attica, irepl avrol \"yov"riv. KOI Kpdtfecos $"v els ""TTL teal'StO)"ny4vf]s, account of its healthy on ercupos climate, produced gifted men (cf ibid. III. i. p. 48). 'Aj/rtTrarpou (Procl.in Tim,. 50 c.s following Because they could not, on ment account of their other presupPlato, Tim. 24, c.); the statepositions
.
"

gard
cf Phil, d, "r. III. 126
Tives

mixture, for which

sgq.)oi 5e

avr"v,

rris

^ApLcrroreXovs

that inhabited
1 2

the

torrid

zone

is
in

follow
the into
3

Aristotle

tirely en-

(Ach. Tat.

JPetav. DoctT. Alex.


m.
:

Isaq. iii. 96). Temp.


IT.

the sense of (this seems fell imperfect text), they

Diog. vii. 121. Aphr.


Of the ol

contradictions.

/J"e"s 142,
after

Among

these be

the

following
:

a,

Stoics
ftev

names

should

mentioned

Chrysippus,

"Xpvffitrircp of (1) Greeks: Mnesarchus, in ffvfjufrepovrat Athens, who (especially reJaad also heard

SCHOOL

OF

PAN^TIUS.

53

whose
cessor

opinionswe
of

possess any

details.
we can

Of the

snccon-

CHAP.
III.

Pansetius,Mnesarclms,

only

Diogenes
successor

and of

Pansetius

of Messene Antipater, the 73), Damocles (Cic. (ibid.76, 4).DemetriustheBiv. thynian(l)?o^.

De 2nd.

Orat. Here.
;

i. 11, 45 ; of. 18, 83 ; Com-p. Col. 51, 4 ; Phil


.

84 ; Ltd.

Here. father
as

Col. 75), with

whom

his

78, 5

cf tyit.Dioff.

d. Or.

Diphilusis
a

also mentioned

III. i. 33, Antiochus

2), who

likewise

heard

Stoic.

To him
two

belong,

as

epigrams Jac. Dionysius thol.6rr.ii.$"t i. 22, 69 ; Numen. ap. Eus. Pr. him of Cyrene, a great geometrician JEJv.xiv. 9, 2 ; quoting from Acad. Hi. 18, 40). (Ind. Here. 52). Georgius Augustin. c. of Lacedasnion Fin. c f. i. Cicero (I.e. 2, 6) calls (Ind. Here. 76, Hecato of PJiodes, whose him and Dardanus tirniprin- 5). dedicated Ind. treatise From Duties, on eipes Stoic or um. is Col. 51, 53, 78, cf. Epit. to Tubero, Here. quoted by Cicero, it follows nus' Dardathat Off.iii.15, 63 : 23, 89 sgg. From Dioff.,
was

in Athens

(Cic.Acad.

the

it pears, apin An-

likewise

an

Athenian

the he

same

treatise, if not

from

and

disciple
the
to in
same

of

Diogenes,
As

and Antipater,
was

Panaatius.
time

at

called the

of his own on separate work Seneca t seems Benevolence, have the greater part o" taken what he
i.

successor seem

of Pantetius, he would the have conducted


common

quotes
3,

from

him

(Sen.

Senef.

9 ; ii.

18, 2, 21, 4;

school archus.

with
successor

Mneswas

Their

iii. 18, 1 ; vi. 37, 1 ; E$. 5, 7 ; 6, 7 ; 9, 6. Several other works,


are

probably
AM. Kl.
rus

(as Zumpt

supposes,

d."j3erl.Acad. Hist. Phil. 1842, p. 105) Apollocioof Cicero Athens, whom of a as contemporary

describes Zeno

of them comprehensive, quoted by Diogenes (see Ms Index), who, according to the Rose (in which epitome 'E/car. for rightly substitutes
some

the and

Epicurean
the
Ind.

(N.
Here.

I), i. Col.

34, 93) 53, names among of Pansetius, but

his

dedicated had Keforwv), own biography. Nicander Here. of

to

him
Bi-

The

the who

disciples thynians
is to be Seleuwith

and

Jjjco(Tnd.
Mnasagoras
r am onus

75, 5 ;

76, 1).
Pa-

distinguished
cian whom before

from

the

(JUpit. D).
Tarsus Pausanias

mentioned,

(Ind.
of Plato

Zumpt confuses him. His leadership of the school must the in fallen have beginning
of the first century, and even began before the the

Here. Pontus of

74, 77).

perhaps
end of of

second.

Apollonius

Nysa, in Phrygia, rS"y Uavairlov of Ascalon, Antiochus 1, whom #/"io'Tos"(Strabo."xiv. -yvapifAcav named had a nothing the Academician, 48, p. 650), of whom treatise (infra, further is known. Asclepiop. 86, 2). Perhaps he of Panaetius after the death d o t u s, of Nicosa (Ind. Here. Col.

(Hid. 76, 1). (Diog. iii. 109). P o s id o n iu s infra\ (vide of Ascalon Sosus (Ind. Here. Url. 75, 1 ; Steph. Byz. De after the doubtless same JAcTK.),
Ehodes

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. III.

jecture that

the

Stoicism
it
so

which, his
easy
to

pupil Antic-elms
with Scylax
as

(vide infra)found
had of still belonged to the Mnesarchus Antiochus older and also Hero.

combine
Concerning
and

the
of
an

school

402).

Dardanus,

Halicarnassns, celebrated
astronomer learn

(which
as an

visited),
Sotas

politician, we

member.

from he
was

of

Paphos by

(Ind.
of Strabo
a

75, 1). that


of
to

Cic. Divifi.ii. 42, 88, of Pansefriend a


an

Stratocles

Rhodes, (xiv. 2, 13,

scribed detius,and, like him,

opponent

astrology.
the school of

That of said.

he the

belonged
Stoics, is
In he

p. 655) as Ind. Here. of disciple of dus dot


a

Stoic, and by the 17, 8, cf. 79, 'as a


and Stoic author school.
or

not, however,
to

regard
it is not
was
a

Panjstius
on

Nestor clear

Tarsus,

work

the of

quite
fellow time. mentions and the

whether
a

Timocles also

Knosos

Cnihave of
as,

discipleor
or

disciple of
at
a

(Itid. Hero.
us

76, 2). Antito

Panaetius,

lived after

later

belonged
Panaitius

to
or

appears the

Strabo him. Archedemus


two

(xiv. 514, p. 674) Antipater


before and
the

school

Mnesarchns,
Here.

according Antipater
to

to Ind.

Col. 79,

Athenodori

of

have

been

at first Tyre, seems his disciple and

infra, p. 71) ; Diogenes, side


Dardanus and

(discussed Epitome 01! 'by side with

afterwards
Stratocles. of of whom
many

the Also Sidon the

disciple
the

of

other

disciples
hand, Tarsus,
of berius, Ti-

tipater of Diogenes of poet An(Dioff. iii, Antipater. On

Seleucia,before
the other

39),
Jacob.

contains

Anthology epigrams (ride


Gr. xiii.

according
21, the
had been

to

Lucian,
Nestor of teacher

Macrol).

Stoic

Anthol.
to the

846),

the

belongs
Pansatius

(JDe Orat. about already known still living ; and and


author his life refers
to
an

generation after According to Cicero iii. 50, 194) he was


92

which, as a of Pansetius,
the

contemporary in spite of
life here could "We the
not

ninety-two
to

years
he

B.C.,
same

attributed

him,

the
event

in

possibly have been. conjecture that the


Lucian Ne'stor the had for mistaken the

might
Stoic

so-called

(De Fato, 3, 5), which would Posidonius to have seem quoted. Diotimus,
timus,
same x. or

Theoa temporary, con-

must
or

have
a

been

little later ; the


to

philosopher of Academy of the same name (mentioned infra, p. 102, 1),the teacher of Marcellus (who
may
a

who, according 3, forged immoral


the
name

Biog.
letters

also have and


that

instructed the of and Stoic

rius), Tibewas

with

of

Epicurus

contemporary
Nestor

(perhaps also the same person that is quoted by Sext. Math. vii. 140) ; for, according to Athen.
xiii. 611, ", he this at the
was

Between the ides.

Pansetius. Dardanus

executed of Zeno d.

for the

instance

sil Baa Epitome This, however, was teacher of probably not the Marcus Aurelius (iwfra, ch. otherwise viii.)butan

introduces

Epicurean (Phil.

G-r. III. i.

unknown

SCHOOL

OF

PANMTIUS.

doctrine

of

the

Academy
o\vn

already approximated
of exposition of his it ;
l

to

CHAP. III.

that doctrine his views

in his

and
on

that

resembled

those

master

other

of points besides psychology, know Of Hecato, we stated.2

which that

this is he

expressly

considerably
of the Stoics

departedfrom
member
not
was

the

strict ethical doctrine

of for

the
the

school former

of

genes; Dio-

therefore,
iii. 21, 78 B.C.), of
were

we

hear

in De
Balbi

Orat.
91

could

(supposed
two
one

elate

have
no

been doubt the

placed here, and the than earlier


Stoic
"

who
must
a

Stoics,
the
same

of

these

source

of

biographies
Besides the the ciples disof Romans for
some

be meant of these
names

together with
name, Ind.

third

of whom them of

the

Laertian.
were

Besides Col. Marcius latter


o-trovS74

Greeks, there
in
also

the
the

Here* which

Pansetms

had and

Samnites
;

Rome,
The

and

JSFysius

perhaps
most

afterwards

introduced

the

"r7rov$ai6TaTot

in Athens.

important
Tubero,
c se v o

these, Q.
Mucius

JElius
S

Q.
C.

(in distinction from the as a separate class. ctLot) 1 Nothing else has ever

been
an

Fannius,
L.
been

P.

Rutilius
M. Vi-

quoted
utterance

from

him

except

Rufus,

JSlius,

gellius,
have

Sp.
10

Mummius,

{supra, p.
may whom
we

named already Further we ""?#.). A certain

mention:

Piso, of

against imphilosophical rhetoric (ap. Cic. De Orat. i. 18, S3), a logical observation (ap. Stob. Eel. i. 436), and a God of definition (ibid. 60).
These Stoic
2

nothing more ing but accordCol.li,6), (Jnd.Herc. of to the theory Comparetti


know

divergent

contain passages the from

nothing
general

doctrine.

he Pi 133

was so

the

L. who

Calpurnius
was

Frugi,

consul

in

Galen, H. Phil. 20 (Diels, $e rrjv DOXOCJT. 615) : Mvfio-apxos


~2,r"aiK.S)V VTT^XTI^LV TO eirLKpivav
add. D.) rb arTreptywilTiKbv (/cai OL7)6ei$ TTJS pCLTLKbv TT"pl"'l\."V a,l"jQr\rLK.ris (^ Svya^uews ravra

Sextus B.C.; Or JDe at. L (Cic. Brut.

Pompejus
c.

and

i. 15, 67 ;

47, 175; Off. i. 6, 19; guished 12, 11, 27), a distinPktityj). civil law, on authority

geometry,
bus

and

the

Stoic

sophy; philoBal:

tius

add. D. p. 206) ^m-^iv reckon did not


to

(Panseit according
as

andL.
; for

Lucilius that the


two

(Be Orat.ui. 21, 78


their Stoicism

JBnct.
last

42, 154)
owed
other bus be

to Pange-

tius is most

probable.

On

the Balto

$"VXTI*), V-spT]JeTTjs ri" l*-6vov Koyucbv Kal ^X^s $1811 the latter being rb a.la-Bf]rLK6v, into naturally again divided
the
come

p. 46, to the

1, siqwa,,

longing be-

hand, Q. Lucilius (Cic.2V. D. 6, 15)


young for this.

seems

which with five senses, Pansetius' to back soul.

we

six

too

"When,

faculties of the

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. III.

details ; ] in this individual to application certainlyanticipatedby Diogenes ; respect he was but tradition tells us nothing further of these philosophers. in its

Posidonins.

Bather

more

has

been

communicated

to

us

specting re-

Posidonius,2 a
seems long activity

Syrian
first
one,

of

Apamea,3
over,
or

whose

to have

extended

over,
J 2

the first half of the


d. Gr. III. i. 263, 2.

century.4
or

nearly disciple

Phil.

the

most

known

54 Kal els 'IP"fj.Tjj', eVl ReBake, Posidanii Rhodii thus shows Doctrine 1810; ; Leiden, MaoKeAAou), and liquice Muller, Fraffm. Hist. Gh'"c. iii. himself (as in the statement discussed Posid. 245 supra, p. 41, 2) to sqq. ; Scheppig, De O-entium Apam. JZerum : Sondersh. rum Soriptore
3

Tdrra,1869.
655
;

be

imperfectly
:

informed

as

to

Posidonius
we

Strabo, xiv. 2, 18, p. 2, 10, p. 753; AtUen. 252, e. ; Lucian, Macrob. Suidas, sub voce.
xvi.
4

should
some

partly because necessarily expect to


of his presence trace in Cicero, all of whose
a

and

vi.

find

20;

in Borne

philosophical writings, and


great part
written under of
was

More do not be

precise information
possess. the made Three basis data of
an

of
a

his later

letters, were
time. the with haps Perthat

we

at

may

the M. the

circumstance

approximate
that

calculation : (1) the ciple disPosidonius was


;

Marcellus
Bhodians

league
Borne

(2) that he lived to be eighty-four years L old (Lucian, c.); and (3) that, according to Suidas, he came
of Panastius
to

renewed Famil.
a

ad

however,
error"may

(Lentulus, in Cic. xii. 15) possibly, clerical merely


"

have which

caused in

the

Borne

under

the

consulate

journey

occurred

the

of M.

Marcellus almost

last consulate cordingly of Marius (51 B.C.). Ac(infra,, quently subseto and be Bake, placed under p. 57, 2)

all the
was

ties, authoriborn 51

that

of Marcellus. believes
ten

Miiller Posidonius
years

(I.c.
to

believe 135 But


B.C.

that he died

in
B.C.

and

in of

p. 245) have been


than

the

statement

Suidas

he
to the

younger is represented according

(notwithstanding Scheppig, p. lo me 10) seems suspicious ; is not probable it because partly


that of Posidonius
more as an

bases

ordinary theory. He the partly on tion asserof Athen. xiv. 657, /., that
this B.

old

man

Strabo,
had
on

vii., said
Posidonius
xvi.

that
:

he

than
a

eighty
second

journeyed
Borne;

years time to Suidas donius Posi-

known

partly
753

Strabo,

2, 10, p.

partly because
to

speaks as

if this visit of

T"JV KaO3 (no"rei". Tj/nas (f)i\oo"6"p"v7roAu/tta06cTTaTosi) ; partly


on

-Borne

were

the

only

Plut.

Brut,

i.,where

some-

POSIDONIUS.

of

lie also Pansetius,1


as

visited
not

the

countries
a

of the his

CHAP. III.

West,
thing
which
written

far

as

but Grades,2
Posidonius have been death.
correct ;

to seek

spherefor
latter

is

quoted
seems

from
to

well It

as

the
in

statement.
not

relates, perhaps,
the
last

to

after

Csesar's
is not

But the

the

last

passage Btrabo's
C.

part

of
to

seventh

quotation
no

from

Posidonins
to

3, 4, p. 297
a

hook, but (e/cre "v


C.

efore

contains murder.
can

allusion infer of have had of

Caesar's

or UoffeiSc"vios'),

5,

8, p.
donius Posian

From

the Katf
at

^uas

we

316, where
is event

report of
in his

only

most

that had of

quoted concerning
an

the would

lifetime that also Meantime p. 263

Posidonius been died the

that occurred

period
represented oral the

touched

Strabo, which
case

office, which
to

inaccurate have
as an

recollection communication.
two

might
Athenseus

if Posidonius
B.C.

in that

50
in

Wyttenbach
sq., shows in seldom
a

But

if

Bake,

the

statements the death


or

which of
visit

sioned occa-

expression even by
sense.

is not

used,
wider of
to be

Posidonius
51 to B.C.,

Strabo
ac

placed in
Marcellus with the

before and

The with held of

^uaintance

concerning
under

his

Piome both
not

Strabo still be the

Posidonius without Posidonius

may

his meeting
are

placing
much

Stiabo,

death

uncertain, excluded born and


1

is possibility

For Strabo as beyond 50 B.C. to (vide infra, p. 73, w.) went the year Borne as a boy before 44, perhaps (as Scheppig, p. 11 Hathinks, agreeing with sq sen-Miiller, De Strab.Vita, 18)
,

some

that he may have been years before 135 B.C. have died
iii. before 51 B.C.
;

may

Cic.

Of.

2, 8

Mvin.

i. 3, 6; Suid.
2.
2

vide

sujjra, p. 41,

in

46-7,

or

even

in have

48

might
Ehodian later and
on

possibly

B.C., he the seen in his fore thereB

The

traces

are

preserved
from
see a

in

of this journey Strabo 's quotations We


mained re-

philosopher
Scheppig
birth in 46 be which from
B.C.

Posidonius.
Posidonius

days. places his


his death

here

that

in 130

c.

long

time

in

Spain,

Even for

especiallyat
138
c.

Gades

(iii.1, 5,

this

assumption
not

sufficient found nius PosidoPanastius.

time the It the This


same

would received is

instruction therefore
we

; ; p. thence xiil 1, 66, p. 614^) ; from he coasted along the African

5, 7-9, p. 172, 174

shores

questionable

whether

can

depend
of
occurs

statement
statement

upon Athensens.
at

the

place

where that

Athenseus Posidonius

2, 0 ; svii. Italy (iii. he 3, 4, p. 144, 827); that 4. visited Gaul 5, p. 198), (iv. Liguria (iii. 3, 18, p. 165), Sicily (vi. 2, 7, p. 273), the Lipari islands (vi.2, 11, p. 277),
to

also maintains with had been

the Sea did of

east

coast

of

the

Adriatic

(aujwa,
be

p.

Scipio in Egypt 40, 5), and may


a

5, 9, p. 316). That he (vii. not neglect this opportunity


may be taken

founded

upon

mistake

as

Eome visiting

58

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. III.

l this lie found teaching ; naturalised so completely

in

Rhodes,2 where

he

was

that he is
attracted

Ehodian.3

His

name

called frequently numerous scholars,


never

and

Eomans especially

therefore,, althoughhe
he
who
must

himself reckoned

taught
among
the

in

Eome5
men

certainly be
most

the

did

for

the
4

spread of
for time

Stoic

philosophyamong
a

the Eomans

granted.
from of

He

came

second the last

this from Cicero him


known

the

manner

in which

Rhodes

under
Rome
on

mentions
to

him, treating
as a man

consulate
on

Marius
to

business the

(86 B.C.) (Plut.


the other I have

throughout
his

well
;

Eoman

readers

Mar.

45), while,
51
seems

cf., for example,


123
:

JV". D. omnium He

i.

44,

hand,
year
1

supposed
to

visit in the
as

Familiaris Positioning. him

trum nos-

me,

himself

shown,
At the
a

improbable.
any

had have
not

heard

in Rhodes

(Plut.

rate, The

we

intimation slightest

of such

design.
this
as

chief

of
in

journey
far
as we

purpose rather sisted, concan

Oic. 4 ; Cic. N. D. i. 3, 6 ; Tuso. ii. 25, 01 ; De Fato, 3, 5 ; Brut. stant 91, 316), and kept up a conconnection
6
:

with

him

gather, (JFin. 1. 2,
historical
seems

geographical

and

investigation. The to be the beginning


century,
with the
soon

date the

of the

first
war

Diogenem, familiarem niwti). In


sent

tamen Legwms "c., in jprimisqiie nostrum

Posido59
B.C.

the

year

he

after ;

Posidonius his consulate the

the
to

memorial

Cimbri For vide

cf. Strabo, further


jectures, con-

of

revise, but
the sition, propocould
ad

vii. 2, 2, 293.
2

Posidonius
as

declined

At

what and the

Scheppig,p. 4 sgg. time he went to


what

memorial

Ehodes
to settle

induced
are

him

gain nothing by it (Ep. ii. 1). This is the last


date the
in the

Att.

definite

there, we

not

told ;
west

life

of

Posidonius.

had made Previously Pompey acquaintance of the philosopher, and given him years, it is to be supposed that repeated he only commenced his activity proofs of his esteem (IStrabo, as a teacher xi. 1, 6, p. 492; Plut. Pomp. subsequently.
as

but

journey

in

the

must

have

consumed

several

Athen.

vi.

252,

Luc.

42; Cic. T'uso. I. c.


vii.

Plin. H. JV. Cicero


a

20 ; Suid, From Luc. Z. G. ; Strabo, xiv. 2, 13, p. 655 : vii 5, 8, p. 316; Pint, Mar. 45; find that he received we the Ehodian and filled citizenship,

Maerol).

112).
to

The

story of Pornpey's proof


under He

visit of

(Tusc.

1.

which him, 0.) cites as fortitude well

Stoic
also

is sufferings,
was

known.

public offices Prytanis.


4

"

even

that

of

older
at
once

We

can

perceive

tilius

the acquainted with of Budisciple Panfetius, Eufus (Cic.Off.iii.2, 10).

BO

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, III.

the tradition
as

of Ms
master

school with
did. In

the

same

dence indepenseveral the He portant imold

his

regard to

Stoic
to the

pointsin which doctrine,Posidonius

Pansetius returned

deserted
to it.

held
fire ; l

dogma

of destruction
some

of the

world

by

and

he added

further

ingeniousdevices 2 : for the defence of soothsaying


to the

arguments and theories invented by his predecessors


for
much
as

he

ascribed
external
be
sary neces-

(Bake, 87 $"".) we
ytrabo's natural

sqq. ; have the his

Scheppig,
evidence

15 in

allow

so

mimerous

Concerning
with

quotations. enquiries into


which

to the world, for the

space would

world's

The

contrary
^Stern. passage the

eKirvpcacris. in statement

history

he

bined com-

Philo,
in

Mimdi,

where,
supra,

geographical
ift/ra,
p. in the

quoted
read

descriptions,
62,
3. A
mass

vide of

historical

p. 44, 1, was to Bernays'

(previously correction),instead
SiSc^iosr,Bo7]8. Kal
nullified the
true away

lain have knowledge must the great historical work,

of "BoyQbs 6
restoration

is Tloffiddvios, of which Hirzel's Oie.


also

by

this

49th work of

book

of

which iv. 168 in from 88

is

quoted
This books
clusion con-

text,
with

byAthenseus,
treated of the

A. the

does

two fifty-

period
B.C.)
to

Poly bias's
B.C.

history
For
2

zu objections (Uiiters. to my i. 225 5^/7.) tion exposiof the nius. theory of Posido-

(146
further

details, vide Bake, p. 133 s%q., 248 sqq. ; Mailer, 249

Further
in

details the

will

be We had

found PUL there


in

sqq. ;
1

Scheppig,24
vii. 142:

sgq.

d. Gr.
learn

passages HI. i. 337, 1. Posidonius


not

quoted,

Diog.

5r? ovv irepl


TOV "pdopas

that

TTJS

*y"V"CT"ca$ Ko.1 T7J$

treated the

of 2nd

prophecy
book

Z^vtiiv p.sv ev re? K6crfJLOv (p-rjcrl vspl 'oXov, Xpixwnros 53 Iv r"$


vios

of his

only "j"vtfiKbs

and iv

\6yos, but also in a separate comprehensive book; that

Jlavairios
TOV

he sought to establish belief in irzpl wfK"Ttp KOffftov, "C. 5' "$"Qa.pTQV it,and to explain its possibility airety'fji'aro
That in these

KOO-JAOV.

words
but

more

particularly by
;

other his phecies pro-

not

merely

the

discussion,
of the world

the and

assertion, destruction
to

of the

beginning
is of the

arguments 1 ; 341, 3 acceptance


and
as

(ibid. III. i. 339, 343, 5)


of
as

; that

fulfilled
was

ascribed evident. this remark


that

Posidonius, is selfconfirmation
we

dreams his and

just

In

uncritical III. i.
to

statement

have ii.9, 3

Antipater
(IMd.
ibid.

predecessors Chrysippus
To

(Pint.Plao.

par.} only

339, 5).
be

him,

Posidonius, deviating from

indeed, is
II.

referred

(cf.
en-

Ms

predecessors,would

i. 337,

1) the

DOCTRINES

OF

POSIDONIUS. incline

61

value him

to this belief that not

might
a

us

to

consider

CHAP. III.

merely
demons

Stoic but
was

Syrian Hellenist.
under
a

The

belief in
and
;
l

also taken

his protection
in

utilised

in

support
But

of

belief

phecy pro-

likewise the had of

of immortality
on

the

which soul,2 he

Pansetius

opposed.

the

whole

is,in

his mode

of thought,unmistakably the disciple The chief problem of philosophy Pansetius. for him also avowedly lies in ethics : it is the soul of the whole in and for system ; 3 a point of view which
tire

doctrine

representation of the Stoic of prophecy in the


of Cicero's treatise Phil.d. Gr. III.
:

existence

of has

immortal
no

souls for be learn


63

1st book

De

fenerally enying human


immortal. But
we

ground
souls also
c.

to

JMvinatione.
1

Cf.

319,2;
Trilus

from

Cicero

(/.c.

31,
the

sq.}
that

320, 3 ; Cic.Z"m^.i.
modis censet

30, 64
somniare animus JDeorum

that Posidonius

maintained

Deorum (Posid.')
: WIG

adpiilm

homines

had dying persons because prophecy is


no

gift of
there ment argu-

(for
this
to

him) the altero natione in sleep detaches teneatur, even giioci soul which sit aniimmortalium itself from the aer body, plemis in and thus is rendered quilnis tumquam morum, capable adveritatis of looking into futurity,m-iilto imignitce notce Dl tert'w, quod ijM magis faciet post worte?]}, cum pewea-nt,
cog-

quod promdeat quippe qui sese,

ipseper

doubt also

that

belongs

cum
2

dormwnti'bvs Hirzel thinks

conloquantur.
231

om-ttitw

norj)ore

excesserit.
morte

Itaniulto
it has

Cio.L (U'lrters.zu that


as

que
never

adpropinquante
been of
the

'

indeed sq.') in the


so

donius Posi-

eat divinior.

As, moreover,
said
in

like Pansetius like him the


But not

disbelieved

conflagrationof
he must doctrine
even

that the world, have entirely life

Posidonius soul Cicero

any quarter doubted the after

death,

denied in

of

tality. immorwere

though

if this

itself is
it has

conjecture
when

the unnecessary, excluded wholly been shown


no

that doubt
of the

Posidonius
of the world. demons future

entertained Posidonius' would

especially had every opportunity of asserting the have not slightest it, we the for assumption. ground whether But we are justified in going still farther,and cribing asto

conflagration

him the be

the

Platonic

belief
in

in

doctrine
will

of

already
to

dispose soul prea

discussed

eternity of the infra,

him life
j for

believe end who allows

(untilthe
he

of the the

p. 67, 4. 3 Phil.

d. Gr. III. i. 62, 1,

world)

62

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IIL

itself was
ence

alreadylikelyto

cause

certain

indiffer-

His

lave

of

The adornment of dogmatic controversies. of disthe speech, and general intelligibility


to
course

rUetoriG.

had
not

also

for Posidonius

value
is not

which

they
a

had

for the

older

Stoics ; he

merely

Erudition,

Natural

and even in his scientific but a rhetorician^ philosopher he does not belie this character.1 If, exposition in learning, be excelled most philosophers lastly, in philothere lay therein an sophy, attempt to work? even the surface than in the depths ; rather on inclined to be gainsaidthat he was and it cannot philosophic enquiry ignore the difference between in natural and erudite knowledge.2 If the interest science
was

stronger
the
to

in him

than

was

usual

in

the

this circumstance Stoic school,


to

tarnish
nearer

him

might also contribute purity of his Stoicism,and to bring the Peripatetics.3 His admiration
even

TloffeiddvLos jueTaAAaw

Of. Strabo,iii.2, 9, p. 147: rb irh.r)Qo$ 5e r"v

the Golden

mechanical

arts

were

invented the

by

the age.
as

philosophersof
Perhaps
for what he is is Strabo

(in Spain)

teal eVcuz/""j" rrjs


ffvv-

OUK r^v ape-7-V oare^Tai 'ftdovs priropeias, oAAa

responsible also
says,

vwevdov-

i. 1, that di vine

vireppoXeus. Even the fragments we possess are sometimes in ornate style, but always well written, and show
"na
rais

the and

knowledge

of

philosophy things human

III. i.238, (Pjiil.el.Gb*.


to
a

3), so 7ro\vpddeiacan
no

one

except

belong to philosopher ;
a

no

trace

of the form of

tasteless scholastic Zeno

mode inand

of in

expositiondelighting mostly
the

geography is consequently part of philosophy,


3

Strabo,
yap
e"m

ii.

3,
rb

8, p. 104:

ference

employed by Chrysippus.
-

TTOTU)

a.lrLoKojLKbv

According
and 7

to

Seneca, Ep.
mathearts

88, 21, 24, he


matics under

reckoned all

Trap'avr" (ytrabo is speaking primarily of his geographical work) icalrb apLffroreXifo^tinep


eiwXivQvffiv ot

liberal combats

T^ue'repo: (the

philosophy.
sgq.,

Seneca,
the

Stoics) 5i"
alriw.
rowed Some

13p. 90,
statement had

r"v r^v e-nlKpv^iy particulars bor*

which
to

Posidonius
"

by
are

Posidonius

from

Ari*

tried

establish

that

stotle

given by Simplicius

DOCTRINES

OF

POSIDONIUS.

for of

Plato

was

just
and

as

great (after the


his

example
on

CHAP.
III.

; Panaetius)
2

in

commentary
that the
Is of

the
to

Timsgus,
combine his his him

we

may Stoic with

well doctrine

suppose with

he

tried

the

Platonic.
consequence is reckoned the of

Even
in

agreement
3

Pythagoras
4

eyes

and the
have

Democritus

himself

by

among

philosophers;
demurred
to

to which
account

earlier the
lation re-

Stoics would

on

of Democritus

Epicurus.5

Hence

it is mani-

Phys. 64, #.
abstract

OT.

of

bis

(from Gnminius' Meteorology.)

of the passage

in Math.
not

iv. 2 sqg.
to

shows, does
citation the that
with remark

belong

the

De

in ccelo, 309, ", 2 K ; SchoL Aphr. Ariat. 517, ", 31 ; Alex. Meteorol. 116, a, o. 1 Galen, Hipp, et Plat. iv. 7, 421
:

from
and
even

Posidonius.
in Theo

Also

day
the

Smyns. Z. c., night correspond


and uneven,

Kairoi.

K.a.1

rov

TlXdrrcavos
?s aL

manifestly taken
on

from

the

mentary com-

Kal

the
to

6avOLTTOTO. ra

only
sense

serve

Timseus, can give a physical


utterances,
prove

T^JS [jLcifov

"v$pa

Kal

Belov

to the Platonic

Ka\"i,
re

ws

Kal

avrov Trpecr/Beuaji'

and in

therefore

can

nothing
own

TWV Trspl

Kal Tradcav So'yfj.a.Ta.

regard

to to

Posidonius' the

"c. fivj/duetov, Trepi r""v rTJs^v^s 6 Posid. ibid. v. 6, p. 472 : Sxrirep riAarwj/
2

adhesion
number
4

Pythagorean
Patter iii. 701.
32. would

system.
90. 23jp.

65i'5a"e. fjfjLas
Math. vii. 93
; Plut.

Sen.
His

Best. An. De

eclecticism

have

Procr.

22, p.
Mus.
c.

1023;
Pheedr.
on

Theo

gone had
from

still further

if Posidonius says,

Smyrn. Bull.;
Pksedrus referred
wrote

46, p. 162,
p. the

really, as

Hitter, iii. 702,


Greek tradition.
not
sense

Hermias
a

in
his

derived Oriental
is
a

philosophy
This,
in that
was so

H-ijAst., if
of

commentary
own

is not

here the
been

however,
universal said from
of

correct ;

to.
a

That

he

perhaps
on

he

merely
Ms taken

commentary
has

Democritus
of
atoms

Parmenides

already

doctrine
the

observed, siipra, p. 43, 1. 3 Galen, I. c. iv. 7, p. 425 ; What Plutarch, L 6, p. 478. quotes
Phil,
to not

supposed
this tells

Phoenician

v.

philosopher Mochus
I.
to

(Phil. d. Gr.

c.,

765),
the

but

nothing

as

from
d

Posidonius

(vide

Gr.

II. i. 659, 1)
of the

belongs
Timseus,

the

exposition
the

and

to his own theory ; opinion Pythagorean the comparison Z. as Sext. "?., ap.

directly

philosophical tendency of Posidonius, but only as to his historical deficiency in is abundantly criticism, which attested by Cicero and Strabo.

64

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IIL

fest that other

tie must
to

necessarily have
Stoicism,, and

approximated
to the for

the

systems
A

Stoicism

other
to

systems.
have been Antiochus

specialopportunity
to

this

seems

afforded

him,

as

to

his

contemporary

(vide infra), by the polemic against accusations In order to repel the scepticism. conflict of the philothe from derived sophic which were
systems,
it
was

asserted
It
does not

that

in

the

main

they
that

were

agreed.1
allowed himself the

appear,
in

however,
material at

he

many

departures
:

respects from
any
""$

ancient
one

Stoicism

our

sources,

rate, only mention

important
Whereas
of

divergence, his
the and
to to

Platonising anthropology.2
trine, in opposition
denied and
a

Stoic

doc-

to

that

Plato

Aristotle,
the

of plurality all the

faculties

belonging
of life

soul,
one

reduced

phenomena

the
was

intellectual

fundamental

faculty,Posidonius
soul's life
are

of be

opinion that the facts of the to one explained in reference it, like Plato, inconceivable
the
cause

not

to

principle.
that
reason reason

He

found be of
our

should
and

of that

which he

is contrary to believed that

the
1

passions; 3
To this the refers
8'

and

the

fact

of

sage 5o/cet

following pas(Diog. vii. 129) :


jU^-re
5ia

definitions, though
less tions contain and

O.VTOLS

many rectifications

they doubtamplificaof the

a""("/rao-0cu r^v dicxpcDviav (pi\orovro) croQias, eVel r"$ h.6yq" -rrporbv (3iov,"s ical Aefyeiz/ o\ov
Uo(rei5("vt.6s fytiffiv eV
rols irpo-

earlier of with
the any

theories, tell us nothing from the departure


doctrine in connection

Stoic

his

philosophical view
It to

of the

TpeTTTiKoIy.
'The

universe. suffice

will, thereindicate III.


of

observation
the
:

mentioned
world is

fore

supra, space

p. 60,1, concerning empty


outside

quite
we

unimportant
otherwise

and of his and

what

quotations, Phil. d. Gh\ given in the account Physics of the Stoics,


3

i,

the Plat.

know

physical,

Galen,
this

De

Hipp,

et

astronomical,

geographical

(where

subject is treated

POSIDONIUS.

65

being frequently at strife with, our will could only be explained by an original oppositionof he showed that the faculties working in man ;
affections
l

CHAP.
"

passionatemovements
merely
for
as

of the about

mind

could and
a

not

arise

from
soon

our as

notions

good
of

these

notions
a

are

things, rational kind,


evil
nor same

they
have
manner

do

not

produce

passionate movement,
all persons
in

they
;
a

this result and


even
an

with

the does

existing emotion
and

not

exclude reason.2

simultaneous

opposite activity
that the the mind

of

Finally
that
fresh be

he

remarked

stance circummore

impressions affect explained on


"

cannot strongly

the

presuppositions

of the

the

Stoic
of

theory things
all these

for
is not

our

worth

judgment concerning of changed by duration


Posidonius declared emotions courage

time.3

For

reasons,

himself
arose

for the Platonic


not

doctrine

that the
from

from

the from

rational
two

soul but

and
at

desire,as

which, particularfaculties,4
5,

length)
1 2

iv. 3, p. 377

s%. ;

v.

questions

as

the

seat
in be

of

the
to

461.

Loc. LOG.
; v.

cit. iv. 7, 424 (At. iv.

*#. 5, 397;

soul, and not points which


c.

only
may

regard
decided

7,

416
3

6, 473

sg.

simply ception
As
an

from
or

immediate
of the of

perhe

self-consciousness.
latter mental them condithat

L.c.

some

I pass over iv. 7, 416s"2'. When, further arguments.

instance

however,
sents

Bitter, iii. 703, repreas

brings tions, and

forward says

Posidonius
to

saying
the

In

order
trine

understand
the
no

doc-

\6yuv they require ov peuepuv^ ov5' ouroSeQ-ewi/, n"vr\s Se arafjurfi(reas

of is this
v.

passive
need of

emotions

"v l/ecwrrore
not

there find donius for the

lengthy
cannot in

this does understand

Tracrxo/uey. But In order to mean,

arguments
Galen,

and in

I proofs,

them

there

needs

no

the blames
to

utterance

proof ;but,Their actual


tion is known
to
us

constitu-

Posi178, ch. (502 jfc).

immediately
1, 429
:

here

Chrysippus
from to

through
4

self -consciousness.
"
c.
.

appealing poets in

passages

Galen,
/xey

v.
.

Xp"r-

regard

such

nriros

o%v

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
III.

being
forces

distinct from
of

reason,

are :
l

determined would have

by

the

constitution

the

body

he

these

however, not as parts of the soul regarded, the same and but only as separate faculties of one to the prevailthe seat of which, according ing essence, opinion of his school,he placed in the heart.2 he thought, belong and must Desire also, courage to all ; the latter only to to the animals ; the former indicathose capable of changing their place: 3 an
iretparai
rivet,* Kpicrets ra

elvat

rov

KoyiffriKOv
ra$

S5 oil iraQy, 7A\v"*v


aXAa
ras
CTTL-

auras Kpiffeis avrcus


T"

yiyvop."Vct,s
Xvcreis

(rvffroXas
ras

Kal

eceorsii-s titulis, principali, qiiocl ajunt yye/ji.ovikbv, et a rat'ionali,guod ajunt in duodeoim KoyiKbv, exindegroa

qui

duolus

irrcfxreis secuit, this discrimination of elvai the from the irdQ-rj, ra yyeiwviKbv Xoyutov ris iv6fj,L^ey that we have shows here to do with a misunderstanding of vexdeisGTraivsi re a^aa KO! irpocrieKal eTrdpffeis
rai

rb TiXdrcavos rols

\4yei
ovre vvtav

Kal avri$6yju.a rbv irepl Xp-ucmnrov 5eiKelvcu. ra, irddr} Kpiffsts


ovre

his had For

own

in

regard
in his

to what

he

found this

"iri'ytyv6fj."va /cptn'scrt, of
erepow

aXXa

KLvf](rei$ nvas

dvvd-

conjecturesas to misunderstanding, Diels, Doxogr. 206.

authority. the origin


vide

^3Galen,
crev
1 LOG. cit. v. 2, 464 : "$ rfav rrjs tyvxnseiroiraSyrLK"vKivf}ff""av rcus

Z.

o.

v.

6,476:

tea

e"rrl tcai fluftoeiST?. K[vr\r* re GTriQvfjiTirLK^v ^cpw fiver juez" o?"v r"v Kal irpOffiretyvKora SlKrjv (j)vr(av Ibid. iv. 3, 139, et passim.
irerpais

tfriffiv

rois,

eTTLdv/LLia fi6vy

erepois rowi)SioiKe'io'Qai

/j."VO)V aei
2

5ia06"r6i rf,

rov

cit. vi. 2, Kal 6 TloffeiScavLOS re 'Apio-TOTe'ATjir

Loo.

5' aXAa ra "rcafJLaros. Xeyei aura, ra a\oya 5' 515 : o rats (rti/j.irai'rci $vvdfj.e(riv a/u."porepaLs

eiSr) ju.ev ^ fJLepT]"fyvxys ou/c

bvo-

Kal

rf)r1 "Tn8vjjL7]rLKf} xpvjcrdaL rbv av"ptairov 5e rfj6v/ULoeide"i,

fj.dfova'n/ (which
done in

he

has

inaccurate

rpiffl, perhaps IJLQVQV rcus TfpoffeL\f]"p"vai guage, yap lanKal rty XoyiffriK^v ap-^v.

between mals aniinfra p. 68, 5) dwdfjieis The distinction ovcrias S' eivcLi fj"a(TL which e/c picis are rys capable of When Termotion from those a place and KapSlas6pfjL(t)fj.evr)s. tull. (De An. are 14), departing which not, together with from
says

the

above

exposition,
autem
. . .

the

observation have first


.

that

even

the
and in

Dividitur
in

(sc.
decem
et in

latter must

sensation
met

paHes

desire, is
Aristotle II.

with

duas

qiiosdam Stoicorum, amplius apud Posidonium,

(cf PMl. ", 498).

d. 6fr. II. ii.

68

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

donius

which,
;

we

might have expectedfrom


he the

his

own

_L_

utterances

though

the dependence decidedly recognises

of ethics upon there is

theoryof
doctrine
:

the

emotions,1
would ment state-

nothing told
the Stoic

ns

of his ethics

which
for the

clash with of

moral

that he did not hold virtue to Diogenes,2 sufficient for happiness,we be the only good, and 3 and to be untrustworthy if he have already seen ; for the preof opinion that many even was things, servation of one's country, ought not to be done,4 this, though a deviation,was, in any case, only such the cynicismof the oldest Stoics deviation from a
as

may

be

considered

an

amendment

in

harmony

of the system.5 Nevertheless, we spirit of our cannot regard the Platonisinganthropology admission of alien a merely isolated as philosopher elements into the Stoic system ; for in this alliance with the with Plato and Aristotle
not

there

comes

to

light an

and historical, internal, of Stoicism.

This the

ation unimportant transformretical system had, in its theoPlatonic


and

part,abolished dualityof form


1

Aristotelian
matter
:

and

substance,spiritand
v.

Loc.

tit. iv. 7,

421;

6,

469
2 3 4 5

; 471 S$. vii. 103 ; 128.

rb

(ap. Clem. Strom, ii. 416, B) : fijvBewpovvra rty r"v e6\uv


/cal

aA^emz/ 47, 4.
159.
Kara

T"%LV
Kara

Vide supra,
Cic. Even the

p.

af/rbv ovcevafaz/

teal crwyKararb Svvarby, inrb is


rov

Off. i. 45,

fj.ri""v a^pevov

contradiction

a\6yov
a

given by Posidonius to an inadequate explanation of the requirement of life accordingto


nature

pspovs ry$ formal extension The

tyv^s,

only

definitions.
tween III.

of the older difference beand Phil, in

Posidonras i, 232,
of

Ghrysd.

(G-alen,I. c.
not

v.

6, p. 470)
of
own

ippus (mentioned
2),
the
diseases

6V.

does the

touch

the

nucleus his

Stoic

theory,

and

regard to soul, is also

definition of the

highest good

unimportant.

POSIDONIUS.

69

and

in

connection

therewith

had

also

denied

the

CHAP.

existence At the
same

of

of spiritual faculties in man. plurality time, however, in the practical sphere,

it had

demanded

the withdrawal founded


nor

of self-consciousness
an

from
such

and externality,
as

ethical dualism
had

neither

Plato

Aristotle

recognised.
now

The
makes the

contradiction

of these two

determinations

itself felt ; the moral

dualism, which

marks

tendency of the Stoic philosophy, the theoretic view of the world,and obliges reacts on the Stoics in this also,at any rate in the sphere of
to introduce of principles; an anthropology, opposition for we easilysee that it is not the Platonic may

fundamental

tripledivision
rather the
in

of reason,

courage, of

and

desire,but
and rational ir-

twofold

distinction

rational

the

human Our

soul,with

which

Posidonius

is concerned.1
cates

this connection
and

himself inphilosopher clearly when, in his doctrine of the with


reason,
us

emotions
as

their connection
"

he exalts
to recognise

their
in

use principal

that

they teach
of the
and and

ourselves from

the

distinction

divine and

and to

rational
follow

the

irrational within
not
us,

animal,
not

the

demon Here

the

evil and

un-divine.2

onlyis
TT\S

the

dualism psychologic av^oXoyias


ev

This

dualism, notice
an

is in

expressed
Plutarch,

re

KO!

rov

KCUC"irav

also in the

r"b ^ SaL^ovos J3iov, Iirecrdatr"p


avrcp

Karct.

F"r. 1, Utr. an. 6, which says divided and all conditions

eorj). s. (Bgr. c. Posidonius that human


into

Salmon

crvy-

yevei re
e^ovn
ttovvrt.,
Trore

%VTI teal r^v


r"p

activities
ff(a~ tyvxtKo.,

rbv
2""

r"$

dpoiay "pv(rw 5toifc6a"fjt,ov Ka^ x"^Poyi ""*"$**


'6\ov
ev

partita,

and ffa/JLariKci vepli|/v%V

ffvvettK\ivovra$(pepecrdai. ol
rovro ovre iraptlSdvres

crw/xa. tyw%tKaTT"pl 2 Ap. Galen, v. 6, p. 469 : rb ^ r"v TTft^wy c"nov, rovrecrri

Se
rots

rotv-

fieXnovcri
ey

rfyv alriav
ro7s

r"v

ovr3 iradoay,

ireplrrj$

70

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP*

which of the but it

constitutes with. Posidordus

the proper

nucleus
;

in.

Psychodualism.

logic

enunciated division clearly triple Platonising chiefly is also said that this dualism appears
to the

necessary the

for philosopher

the

reason

that it is the ethical

of presupposition anthropological
sense

of opposition of this bias


we

and

reason.

The

first symptom
in

have

alreadynoticed tyvxy
and

Panaetius

"

in the distinction of

foe is

; in its
we

further shall

development
later find,
A link

in
one

on,

Epictetus and Antoninus of the phenomena which


the

prepared

the The

transition

from

Stoa

to

NeoPlatonism.

between
the Stoic

doctrine
and nism. NeoPlato-

therefore appears as a of Posidonius psychology it was not link in a great historical nexus ; that without importance for the later conception of the Stoic doctrine,we
may
met
see

from
none

the

statement

of

(Men,1 that he had


of his time who
of

with known

among
to

the Stoics
answer

had

how

the Stoic

objections

Posidonius

against the

old

Stoics
the

of

first century^
B.C.

theory.2 Posidonius the In the periodimmediatelyfollowing of the Stoic schoolisindeed attestedbythe spread great
ical ofjLoKoyias evSaifLoviasr opdotioj-ovtrLV.ov
yap
sv

has with the has

been

shown

what
as

is peculiar

fiKtirovcrtv'fai

to Posidonius

compared
doctrines
he
as

irp"r"v sffnv
Kal

avrfj rb
rov

K."T"
re

the older

Stoic

virb "y"crOa.t firjSev

a\oyov
aBeov

points
for

on

which and been of

is in

real KOKodaifj.oi'OS

TTJS

evidence

them,

such

$VXTJS. *#., and what is quoted "vpra", 68, 5, from


Of. ibid. p. 470 In Clemens. moral

repeatedly
enumerated

quoted
this

earlier sections
are

work,
In his

opposition to

the

by

Bake.

dignity of the spirit, collection, completed by Mxiller, iii. 252 sg$., PosidoniuSj ap. Sen. Ep, 92, 10, Fragm, JBRst. Gr. and Scheppig, De Posid. 45 sqq." speaks of the body as iwwtiMs et flitida, to be found taffi* are the historical GO/TO recejotandis turn ciUs JiaMlis. and geographicalfragmentsand
1 2

LOG.

ait. iv. 7, end

402

tg.

theories

of this

philosopher.

In

the

preceding

pages

it

STOICS

OF

THE

FIRST

CENTURY

B.C.

71

numbers but

of itsmembers
a

with whom
of these
seem

we

are

acquainted ; l

CHAP.
III.

only

portion

to have

occupied

themselves
of

and even independently with philosophy, that portionthere was not one certainly philosopher

to compare

with Pansetius
and influence.

and

Posidonius It

in scientific

importance
1

all the is,therefore,

Beside p.
may here

those
52

already
mentioned

merated, enu-

In the and
xiv.

$""., the

ing follow:
"

be

Ind. Here. col. 52, 1) ; whom Leonides, Strabo, 2, 13, p. 655, describes as a Pihodes of
was

(X) according 26), must


as

Greeks:
to

who, Dionysius, Cicero (Tiisc. ii. 11,


been ing teach-

Stoic from
a

probably
Also

pupil

Posidonius.

still have

the two

teachers

in Athens

Cicero

in the year 50 B.C., in this treatise represents heard him as by his

Cato, Athenodorus
surname

of the younger with the from with Borne


sus, Tar-

Cordylio,
Cato him
xiv.

whom from

took
to

him and death

young In that

interlocutor
case

in that

city.

Pergamum
with Cato

he must

guished be distin-

from tins of

Cyrene, (p. 53)


the

the

of Dionysius of Pansedisciple
;

kept (Strabo,
Plut. the

till Ms

Min.
at

5, 14, p. 674. 10, 16; Epit.


overseer

but

he

is

no

Dioy.}, previously

of
in

same spoken library Pergamum person which he capriciouslycorrected by Diog. vi, 43, ix. 15, and IT. (Diog. opposed by Philodemus writings of Zeno 0-77- the vii. of 7 col. from jueiW, Antipater 34) ; and sqq. (as results If after 4 xvi. col. 19, 4: sq. Zeno). Tyre (Plut.Cato, ; Strabo, of the school, 2, 24, p. he was the head 757; Epit. Diog.\ ing doubtless the same he can who, accordscarcely have followed ii. Mnesarchus to 24, 86, Cicero, Off. immediately after the compodied shortly before (vide supra, p. 53) ; perhaps,as sition in this of loo. treatise, has shown, already been

doubt

cit., Apollodorus is
between have them. the three
:

to

be

placed Athens,
would treatise

and
seem,

had

written,

it

Further, we of Posidonius disciples

of in

Duties; a upon is his irepl K6(r/mov,


vii. 139
two

Asclepiodotus (Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 26, 6 ; vi. 17, (Diog. 3, et passim') ; Phanias
vii. his him Bhodes
on

quoted
and

Diog. respecting

etpass.;
tises, treato which

other

it is uncertain

41) and Jason, daughter, who


as

the

son

of in
is

Antipater they
to

belong.
Hero.
one

cording Ac-

succeeded school
;

2nd.

col. 79
or

head

of the

(Suidas,sufi vocc
other PUl d.

while
as

(supra, perhaps
tius

p.
two

54) he had disciplesof

Panse-

the

hand,
G-r.

for his instructors. of

Apol-

shown, 48, he

III.

i.

lonius

cannot be, as Compathe anonymous retti supposes, to of Diogenes alluded disciple

ing accordTyre seems, to have been to Strabo, Z.0., younger;


name
are

somewhat under his

treatises

quoted by

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. ill.

more

probable that
which
at

most two

of
men

them had

followed

the
;

direction the school

these

given

that

period held in the main to the doctrine and of Zeno Chrysippus,but repudiated than before ; and alien elements less strictly partly
that
Strabo,
and ap.

Diog. vii. 1, 2,
also Phot.

of

Sandon,
of

from

Tarsus

or a

the
ciple dis-

6, 24, perhaps ap. Cod. 161, p. 104, 5, 15. Dioinstructed dotus, who Cicero,
and who afterwards lived with

neighbourhood, perhaps
of

the

Posidonius, the teacher cerning Emperor Augustus, conwhom Dio cf. Strabo, xiv.

him, finally having become blind, died at his house about


60 heir
B.C.

5, 14, p. 674 ; Lucian, Macrob.

21,

23

Chrysost.

Or.

33,

and

made

Cicero

his

(Cic. Brut.

90, 309

; Acad.

p. 24 Plut.

R;

^Elian.

c. Pojjlic.

V. "T. xii. 25 ; 17, and Apopti-

ii. 36, 115 ; N. JD. i. 3, 6 ; ad JDiv. xiii. 16, ix. 4 ; Two. v. 39, of

tliegm. jReg.

113; ad Att. ii. 20); a disciple freedman of the his, a Muller. triumvir Crassus, Apollonius 485 mentioned is Cicero, by name, by 8%.
ad must

Aug. 7, p. ii. 1, 13, 3, p. 207 ; Qu. Com. 634 ; Dio Cass. lii. 36 ; Ivi. 43 ; i. 6 ; Suid.JA07p(f". Zosim.-S^. ;

Cm.

Fragm.
Whether

Hist. the

Gr.

iii.

Fam. be Ind.

xiii. 16. of

From Ptolemais

Mm the in

and

sayings
to

distinguished
Here.
col.

Athenodorus
or
same

writings from quoted him belong to


person
most

Apollonius
the the calls
as

another
name,

of with
to

the
tainty, cerme

78, whom

in it

instances

compiler of that catalogue (pixos 7)fj.caj" ; for this man,


stated, had and Mnesarchus
heard who

cannot

be

discovered
seems

but

is there

probable

that

by

the
in

dorus AthenoSen.

Dardanus
were

mentioned

both (cf.p. 53) disciples Trtmgu. An. 3, 1-8, 7, 2 ; Ep. further 10, 5, without tion, descripDiogenes, and as such can is to be understood our hardly have lived to the year 90 since that the at B.C. ; whereas Athenodorus, Apollonius of of

Cicero,

as

boy
this

in

his

time known Home the

he

was man

certainly the
of he the
was name

best in

house, long

after

date,
of

enjoyed
Diodotus Caesar extreme
war.

the and

instruction

accompanied (though not probably in


age)
to the Alexandrian

; that who same

likewise

wrote

about, i.e.
gories, cate-

against, the
and
on we

Aristotelian who
was

opposed

Comparetti (1. c.
the about

547) wrongly Apollonides, was Cato, who


his last 65 *#. ; cf. Phil.

p. 470, identifies them. friend him of in

particularpoints by Conutus,
find from

days (Plut. Cat.

Min.

Simpl. 5, a. 15, 5. 41, 7. (Schol. in Arist. 47, ~b, 20 ; 61, a, 25 54.) 32, e. 47, f.; in Porph. itfy. 4, 1,21, I (ScJiol.
Arist.
Abhandl.

48). Athenodorus,

d. Gr. III. i. p. the son

48, 5, 12)
d. Berl.

; cf

Brandis,
1833
;

Akad,

STOICS

OF

THE

FIRST

CEXTUUY

B.C.

in

its learned
of its

in the practical cation applipartly activity, into amicable contact came principles,

CHAP.
III.

on

many

points with
the extent will

other

schools.

An

example
attained in Arms

showing
in

to which

this eclecticism
us

individuals

be

presented to
other of the do the the Stoics

Prantl. 275; GeseJi. d. Log. i. 538, 19. Some


t.

Kl.

of this

name,

one tioned men-

them

from

Antioch,

fragments
been The

of

an

historical

and have

geographical
collected ethics
may

character

other

68, 121,
son

by Miiller, I. c. quoted in Diog. vii. also belong to the


and he is
no

not

Suidas, 0eW ^pvpv^ tioned Tithora, menis. we 82, by Diogenes, the but know dates,

by

from

latter famous

must

be

older

than

of

Sandon;
the

JEnesidemas.)

Lastly, Strabo,

doubt who
on

Athenodorus

Calvns,

Duties

inspired Cicero's treatise xvi. (Cic. ad AU.


on

sidered geographer, conhimself as belonging

to the must

Stoic be

school.
as

His

birth Vita 13

11, 14) ; while the hand author


irarat,

the of the

other

placed,
D"

Hasen-

icspi-muller

says,

Strab.

which

Diogenes
more

cites,is
the
name

probably

quentlyDiss.* Bonn, fre1863, p. (who also discusses the

s$.

various

To Theo

same Peripatetic of the of infray spoken p. 124:. this same period belongs

theories),in
as

or

before
saw

in 44

B.C.

he

58 B.C., P. Servilius

Isauricus, who

died him
can

in his ninetieth
in

of under

Alexandria,
to

who sub and


on

cording ac-

Suidas.

voce,
was

lived the ric he

Augustus
of
a an

year saw p. 568), and Strabo whither have

(Strabo, sii

6, 2" Ptome,

scarcely

author besides

work

Eheto-

Apollodorus'Physics.
may be the
to

epitome of Perhaps

gone before his fourteenth native Bis city was year. in Pontus Ainasea (Strabo,sii.

luded S, 15, E9, p. 547, 561) ; he lived, alperson Here. Ind. Augustus and however, under at Rome. Tiberius "v words the (At the end in JAAe"an~ col. 79, he book his 6th names of thought by Gomparetti

in

the

Speus,
be

to

Dio

of

the

Academy

Tiberius and

as

the
must

present ruler
as

(vide infra, p. 100). In that he a was disciple of case Stratocles (vide supra, p. 54) and only the latter part of his
life Arms says
fjiera
can

Germanicus

his

son

; 14

this passage written have been

accordingly
between

have If

fallen
he
,

under

Augustus.

survived
1

after and 19 Christ.) He betrays himself to be a Stoic such as not only by utterances

i. 1, p. 2 (the Stoic definition : Suidas (vide infra,106 of philosophy),i. 2, 2, p. 15" : yeyov^s eiri AiryOTJcrrov have but he also calls Zeno 6 ^/teVepos "Apewv) he musfe
to
a

lived
master

great age

like

Ms
two

Stratocles.

(Of

xvi. 4, 27, i. 2, 34, p. 41, and p. 784 5 vide mj)ra, p. 62, 3*

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP III.

Didyrmis,
the Stoic

who

indeed but

counted
who

himself

member
so

of
to

school,
the of him

approximates
that it
seems

closely preferable

Alexander
to

Academician,
after that

speak

philosopher.
(Parad.
Stoicvs',
Procem.
in

Perhaps
Sandon,
him
calls to

Athenodorus,
may Stoicism
eTcupos

the

son

of

2,
Stoieus

as

perfectus
118
;
as

have
;

introduced
whom,

Brut,

31,

he

perfectissimus
Pro
account

and

in
on

-ri/juv

(xvi.
be

4,
whom

21,

Mur. of
in De

29,

61

attacked

p. he

779),
shows

and

concerning
himself
to

Stoical Flnibus
the

asperities,
the leader
of

rately accu-

called p.
of

informed

(xiv.
he

5,
had

14,

his

school,
Cato
and

writings earnestly
death
one

674).
heard

Meanwhile
the

also

which

(iii. 27)
after
of the his

Peripatetic
16,
p.

Tyrannic
and
p. Xen-

studied,
of the d. ffr. III.

Oii.
archus had Boethus

3,
had

548)
4,

ideals

Stoics
His

(PJiil.

(xiv.
the

4,

670)
famous fellow

and

i. 254, and friend

3).

teachers,

still
as

more
a

Antipater
ciple dis-

Athenodorus

either
or

and have

his

Apollonides
before Stoicism Nat. M. vii.
us.

more

prohably

(for
also
a

the

already
his Hist.
92.

come

word

xvi. in crvj/e"f"i\ocroct"'f)(ras.i."i' p.

Concerning
also xxxiv.
a

vide

2, 24,

757,

permits
as

this

Pliny,
8,

30,

113,

interpretation)
(Of
a

teacher. Aristoin

Favonius,
of

third

instructor,
does
to in
not

passionate
whom Min. 73 Cato
;

admirer cf
.

Cato's,
Brut.

demus, 1, 48,
p.

he

say

xiv. he

respecting
34;

Plut.

650,
or

what what
The
a

school he date
tioned men-

32,
;

46;

Cfesar,
Octav.

belonged, Protagoras,
by
unknown. Bonaans of

structed 21 in-

Pomp.
Valer. xxxviii.

Sueton. ii.

him.)

of

13

Max.

10,
14.
an

Dio Also

Stoic,
ix.

Cass. is Valerius

7, xxxix.

Diogenes, ("")
this known the

56,

Soraiius,
and

older

Among1 period,
to
us

the
the
as

contemporary
of
seems

acquaintance
Brut. is
D.

Cicero's
from

(Cic.
what

46,

169),

following
adherents
:

are

quoted
11,
treatise

by 13),
on

of

Stoic

trine doc-

Augustine probably
Gods

(Civ.
from

vii.

Q.

Lucilius

Balbus,
as
a

his

whom

Cicero

praises
Stoic

tinguished the dis-

(Bernhardy,
to

Rom.
to

(JV:
the he

D.

i. 6,

15)

Lit. the

229),
school who

have

belonged
Some

and of the
M.

whom, this

in

second considers
of

book
as

of
are

Pansetius. also

treatise

others reckoned Varro

occasionally
the will

representative
Porcius

the

school.

among and

Stoics,
be

as

OatoUticensis,
described

Brutus,
on.

spoken

already

by

Cicero

of

later

76

ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
IV.

the Mithridatic

war

with others lie fled, here

on

the Koman

to Borne,1 and side,

gained
and
to the
as

for himself
a man.

great

esteem,2 both
him

as

a won

teacher
over

Through
of the
new

Cicero
as

was

doctrine

Academy,
he
any
ever case

Philo

had

apprehended
we

it.3
know

"Whether
; but

returned he does

to Athens

do not

in

not As

seem a

Roman

journey.4
he had of least
to

long survived the he at first, we philosopher


to have
vide
2

Ind. the the but

Here,

also

enjoyed

Tuso.
3
:

instruction

Stoic, at
text
seems

Apollodorus the imperfect


mean

this ;

whether

Apollodorus is the
mentioned Seleucian Gr. III. i. mentioned

toric,
Plut. 6^.

ii. 3, 9 ; 11, 26.

$iXa"vos SrfiKova-e

T"V 'Pajjjicuoi Qwv


KoL

KAeiro/m^ou orvvii-

Sia

"rbv

\6yav sQcLVfjiaa'av

Athenian

(supra,^. 47)
as seems

KCU

53) or the (Phil. d.


the
own

Cic.
mis

rp6irov Tiydir-ricra.v. Acad. i. 4, 13 : PMlo, magvir. Cf the following note,


.

5ia

rbv

more

doubtful,

Philo's school

and
3

also Stob. Eel. ii. 40. Plut. I. o. ; Cic. Tusc. I. c. ;


totum I.e.,

leadership of

the

(sujpra, p. 53) can scarcely have begun later than that of

JV".D. i. 7, 16 ; Brut. ei me tradidi.


4

Apollodorus
as

Athens, and the predecessor of the latter,

of

The in
to

Mithridatic
88 B.C., and

war

broke

out

of Philo's

the teacher Mnesarchus, was pupil Antiochus (vide 86, 1). That he followed infra, Glitomachus
as

Philo this

came

probably immediately after


We with hear of while
a

Borne. he had
was

treatise Antiochus

composed
Aoad. (Cic.

head

of the

the Ind.

Lucullus

school,
Herd, from
was

we

find

from

in Alexandria

J"v. xiv. S, 9 (accordingto Numenius) ; and Cic. Brut. the most of the

and

Bus. Pr.

89, 306, that he

ii. 4, 11), which, according to Zumpt d. Berl. Acad. (AM. 1842; Hut. Phil. JZl.p. fall 67),would mann 84, according to Her87. When he
to Athens I. G. 1. 4, in

important philosopher Academy of his time


Aead. ii.
autem

in the year Cicero

Academice} ; (princeps
6, 17 (PMlone
einium In Athens

came

in 79 B.C.

vivo patronon was

he cannot

have

been

there, as
have

Academics

would deficit}.
his

otherwise in Plut.
;

been

Antiochus

mentioned
Brut.

Cic. 4 ; Cic.
v.

pupil (videinfra 86, 1).

Besides

91, 315
to me

Fin.

haps 1, 1. Per-

philosophy he taught rhetoric (Cic.De Or tut. iii. very zealously


28, 110).
1

he remained
as

in
more

seems
no

Kome, or, probable,


How the

was

longer living.
as

Cic. Brut. the

89, 306.

ing Concernhe gave rhe-

statement

to

instructions

his life is to be

length of not completed canBiiclaeler

the

there

in

philosophy and

be

ascertained.

PHILO.

77

are

defended told,zealously
its

the doctrine of Carneades the

CHAP. IY*

in

whole

content;
in

in

sequel, however, he
to

became without

unsettled

regard

this

doctrine,and

expressly abandoningit,he sought greater the principles than of his preof conviction fixity decessors
afforded.1
to

Though

it

was

not

in itself contrary

the

spirit of

scepticism

that

he

should
ms'

point of view,2 regardphilosophyfrom the practical timl of treating it received him from an yet this mode which went beyond scepticism: he was application like Pyrrho, by the of destruction not satisfied, moval dogmatism to clear away hindrances,with the reof which
to (according

that

philosopher)
this

happinesscame
end
to

of itself;but in order to attain

he found
be

complete directions for right conduct The philosopher, he says, may be necessary.
with
a

compared
so

is

physician ; as health is for the latter, happinessfor the former, the final end of his
3 activity ;

whole

and

from

this definition of its aim,

for prefersej-rjKOvrarpla, there for is


no room

lie says lacuna

eiredv^e^ ev
6vr"av rvxew,
v"ra

olcrfl' 5Vi,ra"v eiva

in the

eS"c
. "

(Inci. HeTC. epfiojj.'fjKOj'ra Aead. 33, 18).


1

jSaAAooz/avrtis CK"J'
Philo had
at first professed

That the

Numen.
:

xiv. 9, 1 his career


was

At
as

Pr. Uv. ap. Bus. the beginning of


a

Academic

scepticism
he

more

unconditionally than
wards Acad.
2

after-

teacher,
in

Philo

full

of

zeal

the leal
flaxy

doctrine
ra

of the

defending Academy :
KAem"-

Cic. did, follows from ii. 4, 11 sg. ; vide infrat

p. 80, 2.

"""o7,ueVa T$
i?v"e Kal
rots

STou/coTs

Pyrrho had alreadydone this (cf.Pliil. d. 6rr* III. i. 484, 3).


3

v"po-jri e'/copvo-crero x^A/c^. Subsequently, however,


Kara ra avra

Stob. Eel. ii.40 sy.

eoucevat

ouSev

jj.lv 5e (pyffLT"vQi^croipoj'iarpq}

Kal yap rrj larpiKycnrovB^jiraffa. f)5e rcav laur^JevJei, rb re\osy rovro 5J %v vyleia, avrbv ave"Trpe"pep irepl irad7)]ut.dra)v Kal Kal TTO\Trepl r)jv dpo^oyta. ry "f"i\0(TO"plq evdpyetdre
'

73

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
*

lie derives

the six divisions

of

philosophywhich
he himself Where

he

IV.

assumed,1 and according to which


of ethics in its whole for
a

treated

extent.2

the interest

of doctrine, though primarily form systematic so was philosophy, only in the sphere of practical tific of scienthere also the belief in the probability strong, have been strengthknowledge must necessarily

According to Stobseus, the following. they are firstthing that is necessary,


1

I. c.,
The he
man

to

maintain

that
so

the

Stoic all
of

ethics

agreed

entirely in
with

things
the that

essential and had

those occasion

is says, be should submit

that

the
to

sick

Academy
Zeno

Peripatetics,
to

prevailed
and that be

himself
should

to upon medical

no

separate

himself

from

the

demy, Aca-

treatment,
counsels this is the

other
"

opposed \6yos irporpeTrriKbs rov "irlrty aperV), which (jrctpop/JLcay


has

The fourth part treats and fixes the Qecap^(Slav, TTspl

r4\ov$,
of

primarily
individuals.

for

the
The

by in fifthpart, the TroAm/eds, philosophy) and partlyto confute the objections regard to the commonwealth. againstphilosophy. (The irpo- In order to provide not only
of virtue
more same curately, ac-

partly to prove (or,perhaps


of

the

worth

conduct
the

problem

is undertaken

rpeirriKos

of

Philo

is

thought

for

the

wise, but

also

for

the

mann, by Krische, I c. p. 191, and Heri. 6, ii. 7, to be the prototype of Cicero's JEFortensius ; cf ., however, Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 63). This being attained, there must,

who SiaKel/j.evoi Mpcairoi, vestigation to follow unable are logical inthe sixth part is required, the viroQ"-riKbs \6yos,
peffcas

which
into
2

coins the
rules

results of ethics
cases.

secondly,
"

be

applied
and

on

the

one

remedy hand,

for individual is evident of

This

from Arius ofiv

the

false injurious opinions concluding words the be discarded, and, on must p. 46 (in regard to be must mus) : auras IJ.GV other, right opinions " Trepl aya6tav KCU imparted
"

Stobseus,

Didy-

KaKtov

rfaos.

The

third is the
In the this

reXcav. x6yos TT"pl

part
jectures con-

avrf)

rot.

Trepl
"c.

of Philo the JDe


not

's -ethics Hermann

(ii.7)
4th book

source

of

of Cicero's treatise

Any

one

who

agrees

with

mann's Her-

Finibus.

This, however,
be

only
not

cannot

proved, but
as

Fin-, iv. has

conjecture respectingthe less right to


Hermann does

it is also and

improbable, Antiochus, was

Philo,

the first

dispute this,as 5). (ii.

PHILO. ened

79

and
so we

the

inclination

to

scepticismweakened

CHAP. Iy-

actuallyfind that Philo withdrew from the standpointwhich had simply disputed the posof sibility knowledge. The Stoic theory of knowledge he could not, of course, adopt ; against the
doctrine of

and

Modifier
timi

"f^

If'tlT*
Academy-

intellectual that

cognition,he
is
no

argued with
so

Carneades
that
a

there
may

notion co-exist

constituted
it
: 2

false notion
of

not

with

and

the

truth

sensible

perception from
all notions

which denied

the for

Stoics
all the

derived ultimately
reasons

he

which
and

his

in the Academy predecessors


as

had
1

given ; 3
This

little

he

could

agree

with

the

connection Is,indeed, impre"wm ex effietumque eo" by Hermann, 1. o. ; but unde esset,guale esse non posset know as we (from Stob. I.e.} ex eo, unde non esset JIQG that Philo placed the ultimate cum infirmat toUitque Philo, end of philosophy in happiness, judicium tollit incogniti et that he believed this to be But this cogniti. does not conditioned by right moral Hermann as mean, (ii.11) asviews (f"yi"sUxovo-ai86"ai, 0e"Philo serts, that maintained "rt 0fov), and by a whole frfmara that if there were visum like a views, and desystem of such that required by Zeno, no cornvoted of the six sections of preJiensio would one be possible ; his ethics expressly to the rebut rather, if the comprehenof false and the impart- sible must moval be a visum impresing of true opinions, the in- sum, and so forth,there would
denied
. . .

f erence held
true

is

inevitable
to

that be did

he

be
same

nothing comprehensible;
statement Of. that
235 to

the

sary, and maintain"at

opinions consequently
any
"

neces-

is made the of

by

not

Sest.

PyrrJi. i.
as

(infra,p.
Car-

rate, for the


standnor
was

81, 2).

cone-'

the practical sphere of doubt, point pure satisfied with and shows
case.
2

spending propositions
neades, PMl.
3

d. 6V.IU.
no

mere
we

probability ;
know of not him
was

If

we

have
on

i. 501 sq. direct in-

what that

formation

this

point, gather

it

this

the
Cum,

follows
from the book Priora

with
we

great probability
can

what
contents

of 1st of

Cic. ita

Acad.

ii. 6, 18:

of the

the 2nd

lost book
a

enim

quod
si

negwet, qutequam esse eompreliendi posset, illud esset sicut Zeino dejmiret
. . .

of

Cicero's

Academies
\ from from the

and

the Academica

Posterior

tale

msum

visum

igitw

Acad.

ii. 25, 79, and

80

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IY"

adversaries

of

the
as

Academic

doctrine
to

as

hitherto
the vanced ad-

understood, he
doctrine

little desired his

renounce

itself. the

When

Antiochus disciple the


its

propositionthat
been
untrue to

school

of

the

Academy

had

tendency original
that there
must to

since the time

of Arcesilaus, and
return

therefore be

from

the

new

Academy
the

the

old,Philo

raised the

liveliest

to opposition
: new

this demand,

and to the whole he declared, was


not

statement from

Academy,
there
to

distinct
no

the old, and


a

be could, therefore,
but latter,
one

question of
doctrine.1
union

return

the

solelyand

entirely of maintaining the


But
new new

look with
is

genuine Academic this closely, more

when

we

of the

Academy Academy,

Plato, as that of Philo with the


a

only to be attained by
not

did contemporaries fragments preserved by

which his even subtlety fail to rebuke.2 Scepticism,


the
new

Academy, that of Cliand Carneades, which (c".the arguments of Krische, tomachus he undertakes to defend against L "?., p. 154 "#., 182 sg[.; HerOf. Antiochus. c. Augustin, ii. 10). mann, 1 Hide AnAcad. Hi. 18, 41: i. 4, 13: (AnCic. Acad. illis PMlo tiocftitnagister negcct tiochus) arreptis tterum
Nonius
.

in Wwis,
mias

quod

coram

etiwn

ex

armis

et

Pkilon

restitit

donee reli* de-

ijpsoaudiebawius,
esse, erroremque

duas

Ac"de-

morervtur,, et
Tullivs q'ttias Philo the rived

owinen

ejus

eorum,

qui
is
an

noster
are

oppres"it.
of Cicero

From itaputarimt("sA.ntioclcms,vidl#

probably

infm'),coarguit. maintained by Cicero


adherent of Philo's

The

same as

arguments

doctrine

(ap. August, iii. 7, 15) on the to superiorityof the Academy


all other
2

(he has justbefore directly acknowledged himself a follower


of the In Cicero Pldlone Academics
new

schools, Philo's hands treatise of


came

When the Cicero


was

Academy),
to

c.

12, 46.

into

Antiochus
ii. 4,

relation says
autem
non

this

(Acad.
vivo

ii. 6,

subject 17) :
The is

(as
asked

relates, Acad.

11) he

patrooimum
defuit.
defends

Heraclitus

quite startled,and of Tyre, for


of Philo disciple
:

Academy

which

he

years the many and Clitomachus

Viderenturne

PHILO.

81

Philo

believed, was,

as

against the Stoic arguments,


;

CHAP.
'

well perfectly

established
had

for the

rational

concepas

tion, which
not

they
: 1

made

the criterion, was

such
un-

His

theory

available
;

but in

in themselves connection

things are
with

not

ledge.

knowable

and the

this,he Academy
this
sense

tained mainwas,
; it

that
from
was

scepticism of the
meant

the
not

beginning, only
design
2

in

its

to

deny

all and

every in the

knowledge
Stoic
rion,3 criteas

of the

things;
while

this

was

denied
reference

only
to
was

opposition to
maintained As
to to

Stoics, and
esoteric from

with

genuine
doctrine the

Platonism
of
no

the

the

school.4

the be go

danger
back
to

Stoics

longer appeared
an

pressing,he
the

considered

it

opportune

time

originaldoctrines
"num

professed by the

ilia Pltil"nis, aiit ea Philotie vel eos ullo audivisset lie the

Tel

Academico

? to which aliqiiando in the negative. In replied


same

Carneadean pure scepticism, the representative of which in the first edition of the Academica was Catulus), negat Academicos
omnino

work the

Philo "s statement doctrine


is of

dicere
and

(cf.

concerning new Academy


an

the
as

described
censure

ibid. 6, 18). 3 Thus the of the

rise

design

untruth, repeated, 6, 18.


1

and

this

is

Sext.

Pyrrh.
vt

i. 235

ot Be

'6ffov fj-ev exl


TT?

), Tovrecrn

the Academy scepticism is represented by Augustine (C.Aead. ii. 6, 14), who no doubt derived this conception from Philo as explained by Cicero.
4

of

LKy
a

elvai

TCL

aitardtyavracriq, fiffov Se irpd'yfJi.aTa, But the here wider


3.

Cf. sitpra, note


statement

1.
us

This

meets

often

expression
be

(vide PML it 493, 4) ; that


from

d. Gv. is is

III. i.

'

must

taken
sense;

derived with

Philo

ultimately probable,

in cf.
2

somewhat Acad. will it

partly from
of
not

its inter-connection

inf. p. 82,
Cic. he
acer

all other

4, 12.

The

arguments
Philo
enim

of Antiochus

against
minus

Ms, and only


c.

presuppositions partly because it is found in Augustine,

pass over, est is,qui adversariiis lieri

C. Acad. in

iii. 17, 38 j 18, 40 ; but 20, 43, Augustine expressly to Cicero for it.

ista" qiLcs sunt

defensa (the

appeals

ECLECTICISM.
1

CHAP. IV.

Platonic

school ; of the

but

lie could

not

see

in

this

storation re-

old

Academy

any

abandonment that the the


new

of

the

tendency

of the new, not Eut

since he held all from what

Academy had
Platonism.2

departed at
if
we

original
this
factory. satis-

ask

in

consisted

genuine Platonism,
On
his

the

answer

is not

very

the

one

hand, Philo,in agreement with

of the new Academy, denied the predecessors of a complete knowledge, of comprehending possibility merely in regard to the Stoic theory ; not of
; for like those knowledge, but quite universally

he predecessors, of

lacked
true

sure

criterion

for the

criminati dis-

and

false.3

Notwithstanding.,

less August, iii. 18, 41 (doubtafter Cicero) : Antioohus


auditor, hominis
veluti

to Philo
novam.'
3

PMlonis
tutn

yuan-

arbitror

Acad. oircutnspectissimiy
as

qui jam
dentibus
rat et ad

aperire oeTiostibus portas ccepePlatonis the had of auctoritatem


revocare

tiochus
domum
e

remigrare
from

in

vetere.

This

is evident

Cic.

Cicero, Philo, has defended the proposition,niJiil esse gwocL percipi possit, with
an

ii. 22, 69. adherent

After

of

Academiam

legesque
enemy

the
treat, re-

old sceptical argument, for the Sed

the of
tinues con-

(as
the
were

he

saw

in
to

rion impossibility of findinga crite-

he

begun
the

open
true
establish re-

discrimination
here

gates besieging, and


the had far been

city they
to

and
:

false, he

which the
2

previous order interruptedby (Luc. 42


Philo the
;

war).
So

cum priiis pauca AntiocJio, gui TICSG ipsa, yMt? " me defenduntur, et didicit apiid Philonem tain diu, itt const aret

Plutarch
call

diirtim etidem

didicisse
licecnon quam
.

neminem,

et

J3rut. head

2) may of the new

Academy,

and

acriiis accusavit
antea

old ; and Antiochus similarly Cicero (Acad. i. 4, 33 ; chus describe Antioii. 22, 70) may who through the man as that of the the

in senectute
taverat
.

defensi-

qitisenim iste dies inlitxerit, qucero, g\ii illi osten.

derit
esse

earn,

giiam

multos
et

awnos

renovation
fell
away

of

the from

old Academy Philo An-

negitavisset,veri
Vide
the

fain

notam? note.

following

while in Ms

he himself

conversely sees

from retrogression

84

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IV'

part with

Ids

discipleCicero.
venture

When,

however,

we

find that he did not

to ascribe to this knowledge

the full

of intellectual cognition, and certainty manifestness


which
to be
a

consequentlyassumed
the conviction,

kind
mere

of

certainty of

transcends

but does not reach the unconditional tainty cerprobability, of the conception this is very characteristic between of the middle position of our philosopher
"

Carneades
without

and
reason

Antiochus,1
that Philo
less than

and

it

was

so

far

not

was

from distinguished

his

no predecessors,

from

his

successors,2 as while, on
favour
and of the

the founder

of the

fourth

Academy;
in

other

tells hand, this appellation

the

that opinion Carneades


an

between

the doctrine

of Philo

that of

taken important divergence had really certain element, Philo, like Cicero place.That directly ances after him, might seek before all things in the utterof moral consciousness, and
ledge theoryof knowfoundation for practical
so

his

might serve him as a for the necessity philosophy,


his

which

seems

to have been

determining influence

in

the theory.3 originating

be

This opinion I believe to notwithstanding justifiable,

79, 2; 82, 3) that


nota

there

is

no esse

Hermann's
Philo's with

contradiction
admit

(I.c.
that

falsi, niMl qitod yercipi possit. On


veri
at

the
even
Kara-

ii. 1 3), for I cannot the

contrary, when
in the Stoic the and

he

missed

perspicuitas coincides
unconditioned
cer-

fywraffia

A^n/c^

tainty, which,
of the the

according
excels
in

to

ledge,
nota

sign of true knowconsequently the


falsi,he
it all the
to

Plato, is presentin the intuition ideas, and


Stoics. truth of
not

veri et

must
more

have in he

discovered that ascribes


2 3

intellectual
Had

knowledge
this he could

knowledge
such
PML
.

which

been uni-

unconditional

Philo's

meaning
he

certainty.
Of

possiblyhave
versallyas

maintained does

(vide sugra,

Sit/pra, p.

d. Grr. III. i. 526, 2. 77 sg.

PHILO.

85

But

in

itself Philo's

scientific

position could
assumes a

not

CHAP.

long be maintained.
as

He

who

certainty.
or

Philo

did

in

his

doctrine

of the

self-evident

manifest, could
every
sure

not,without
to

inconsistency, deny that


the true
no

token

of distinction between
us

and

longer profess of the new the principles Academy; conversely, could not logically yond did professthem he who go beCarneades' doctrine of probability. If a man himself it impossibleto satisfy found longei any with that doctrine,there remained nothing for him but to break with the whole standpoint of the scepticism of the new Academy, and to claim afresh for for the knowledge of human thought the capability further taken This truth. by the most step was
the false is

wanting

he

could

important
Ascalon.3 This

of

Philo's

Antiochus2 disciples,1

of

philosopherhad

for

long

time

enjoyed
upon

AntwcTm*

and Philo's instructions,

had

himself

embarked

works
when may

advocating the
he have

scepticism of the
uncertain
measure

Academy,
it.4

began
been

to grow

about the

This of his

in

great

result

having attended
1

the

lectures

not

only of Philo,but
treatise of in Ger-

Of

whom mentioned

those

known

to

us
2

are

infra,, p. 99s^.
him,
De mde

Par. 1856; but, as the unknown Chappe was many,


was

Concerning
C.

160-170; ~K.iische,6rott.Stud.ii"
and

this flagrant plagiarism after the only discovered of its author.

Chappins,
et

AntiooM

death
3

Asc.
1854 go
A

vita

doctri.na,

Paris,

Strabo, xvi.
Luc.

2, 29, p. 759

does not ; who, however, beyond what is well known.

Pint,

42 ; Cic. 4 ; Brut.

2 ;

JElian, K.JET.xii.SS. 'AffKaXoivlrys


is his most
*

literal copy of this dissertation appeared in D'AHemand's and Marb. Asc. J)e Antioclw

usual appellation, Sitjpra, p. 80, 1; 82, 1, 3; ii. 2,

Cic. Acad.

4; 19,

63.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
1

of tlie Stoic

Mnesarchus,1 who,
indeed
at

as

the

of disciple
of

Pansetius,had
the the
new

opposed the
the of
same

scepticism
time

Academy, but
for

prepared
with the

way

that

blending
in the

Stoicism

Platonic

doctrine which

sequelwas
in

-completed
war,
;
2

by
we

Antiochus.
find

During
with

the

first Mithridatic

him
did and

Lucullus
to

Alexandria
'

and

only then
him
1

things come
Philo.3
He

an

open

tween rupture bestood


at the
the

afterwards ing
the

Pr. Ev. Kumen. ap. Ens. xiv. 9, 2 ; Augustine, C. Acad. from taken iii.18, 41, doubtless ii. 22, Cicero j cf. Cic. Acad.

Stoic

whose

name

treatise

of Antiochus

bore, p.
or

53, %.). Either

in this work

Quid ? eum pcenitebat? quid?


69
:

Mnes"rcM Dardani?
turn

in the Kav"w/ca, from of which book a

the second

passage

is

quoted

in in

Sext. p. the

Math.

vii. 201

Athenis giii erant He Stoicorum, oipes rated later sarchus himself date. and from

prinat
a

only sepaPhilo Mnevide

Concerning
Dardanus,
ii.

30, 1), but prohave former, we bably the source of the whole polemic the scepticism of the against Cicero (Acad. Academy, which (vide sup.
ii. 5
as

siipra, p. 52, 3. 2 Cic. Acad.

$##.)represents
from

Lucullus

spoken disof Antiochus courses (vide 5, swpra, he went Whether 61. straight 12 ; 19, 61). Cf. Krische, I c. Athens to from Alexandria, 168 sg$. Of the second version of the Aoademica had Cicero exhowever, or accompanied here allied Philo to Borne, and pressly says (Ad Att. xiii. 19), himself with contra Lucullus, is not cucaraXiitylav %uce erant stated. prceclarecollecta, ab Antioeho, 3 had According to Cicero, 1.o.t it Vcvrrarvi dedi ; but Varro in Alexandria Antaken the place of Lucullus. that now was
4, 11 (cf. 76, 4); ibid. 2, 4; 19,

repeating

tiochus
to

first

saw

the
was

work
so

of doc-

Cicero also made

use

of Antiobooks DG is
re-

Philo, which
reconcile trines
to him

he

unable

with he

those

by name JFinibw, the


taken

chus

in

the of

fifth

which

of Philo that the him

already known
would treatise
to write
to

from to the

him.

Also, in

scarcely gard
be Font. shows Cicero

believe

Topica,Wallies (Zte Topic. Oio.,Halle, 1878)


it to be

genuine (w^sz^.
this induced

p. 80, 2); and a work

probable
Antiochus
as

that in

follows

it, called Sosus -ZVID. i. 7, 16), to which against


seems

(vide
Philo

But chapters 2-20. rapid compilation of treatise he had and


no

in

the

this short
at hand

again
p.

to have

responded
concern-

books wrote

(vide sup.

80, 1, and

consequently

from

ANTIOCHUS.

87

head
in ten

of the

Platonic
was

school in Athens

when
year.

Cicero,
About

CHAP.

79-78 years

B.C.,

his

pnpil l
the

for half

!
"

later he

died.2

Through
diverted from

Antiochus
the

Academy

was

so

decidedlySis
it had
as a

tendency sceptical
it ; and

to which

abandoned

itself since Arcesilaus, that it never,


to

whole, returned
called the
once

Antiochus fifth from

is,therefore,

founder

of the

he

had

freed
made
own

himself
a

Academy.3 When of the scepticism


the

Carneades, he
task of

polemicagainstit
The the

special
the for
if

his

life.4

sceptic,as

Antiochus

believes, abolishes, with


which probability
i. of with

certainty, even maintained;


(cf. Pint.
to

he

himself

memory

(Top.

5)
a

we

may
in

mortuus

Luc,

28,

cording ac-

also the which

perhaps
substance he

discover while the

it had

which

Antiochus battle
as

lecture
with

mentioned

the

at
an

heard
and
notes

Antiochus,
of written

help
away;

Tigranocerta, perhaps eye-witness). Since this


took
AJJ.C.

battle

brought
besides

nothing
of any

is known

this
on

place (69
have

on

October

6, 685
till the the he

B.C.)
lived
at

Antiochus least On from that

treatise

of Antiochus

must

Topwa*
1

the

Plut.

C'w. 4:; Gic. Fin.


315

v.

1,

other Ind. died the

following hand, we
Sere. in

year.
see

L 91, ; cf. Acad. L 113 ii. 21, 13 35, 4r, ; ; Legg. his Atticus also had made 54. Athens in (Legg* acquaintance 1 ; Brut.

34,

5,

sequence Mesopotamia in conof the hardships of

expedition.
later Athens which for
not

Brutus
no

some

Z. c.). To be referred Ind.

this

later

time

must

what Hero.

is said in the

years Antiochus
tus

heard but

longer
Aris-

his brother Tusc. the

misAcad. 34, of sions and Rome to (7r/?"flrj3etW) the

in

(Cic. JSntt. 97,


v.

332, with
not

8, 21,

to

generals
see

in

the

does provinces.

disagree).
it is

dates
2

cise prelife of tiochus An-

More

We

this from
more
:

Cic. Acad.

ii. from

2, 4:,and
c.

distinctly
Antiochus

3
4

Phil. Cf.

d. Gr. m. Cic. Aead.

possible to fix. i. 526, 2.


ii. 6,
12
;

19, 61

Hcec

fere

et Alexandra

tis annis

post

turn et muladwmtlto etiam

Augustine,
Nihil quam,
tamen
verum

C.

Acad.

6,

15:

severantius, in
mecum,

Syria
ante

cum

essst
est

magis defendebat* percipere

p^ulo

qztam

83

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IV

the true does not


cannot

allow

itself to be known

as

such, it

_____J

anything appears to be true;1 consequentlyhe not only contradicts the natural all action, for knowledge,2 but also makes necessity rejected impossible ; for Antiochus, like Chrysippus, in action, the notion that we might follow probability without knowledge and assent ; partlybecause, even
be said that
as we

have

seen,

without

truth

there

can

be

no

because and partly probability, without to refuse of


assent assent
a

it is impossible to the

act

and
to

conviction, or, on
the
of the

other

hand,

the self-evident, adversaries

possibility
conceded.3

which

portion

interest is just what is,in his eyes, of practical of virtue the highest importance : the consideration is,as Cicero expresses it,the strongest proof of the

This

of knowledge,for how possibility


man

could
of

the virtuous

make
no

sacrifice to his fulfilment

duty, if

he

had

fixed and

unassailable be

conviction
aim

? how
and

would

wisdom practical
of life
were

if the possible
?
4

problem
he

unknowable

But

he
even

also believed in the


turns'

had
of

the better

of his adversaries whole

sphere
on

theory.

The

question here
Carneades

the

statement, against which


directed
"

tokens

chiefly that true conceptions have his attacks tinguish in themselves,by which they may be disfrom false.5 Against this with certainty
In

had

ii. 11, 33, 36 ; 17, 54 ; 18, 59 ; 34, 109. 2 LOG. oit. 10, 30 sg_t
1

Cic.

Acad.

the

first of

says, Lupullus Philo's tional

in

these passages reference to


ra-

objections against
oratio contra,

LOG.

cit. 8, 24 ; 10, 32 ; 12,

79, conceptions (sitjcra,


Acadeut

37 B$q. 4 LOG
5

2)

Omnis

cit. 8, 23 ; cf. 9, 27. Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. 501 sgg. Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18 ;

miam

susoipitiura
earn

noMs,

retineamus

definitionem,,
evertere.

and

13, 40.

quern PMlo

wluit

ANTIOCHUS.

80

the
of

scepticshad
deceptionsof the
of these
we

chiefly urged
senses,
errors

the

-various
errors.

cases

CHAP. iy-

and

similar

The

existence but

Antiochus
not
on

does

not

deny,
to

he believed the

ought
of the
to

that

account

discard

dicta

senses

; it

merely follows
"

that

the

senses

are

be

kept healthy
are

that be

all

hindrances
and
to to
a

to

correct

observation
of

to

ished, banare

all rules

and foresight

prudence
senses are

be be
source

observed,
valid.1
In

if the

testimony of the
the
senses

is
us

themselves

for

of true

conceptions ; for though


us

sensation

is

only a change taking placein ourselves, primarily


reveals
to

it also

that
"We

by
to

means

of which

this

change is
would
not

effected.2

must

Antiochus as likewise,

admits, allow truth readily


make all

generalconcepts,if we
all
and crafts, arts

thought,and

impossible.3 But

against this,the tions imaginaof dreamers lunatics are brought forward by or his opponents, Antiochus repliesthat these are all wanting
true
to

if, as

in that

self-evidentness
and

which

is proper

to

intentions embarrass
us

conceptions; 4 and if they seek with their sorites,5he answers


is

that from follow


and

the

of similarity
no

that
if in
our

there

things it does not distinction between them;


many
we are

particularcases
judgment,,6 we
6

obliged
after

to

suspend
1

need
That

not, therefore"
Antiochus of the

LOG. Sext. Loc.

cit.

7, 19 sg_q.
vii. 162

3
3 4

Math.

*#.

precedent

sq. tiochus this


a

Oic. I, c. 7, 21 8$. cit. 15, 47 *##, ; 16, 51 According to 16, 49, Anmust

Chjysippns (Phil. d. 6^.111. i. 115, 2) adopted this in regard to expedient even

purely dialectical
such
we
as

objections,

have

discussed

the from

so-called

^ewJ^evasii. 29*

objectionat great length.


Of. Phil
d. Gr* HI. i, 503.

see

Gic. Acad.

95 s%^

90

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
IVt

all claim permanently renounce tics themselves,however, are so that they their principles out
in
a

to

it.1

The

seep-

little able to
involve

carry themselves
it
can

the

most

contradiction
and

Is striking contradictions. that nothing to maintain


to be

not

be

maintained,
of
a

convinced

of the
person,

impossibility
who allows
no or

firm conviction

Can

distinction between

truth and
a

error,

use

definitions

or even classifications,

which
to

he

it ? 3

logicaldemonstration, of is absolutely ignorantwhether truth belongs it be simultaneouslymainhow can tained Lastly,


are

that there
true

and false notions,

that

between

and

false notions

there

is

no

since difference,

the first of these difference?4


We

propositions presupposes
must

this very
of

allow

that

some

these

arguments,
deficient in
called very

those last quoted, are not especially but others must subtlety, certainlybe rather postulates than and superficial,

proofs.
In any case,

however, Antiochus
such should

believed

self him-

justified by
demand
;
1

the reasoning in repudiating refrain from


a

that
5

we

all

cence acquies-

and
16,

in

after striving 17, 54

dogmatic knowledge
Arcesilaus
:

LOG. Loo. Loc. LOG.

tit.

49 sq. ;

tiochus.
inference adsentietur etiam
autem

drew rei

this

SQg.
2

Si

ulli

sapiens

3 4

tit. 9, 29 ; 34, 109. oit. 14, 43.

unguani,

alflqucmdo

where vation tion


most
5

cit. 14, 44 ; 34, 111, there is also the obserthat

opinabitur; tmnquam opindbitw ; nulli igitu.r


Carneades
man

rei adsentietivr. mitted times that

adsome-

this

was

the

objeo
the

the wise

which

caused

Philo

embarrassment.

Cic. I. o. 21, 67 8%. He thus the relation of Arformulates

Carneades, "cesilaus,

and

An-

therefore agreed, and had an opinion. The Stoics and Antiochus deny this latter ; but they also deny that from agreement opinion necessarily fol-

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. IV.

Sophy, and
admitted" in

only changed
that
Zeno

the words much


of

* :

or,

if it be
was new

introduced
was

that
a

substance
that

this also,2

such
may,

subordinate

kind,
of the chus

the
as

Stoic
an

philosophy
form
a new

nevertheless,

be considered

amended
not
so as

of the

Academy,

and

philosophy system.3 Antiodoctrines

himself says called the

adopted
member of

many

Stoic
:
c

that

Cicero
to be

concerning
a

him
of

he

desired, indeed,
but
was,
4

the

Academy,
pure of his
we

with Yet

exception

few review

points,a
that

Stoic.'

these
are as

points,as
of such
a

doctrine
can

will truth patetic Periof


an

show,
call him

importance
Stoic
as an

in
or

little in

Academician

; and

thought
Jlis eclec-

with

of his mode spite of the affinity be considered Stoicism, he must

eclectic. ticism.

Antiochus
into
same

divided

philosophyin
5

the usual
not

ner, man-

three
to

parts ;
each

that he

did

ascribe the

the

value
Cic. Acad.
v.

of these

is clear from

posiCicero

ii. 5, 15 ,* 6, 16

Of. Plut. heard left the


eV

Cic. 4.

When he had

Fin. N.

S, 22;

25,74;

29, 88;

Antiochus.
new

JO. i. 7, 16 ; Legg. i. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 235.


2 3

20, 54

2rauVc")j'GK

already rbv Academy: fj.eraftoh.'rjs depaireiLKav


irK^liTTOLs.
:

Acad. Ibid.

i.

9,

35
:

1 2, 43

"%. Verum

Xojov
esse
~

roTs

Sext.

i. 235 Pijrrli.

5Avr/o%oy rfyv

autem, nostro

ut a?'fiitro7',

AntiocJw
cor-

famttiari placebat,
veteris

a?s

real rea zprja'"a.i

rectionem

Academic dis-

potim qiittm aligruam viovam dplinam pirtandam \_St


~

August.
18, 41.
5

C. Acad.

iii.

Cic.

Acad.
That

i. 5, 19
these

(cf. ii.
two

Acad.

ii. 43,

132:

Antio-

36, 116).
views of

presentations re-

efiiis, c[ui appellabatur Acadevvieus, erat

reproduce

the

gid"em

si perpaitca,

Stomntavisset, germanissimus ious ; or, as it is said in 45, 137,

pressly exAntiochus, Cicero i. 4, 14; states, Acad.

Mn.

v.

3, 8.

Stoicus

perpawa

T}aibutien".

ANTIOCHUS. tion

83

lie
most

assignedto them;

the and

placed ethics, as important division, first, physics second,


attention to

for he

CHAP. R
'

logic third.1 He paid most theory of knowledge and ethics.2


is

the

Ethics,especially,
in his

said
most

by
of

Cicero essential

to

have

been

opinion
his
Hi*

the

part of philosophy.3 In
the

theory

theory

knowledge
of

principalthing
we nave

is

that

refutation

scepticism which
rest

already
to

mentioned;

for the

he

adhered, according

to the principles of Chrysippus Cicero,4 strictly ; and this is not contradicted by the fact that he also held

the Platonic
as

theory;
essential

for he

seems

to

have

regarded
agreed
also

the

most

element

of

the

latter those

universal
not

determinations with

in which

Platonism

only
that

the the

Peripatetic doctrine,but
Stoics: that all sensible the

with

of

knowledge proceeded,
in

indeed, from
itself
was an

perception, but

affair of

The understanding.5

So at least

we

find in Acad. in the


enume-

qiiitur
telem,
.

ant

ipsitm
c.

Aristo-

i. 5 ###., not

only

?
.

Chrysippo pedem
28-30,
An-

ration, but
in
2

also,and

repeatedly,
the three

the

exposition of
ap.
duo

niisguam. is tiochus
on

So, in

throughout opposed
re-

divisions.

Antiochus,
9, 29,
in etenwi

Gic.

Acad.
JKBG

assumption that he cognises the dialectical rules

the

of

ii.

esse

Chrysippus.
5

maxima

indicium pJdlosop7iia,j

Acad.i.

8, 30:

Tertia deinde
. . .

I'eri etfinem
3 4

"bonorum, "c.
:

Acad.
Acad.
omne

i. 9, 34. ii. 46, 142

sic tracphilosophies pars ab ittrisQiie tabatuv (Plato and Plato

Aristotle) ;
a

aidem

judicium

veritatis dbductam

sensibus

quanguam tamen non in

oriretur
esse

judi-

veritatemgiie ipsam,
ab

cium

veritatis

sensibus.

vulebant opinionibus et a sensibus, Mentem rerum esse et mentis But "c. the disciple judicem, cogitationisipsiics of Antiochns wluit* esse NumgiiiA horuni speaks in a preAntioehus ille ? noster of Zeno cisely similar manner probat vero (11 42). ne majorum snwwtm, gitidem
,

ubi

enim

aut

^enocraten

se-

04

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IV.

doctrine _and

of ideas,on
in his

the other efforts for the

hand,

he

abandoned,1

thus,

appear

to him
was

at last that

unity, it might well ledge Stoic theory of knowcloser definition


To

only an
Plato

extension and

and

of
tent ex-

the

theoryof
were

Aristotle.2

what and
in

an

Aristotelian

and

Stoic definitions his


this
we logic, see

sions expres-

Topica^
Antiochus.4

mingled in supposing
In the

Cicero's

chus physics. with

combines

the

really follows Antiosame superficial manner, Platonic metaphysics not only


account

those
or

of

but Aristotle,

also

of the

Stoics ; for

he,

Varro

in his

name,5 represents the


of Plato

supposed
as

identical doctrine
there force
are

and

Aristotle and
ever

follows

two

natures, the
which

active is

the

passive,
the
is called

and

matter, but
is

neither

without

other.
a

That
or a

compounded

of both

the quality.6 Among these qualities simple and the compound are to be distinguished ; the former consistingof the four,or, according to five,primitive bodies ; the latter,of all Aristotle,

body

fire and air are the category, active,earth and water the receptiveand passive. however, is the matter without Underlying them all, which is their substratum, the imperishable, quality,

the rest ; of the first

Vide with

Acad.

i. 8, 30,

pared com-

as

he

himself the

remarks,
word

he

troduces in-

9, 33 and

2
3

Of. Acad. Vide As

sup. p. 93, 4. i. 11, 42 sq.

newly
as a

into the Latin translation


must not

qualitas language
Greek

sup. p. 86, 3. "Wallies demonstrates Font,

of the
have

he 7roi(Jr^s, and -JTOI^TTJS

found

thoroughly (De
23
5 6

Top. Cic.

iroibv, employed
to

"##.).
Acad. Cicero
',

by
i. 6, 24 sqq.
were

his

predecessor. Qualities
be

declared
Stoics 111X
.

bodies

by

tas

and

expressly says, qiiali- the this occasion, 99, as on

(cf PMl.

d. Gr. III. i.

ANTIOCEUS.

95

but the

divisible elements, producingin yet infinitely


constant

CHAP. IV"

change
these which

of

its

forms

definite bodies
the
moves

All (qualict). eternal


reason

togetherform
animates
or

world

; the

and

the world

is called

the

Deity
of the

and, because
sometimes

Providence,also Necessity ; of its workings, unsearchableness


To

even

Chance.

the

man

who

could

so

doctrines of the older mistake the fundamental entirely ments systems, and mingle togetherearlier and later elethe oppositionof the in so arbitrary a manner, Stoic system to
could
no

the

system

of Plato

and

Aristotle

longer
we

appear have
so

in the work said that

important ; and so specially often mentioned,1 it is only


the

Zeno

discarded
was

fifth element

of Aristotle

and (aether),

likewise

from distinguished bodies alone


tends, ex-

the earlier
to be

in philosopher

that he held this


one

real. the

How
eclectic

far

even

distinction
to

does

not

seem

suspect.
2

He
says

expressly confounds
of for which sether,
assume certainty

mind

with

sense

and

of Aristotle that he represents


Zeno

spiritsas
fire.3
not

consisting
We

substituted that he
did

may into

with

enter

physics. special
In
true to

regard
his

to

morals

also, Antiochus
He

remained

eclectic

character.

like the starts,

from Stoics, of

and the fundamental self-love,

impulse
of

the fundamental as self-preservation

impulse

human

nature, and

attains

from

this

startingpoint
ipsa

1 2

LOG.
Acad.
:

cit. 11, 39. ii. 10, 30, Lucullns enim

smimfom
sensus
3

est, atque etiam


i. 7,

est, "c.

says

Mens

i^satgw

sen,-

Acad.

27; 11, 89.

96

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

Stoics and Academics, of the ground principle It is as much that of life accordingto nature.1 a doctrine of the Stoics,however, as of the Academy is determined that that which is according to nature for each creature particular according to its own nature, and that therefore the highestgood for man the is found
on

in

life according to
But
our

human
the

nature, perfected

all sides.2
at

herein

point is already

Indicated Stoicism. the

which

philosopherdiverges from
had
as

Whereas
element

the Stoics
in
man

recognised only
his
true

rational

essence, fected per-

Antiochus

says that

sensuousness
man

also

belongs to
of

human

nature, that

consists

soul and

body,and though the goods of the noblest part have the highest worth, those of the body are not on that worthless ; they are not merely to be desired account for the sake of another, but in and for themselves.3 The highestgood, therefore,according to him, consists
of human in regard to nature perfection of the highest soul and body, in the attainment 4 mental and bodily completeness ; or, according to another the possession of all in representation,5 external stituents mental, bodily, and goods. These conof the highestgood are doubtless of un1 2

in the

CIc. Fin. Vivere


ex

v.

9, 11.
hominis
et n"ttira

joorisper
est maxime

$e e

ipsum expetit qui


natura. be shown So also

undique perfeota qwvr"wbe (Cic.I. c. 9, 26).


3

niMl

re~

Varro,
on.
4

as

will

later
44 ; 17,"

i. 5, 19 ; 'Mn. v. 12, 34 ; 13, 38 ; 16, 44 ; 17,47. Beanty, desired health, strength, are for themselves
natwa suis
:

Acad.

Fin.

v.

13, 37

16,

47.
s

Acad.i.

in the 5, 19, 21 ."?#,,

Quoniam enim description of the Academicomnibus expleri Peripatetic philosophy


Jiunc statum
cor-

ANTIOCHUS.

07

"equalworth
value, and
l gifts ;

mental

endowments

have endowments

the

highest

CHAP.

among
a

these,moral

(volun- ______!___

tarice)have
but

higher place than merely natural although corporeal goods and evils have

only
be

it would slight influence on our well-being, 2 and if to deny all importance to them ; wrong
a

it be conceded alone of

to

the

Stoics that

virtue

for

itself

suffices for

happiness, yet

for the

highest stage
necessary.3
he agrees
to

happiness
the old

other

Through
with

these

things are likewise determinations,in which


our

Academy,4
mean

philosopherhopes
the value

strike the true

between

school Peripatetic
to

which,
the
too

opinion, ascribed too much and the Stoic school which external,5
in

his

ascribed

little ; 6

but

it is undeniable
exactness

that

his

whole

fails in exposition

The

same

observation had

consistency. appliesto other particulars.

and

If Aristotle Zeno
to

given precedence to knowledge,and action,Antiochus placed the two ends side


upon

by side, since both depend


nature.7
1 2 3

original impulses of
the

If the
v. v.

Stoics

had

maintained
is

unity,
an au-

Fin. Fin. Acad.

13, 88; 21, 58, 60. 24, 72.


i. 6,
22
:

tion)
thentic tetic

recognised
source

as

of
;
so

the

Peripaeven

In

ima

doctrine

that

virtute

esite nee

positam.
tamen et

'beatam.

here in

respect
to

to the Academic

vitam,
nisi

"beati"wmam,

school, Antiochus
innovations be

wishes

his of the

corporis qucB supra, dicta simt *ad virtutis iisum idonea (ii. 43,
ft cetera, 134
4
5

adjungerentnr

regarded
of

; Fin.

v.

27,
5,

81

Gf. Phil. Fin.


v.

d. 6V. ILL

24, 71). 881, 5.

merely as a the original Academy.


G 7

resuscitation doctrine

Fin. Fin.

v. v.

24, 72.
21, 58:
minora autem

12;

25,

75.

Actlonvm
irt

Aristotle rated beside

himself his

is thus

from him
with

sepaschool, and limitaH

aictem

getiera
etlam

plura,,

ol-

scurentur

majorwrit

Theophrastus only
a

ilust. Maxima*
prtmuni consi

(though

certain

98

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
IV.
_

the and tlie Peripatetics declares that all with


in
an
one

of virtue,Antiociius plurality virtues connected inseparably are of them

other,but that each

presents itself

individual
as

attempt,
of their

l he does not, however^ activity ; Plato did, to give any deeper account

difference.

If the
or

Stoic

schools

were

not

quite agreed whether


men were

not

community with
sense
"

other

something to for itself Antiochus here again be desired in and ledges acknowseeks to mediate ; for while he most fully of this relation,2 he the value and necessity distinction among makes things of value a double those which are directly in and for themselves : viz., of the highest good (the endowmentsa constituent of the soul and the body),and those which are to be
a

good

in the strict
"

v"rum T"nvni

"c. ccelestiuvi,

Delude

to

the

Peripateticschool.

Of.

tratio
tes.
1

adminisyMiemwm vlrtvtes vellqiiffiqiie


. .

PMl and

d.Gr.II^ii. 693; 851, 1; 865, Arist. Mil. -ZV.viiLl, 1155, a,


it is shown in thethat
as

et actiones

mrtuti'bws Gonqru"n-

16 sqq,, where way has nature of and


race
TOLS

Of. 18, 48 ; 20, 55 ; 23, 66. Fin. v. 23, 66 s$. 3f\n. v. 23, 65 sqq. ; Acad.
In both of
men
as

same

by

Antiochus

implanted the love parents to children (^A/a)


of members
to each

i. 5, 21.

passages
with nature
is shown

the
one

of
Ka

the

same

community
another inherent the

is treated

something; and how

other, '66ev avdpcairOLS,


:

rovs

in human
it

OpdirovscicaLvov/jiev,
added
tSot. 5* "v
ws OIKGIOV
ns

and Kal
*v

it

is

in the former

rcus-

feeling

for in

this, from
in
an

its is

first appearance

family love,
ever

spreadsitself
circle universal and

ing widen-

aTras frvdpanro? "pl\ov. The same developed (by Arius Didy-

Kal

becomes finally

love

of

mankind

(caritas generis liAimani). This is essentially Stoic, and more


of the in the spirit particularly later Stoicism; but the thought of a universal love of mankind, based
upon the natural

ap. J2ol. ii. 250 "#., in a discussion which recalls the so distinctly
manner
we

mus) in the account Peripatetic ethics,

of

the Stob.

of
may this

Theophrastus
derive

that
it

doubtless

pendence interdenot alien

of whom Peripatetic, similar is something observed, Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 851.

from

of men,

was

100

ECLECTICISM.

the

contrary,1Anti.och.us
the

to according
Kl. 67

successful, that, the doctrine testimony of Cicero,


was so

sg.)has

"been misled

into CliPlutarch

besides

his

brother.

(Brut. 2) places his character tomachus and Philo patetic. moral Perias a higher than his Also less is perhaps the He Dio, doubt"%is tv\6yoi$. the of who whom is said it same same (according person
of consideringthe disciple in the he 2nd.
was

sophers
33, 4,
old.
pied occu-

Here. Romans

Acad. who with is

to

that

seventy years

Cic.

Strabo, xvii. 1, 11, p. 796 ; Coel. 10, 23; 21, 51) Pro
as
a

Among

the

perished
Alexandrian in

member
to

of

an

themselves

Oreek
tioned men-

embassy

Rome person the as

philosophy,0.
(who B.C.) by Cicero
was

Gotta consul

in

76

is the 56 B.C., and mentioned Plutarch by of table Pro. Ind.


avrov

$".)as
adherent

an

(IV.D. acquaintance
a

i. 7, 16 and

author

conversations

of Antiochus, (Plut.Qu. Com. cises criti-

3). Also,
Here.

but

disciple
He

of

Philo.

according to the 6 sgg. (where by

34,

Epicurean (I. o. i. 2J 1 sgg.") the Stoic "#".)and (iii. the standpoint theology from of the As new Academy. of Philo, Cicero also hearers {Aead. ii. 4, 11) mentions
Publius,
Tetrilius
rus,
a

the

can philosopherthan scarcely be intended), Apol-

any Antiochus

other

las, of Sardis; Menecrates,


of of and
over

M n a s e a Methyma j and Tyre. Concerning Aristo

Cratippus,
to

who

went

Caius

Selius,

and

the
,

Peripatetic school,
p.

DiodoBogus. partisan of Mithridates, in this

vide
seems

infra

121, 2.
been whom

Aristus

to have

followed

by

is also mentioned who

period, Theopompus,
school
heard in Athens

Brutus Brut.
tioned men-

held to the Academic

(Plut.
is

(Strabo,xiii. 1, 66, p. he can scarcely be


the

614)

; but counted

24)

in 44 B.C., and who by Philostratus

(v.
date
at the

philosophers. among 1 their Pre-eminent among


number of him 332

i. $0jp7i. there
court

6).

At

the

same

lived in Alexandria of

isAristus, succeeded Antiochus, who in his position of instructor Athens at (Cic. Brut. 97,
;

the brother

Ptolemy 16),
no

XII.

sus) (Dionywe

Demetrius Calwim. of

(Lucian, De
whom further tiling
was a

know, however,
but,
than
at

ii. 4, 12 ; i. 3, 12 ; Tusc. v. 8, 21 ; Plut. Britt. 2 ; 2nd. Here. 34, 2 sq. In 51 B.C. Cicero

Acad.

worthier the

rate, he any of the member


Philostratus
Plutarch the

school
tioned men-

(ad
met

Att. him
as an

v.

10 ; Tusc.

v.

by

8,22)
who the state lie had

there, and
the

scribes deAmong shall

(Anton. 80). besides Bomans,


of whom
more was we

him formed of

generally
to

only man exception to unsatisfactory


Athens. Tnd. other

Cicero, Varro,
have
to later
a

speak
on,

particularly also M.

in philosophy the many heard

disciple of
had Aristus

Antiochus.
been

According

Here.,

Brutus

instructed

philo- by

(Cic.Brut.

97, 332

SCHOOL

OF

ANTIOCHUS.

101

of the

new

Academy

was

in Ms

time

almost
same

entirely

CHAP.
IT.

abandoned.1
Acad. Tusc. his ad
a

JSnesidenms

says the
8 ; to which

thing; and
not

i. 3, 12 ; Fin. v. 8, 21), whom

v.

3,
lie

he
wrote

was

sembled re-

Cicero
1

De

when living Finibus).

both
Att.. xiii.

personallyand
25)
in classes Par ad. him Pro.

in

In

Acad.
as

ii. 4, 11, Cicero


we

opinions. Cicero (Acad.


follower
and

I.c. ;
as

mentions,
Heracleitus
sane nunc

have

observed,
:

the

Tynan

Homo

of

Antiochus In Brut.
enumerates

with

in

ista,

-pltilowpltia* qua*
dlmlssa

Yarro,
with with

2,
;

jyrope

revocatur,

himself. he
the

31, 120
him

40, 149,

followers

of

the old

Academy, and (Tusc. I. c.}puts into a proposition of Antiochus his month. Plutarch also (I. c., cf. DiOi 1) says that he was indeed well acquainted with
all the
was

That this prolattiset woHlis. the philosophy can only mean new Academy, is clear from the context. For when a disciple of that he Clitomaclras
we can

and
but

Philo conclude which


was

is

mentioned,
the

philosophy in
himself these

Greek
an an

but philosophers, admirer adherent


as

the

distinguished philosophy of
Cicero rival says of the

himself and

of Antiochusand of the
to the

men; expressly that

Heracleitus the

opposed Antiochus,
Academy (of
new

old

Academy,
and
new

opposed
Academy.

later talent

His
are

Carneades, "c.),dispassionately

and

knowledge
Cicero

praised by

(ad

Att.

xiv.

indeed, but zealously. The therefore, which Academy,


Cicero's time
him
same

in

I)h\ 20 ; ad ix. 14 ; Brut. 6, iii. 2, 6 ; his writings 22 ; Fin. in Acad. i. 3, 12 ; Tusc. v. 1, 1 : Fin.
to

had

been

almost
was

universally abandoned,
revived. Cicero
most

by
the

says

i. 3, 8 ; vide

also,in regard
Consol. ad 45 ; Quintil. p. 83 ;
;

thing

distinctly,

his

writings, Sen.
;
;

Heh\
x.

9, 4 1, 123

Mp. 95,
p.
the

Charisius,
679

i. o, 11 : JVec Tero deserrelict arum tawnn rerum giie patroehiium smcepimiis (through
_T. D.

Priscian, vi.
p. 378. M. with Fin. Pi
so

Diomed.

the

defence
new urn

of

the

doctrine
enini ; non sent entice-

On

preceding,vide
sq$.)
Cic. Antiochus
to

of the Itom i n

Academy)
mteritu

Krische, Gott.
also
1

St.ud.ii. 163 heard

(according in pliilosopliiaratio contra owi~ acknowledged sg?([.}" his disciple himself dmer"ndi 7 nia c. 3, (I. $#.), nullamque rem and expounded his ethical principles aperte judicandi grofecta, aSocrate, repeMta "b Arcesila, (c.4-25), bnt in such a
v.

Cicero

qiiocpie occidunt, sed lucem, awctoris fortasse denderant^ lit IICKG

manner

that his school

he

still wished the which into

to

confirmat
nunc

Carneade

mgue

ad

retain

loyaltyto

patetic ywstram Perihis

"tatem trigitit

Staseas, of Naples, him had introduced (I.c. 3, 8 ; Orat. i. 22, 104). 25, 75; De
housemate

orbam esse yrope Acedia, intelligo. If these


are

; gitam in ipsa" dences evi-

considered the

to be

proved disvide-

by
C.

saying

of

tine, Augus-

Cf. ad

Att.

xiii. 19

(according

Acad.

iii. 18, 41

102

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. IV.

with

these

testimonies

everything that
the Academic

we
l

know
until

the tendency of regarding

school

nearly the

end

of

the first century coincides.

Our

knowledge of this school at that time is certainly but that the eclecticism of Antiovery incomplete,2
chus
supra, which had
of to

still maintained

itself there,is
cannot

plain from
have
lived

the
but

p. 79, 2), according to would Cicero only have finish of the

be
seems

definitelyfixed,
to

who than

earlier from 4 ;

suppressing

the

Thrasyllus, we
Introd. Tim.
in in

find Plat.
;

raUquia
This
to

false doctrines Hiilo.

Albinus,
Procl.
ap.

Antiochus
the

opposed by

7, B.

Porph.

an importance Augustinian phrase which clearlydoes not belong it is plain that the to it,since of Cicero's refuting the notion

is to ascribe

he 5, that great work the extensive


in

Simpl. Phys. 54, ", ; 56, had a composed


on

the which

Platonic

philosophy, from
Theo
in

astronomical

perhaps ment fragAstron.

eclecticism
1

of Antiochus

is false.

Smyrn.
Plat. A.

Ap.
:

Phot.

14

of 8s

Cod. 212, p. 170, c. 40 8Q., and a7r" TTJS 'A/ca$7ftu.fas, in Proclus rrjs vvv,
ai KCU

the smaller

excerpt

Hemp.
Class.

ra

2rwi-

(quoted

from.

Mai,

Aiiot. i. 362, by Martin on "(f"cus, Theo, Sreoltaken. ra\-r]des elieeiv, Thrasyllus p. 74) are 'Srca'CKo'ts, became KOL tyaivovTai acquainted in Rhodes, fj.a%6fj.evoi and others judged in a Cicero perhaps his native city, with he succeeded of Antiochus; similar manner Tiberius, to whom in making himself ride supra, p. 92, 4. sable indispen2 nian of the AtheOf the heads an as astrologer(what is school know we none however, as to the proofs related,
ez/iore

between teacher

Theomnestus

(vide
the of other
;

of his art in Tacit.

Ann.

mi-pro) and
of members

Ammonius,
Plutarch

Sueton,

Ti7)er.

14;

and,

vi. 20; still

in Dio Cass. Iv. 11 ; Iviii. more, with sides 27, is embellished befables). He then sus of Tarthe last lived, from Eudorus, Nestor (Strabo, xiv. 5, 14, p. 675, years of Augustus (Sueton. Aug. expressly distinguishes this 98 ; Dio Cass.lvii. 15), in Rome,

of the

Academy,

Nestor mentioned
name
"

from vide

the

previously- and
of, the
p. 54
same
:

Stoic

supra,,

the
was son

before Tiberius, a year (Dio, Iviii. 27). He is to us chiefly known through


36
A.D.

died

former, according to him, the teacher of Marcellus,


of

his division into Phil.


d. Or.

of the II. i.
as a

Platonic

logues diaHe is

tetralogies {vide
428).
Platonist with phyry, Porboth

Octavia)
of in

and PMl.

the

Tubero

spoken

d. 6V.

III.,

mentioned

ii. 7, 5, only Dercyllides and of Even Thrasyllus. these Of


we

Pythagorean
Plot.

tendencies 20. and been


But

by
as

are

told

very

little. date

Thrasyllus
seem

Dercyllides
gramma-

Dercyllides, whose

to

have

EUDORUS.

108

example
and
a

of Eudorus,1

contemporary of This philosopheris Academy,4


at

philosopherof Alexandria,2 the Emperor Augustus.3


denominated
a

CHAP.
'

member

of of "f

the

but

he
as

had those

as Aristotle,5

well

expounded the of Plato,6and

works had

coursed dis-

which lengthon the Pythagoreandoctrine, of the later Platonising he apprehended in the sense Pythagorism.7 This many-sided occupation with
ap.) Stob. Z. 7AK"^av^p"0 refer, in regard to Thrasyllus, JJ.LKOV "pi\off6"pov. Simp. ScJwl. De TJtrasyUo in Arist. 63, a, 43 ; Achil. Tat. to K. F. Hermann, (Ind. Schol. Getting. 1852); Isag. ii. 6 (in Petav. Doctr. Hi. 96 ; Endorus is also Miiller, Fragm. JHist. GT. iii. Temj). Tlieo. Astron. 501 ; Martin quoted in Isag. i. 2, 13, p. 74, on in regard to 69 sq. ; and 79). p. 5 His the last on commentary Dercyllides to the work mentioned, p. 72 sqq, Categories is often quoted in 1 Concerning Eudorus, vide that of SimpUcius (cf.Schol. in
xians rather than

phers, philosoto

(Ar.

Did.

it

may

here

suffice

rov

vii. Eoper, Pliilologus,

534

sq. ;
et

Arist.

Diels, Doicogr. 22,


2

81

sq. Tide

Stob. The

Eel. ii. 46.


date

in-

61, a, 25 sqq. ; 63, ", 43 ; 22 ; 66, ", 18 ; 70, ", 26 ; 71, Z", 73, I, 18 ; 74, ", 2, and Cat. ed. Basil. 44, e. 65, e). That he also

,Jra,p. 104,1.
3

expounded
of his life cannot with does Alex.
not

the

Metaphysics
from
Son.

be

determined

Strabo Brandis

accuracy. scribes Schol. 552, b, 29. (xvii.i. 5, p. 790) de" A}). Pint. De him as his contemporary.

certainly follow 3Ifftaph.44, 23;


Procr. "q.,

3, 2;
seems

( TJeber die Grieali. Au$Aristot. Acad.

16, 1, p. 1013,
also to
on
7

1019
a

des leger

Organons,AbJi.
; Hist. Phil

refer Timtsm.

to

commentary quoted in Simpl. only are the


to

derS"fl. XI.

1833

the

p. 275) infers the earlier than from


a, 26 ;

that Ehodian

he

was

In the

fragment
a, not

Anin

PHI,

d. Gr. I. 331, 4, from Platonic and

"

dronicus,
which Arist. the
seems

the

manner

Pliys.39,
two

in Simplicitis{Scltol.

the principles, but with


.

61,
him

with

pares 73, ", 18) comAndronicnSj and

One the

Matter, attributed
themselves

Pythagoreans, (in agreement

these
ferred re-

at any rate, latter passage, conclusive. to me If,on

principles are

the HJ. the


is to

the 46

other sqq. is

hand,
taken

Stob. from

Eel. ii. Arins

Neo-Pythagoreans, cf iMd. One ii. 113 "".) to the or


Deity
The ascribed
as

Bidymus (on this subject,ride have written infra), he must


before him.

their

uniform

basis.

same

theory, however,

by

Eudorus

even

104

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. IV.

the older
the

and philosophers,

his digest of especially at


once

Aristotelian that

would categories, the


Platonism

lead
was

us

to suppose

of Eudorus

not
ments state-

entirely pure
of

; and

this is confirmed

by the

of Stobseus

concerning an
are

work encyclopaedic
treated

his,in which

we

told

he

the whole
a

of

science

i.e.he : problematically

gave

summary

of

the different parts of questions with which are concerned, and compared the answers philosophy the

given to
In
to

by the most important philosophers.1 has been which the epitome of ethics, preserved
them from

us

this work, the


than

classification and Platonic


;
2

logy terminono

is rather Stoic

and

doubt

Plato, when, according to Alex. (uLMetaphA. 6, 988, a, 10),after ri the words ra efttyrov yap
ecrrtv

concerning the
rb KaXbv
extracts
are no

Si' aurb

question el TTOLV atperbv.These


far
as

also,
doubt

as

ctfna this the

rois

a\\oi$, ro?s S*
KO! rp vXy. in

borrowed
Arius
is

p. 88, from
scribing. tran-

efSecri rb ev, he

added

Eudorus whom
3

by
Stobseus

Didymus
here

On with

theory,
Stoic

agreement

monism

(on
without

138, 145
even

$#.) though
vXy
must

of

Having divided the whole sics, philosophy into ethics,phyand three tinguishes dislogic, Eudorus parts in ethics :
/ca0'
GKOLcfrov

its materialistic

interpretation,
have the sprung

the the

from
1

Deity or
:

primal One.
odv Ei^-

irepl rrjs rr/v Qzcapiav

Eel. ii. 46
rov

frriv

pov

rov Siaipetfis "$"iXoff6$ov

Kara

The riit6v).

first falls into ends

of
two

these
tions: sec-

\6yov,
ev

parts

then

Tracrav (j"

(1) the (2) the


from number which titles
we
means

of

and life, ment, attaininto


a

rty irpofi\ii{J.artK(os
The above

for their each of these

explanation of this
results p. 54 the author, after Eudorus' division
apKreov

and

expression

of subdivisions

among-

""""" w^1"re he has given of


3e

find the truly Stoical

ethics,
rtav

continues,
of

and then "7r/"o#A'fyuctra"j", the ous varifirst concerning


ing concern-

ire pi rQv vpo'riyovfji.Gvwj', Trepl ffvjj.iroo'i"virepl epcaros, (cf PMl. d. Gr. HI. i. 260 sq. ;
.

gives the views philosophers


"

241,
the the

1 ;

273, 7

283, 2).

Even

doctrine sections

the

TeAos,
and

then

of virtue, one of of the second this


must

goods

evils, lastly division

(for

be-

EUDORUS.

105

it

was

the

same

with
in

the

details of Ms

so ethics,1

CHAP.
IY.

that Endoras

this respect That from

followed entirely he
did
not

the

precedent of Antiochus.
himself
to ethics appears from certain

confine

what

has been

already

quoted, and
How
divided

other indications.2 the second


be taken T"5

widely spread,in
by
the

half of the last


Eudorus,
60
:

words,
or
roiirov

p.

50,
5e

from p.

rb fj.ev ear i vepl rcav whicli before ov may

apeT"v, "C.,
ecFTi

from

cially espetbroreAis 8'

probably primarily indicates view, though among


cardinal

have

been the the

OLKG'IQV rov (j/j"ov trp"TQjs crvvaifflost) Trades,a"p'ov KaT'fjp^aro

Stoic four

Qa.vearQa.1
aurou,

TO

fapov TTJS
Ao-ytK^v
robs
.

ovTrca

aAA.J

Kal s %.\oyov,Kara the place of the Platonic crocfu'a. y"i/6~ ff-rrepfjLarLKovs Xoyovs: division r" ""jiov The main of second t$K i nvl fj.evav yap ethics treats partly of the 6pfj.7] TrdvrcasevQvs l|apxys (Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 208 "#.)" How B^dorus partly of the generally and

virtues, (ppovyo-istakes

xa077, which
in the The Stoic third

are

defined into

quite

was

allied with shown words

Antiochus

in this

manner,

^pfrJ?is
the

and irAeoz/a^bvtra main


means

division of into

appcaffr^fjia. is

by a comparison of ing immediately follow8'

effrly wrorcAls, Keirai "7T6p


TIVI rcoy

separated by
TOVOL

ordinate subev

classes
:

eight

How

nra0oA0'jrapajJLvdirj'TiKbs, III. i. 518. 1), ire pi Kadij- 6, 16 (vide iUd. acr/d? s, irepl crews, Antiochus. from Karopdafidraiv, irepl quotes "av, irepl fticav, ydfj.ov. 2 According to Strabo, xvii. irepl Trepl rcav, and Aristo cation 1, 5, 790, ludorus closely this whole classifithat the resembles of the cused Peripatetic mutually acseen

$ rpicav* fyyap ev Tjfiovrj rots Kara sv ei/ fy aoy^kficria. vptarois with what Cicero, JFYw. v. fpvcnv}

Stoics will be
Gr. HE. i. 206

from

Phil, d, is so with Sen.


in

each

other
to
a

of

plagiarism
on

sq.

Bucloras from

regard

treatise he

the who

completely
what

in

agreement

Nile the

(Strabo

will not decide

is there

quoted

is in the

but right,

says that

ment 84, 14, and the commenceJBfp. cation especiallyof Ms classifiStobseus quoted by bears such striking resemblance

language of the treatise is Tat. like Aristo's).AchiL more that Isag. 96 (169), mentions
Eudorus,

agreeing with

Panse-

to the either have and


1

passage Seneca

of
must
or

Seneca, that
have both lowed folmust

Eudorus,
followed
in that This of
case

some

common,

Stoic,source.
the
next
as

the torrid zone tius, believed the sameto be inhabited, and writer (as Diels shows, Doxogr22) quotes something further, Diofrom taken by Eudorus dorus from the

is clear from

mathematician,
bv

and

section before

Stobseus, which, also observed, seems

Diodorus

Posidonius.

to

106

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. IV.

century before Christ,was


as we

this eclecticism
was

of

which,
sentative, repre-

have

seen, is also

Antiochus
clear from

the foremost

Ii. Arius

the

example

of Arius

Didym

m*

Didymus.1
with
1

For

the
is of
to
no

Stoic
doubt

is reckoned though this philosopher school,2his views approximate so


the
same

He

"ApeTos
known
Anton.

Alexandria
us

who

is

Didymus this does not justify with Heine in distinguishing us


Phil. of the

80

sq. ;

Plut. (Jalirl. f. Class. (from Reg. Apoplith. 613) the friend Prcec. 207; 3, p. 814 ; from which and Arius It is rather of which
is
an

1869,
Stoic. of that

Augustus

Aug.
Ger.
Sen. Sueton.

3,

5,

p.

Didymus

Reip.
Consol. Octav.

18,
ad

instance he adduces

M"rc. 4 sq. ; Oass. 89 ; Dio Ii. 16, lii.36 ; ^Elian. V. 3. xii. 31 ; Themist. 25; M. AureljViii.

Diels, Doxogr. 86, asserts,


many in this

examples
same
man

period,that the designated sometimes

by his own times some130, ", Pet. ; Julian, 23j". name, of his by the addition 51, p. 96, Heyl. ; cf. Or. viii. to distinguish him from 265, C ; Strabo, xiv. 5, 4, p. father's,
Or.
2.

670)
a

as

teacher of
of Maecenas. read

philosophy,
and
was

others and

bearing

the

same

name,
names

confidant of

Augustus
He

sometimes

by

both

friend
so

together:
Ehodian is sometimes

highly esteemed
we

by Augustus

e.g. the rhetorician called sometimes


"

well-known

Apollonius
'A-TroAAdmos 'ATTOAA.CC$even

that, as Dio, and


to

the

after the that sake their

by Ms Cicero, Apollonius (Cic. place, disciple capture for the he pardoned them ad Att. ii.1 ; Brut. 89, 307 ; 91, of their founder Alexander, 316) ; Molo (De Or at. i. 17, 75 ; beautiful city,and their 28, 126 ; De. Invent, i. 56) ; and
VLOS

in Plutarch, Julian, he declared people of Alexandria, of that

"5 MoAwj/os, 6

Wi6\caj/

and

fellow

citizen

Arius.

From Arius

the and

Stoic

Musonius

Rufus

is

consolatory epistleof

to

called

of Drusus Li via,after the death Arius must (9 B.C.), whom have

by Epictetus, Rufus only, sonius by others, as a rule, Muonly {ride infra, ch. vi.).
case name

survived,
a

Seneca,
none

I. "?., As the

in the the
surname

of and

Arius

times some-

quotes

considerable in

fragment.
of these

sometimes
we first,

It is true that

stands be certain

called is Arius passages while the other on


none

mus, Didyhand have

cannot

whether

of

the authors
to
us

who

the or Ai8v[j,oswas "ApeLOS of this name original philosopher


; but

transmitted from describe


or as a

fragments
to
more
2

Diels, 1. c.3
the latter

seems

or "Apsios AiSv/Aos AiSvpos,

show The

that

is the

him

as

an

Alexandrian But had the authors


enter

friend occasion

of

Augustus.
into

probable. Epit. Diog. (vide PMl.


III. i. 33, between

none

of these
to

d.

6V,

2)

mentions vide

any

Arius

Antipater (the

personalcircumstances

of Arius

Tyrian, concerning whom

108

ECLECTICISM. review of the

CHAP. IV.

a so

which ethics, Peripatetic

approaches
so

and nearly to the ethics of the Stoics,

entirely

opinionsof Antiochns as represented to mistake that it is scarcely its possible by Cicero, l ultimate and though the work is ostensibly source ;
agrees with the
ments to

of this

treatise

relating

d. Gr. HI. from this

i. 258, 3). Like seeks


to show

chus, Antiothat

physics have bean, collected by Diels, Doxogr. ^45-472, with


limitations of Arms
As

he then

some

of
same

Meineke's
writer his works,
in

conjectures. The
treats

and

1. c. p. 69-88.
1

Antioclms,
for him end

his

count ac-

of the

ethics Peripatetic coincided with

(which
those the the

of the double

Academy), pursued of defending


trine docof the

point of view belongriends ,countrymen,human ings,f sired society generally, are to be defor themselves ; also praise and glory, health, strength, beauty, corporeal advantages of all kinds : only the goods of the soul are incomparably more valuable than all others (p. 246discussion of the 264). His
natural other love of all
men

Platonic-Aristotelian

for each
pecially es-

against
Stoics, and
the Stoic p. 95 Arius. of

the attacks

(already mentioned)
reminds
us

combining

it with

doctrine

(vide supra,

his decessors prein the Academy. Like

of

Antiochus (vide sitflra, p. 97, sg$.),so do we find with he takes Like Antiochus, 1), he classes the iroXiriKal Kal. and the his basis the commonly cognised KOWcaviKal reas 6"api]TiKal demand of life according irpd^is together as equally original this in its to nature, and problems (p. 264 sg.); like two kinds Stoic acceptation. The ^VO-LK^ him, he distinguishes oLKetaxris is the point of view of goods those which to be are considered constituents as according to which it is decided ("ru^cis a good, a Si' atirb atperbv TrXypariKa) of what happiness, and itself a definition such as thing only contribute some(of the atperbv to is given, p. 272, corresponding happiness ("ru/xj8aA.with the Stoic definition quoted Xecrdat) ; corporeal goods he will Phil, d. Gr. III. i. 223, 4). The not, like Cicero's Antiochsean,, under reckon the instinct of self-preservationis but the first,
"

acknowledged

as

the

mental funda-

second

class:

'6n

TJ fj.ev

impulse : ty-bcrei yap savrbv (Stob. 246 qucei"ffdaL irpbs


sq. ; Phil. the

"eew:r "ru^7T"7rX^/3curai (p. 266


cf p. 274
.

252, 258

is quoted, ; cf what d. Gr. III. i. 209, 1, about


.

for the and

distinction
avcry/ccua,

S$. ; tween be-

Ka\a

the

and "v OVK Stoics, and, supra", p. 95 /jLepr] "v$aifjiovias tfivev*) j about the he like Antiochus); KaOrjAristotle,the sqq., opposes, is Kovra (this conception also is theory that the virtuous man reduced' to are the in of the extremity Stoic) "K\oyt) happy even
r"v
Tiav

Kara

Qvcrtv and

the
;

airenXoy^ suffering;also
cf
.

the

Stoic the

position pro-

irapa "pv"nv (p.250

Phil.

concerning

POTATO.

109

and

a chiefly

mere

reproduction of the Peripatetic


is clear that Anns

CHAP.

still it "doctrine,

could

not

have

brought that doctrine so near to that of the Stoics,, which, did so (that "or of adopted an older exposition if the distinctive doctrines of the different Antiochus),1
schools
as

had

had

the

same

importance
which

for him

for the

ancient

Stoic of

if he authorities,

had

not

inspiredthe expositionof Antiochus, and had not been disposed, like Antiochus, to disregard the opposition of Stoics, as Academics, and Peripatetics, compared "with their
common

shared

the

mode

thought

conviction.2 With
Anus of and

Antiochus

we

must

connect

m.
mo'

p0ta-

Potamo

to Suidas,was Alexandria, who, according

neia

and virtue, and the impossibility /CQTTJ]. In Ms (Economics the Politics he of losing it; and keeps entirely to that there is nothing Aristotle, statement only that he calls the
of

intermediate
and

between ness happinnhappiness (p. 282 ; self cf.'p. 314) ; thus showing himin these particularsless Antiochus

third
not

of the

right constitutions

Polity,but Democracy, and cracy, its defective counterpart Ochloand introduces,beside the

.strictthan

(sup.p. 97, rightand wrong forms of government forms hand (p. (p. 330), the mixed 3). three of the doctrine the from Stoic the compounded 566), cussed disHI. of first Dicasarchus, efaoyos c"yu'y}) (PMLd.Gr. (those II. ii. d. in I. 305 *0.) is also forced PMl. Gr. 892). upon
On
the other the

Peripatetics1 For
of virtue, Arlus

the

trine docuse

Their

common

use

of

this
plain ex-

makes
well

philosopher may
why Didymus, in
ethics of the
same

perhaps
and

of especially

Theophrastus (jride
as as

Cicero

Arius

ibid.

Il/ii.860, 1)
and the

expounding

the

Antiochus

disciple Aristotle; (Cic.Fin*v. 5) quotes these two sophers philoonly from 97, 5) ; but in (siijjra, expounding the doctrine (p.314 )
he the into
uses

of

words He

Stoics,use the very (cf.ibid, HI. i. 226,


at

6 ;
-

227, 4; 232, 2).


seems

times

entirely

to

forget that
an

he is

merely giving
from
.

the 264

Stoic distinction of an^ ""?#.)"

account

of the doctrines
direct in-

and KofiiiKQVTCL it

KaropBcajmara of others, for he passes

(III. i.

imports
Tpo-

to direct narration

(p. 280) the Stoic

III. i. pp. 256, 270, 276,

(cf rib. 322).

110
CHAP. IV.
a

ECLECTICISM.

while contemporary of Arius,1


lived

lie had speaksas though,


own

Diogenes Laertius not long before hisof the he


of

time, therefore

towards

the end

second may
an

Christian here

century;2 perhaps, however, merely transcribingthe statement


That which his
a

be older

writer.3

had predecessors

actually
should

attempted, the settingup of


combine
in itselfthe true
out

system which

of all the

philosophical
as
as

schools of the time, Potamo

also avowed

his express eclectic ; 4

design ; for he designatedhis school


and

the

little
he it

we

know
not

of

his

doctrine this
name

certainly
without

shows
cause;

that
for

had

chosen

apparentlycombines, regardlessof
: or

Said.

#iib.

voee

to

reconcile

them,
more

and

to

discover

something
cf. Fabric.

about of 6V.

Trpb Avyovffrov
be
2

real

fter' avr"v
is here
8e to

the

life and

circumstances Bibl.

(probably /car1 avr'bv


read).
PTOcem. 21:
en

Potamo,

oXtyov

Kal tKXGKTLK'f] ri$

iii.184 sgi.Harl. ; Brucker, Hist. 193 sqq. ; J. Simon, JFIistoire de VJEoole d'Alexana'lpecfts

PMLii. irpb C?-it.

fab noTctjU-covos'AAc"rov eifffixQy TO. apecr/covra avtipews$KX"%a(j.4vov e| "/cacTT7]S T"V atpeffsuv.(The


same,

drie, i. 199 sqq.


is also
men a

In

these the
to

tnere

review
name

of known

other
us
"

of this

but with
to

the

omission
more

of
suitable un-

the found 48
3

expression still
in

Potamo, Mytilene,who, accordingto Suidas,,


sub.
is
wee

the

rhetorician

of

Mm, Kpb ohiyov, is S. II. Suidas, a'ipecfLS,

(cf. "eJ5.
the in

r"x5. and

where Atff"dbvaZ, called

rhetorician

B.).

""iA(4cro""os), taught
Rome;
of and ever, howcall the
someare

This theory, advanced by Nietzsche (RJiewi. Mus. xxiv.


205 sg.; JBeitr. among
".

under

Tiberius

Potarno, the
the
new

ward

Plotinus

(I, (Porph. v. Qnellmli. vocated adPolemo. Potamo


to

Plot. 9), whom,


editions is also There

Diogenes Jj"ertws, 9), and (Doxogr.


but than him.

others by Diels

81,
on

4),
the be

ascribes of

Diogenes greatwant
not,

thought,
more

from whom mathematical observations

whole,
the

might

expected
between

in the

quoted, according to Alexander, in Simpl. D" Ccelo, 270, a, 42 ;


289, a, 23 K ; Sclwl. in AT. i, 8 ; 515, a, 42.
4

Concerning attempts to decide


accounts of

different

513,.

Diogenes anciSuidas,

Vide

precedingnote.

POTAMO.

Ill

logical
ments

consistency,
with of
an

Platonic Stoic

and

Peripatetic
In with

elethe
_

CHAP.

essentially
criterion,
instead
a

foundation. allied himself intellectual of his

L_

question
Stoics,
he
'most

the

he
of

the

only

that,

the form In

notion,'
the
he

substituted
accurate

vaguer notion.'

expression,

metaphysics
and

added force the


as

quality
the

and

space

to

substance
;

efficient

highest
efficient

principles
force itself he the

that
to

he

reduced,
is

like
not

Stoics,
The

substance consisted essential

stated. the

highest
of the
in

good,
life,
virtue,
and
were

thought,
most

in
dition con-

perfection
of

which with
external any

lay

for

which,
older

however,

in
poreal cor-

agreement
and

Aristotle

the

Academy,

goods

found
are

indispensable.2
to

Scarcely
this older for

original

thoughts

be

found

in

superficial
doctrines the
one

combination
;

and
c

modification

of

and

so

the of

Eclectic

school,'

except
and
trace

mention

it

by
no

Diogenes
further

his
in

Byzantine

followers,

has

left

history.
1

According1
a

to
on

Snidas,
the Platonic

he

fyavracriav.
rfo
TTJTO
re

ap^cis
Kal T6irov
iroiep

re

TUSV

wrote

treatise

%XT]V
-re

rb

TTOLOVV,

iroi6yap

Repnblic.
2

KO! Kal

e" o"
Kal
ev

Kal
reAos

sAp""r/cei
1.
,

S'

avry

(continues
(j"i](nv
ev

""'
5e

ov

"y.

Diog".
etvai

"?.)" fikv

KaOd

a"rot-

elvai

l^"*

irdvra

rb

"$

v"p
r"b

ov

yiveTai

^
i-b

OVK

"VGV

rcav

TOV

ar^aros

Kal

rS"v

Kpicris,
Se

TOUT6CTTI

TjyefjiQviKbVy

"Kr6s.

"s

8?

ov,

olov

112

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTER
THE

V.
IN THE FIRST

PERIPATETIC

SCHOOL
BEFORE

CENTURY

CHRIST.

CHA V.

P.

SIMULTANEOUSLY
into the

with

the

Academy

troduced intendency which was by Antiochus, the school

D.

The.

Peripate-

tic School
Its later direction.

also received a new impulse and Peripatetics altered As Antiochus course. pursued a partially wished to bring back the Academy to the doctrine of turned to the their founder, so the Peripatetics anew works of Aristotle : it is to the expounding of these
of

the

works
times

to

which

for whole

centuries, down
entire

to

the

of

JSTeo-Platonism,their
in which

strength is

and directed,
Here

also there of

characteristic

and

task consists. principal is displayed the phenomenon so this whole mistakable unperiod: the more pressingis the feeling of mental mistrust
of its
own

their

and the stronger the lassitude, scientific power, formal of which

scepticismhas
more

been

the the lean


so position, ex-

expression,the
return to

obvious
masters

becomes and
to

to necessity

the

old

upon

them.

No

other

school, however, has


on

zealouslyand carefullycarried
and connected
none

the such

work
a

of

has

produced
as

long

and

line of

commentators

that of the Peripatetics.1

Concerning these,

'wide

Zumpt

(Ucb"r

d.

13estand

"le"r

THE

PERIPATETICS.

113

The

scientific activity of this of the third

school, since

the
as

CHAP.
'

middle
we can

century, had
the
accounts
.

already,so
we

far

"judge from
J

have
.

received,

J/*e Cmnwent
a

confined
and

Itself to the

propagation,exposition, defence,

tors.

of Aristotle and popularisingof the doctrines portant imeven Critolaus, its most Theophrastus ; and second in the representative century, did After Critolaus the school itself not go beyond this. and more ledge lost more the preciseknowto have seems Aristotelian of the and doctrines writings. Cicero l and the Strabo 2 expressly tell us so, and is confirmed assertion that, by the circumstance the to excepting the approximation of Diodorus Epicurean ethics,3 not a single scientific proposition has been

handed
of

down

to

us

from
a

any

of of
Atidron'tcvs

the

successors
a

Critolaus, during
Andronicus
-,

period
T.C

nearly
gave
a

century.

of
scientinc was,
."/"

Ehodes
iiie ol
.c

first
-L-

new

school.
third the of

This the

impulse to the man distinguished


first

,1

of

nis

in the

second
head of

century
His

before

Christ,
of
here

school

in

Athens.4
in

edition
not be

Aristotle's
mentioned,

ScJtuL PJiilosopJi. AbJiandL


1 842
;

Athen.)
93 sq. : Griecli.

pateticsare
it cannot

der

JBerL Phil.
Arixt.

AJtade-mie,
"2.

Hist.
des

great
of
with
were

mass

supposed that the of the philosophers


were

Brandis,

TJeber

die

the

time

Ausleger
1

Organons,

Aristotle's
not

unacquainted writings,if they


the Peri-

ibid. 1833, 273

sq.
A

neglected in
itself.

Top.

i. 3.

distinguished patetic school


declared
was

rhetorician the
known minime to
SUM

had
him

that
un-

Topica of Aristotle
:

In the passage quoted, Phil. d. "r. II. ii. 139, 2.


-

Quod

quidem,
ewm

3 4

Cf
.

ibid. II. ii. 934,


was,

admiratus,

Andronicus

according

esse vhilosqphum rhetori non pMlocoanitum, qui ab i_psis

to

Plut.^ZZ^,25, a contemporary of Tyrannio (vide infra, p. 115,

prater admodum sopTtis ignorcLTctur. Though

paucos
the

Peri-

1); and as have only

Tyrannio appears
come

to 66

to

Kome

in

114

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, V.

for which. Tyrannio the grammarian furnished' works,1


B.C., and for Ms this after
surname

Andronicus edition His

used

Ms ings writ-

himself
of

transcripts of
own

Aristotle's

of them,

arranged the writings : /J.tfj.r)ffd/j.evos -rbv 'A.v$p6viKov TrepiTrcmjTi/cbz'j


Plotinus
.
.

must

certainly be
B.C.

placed

who

60

invariable

/cal "eora 'Apio"rore\ov$ els Trpayfj-areias "ppdffrov SieiAe^

el?6dio$

designates

ras

oiKeias vTrodeareis els ravr'bv

Ms

crvvayay"v. This statement, as birthplace ; Strabo mentions well the celebrated him (Sulla, losophers as that of Plutarch phiamong
of Rhodes
p.

(xiv. 2, 13,

26)
cravra

avrov -Trap'

"

head 655). That he was school the (in Peripatetic Athens) is asserted "by David, of Scliol. in Arist. 24, a, 20 ; 25, 5, 42 ; Ammon. De Interpret. Z. c.

rSsv

a.VTiypd"pGw (supplied

with
eis

transcripts by Tyrannio) Be'ivat, can only be ^"ffov


of
an

understood if
to

actual

edition

94,

#, 21 ;

97,

a,

19.

He

is here
a.irb
rov

of Aristotle's
we

called

the

evfiettaros

remember

works, especially that, according


the

following 'ApicrroTeXovs ;
Scholium
in

the

Plutarch,

Peripatetics
had
dered wan-

Waitz,
i.

however,
which
is

before

Andronicus

(Aristot.Org.
also ascribed

45),
was

to

Ammonius,

his this

from the doctrine of their founder account of their on

disciple
eleventh
as we one

Boethus

scanty
works.

acquaintance
When the Kal the
same

with

Ms-

philosopher.

ing Accord-

writer

give
or

the

to

the

the

other

preference adds to ment, statequoted,


self, himbe of the school will

words

already
vvit-

and
or

reckon
to

Aristotle number of the

rovs avaypdi^at we (pspofjievovs irivaKas,

must

omit heads

him, there
the

understand edition
not

by
which of also

these

lists
to

of the did

wanting
known

writings a supplement
confine itself the
to
a

probably
works,
as

Theophrastus, Strato, (Aristotle, Lyco, Aristo, Critolaus, Diodorus, Erymneus, Andronicus)


one,

mere-

enumeration embraced their

but to

enquiries
In any

two,
are

or

three found inclined

names.

If insert d.

genuineness,contents, and
dronicus case, Ansuch had

three

deficient, I
to

arrangement.

should

be
not

instituted
is shown of the

them,
and

with

G-r. II. ii.927,

Zumpt (JPML Aristo 1) between

enquiries,
condemnation

as

by

his

so-called

gap Andronicus.
most

Critolaus,but in the evident and between Erymneus


It
seems

and the Post-'prcecLiGamientaj book vcepl PJtil. d. sp/j,r)V"ias (cf


.

to

me

only

two

probable, however, are wanting, and


as we or

that

II. ii, 67, 1 ; 69, 1), and the reasons he gives for it. The

Gr.

according
be

Boethus

that, proposition (cf. David, SchoL in Arist. 25, 5, 41) that dronicus the reckon, Anthus study of might philosophy should

called

the

eleventh

(counted
Aristotle
"

begin
been what

not
1

after,but from

logicmay brought forward


On says the David

with

also have in this

GCTT^'ApICTTOT"A.OUS).

connection. says he

other

hand,

Porphyry (Plot. 24)

c. 24, a, 19) (Z.

116

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
v.

school Peripatetic their criticism


and

the way

in which

from

henceforth

to proceed. He did was exegesis hut sought not confine himself to mere explanation, the same to maintain as a philosopher independence with which as a critic he departedfrom tradition in of weighty questions. This we the treatment see from various and not altogether minations unimportant deter-

he by which in the doctrine of categories Aristotle,1and still more diverged from clearly.
lion of the had also contents. 1 Of. Bran-

Hermes,
cannot

ii. with

212.

Andronicus
been
cerned con-

dis, I.e.273 S". That Andronicus


commented
on

possibly have
either of

the
1

low Physics does not certainly fola ; from 101, Simpl. Phys. although it 103, "; 216, a; is

probable

from
not

the

first of

According 47, ",25),he regarded (Sclwl. with Xenocrates (cf. Phil. d. Gr. II. i. 865, 4)" this division,
e.

them. to Simpl. Cat. 15,

Simplicius, however, is in the main Platonic to mental seem (cf.I. e. 556, 4)" as the fundathis commentary in have had the /ca0' avrb categories, and the irp6s his own hands, or he would TL (the Aristotelian quently. fredefinition of which it more have quoted from he expounds,
these passages. does however, The Arist. De An. $gq., and of the observations
on

ap.

Simpl.
a,

Cat. 51, j8. y.

ScJiol.

/m0' aurb 43, a}. The Karriy. discussed, he must then have divided still is quoted from cus Androniwhich further,for (accordingto Simpl. De An. ii. 56, p. 67, 7. 69, a ; Scliol. 73, ", 10 ; by Themist. li; 59, 6 Speng., point to an 74, ",29) he added to the four Aristotelian kinds of exposition of the treatise on the quality Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 269, 2) a soul (vide infra,p. 117, 2). The (cf. fifth kiod under definition of ird6o$, which ness, thickap. Aspas. in heaviness, "c., must Hth.N.(infra,p 1 IS, 3) is taken, fall, but which, as he observed, a perhaps, from commentary may

i. 4, 408, 5, 32 the Xenocratic tion definisoul there

66,

39 ;

Porph. '""777."f. r.

on

the

Ethics.

Of

the

two

itself

be

reckoned
"

under and the


to

the
it

ing bearexistence, the name of Andronicus, one, the treatise Animi De Affecis the work tionibits, iiicus Callistus in the of Androfifteenth
mentary com-

treatises still in

iradfiTLKal TtWr^res

is

only with
division

reference

gories cate-

arising
that he

from
can

further

(Simpl. 40
cf. 60, a,, to be the ultimate all.

century,

the
on

other, the
the

", 41;

f ; 38)
of

have SoJwl

serted as-

59,

Relation his

Nicomachsean

category of
are

Ethics, is written
of Prusa

by Heliodorus, (1367); cf. Eose,

Observations

also mentioned

concerning

the

117

from

Ms

view and

of

the

soul, which

in

the

spiritof

CHAP
V.

Aristoxenus

and Dieaearchus,1

approximation to
be
a

the the

product

of

consequentlyin Stoic materialism, he held to bodily organism.2 His whole

must to have been however, we assume standpoint, that of the Peripatetics, though he strove to improve of his school in regard to particular the doctrine points. work The of Andronicus continued was by his of Sidon,3who is often mentioned Boethus disciple

8idon-

%"ts (Simp!. 55, ". ; SchoL 59, 6 sqq. Sp.) the well-known and definition of Xenocrates 65, a, 7), TToieiy, trdtrxetv (PJdl. and i. those d.6fr. II. While 84, ".), (Simpl. 871). censuring he Aristotle called in Ms objecbecause conceptions which tions to that Indefinite sired, definition he kept magnitudes, and denot therefore, to reckon exclusively to the expression but under he himself also rov Relation, only apiBfiov, rovvopa 36 5. in under the it Quantity (I. c. thought that ; perceived all Sclwl. lie consist of a 58, a, 37). Lastly, living natures
wished
to

substitute
irov

Time
Tore,

and and

mixture
Kara, so
rivas

of the

elements Ktd of

formed

Space
not

for the under


TTOV

and

\oyovs
reduction

api6jjLovs ;
main

to reckon

these and

categories
but
all

that the

it coincides

in the

only
Time.
a.

irore,

with
to

the

the

soul

other and

determinations

of

Place

Simpl. 34, ft.36, ft.


a.

But number number

harmony of the body. when he "adds that this


is called
a

87,
a,

88,

ft. 91, ft. ; Seliol. 57,


a, 16
.

self- moving
earn?

24: ; 58,

79, ", 1

30,

(aurT? yap

^i"%7?
rov

3 ; cf also Brandis, 37 ; 80, Z", l.o. p. 273 sq. ; Prantl, Ge*c7i. d.

Tijs Kpdcrecas TavTys

atria Kal

Log.
2

i. 537 This iv. 782 he

sq. is maintained MOT.


As
c.

reap \6yov Kal rrjs fjiil~"(0$ irp"rtov this does not (rroixeiuv), agree

with

Galen's
to which

ing statement, accordit


was

by
and

in the

first
j

Galen,
vol.

Qit. Animl
sq. K.

4, cus, Androni-

place

it is

product questionable

of the the

Kpacns

whether
ing mean-

freely

Galen has not missed to speak wont says, was obscure cumlocutions, cirof Andronicus. and without he the soul

plainly
the the

clares dea

Strabo

mentions of

that he rvi.
names

was

to be

Kpaa-is

native

Sidon,
Ammon. I. c,

2, 24,
as

(sc. TOV
sense

or en^uaros)

"Svvaju.i$ p.
same

757;

Andronicus

rfjKp"ff"i.In the "Trofj."V7i


he

his teacher

in

Categ.5
that he
seems.

explains (accordingto
De An. ii. 56, 11;

(ap. Zumpt
was

94)

Themistius,

also

follower

of his

118

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. V.

with. him.
an

He? too, acquiredconsiderable


the Aristotelian
is
a

fame

as

expounder of
2 :

writings: the best


on

known

of his works
but
some

commentary
found

the

ries categoon

traces

are

of commentaries
"

the
on

Physics and
the treatise
result from
'

the De

Prior
5

Analytics perhaps also


and

Anima

the Ethics.3

In

his

to

quoted
find

is frequently the Sclwlion,, quoted in in that of 4. also that and But, 113, Simplicius su_pra, p. of Dexippus. In opposition to this theory, we it, perhaps, that
B.C.

in

the

44

Cicero

years himself

45

(Off.i. Syrian,
a,

mentary
and
was

the

statement

which

1,1) and Trebonius (in Cicero's Fam. xii. ad Ep. 16) mention of only Cratippns as teacher the in Peripateticphilosophy
Athens. whom Eoethus whereas
is not
tioned, men-

893, Metaph. 7, contests, that the Platonic


Sehol.
are

in

ideas

the A
on

same

as

classtise trean

conceptions.
of mentioned
3

separate
the
irpos

his

is
a,

by Simplicius,42,
there
was
a

this

Sclwl. 61, b, 9. pher, philosoThat


mentary com-

Strabo,

1. "?.,designates

the 011 ($" Physics is "TUl'"(f)t\QG'0"pri(ra,ljL"V7][Jt,"t$ his shown own as TO, 'ApLcrroreXeia) by the quotations in this date teacher, survived by Tliemistius,PJiys.145, 14 ; 337,
at least
one

decade,
also

perhaps
no

23;
from three

341, 9
no

Sp. ; which
a

plicius, Sim-

several. him

Strabo

would,

doubt, has borrowed


46, (PJiys.
in the
;

doubt, have
lecture of

said if he had in Athens.


must

heard

him

ISO,

Boethus,
been have
a

181, 5),as quotes


Boethus

last

of

these

therefore,
teacher

have

philosophyelsewhere.
Strabo may of his instructions

he passages the words of

expressly
tius, Tliemisthose adduces of

Perhaps
availed
in
1

and

only

in them

himself Eome.

; and anything from

nowhere Boethus'

Physics

(Cut.1, a. 41 ". ; except what he finds in his preSiinplicius decessor. SclioL 40, a, 21 ; 61, a, 14) calls An exposition of the him and be eXXtyi/nos Qavjp.a.G'Los Analytics may jectured con; First and on page 309 j8.; ScJwl. 92, from the quotations of the "a, 42, he praises his acuteness. pseudo-Galen Ela-ay. StaA. Cf. p. 3, 7. ; JSoJwl. 29, 0, 47 ; p. 19, and of Ammon. in Arist. ed. "ra TOV Boydov TTO\TJS a.yxtvoia.s Waitz, i. 45, from the Ory.
"yGfjLoyra,.
2

doctrine
to

of

the

syllogism;

an

According
one

(L a)
Tepcus

of those

Simplicius exposition of the books on the which fiadv- soul (though less certainly)
from what

veplavro

(the Aristotelian
GxprjcravTO,

Simplicius (De
us

An.

book) swoiais
the

but

at

69, 1) tells
an

time (7, same c. 7, 7. ; ScJwl. a continuous 42, a,'S*) exposition Ae^ty, This com-

concerning his objections against immortality ;


exposition of the
Ethics NicomaAlex-

chsean

from

what

BOETHUS.

of "apprehension
so

the

far
an

as

we

can

doctrine he likewise, Peripatetic judge, shows much independence,


to

J;HAP. Y-

and

Inclination
followers

that

naturalism had

which

in the
powered over-

Immediate

of Aristotle and

already

the which
was

Platonic

Idealistic

element,

and of

prominent in Alexander especially Aphrodisias. This also appears in the fact that to be commenced "wished the study of philosophy with logicbut with physics,1When, moreover,
denied

he
not

he the

that

the

universal would in
not

of nature allow form


sense

was

priorto

and particular,2
as a

to be

regarded
over

substance

the
and
matter

strict in
3

(737x0 TT;
"

la),

but
Is

only matter, compounded a theory


which things,
to

one

aspect, that
form of priority

which

of

and and

this presupposes
matter

of the

value

In

from diverges the


materialism

and Aristotle, of the

rather The

approaches
same

Stoics.

mode

of

thought is apparent
understood the
of and JStlt.

in his utterances
on

which concerning immortality,


of

place him

the

side

those
(De
the

who
An.

Aristotelian
waives the

doctrine

ander Ms and
,

154, #.) says


on

entirely

enquiry
cr(a/j.a.riK^
it
same

observations

self-love

concerning
over/a, but
does
not

VOTJTTI and

what

Trp"rov oltceiov; Aspas. (ScJtol. ui


Journal,
of his and
of the

only

because
to

belong
He

the

'Classical

xsix.

106)

connection.

desired

(vide

Themist. "ndRose(Arutot.Pseuflo-I!pi"/r.

109) says
"

Andronicus' Ar.
25

PJtys. 145, 14 Sim.pl.PJtys.46, ci) that


should has be
to

Sp. ;
mat-

definition
1

irdBos.

ter

called the

{'AT? only
which and

David,
For der

SeJtol. in

",

in relation
it
not

form

41. been
2

what

follows,

Prantl's

yet assumed,

Gesch.
.

i. 540 sqq. has Loc/ik, of. use gratefully made in, Arist.

Dexfpp.inCWfcy. 54:Speng.
50, ",
20 15

Sohol.
3

sqc[.
;

Simpl. Categ.

^8 gg.

At the begin.SeJiol. 50, ", 2. Boethus this of oring passage,

to the in relation viroKeifievov form imparted to it, but this of verbal is merely a matter Simplicius expression. What BoSthus (24 f "j. quotes from to SeJwL 53, a, 38-45) seems
me

of

small

importance.

120

ECLECTICISM,

CHAP.
v.

as

simple denial

of it ; 1 and
we

in further that in

agreement
the

with, these
of Ethics

tendencies

learn that

he maintained

sphere the primary object of"

desire for everyone his


own

and self,

was (theirp"rovol/csiov) naturally everythingelse must be desired

only because

of its relation
now

to one's

self.2

In

other

instances, Boethus
the Aristotelian

and

then

sought to justify
sometimes fended debut

determinations,3 and

them, especially against the


1

Stoics ; 4
",
sqq.
and

Simpl.
cos

De

An.

69,

T" : *iva

N.

viii. 1, 1155,
a,

6 Boijdbs

rfyvT|/U- 8, 1168, olydJa/jLev


names

35 9th

16 sqq. ; ix* Our text 10th

the

books,

of evidently by a confusion alphabetical designations tiriovra, e|- the (Jievovcrav rbv ddyarov of the books the(0 1) with corresponding numerical ""VTL oLTr6x\vffQoLL. This refers signs. 3 To these Plato's to ontological proof attempts belong^ of immortality. Boethus cedes con(1) a remark, ap. Simpl. Cat. 109, to him that,strictly speak- IB ; SoJiol. 92, a, 33 ; Categories, ing, the soul does not die, but 34, 15, 5, 1 sqq.} on the applicability of the (because death, opposition of only the man and K.ivr\ffi$ to qualitative according to the Phccdo, 64 C, fyen'ia. in the separation of consists change ; (2) the demonstration in which soul from body, and therefore Theophrastus had the dissolution of man denotes already anticipated him, that the syllogisms of the first andinto his constituent and parts, second of those the destruction not figure are perfect (Amin but he thinks mon. as such) ; Analyt. Pr. i. 1, 24, 1), parts the continuance soul 18 ; ap Waitz, Arist. Org. i, 45) ; of the does not follow from this. Eufrom (3) the doctrine evolved the hypotheticalsyllogisms as sebius (Pr. Efa. xi. 28, 4 ; xiv. the av(x.Tc6""iKTOLand from a 10, 3) gives extracts irp"rot "v~ airdSetKToi. treatise of Porphyry, Trept ^i/%r}s-, (Pseudo- Galen. EiVay, SiaX. p. 19 j Mm. in which he defended tality immorap. Prantl, p. From the 554) ,* (4) the remarks on against Boethus. the former it question whether of these passages time is a
,

is

clear the

that the God view An.

Boethus

had

also

number whether the


soul

or

a even

measure,

and without

attacked
from

proof
the

derived
human

it

existed reckons

kinship of

that

it, ap.

with spirit

78, (P7i"$do,
is ascribed

Themist.

*"??")"
2

This De

by

Alex. archus in

154, a, to Xenand Boethus, who appeal


of it to Arist. Etli.

Ptys. 337, 23; 341, 9 Sp. ; Simpl. PJiys.180, a, 181, " ; Simpl. Categ, 88, " ; ScJwL 79, 5, 40. 4 Thus hedef ends (ap.Simpl.
43,
a,

support

";

Sokol.

62,

a,

18, 27)*

ARISTO.

121

what

has

come

down
as

to

us

In

this

connection

is of of

CHAP.

little importance

the special character affecting

his

philosophy.
A third

interpreter of
same

Aristotle's

.to the

period, is
afterwards

longing bewritings, Aristo,1 a disciple


went
over we

of

Antiochus, Academy
to

who

from

the
the

the

Peripatetics.2But

know

Peripatetic doctrine of tlie iii. p. 277 Hi Id. (where he is for this) trine added rt rightly censured against the Stoic doc"jrpSs of the irpos n -rrcas %Xoyi to the Aristotelian syllogistic while at the same forms time he tried tary (perhaps in a commenthe to Aristotle's finition dePrior on apprehend Analytics) three modi of the first and two more exactly, in the of the second to pointed out by Andronicus figures,and way the in (Simpl. 51, j8 ; Sehol. 66, a, 34 ; whom, following passages cf Simpl. 41, " $4. ; 42, a ; Sclwl. (where Frantl, Gesch. der 61 a, 9, 25 i. 590, 23, restores the He dered consib, 9). Logilii sq#.
.

the
iracrxeiz'
as

division
two

of Trouiiv and

Arista

of

the

MSS.

instead of

of the

distinct

ries catego-

(Simpl.77

" ; Schol. 77, J, 18

account Aristotle),an syllogistic figures is He is likewise the

ascribed. Bio-

sqq.\ and also the category of he examined Having, which particularly (Simpl. 94: e; Schol.
81,
1

Alexandrian whom

Peripatetic

Aristo

a,

4") as

well

founded.

He
7. ;

is mentioned ScJwl.

by Simpl.
25, together
nicus, Andro-

mentions (vii.1G4 ; also genes ride siij)7'a, p. 105, 2). 2 Tnd. Acad. Hercul. col. 35:

41,
with the

61,

a,

[Antiochiis

had

for

disciples]

Boethus, Eudorus,

Athenodorus and SpeTs Kal KparfTTTTOv TL among Kal TraXaiol r"v I^TJ- aiv 'Api(TTOov [/lev] TS-arriyopiav

jTjral,and,
doubt of
TI,

consequently,
author this treatise of
a

no

the
on

mentary com-

book, and
on

not

Cic.
him

(Acad.
and Dio

ii. 4,
to
us

12)
at

shows

mere

the his

irp6$
tion menas

dria Alexan-

which of

Simplicius in
him
at p. In in- this
;

in

the ille If
to in

place
;

tiochus, with

of Ancompany the observation

well

48, a 63, ", 10; 66, a,


as

51, 0

SeJiol.
alone

qmlus
dum

allows.

the

the

definition and

s$g. latter passage given also by Boethus is of the

37

fratrem

luebat. resorted

(Antiochus) secuntri^lurimum Seneca (Eg. 29, 6)


Mm,
he
in must

have
latter

Andronicus
TTpos
TL v"as

GXOV

from remark
same.

taught life; meanwhile, quoted primarily part of Ms the lepidus philosophic A*risto" the him, with
has

Borne

the

that He of
to

Andronicus is
no

the that
cording ac-

of

whom

Seneca

here
must

relates
mean same

doubt

certain another
name

anecdotes,
person of

Aristo

Alexandria,

who,

the

Apul. Doffm. Plat.

; not

only

because

Seneca

322

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. V.

little about
us

him,
him

and
a

that

little

does

not

lead

to suppose

ing great philosopher. Concernthe other Christ


the In
"

the Cratij)2)us. reckons

of philosophy

first

century before
this
man

of the Peripatetics Staseas,1Cratippus,2


years 50-46
in
:

among

the

B.C.

we

with him meet circulatores giti 2)liilosoj)ltiam De Univ. 1 Jionestius -neglexissent von(Cic. quam

Mytilene
71. 250 ;

Brut.

dunt,
Julius remark died the
was

but

also him is

because whom

the
a

Plut. this him from time


to

Pwip.
he
must

75).
have

Soon

after in

from Gfrsecinus,
on

settled

under with the

quoted, only Caligula; whereas


Antiochus, who
about
84
B.C.

Athens,
the

where Eoman

Cicero

got for citizenship


the
same

discipleof
Mm

but Cffisar, induced the him time Fam.

at

Areopagus
to

vived (vide sity. 76, 4), scarcely sur-

request
this
him 5 ; ad

remain

reign
rate

of

cannot

beginning Augustus, or long have


of Cos

of

the

in Athens about heard


iii.

(Plut. die. 24). Here


Cicero's
i.
son

at any survived

(Cic. Off.

1,

1 ;

it. The

Aristo be

mentioned
p.

2,

by
must

Strabo,
not

xiv.

2, 19,
taken

658,
our

for

Brutus 21) and Brut. (Plut. 24). the head of the

; xvi. visited him

iii.16

That school

he

was

Aristo Alh.

(as Zumpt
d. IJerL

expressly stated, but is very PML Kl. 68), for was a probable. Cicero, who the discipleand described as great friend of his, speaks with the highest appreciation of his heir of the well-known tetic, Peripaof Julis (Phil. d. Aristo scientific importance (Bwct. 71, 250 ; Off. i. 1, 1 ; iii. 2, 5 ; Or. II. ii. 925). 1 structor of Naples, the inDivin. i. 3, 5 ; De Univ. 1), but Staseas this praise is scarcely altogether resided of Piso, who with him Orat. i. 22, impartial, As to his views, (Cic. De
Alad. the former is 104
; Fin.
v.

supposes, 1842 ; Hist.

is not

3, 8, 25,

75

; rifle

nothing
us

has

been

transmitted

to suj}. p. 100, 1, end) is also called by by Cicero,noMlis Peripateticiis;

but
to

is

censured much

too ascribing

for by him importance and real corpo-

external

fortunes

told are except what we Cicero,JDivin. i. 3, 5 ; 32, 70 An. 46) : SQ. (cf.Tertullian,De that he admitted prophecy in and dreams, and ecstasy (furor}, he based this

An

is Nat. him De
2

(Fin. v. 25, 75). unimportant theory of his quoted in Censorinns, Di.


14, 5, 10.
lecture
As

conditions

that the

theory

upon

Peripatetic doctrine of the divine origin of spirit, and upon


the
numerous cases

Piso 92
B.C.

heard

of

fulfilled this is
homiextrinhaustos

about
must
as

(I.c.
been in

prophecies.
presupposed
the
num

The

anthropology
him in animos

Orat.')he
as

have

by
ex

at least

old

Andronicus.

Aristotelian:

This

philosopher, born

quadami
"

parte
et

likewise from Pergamus, was nally secus( 0*Jpa0ej/, origiof Antiochus. a tractos spirit) esse disciple

the divine

124

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
V.

them.1

But

Xenarehus

and

his treatise

againstthemay

Aristotelian theories

the aether respecting


lie

here be

chus.

the passage. is censured

As

an

historian

by Joseph as {Anof account xvi. 7, 1) on tiquit. his partiality for Herod ; and his life of Augustus no was doubt only a panegyric. For the rest yule, concerning' his
historical Dindorf. Phllol Miiller ; cf Jalirbueli"r filr Clans.

Ithodian, named by Quint illian,, Inst. ii. 17, 15, with Critolaus as
the enemy

of rhetoric of the

(cf
.

Phil.
haps per-

d. G-i\

II." ii. 930, 2)


in

; and

the author

nepiVaroi
v.

quoted

Diog.

iii. 3 ;

36 ; lived

works,

When vi. 81 ; ix. 42. do not know, but we


to

he he

seems

be later than

Critolaus,whom

Mm. places before to Borne, according Cicero, sqt[f Meyer's supposition he wrote the treatise irspl already have been, "pvrS}vy there must the beginning of the first about II. Phil. d. Gr. is discussed ii. 98, note. century, acquainted persons 1 Aristotelian with the of them, the owner sophy philoAmong and writings, if M. AnTheophrastus' library, A p e 1 Lutatius and Q. lico, o" Teos {Phil d, G-r. II. tonius Catulus ii. 139); but though this man really spoke as he ii. 152 himself {Orat. 36, ^#.) repreoccasionally occupied sents. have We no with the Peripatetic warrant, philosophy posed comhowever, for supposing that {Athou. v. 214, d), and this representation is historically treatise Hermlas on a self himEus. true Cicero and Aristotle (Aristocl. indeed, ; ap. Pr. Ei\ xv. 2, 9), Strabo implies clearly enough (p. both here and calls doubt in c. 14, 59, that rightly, 609), no Antonius not was him "piX63) acquainted, fj.a\\ov ""iAdj8i/8A.os vol. xcix.

H,

2,

107

Quintillian

that

In

fro""os. As little does


or

A th d.

e 11

io

so

far

as

he

knew,
been

with

-Greek

Aristio

PhiL (cf.

G-r. III.

literature

ii. 934,
among

3)
the
he

supposing philosophy. Peripatetic


later
we

deserve a place pliilosphers,even really taught the what Someander, Alexhave and

; and certainly have with Catulus,

though

it may otherwise

the teacher M.

friend of of

we are hardly in ascribing to him an justified accurate of that knowledge literature, and particularly of the Peripatetic philosophy. The

Crassus,

the

Triumvir

Crass. leucia Ctesar

3);
in

At h emeus,

(Plut. only Roman Sephilosophy


of
in the

adherent of whom
we

of

this hear

in the Oillcia,

time

(Strabo,xiv. 5, 4, p. 670) ;

Pi

s o

first century B.C. of whom have we

is that

spoken,

of friend the Demetrius, with him in his was Oato, who last days (Plut. Cato Mm. 65, 67

supra, p. 100, 1, end; "but, as is there shown, he also attended the instruction of Antiochus, whose
2

sq.} ;

D io d

s
,

the brother
To

eclectic
into his

Cicero principles

of xvi.

Boethus

of
p. hen

Sidon

(Strabo, puts
the

mouth.

2, 24,

757).
odor

Peripatetic school
no

Xenarchus, of Seleucia, in passed the greater part belong also, Cilicia,


us,

doubt, At

the

of his life

as

teacher

in Alex-

TItEATI"E

ON

THE

COSMOS.

125

mentioned

polemic against so integral a portion of the Aristotelian physicsaffords a further proof that the Peripatetic school was not so absolutely united
;

for this

CHAP.

V.

by the
But in
a

doctrine

of its founder that doctrine

as

to

departuresfrom,
there
treatise

among

many its members. of this fact


cenus

preclude

is still stronger evidence

tury before
as

perhaps dates and has been Christ,


of Aristotle
"

which

from

the first

transmitted of the
-1

to

the work

the work

book
was

Cosmos.2
l~arhlUS
Tkeofies
4
a

The
in

authenticity of this

already questioned
;
von

antiquity/
and
in the

and
Rome. these

denied
It
"

by Melanehthon
"Weisse, Aristateles
und
von

in
dtr

to it*

andria, Athens,
was

first of

cities heard he age


tise trea-

Seele
p. 373

der

Welt, 1829,
Aristoteles

that him. died


.

Strabo Befriended

probably by

sqq. ; 8tahr,

by Arius, and

patronised
in Tide
and in

Augustus,
at
a

Momcrn, 1834, p. 163 (frieefi, Osann, cu Seitrb'ge sS$'i


den
und jRom.
;

bei

Piome

gTeat
this

ZMeraturgegch.i. 143
in the review

(cf Strabo, xiv. 5, 4, p. 670).


1

sqq.
this

Petersen

of

concerning
the it

objections totelian Arutot. against the Aris:

treatise,Jahrb. developed Erit. 1836, 1, 550,


JfeteoroL
De 6 ; F.
r.

f. icissensefi*
sqq. ;

Ideler,
sq. ;

ii. 286

doctrine

Bamasc.

Gieseler, iib. d. Verf.d. SucJis


(L W. Nr.

8c7wl. Casio,

in

Arist.

456, ",

5, 15 ; Simpl. De Ccelo, Stihol. 470, ", 20 ; 472, a, 22 ; 472, #, 38 sqq. ; 473, a, 9 ; 43, 7;, .24; (9, a, 11; 11, 5,41; 13, ", 6 ; 36 ; 14, a, 19 ; 21, ", 32 sqq. ; 25, I, 4 : 27, 5, 20-34, a, IS K) ; Julian. Or at. v. 162, A, sq. Sinirfc plicius calls it : a: TT/J^S460,
TrejjLTTTTjv ovcriav
TO. aTropfai,

1838,
A'rist.

Alterthumsn*. ZtscTir.f. 346 De sq.-t ISpengel,


X.

Libra

Hist.
9

Heidelb.

1842, p.

Anim. sqq. ; Hil,

debrand,
?qq* ; Or dine

Apnlej* Opera Arist. fiose, De


et Avct.

i. 44

Li'br,

Adam,

DeAuet"re

p. 36, 90 sqq. ; Lilri Pseudo-

T$]V
were

IT.

OVCT.

Anstotelici Berl. 1861; K. -*. irpbs Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, Meteorologied'Aristcte, Par. 1863. 7J7TOp7JjU6I/a01" *y"same

ypaftjuLzva.

In

the
to

treatise

p. 88

perhaps
doctrine

be

found

the

f.

sqq. ; Goldbacher, Oesterreicli. Gymn. sq. ; Z.

Ztsclw*
xxrv.
ran

observations

pus*
ap, His

against Chrysip- (1873), 670 of empty Apul"jus De space,


I
c.

Rritil

Simpl.

129,

",

IS

K.

Procl.

in

MvndOj "c. Tim 322, B


.

;Aptcrire

concerning the "jrp"Tov otKe'tov (sKjjra, 120, 2), and Ms (Aristotelian) definition of the soul i. 798) Eel. (Stob. opinion
are

TOTeATjs,
4

efwep

GKCLVOV

rb

pi

KOCT/JLOV jSijSAfoz'.

ed. Bretsclnu Physica, Q]?]?. *$.

xiii. 213

also

quoted elsewhere.

126

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

modern

times

it has found

some

but advocates,1
As

is

nevertheless
can

quite

untenable.

little, however.,
other
a a

the treatise be ascribed

to any
as

school than

the upon

not or regarded, Peripatetic,

but Aristotle,

as

the

work

of

writingfoisted sopher, philoyounger


a

which
"

did not

itself claim of

to be Aristotelian

or

even

the times
to

elaboration its

such

work.

In

modern sometimes

authorship has

been

assigned

sometimes to Posidonius,3 Chrysippus,2 but against each of these sometimes to April eius,4 there are most important objections. In conjectures regard to Chrysippus it is highly improbable that

he

should and

have

sent

forth

work

under

borrowed have

name,

quite inconceivable
purpose

that he should

adopted for the

that of Aristotle ; but that the

work claims Aristotle's name


1

for itselfis incontestable/


against
work the

Its

authenticity

has

been

supposition that

the

finallymaintained

most

confi-

was

designedly

foisted

the I am dently by Weisse. to more willing spare myself a detailed


nesses

of the weakexposure of this attempt, as that

Both in manner npon Aristotle. of exposition, he says, and its unlikeness substance, Aristotle is
so

in to-

unmistakably

evi-

already been fully accomplished by Osann, Stahr, and Adam (p. 14 sgq. "c.),and as the decisive points in the matter in the will be brought forward
has

dent, that

followingpages.
2

Osann,
this

tablish
3

theory

to esI. "?., seeks at length.

only a person entirely unacquainted with Aristotle,or have indulged the a fool,could fancy that it could possibly be of that regarded as the work philosopher.But this,the only argument that he adduces, tries
to prove
are

too

much. the

How first follow

many in.

Ideler, 1. #., followingAlclobrandinus, Huetius, and Hemsius.


4

the
wet

forged writings
at

which
can

glance,
From that

detect
it
are are

the

forgery ?
not

Stahr, I. "?.,and,
Adam.

in another

this

does
not

way, Hilaire without

Barthelemy

Saint-

follows the former, naming him, 5 Osann, indeed, declares himself, p. 191, very decidedly

they they

not

but that forgeries, clumsy forgeries,

In the present case, however, the forgery was not clumsy enough
to

prevent

numerous

persons

ITS

OEIGIX.

12T

and

-when

Osann from

would the
rest

separate
of

its dedication

to
an

CHAP.

Alexander1

the

work,

this is

__.H_

arbitrary proceeding which is whollyunjustifiable.2 Moreover, the exposition of Chrysippus, according unanimous to the testimony of antiquity and the as possession,is distinguished specimens in our much as by its dialectic by its learned prolixity, pedantry and contempt of all rhetorical adornment ; 3 the treatise Trspl whereas KoV/^ou exhibits throughout
the most
so oppositequalities,

that

even

on

this

ground

it is

quite impossibleto

attribute
a

it to

ChryStoic
of

sippus.

No

however,is less,
That

such

theoryexcluded
many
some

by

its contents. and

it has

adopted
expresses

doctrines these in been

and definitions,

the

formulae

which,

after

had Chiysipptis,
is school,

transplanted into the


as nevertheless,

Stoic
will

indeed

undeniable;

immediatelybe
the
most

shown,

this

work

so

entirelycontradicts
doctrines
and dework

important distinctive
and for that
even our

of the
Ms is

Stoic
of the

school
author this in

philosophers
own
"

with of the there

theory
no

criticsof
ceived.
was

time from would

"

Welsse,
a

book.

Apart
trace

from either

example
And

being

external ternal that


Even

evidently not
pass
were

written

inthe evidence or of the passage character


was

by
for than
name
1

Aristotle his ? if it if it went

more

easily
under his the

it in

originallyabsent,
6, 398, ", 10, the
that the
he Permust

anonymous

C.

forth

language
sian
to

is such

empire
still in Ms

supposed
if the
nu-

Naturally

Alexander of the of

be

and existing,
to

G-reat ; for that another man was of book


2

this Alexander
name

writer,
inerous

necessarily
has

references

older

whom
no

nothing further
reader

is

philosophers,
avoided
to
we

carefully

known,

Osann's (p.24 6) will easilybelieve,

what
see

every is from

definite allusion

post-Aristotelian,
as

Osann

further the

(p. 246 sy.} proof to give than


is

has

no

this that he wishes


Aristotelian,

that

his work
3

to pass

dedication

incompatible

Cf

p. 42.

128

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

as

compared
to

with any
we

the
author

that Peripatetic, rather here

it

might

be

ascribed

than

to

Chrysippus.
more

Lastly, though
is sufficient
to

will not

anticipate the
date of this

demonstration particular for the that of at from


we

of the

book,
Cosmos

it

refutation

of Osann's
on

hypothesis,
the

observe

consisted
are

Chrysippus's work least two books, and


it which
are are

that
to

quotations
found in

made

nowhere

be
same

the

writing
hold

considering.1
in

The

ments argu-

good

great

measure

against those
been

who of

to conjecture Posidonius the pseudo-Aristotelian


can

have

the
Its

author
ornate

treatise.

language, however,
be
are more

with
to

far

more

probability
and there much

attributed many
to

to him

than

Chrysippus ;
than that

particulardetails which
the
:

approximate
to

time

of
we

Posidonius
shall find

that

of

Chrysippus probably
direct should
use

indeed,
a

the

author
made

in

considerable

part of his work


But that

of this

philosopher.
a

Posidonius
is
as

have

forged
that

work

of

Aristotle have

wholly
so

unlikely as

Chrysippus should

done

; and

in him certainly remark though we can concerning and Peripatetic specialpoints, a leaning to the Academic this never makes him untrue philosophy, (like the author of irspl to the fundamental trines docKoay^ou)

of presence

his of

school
God
in

"

so

as

to

deny
to

the

substantial
and

the

world, the
or

destruction

conflagrationof
1

the

world,

distinguishaether
Osann, of. Petersen, p. Gieseler, SpeneeL ;
c.

Stob.
d.

Eel. Pr. Or.

i.

180

Alex.

Against
554
sag.

ApTir. Anal.
Phil.

58, I (supra, III. i. 158, 1).

Adam,

I.

THEORIES

RESPECTING

IT.

129

.and

all

elementary
the

bodies
Is

whatever.1
not

As

to

Apugood
:

leius this
in his

It objection,
on

true, would
he has the

hold

treatise the

Cosmos of

entirelyappropriated
Aristotelian

contents how
are

so-called

treatise. not

But
as

we

In regarding him justified


or

merely

the translator
latter

reviser,but
work
is not

also

as

the

author before which

of the

? the

If the remains
not

mentioned literature

In Apuleius,2
we

of ancient from

possess. It does
exist
:

follow

this that

it

tion though Apulelus, In the introducnot to his Latin recension, speaks as if It were a the translation, but an independent work on mere there Is foundations of Aristotle and Theophrastus,3 no scrupulous proof whatever that he was sufficiently free about literaryrightof property, and sufficiently claim of original from a boastfulness, not to found

did not

and

authorship
which
1

on

the

minor is

alterations

and from

additions

by

his
these

work
reasons

4 distinguished

Aristotle's.5
auctorem

For

the hypois

TheopUrastum

secuti,
omnl Jiae

thesis

of

Posidonius
Position.

opposed
237 sq. ;

by Bake,

Rel.
in

quantum yossiimus contingere, dlaemns


coekstl ratime^c.

cogitatlom
de

Spengel,
2

p. IT ; Adam,

p. 32.

The

words
in

in the

The

quotation
ad

Justin,
be

parenthesis are
best less MSS. to
; but

wanting
are

Cohort

0r.

c.

5, cannot

neverthe-

placed
since shown
cisive
3

earlier the

than

Aptdeius,
this been

be

considered
1.
c.

treatise,

authenticity of has lately as

Of. Goldbacher,
4

by Adam
to
reasons

(p. against
which that

*"#.) in
has cle-

debrand,
5

Concerning A}ml. Opp.


ancients,
had than
; and
we

genuine, p. 690. Hilthese, mde I. xlvin. sq.


as is

opposition
At

Semisch,

The

well strict this

it.

known,
ideas sides
matters

much
have

less
on

the end from

of the dedication
is distin-

to

Fanstinus,

snbject

"ndshed

of

the

others bemany such in Apuleius behave with


a

to pseuclo- Aristotle only by unimportant

Alexander
alterations

surprising laxity,
nowhere his work
a new

Eudemus,
to
on

and

omissions:
,

Quare

[-nos
et

have
*

e.ff.,seems said that


was

vrwleniiwiMtm

Physics'
of

only
nor

pWosojJwrum']

et

edition

Aristotle's

does

ISO

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. Yt

Closer investigation leaves


work
on

no

doubt

that his Latin


and

the Cosmos

is not

(asStahr
is to be

Barthelemy
revision
our

Saint-Hilaire
of the Greek

the model, but only a assert) work which found


in

lection col-

of Aristotelian

writings; for the latter has

form more original throughoutthe conciser,sharper, while the former has the character of a of expression, paraphrased translation: the flowerylanguage of other becomes often in the the one too bombast, which is sometimes hardly comprehensible without
a

comparison with the Greek


which
of translation

text

; and

while

there

is nothing in the Latin


or paraphrase

cannot

the which

regarded as a Greek, the Greek,


could not
must

be

on

has passages the contrary,


arisen

Lave have

from

the

Latin, but

possibly evidently
But
of

been

before the eyes of the Latin


and this,
to

writer.1 the author

to admit

make he

Apuleius
then

the Greek
into

book

which

himself

translated
in

Latin,2is equally impossible. For

the first

the onlyground on which placewe thus abandon of his authorship could even the hypothesis plausibly of his be maintained viz., the credibility own
"

he

say

so

of

his where author does

Ethics. he

He

named which Stoic trine ?


l

the has

sources

of
so

treatise

speaks,even independent
name

adheres
as an

taken

much Stoic

from
doc-

quite closelyto Aristotle,


in his the
; and
so

authors of
:

and

own

writer
are

Some
these

Cicero, too, notoriously translated, or,

of the

Magna,

Moralia.

the most striking vepl K6"r/u.ov 392, a,


:

5 j

325,

#, 7

398, b, 23

400,

#,

any sive portions in

at

rate, transcribed
Ms from

compared with the writings correspondingApul. De Mundo,


menc.

exten-

6 ; #, 23 ;

from

the

Greeks,
sources

without

tioning And would they came. Apu- must refer to Adam, p. his in TheoArlstoteles et leius, Gfoldbacher, 671 sq. 2 phrastus auctor, have really Adam, I. "?.,41 sgq.

the

which

1, 12, 27, 33, 35, p. 291, 317, For the rest I 362, 368 Oud.
38 sg%. ;

132

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, v*

work

undoubtedly is ; to find in this have expected and we must necessarily from him, much if it had emanated more writing, distinct traces of those Platonising metaphysicsand
as

the

treatise

on

the

Cosmos

of that demonology, which and especially theology, discover in Apuleius. This third shall presently we
to attempt, therefore,

find

definite

author

for the the


was

book

must

also
us

be
can

considered

and unsuccessful,
not

question for

only be,

by whom
school

it

composed, but belonged.


Its stand-

to what

period and
reckoned

its author

That
.

this author

himself
irom

among
name

the
"

point and
character.

Peripateticsseems
which Aristotle,
it claims
to

probable
the work considered

the

of
name

bears ; for
one

by that
the The

be

of

genuine
same

records
is

of the

doctrines

of the school.
its contents.

confirmed, however, by

Though
is far

the

conceptionof the

world

which

it advances

enough from the truly Aristotelian conception, and though it is full of foreign constituents,yet its
fundamental features
it
are

taken

from the Aristotelian

doctrine,and
it
as

the

to approximates at least as closely philosophyof Antiochus, for example,

philosophy. The approximates to the Platonic foundations of the Aristotelian system, metaphysical the author leaves,indeed,in the spiritof his time,
unnoticed, but
and in
to

his presentation of the universe

its relation

God, he
does
so

chieflyallies himself
when the he
asserts

with

Aristotle. of
our

He

the

distance

world

from

higher world, its


contrast

and changefulness

imperfectionin

with

DOGTRISES

CONTAINED

IS

IT,

133

of the heavenly purityand invariability spheres,1 and when he makes the perfection of Being graduallydiminish with the distance from the supreme
_._

the

CHAP. Y"

heaven

and

when

he

maintains expressly

the distinction

between bodies

the

and consist,

of which the heavenly aether, the four elements, in unmistakable the Stoic doctrines.3

contradiction while the divine

to

Further,
the
to

essence,

according to
whole
world
even

Stoic the

doctrine,permeates
smallest and

the

author finds this our ugliestthings, presentation of the Divine Majesty altogether worthy unthe contrary, most ; he declares himself, on

theory that God, removed from all contact with the earthly, has His abode at the extreme limits of the universe, and from hence, without moving Himself,and simply through His influence,effects the movement of the whole,
1

for decidedly

the Aristotelian

C. 6, 897, 5, 30

*#. ; 400, a,

the

5, 8%. 21 sqq. 3 C. 6, 397,


3

27 s$%. 1),

C. 2, 392, ", 5, 29 sq. ; c. 3,392, 35 434, s$. 5, ; cf.Phil, d. ffr.II, ii, How
to

theory of the treatise v*pl K6"riJLQv concerning the asther is Aristotelian ; it is,therefore, all the more astonishing that he
can

believe
advanced
our

Chrysippus to have
the
same

closely this work


Aristotle's That
a,

adheres /,

also

theory
Stoic idenwith i 11,

expositions has
c.

for

treatise
of Cic.
one

declares

itself fire
we

heen

already observed,
6. it

p.

expresslyagainstthe
tification from
was

437,

should

speak

sether

(392, 5, 35

8) of

five "rro#e*a,

(I.c. in. i. 185, 2, 3) ; and, as


see

sether,fire,"c., is unimportant,
Aristotle himself
asther d. scribed
repo?

(Aead.
of
and of

39),

had called the


PJtil. de.

this
between tetics.

the

most contest

"rroixetoy (cf irpfoTov


it as
rcev

notorious The

points
Stoics
for

he fc".H.ii.437,7),andif

Peripais
not

/col0""Jerepov crto/na /caXov/ieVwv crror^e W the


in
rav

question
on

(Gm. An.
tise
as means

ii.3,736,",29)the treasame

discriunimportant, mination of the aether from the


four elements antithesis and the

the

392,

a,

8,
p.

Aristotle
of the

bases world

(rroix"overepo*'

rerrdpoty^the
below allows that

re atcfipardy

Kal Qelov. Osann,

world

above.

moreover 168,203 sc[.,

134

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. v.

However
world.1

manifold Still

the

forms

it may
can
:

assume

in

the the

less, of

course,

he
a

admit Stoic

identification of Grod and which expresses

the world he

tion defini-

only adopts after language.2 Finally, having altered its pantheistic the author shows himself to be a Peripateticby 3 the and unchangeable eternity defending expressly
-

this

ness

of

the

world

(alsoa
the
or

distinctive

doctrine

of

this from

school) against Stoicism.


all this that Stoic
as

Though
cannot

it is clear

work any
or

have
of the

been Stoic

written

by

by

leader

school,such
it the

Posidonius
is very

endeavour

Chrysippus,yet in to unite the perceptible


it shows in which K6fffjt.o$, semblance renot only to the Stoics in general, but more larly particuto that exposition of their

the the

occupies the whole of chapter. Here again polemic against Stoicism is


TMs sixth

(cf. p. 397 ,5, 16 1 398, a, sqgi. ; sg. 5, 4-22 ; 400, 5, 6 *".)and the theory (Osann,
unmistakable

doctrines i.444

from

207) that the


it is

divergence from
concession
to the

(PULd. given us extracts.


which
are
are

which 6-V.III. found

Stob. JEel.

i.!47,l)has
The tions altera-

only

necessary
more

in the treatise admissible; popular religion is quite inof note the ligion worthy popular re-

all the

we K.6fffj.ov "5',

is not

at

all in

question
logy; theo-

here, but the Aristotelian if Chrysippus, however,


wished do
to

Stob., elvai tyyviv 6 XpvKal ffunros ffvarryiLia e" ovpavov $) yrjs Kal rfav eV rovTOis ^(reajv,
read
in

support the popular


was

rb Kal
rcav.

e/e e/c

Qe"v T"V

Kal

avdp"ircav (TiKTryfjia
7670^6 K^CT/JLOS

he religion,
as this, we

quite
seen,

able

to

eVe/ca ro^rcov

have

without

XeyeraL 5' erepajy


r"\"iovrat.

the fundamental contradicting We of his system. principles tion indicaa as special quote may of the Peripatetic origin the passage to have 16 seems 398, ", sqq. reference to I)e Motu Anim. 7,
our

Kal takes the

Our

treatise

the

first of these for the words

tions definiover

and literally,

passes
:

of

treatise

that

second;

third

it

substitutes
re rd"ts

these

Aeysrat

701, ",
2

1 sqg.

The

treatise the

begins, after
c.

re wepl K6cr/j.ov, introduction,

Kal dia.K6crfj.7ja' is, v^rb 0ea"y Kal Sia Qefov ^vXaTro/xe^. 3 0. 4, end ; c. 5, beginning ;

1, with

definitions

of

the

I. c.

397,

"", 14 s$.

5, 5.

AFFINITY

WITH

STOICISM.

Stoic
to

doctrine
even

with those

the

and Aristotelian,
to

partially
which
an

admit

determinations

CHAP. ^'

is denied. unqualified recognition

TVith

the Stoic
even

which writings

the

author also

has

transcribed,1he
to
a

has

employed, and appiopriated Stoic


this may

trines docbe

considerable
of

extent; and

astronomical, eosmological, details which Osann ward,2 and bringsformeteorological the also of definitions deeply affecting but whole Quite at the beginning of the system. encounter a Chrysippean we exposition,3 cosmological monstrated, it is dedefinition of the on Kocr/ios. Further in the spirit and after the precedent of
said
not

merely

the

"the Stoic between which

system, that
the elements

it is and

the precisely

contrast

parts of the world, on

depends the unity and subsistence of the in Stoic language, whole : 4 this unity itself is called, sympathy : 5 and that his harmony with the Stoics
shall not
escape us, the author does
not

hesitate

to

behalf,6 "quote,expresslyas a witness in his own In of this school, Heracleitus. the great authority
his

theory of the elements, he allies himself with Aristotle in the Stoics, though he divergesfrom quality of air.7 He making cold the fundamental
doctrine
later

the Stoic -adopts


1

of the Trvsvpa,
7

with

which
.
.

This

will

be

proved

on.
2 3

C. 2, 392, b, 5 : d % ""v teal irayer"STis T^V (o(j"("'8T]$


.

Page
C.

208

*##. vide my.

"pv"nv.

2, beginning;

Likewise, as is shown p. the 2, Stoics,against whom 183,

p. 134 2. 4 C. 5.
5

Aristotle

(cf.Phil

d. Or. H. ii.
to

444)

maintains and

cold

be the

C.4, endjolrwywaflwy 6poi6- fundamental


water,
.

determination
moisture that

of
of

"nrres.
6

C. 5, 396, ", 13 ; cf

c.

6, end.

air.

186

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
v*

there

are

points
But

of his

contact

even

in the to

Peripatetic
is
most

doctrine.1

approach
such,
the

Stoicism While

in regard to theology. striking

repudiating
of theauthor
as

the

Stoic

Pantheism

as

the

diffusion

divine approves

substance of
its
to

through
the

world, the
as soon

quite
are

propositions
divine

they
the the

applied,not
force
2

essence,

but that

divine active

and

he

accordingly teaches
from

influence

emanating
to

indeed, primarily
universe, but
and
so

the

Deity only extends,, outermost sphere of the


this to the the
4

the

spreads from
law the the of the world

inner

spheres,
Grod

is transmitted

through
whole

whole.3
Him of of

is,
,

therefore,the
the order of into their classified

;
means

from

proceeds
it

by

which

is

various

species

existences,
5

through
of bears the

individual

seminification

and

cause beGrod and

this, his
manifold which the

all-governing influence,
names, in
most

the

enumeration

explanation of
are

the

treatise

irsplKScrj"ov
The
are-

stamped
the

with

genuine Stoicism.
the the
3

name,

predicates,and
in
5e

origin

of

Zeus

here
1

explained quite
0.

Stoic
0.

sense;
20

4, 394,

5,

\cyertu
ev

6, 398, 5, 6 sg$.
:

sq. ;

Kal erepcos
Kal

Trvet/jaa

tfre

tealSiot,iravrvv "c*"oi$ K"d ytvLfj.os ovcria. Of. T" fy-fyvxts the quotations, PJdl.d. 6rr. III. i. p. 138,
2

fywrols Si^Kovcra

cf. 396, #, 24 $q. 4 C. 6, 400, #, 8

v6/j,os y"p
The the
as

"

IffOKXiv^s6 Beds. "fytuV

con-

ception
of

of

v6p.osfor
Is,

order
is

191, 1; 331, 3. 0. 6, 397, ", 16 : Sib Kal


1 ; eiTreTy
rives

the Phil.
.

universe d.

well Stoic.

r$"v

known,
222
5

pre-eminently
6fr. III. sq.
i. p.

TraAcucDj/

7rpo^%077"ray Cf
dewy
?rAea

140,
This

#Ti
ra

Trdyra Kal

ravrd

ecrr*

sg. 303
C.

"5i' o"t"6a\fj,wv lv"a\\6/j."va

6, 400,

5, 31

sg.

/cai 5*' aKorjs fjjULtv

Kal

alffirda"r)s
Trpeov

Oslo. Swapst rfj jjikv 077"re"w",


TTQj/Ta

/cara/SaXAoVevoiXoyov
ovcrta.

exposition likewise reminds us of the Stoics, in the doctrine of the \6yoi or7T"pfj.arLKot.

pfyvTTJ y"

THEOLOGY.

187

Nemesis,
Moirse,
are

Adrasteia, the
of Stoic of
are

CHAP.

referred

to him

by

means

etym-

for the confirmation ologies; and doctrines, the sayings of the poets after the
manner

philosophic interspersed
,

of

Chrysippus.1
to

It

is clear

that

the author

wishes but
as was

indeed
to

maintain

the with

Peripatetic
it
as

doctrine,
Stoicism

also

combine

much sistency.2 incon-

possible without
Plato indicated

absolute agrees close of

That

likewise
at

with the from

his

proposition

is

the
a

work,
the

by
c

of approving citation Laws' (IV., 715, E.), and we of Plato, when Grod is extolled and

the

passage
are

again
the

reminded
as

not
as

merely

the

Almighty
of

Eternal,
But

but like

also all

prototype
was

beauty.3

this,

eclecticism,
of

naturally only possible by the strictlyphilosophic


finiteness; and
thus
side

relaxation

the de-

interest
we see

and
in

philosophic
the
erudition

writing rrspl
played dis-

Kocr/^ou, side by

with

the

cheap

in Chapters II. to IY., the popular especially decidedly preponderating over theological element

the

purely philosophical element.


on

In

the of the
a

sions discusdivine

the this

transcendental

character
assumes

essence

religiosityeven
the

mystic
exaltato

tinge
1 2

when

dignity

of

(rod
of

and
the

His
school

7 ; cf. Osaxm. p. 219 sqg. That he, therefore, ceased C.


a

trines he

which
to

to

consePeripatetic and Zellems ipse suwni sententiami refellere egregie vide"ur* (Adam. p. 34) is a sinif As no gnlar assertion. had ever mingled philosopher with the docforeign elements

be

belonged belong.
3

and

desired

quently

KO!
p.ev 5e TOU,

xpfy SwcC/iei faros IcrxvporaTov, /caAAet eunr/jewetrrarau, C"j? 5e a0co/aC.


: ravra

6, 399, ", 19

irepl Qeov

Siavo"iar8cu

apery

5e

"c. Kparlcrrov,

138

ECLECTICISM. tion above

CHAP.
V.

all contact

with the

world
immanence

is made

the
the

chief divine

argument
essence

against the
universe.

of here

in the

We

see

how

accomplished the transition from pure of the neoto the religious philosophy speculation road Platonists and their predecessors. The of strict enquiry being abandoned, and those results of which commended speculation alone maintained
themselves
and
to

eclecticism

the

universal

consciousness
must

as

true

expedient, metaphysics

in which replacedby theology,

the

their theoretical wants satisfy based on the Aristotelian time this theology were same doctrine of the transcendency of (rod,and the Stoic the world, idea of his omnipresent influence on there resulted at once a theory of the universe in which the dualism Peripatetic of the Stoic school and
were

be necessarily kind majorityof manat the if, ; and

the

substantial
in
a

Pantheism

reconciled

system of dynamic Pantheism.1


Probable
date

To

what

period the attempt


in the

at such

tion reconciliaing, consider-

of

contained
may

book

we

have

been

com/posi-

tion.

is not certain, but it *may be assigned, The revision of the approximately determined. in circulation treatise by Apuleius shows that it was

be

as

an

Aristotelian

work

about The

the

middle

of the

second
1

century after Christ.


view above

only question is,

The the

developed,
treatise in As the it of the Peteralso

of

character
been

of the

first preparation of this work, independently of Petersen, to whose be book my attention of its
was

has Ktar/jLov, "jrepl main


sen

advanced
the

by

first drawn in

by Adam,

this will ness. correct-

had my

(I. G. p. 557 already been


own

"?#.)"

favour

result

in investigation,

140

ECLECTICISM.

GHAP.
V.

rather

constrained

the work
one
or

by decisive be must KOCT/AOV Trspl


of whose

facts to suppose later than

that

Posidonius,, employs,,
others
even

more

writings the author


33
to

~K.6criJ.ov c. irepl 6, 399, ", "400, #,


3,
was

himself
after

says

that

Hipparchus set up other in the computations : Artemidorus, for telian pseudo-Aristotreatise example, in agreement with the TreplGavfj-acricav K"r/xou, aKovcrpdrav (c. 155, p. 846), trepl gives the length of
already
scribed trancannot

which than who which has

be

more

recent

the than

terrestrial

plain

as

more

Antigomis
died about of borrowed be of the

of 220
two

Carystus,
B.C.

But works other

stadia, and its than 39,000 (Plin. breadth more Sfat. Nat. ii. 108, 242 sq. Of 68,000
Posidonius
he reckoned he said does'
we

from

the

know

only

that
at

cannot

discovered
the passage Bose which
a

from

the
of
not

length
the

comparison
moreover

the

passages; in the
CLKOVCT-

70,000 (Strabo, ii. 3, 6, p. 102);


what How date is to and
see,

treatise

Trepl6av/jia(riuv

tradition

breadth inform us.


the vergence di-

which fjidrav, be copiedin


to
a

believes he

to

anything concerning
of the be

KScrpov, belongs irepl


himself later addition

treatise, therefore,
from
its from Eratosthenes
to

section

deduced

considers

to be

(cf PMl.
.

d. Gr. II. ii.109, 1). On

this

argument,
can

therefore,

thing no-

Hipparchus, it is hard (3) According to c.

3,

be based. in

that habitable

serves 393 Bose 5, 23, as asserts,, (2)Eose obthe Caspian and Black Kutr^ov (c.3, between irepl breadth of the Seas there is crrev^raros

393, ", 18) the

IffOpbs ;

tained plain of the earth, and this could not be main$s tpaffivoi ei" y"ccypa(f"'f)"ravT"$, after Eratosthenes had breadth of this is given as nearly 40,000 stadia, placed the its length about and at 1,000 (?)stadia,and isthmus 70,000 Posidonius at 1,500 (Strabo xi. that stadia; and this proves the work written not only was author,, 1, 5, p. 491). Our does before maintain not but also however, Hipparchus,

before
at

Eratosthenes;
reckoned

for its

this tosthenes Era-

he

says,
are

the

boundaries H6vrov" H6vrov Sea


at

length

of

Europe

yuv^ol
els

its breadth at 77,800, and and stadia 38,000 Hipparchus, ;

rbv

mostly followed, counted 70,000 for its length and 30,000 for its breadth (Strabo, i, 4, 2, p. 62
sqq. ; ii. 5, 7, p. il3 how do know we author
to must

whom

the later

writers

i.e. the 5r#/ce*, the

Caspian
the the and

place
was

where also

isthmus Pontus

between

it

$##.)" But
that
our

have

these

kept precisely predecessors if


they
? Bose

designated as the boundary between Europe and Asia, according to Dionys. Perieg. Orl). Desor. v. 20) is (which
narrowest.

The

further
I venture

servations obto*

he

were

later than

of Bose

LATER

THAN

POSIDQNIVS.

141

and

from

whom

lie has,perhaps, borrowed


science

the

greater
The
5e

CHAP.
V.

part of the
pass
over,
are

natural

he

imparts to us.1
y"vias

as,

even

supposing
they
would

ol jSpacrrai,
Ttt

they only
not

correct,
the

KQXa.

prove tlie

and possibility truth probability or struck other

ot Se
yovres 154

a;

avoi-

Kal

yijv

av

of
1

his

It has

theory. already
how
are

"writers contact treatise Posidonius

with

points of presented by our the fragments of


many the in

Biog. vii. yivea-Qai els ra KoiX"fiaTaTTJS irvevf^aros yrjs evfivovTQS ^ [/cai] /caSefp%0eV: TOVS

KaXovj/rat. ffiKTai.

Cf.

(T"L{r]J.ovs 5e

TOS,

KaBd

JlOff"l$d0VlOSIv T7J (pTjffl 5' avr"v


TOVS

; and

non phenomeK.
c.
:

eivai oyfioT}'

TOVS

juev

deserves Thus
we

all consideration.
it.

find

4"

(Teicrfj-artaSf Se KXiftaTias, TOVS ftarias,

5e
TOVS

%a"r/iarias, 5e fipacr-

895,

at

32, the

definition

?/ns

albO

Sen.
-i we

Nat.

Qu.

vi.

21, 2. In c. there are two


Kal

read

that

kinds
; from

KoiXcg
ws

KOU

(Twe^e! irpbsfyav~

dry

and

moist

of vapours, the latter

Tacriav
KaTa

iv K.a.TO'RTpq} $eo)povjj.4vri arise

fog,

This Tr"pi"f""p"tav. is definition quoted by singular the Diogenes, vii. 152, with
KVKXOV
same

clouds, former, Seneca,


ad tor
: e

hoar-frost, dew, the rain, "c. ; from winds, thunder, lightning,


~Kat.

"c.

words from

and

with

only
ences differMerew-

Compare with Qu. ii. 54 :


Pasidonii

this,
J\Tune
rever-

slight and

unimportant

opini"nem
terra

Posidonius, poXoyLK*].In c. 4, 394, b, 21 treatise maintains that, sqq. our


of the wind of the
east

terrenisque

on-

m'bits j?ars Jiumida t\$latui\par" mcca etfmnida: Itrec fulminibus alwientwm

winds,
blows

/ecu/das is the
the

est, ilia, i-mbribus


Posidonius himself If in

that

from

place
comes

(which
must

sun's

rising in

summer,

which uirriXLtJOT-nsthat from the Iffyuepwal, zvpos


the

much vapours

naturally have at length). more


are

given dry
the

from of the blows

shut break

up

west

clouds, they through thunder. them, and this causes the from Svo-is, fe"pvposWith this explanation of thunder Qepivfy from the itrnficpudj, Aty from the treatise also our agrees (c. finitions These very deSe 7n/eu/ia 4, 395, a, 11) : "tXr)6ev XGifAeptvT] Svcris. Strabo, Kal are quoted by ev Tra^e? re V""f"Gi voTepip Kal i. 2, 21, p. 29, from. Posidonius. Si* avTov fitaicas fayvvov read: In c. 4, 395, ", 33, we TOV iX^]p,ara V""J"QVS, Kal Ttarayov Earthquakes are occasioned by "p6fj.ov aireippeyav winds With being pent up in the "yacraro, ^povT^vX"y6fievov. ing cavities of the earth and seekthe explanation of snow quoted to escape : T"V 5e O'SIG'IJ."V by Diogenes (vii.153),and no
"

avaToXal x"ifjL"pival

winds,

apyecrrys

7r\dyia creiovres "rar' o|efa"ryawlas eTriKXipTat. KO.XOVVot JAW els


Taty

doubt detailed

abbreviated the in

from

donius, Posimore

somewhat
ire

ol 5e "vca

KOU finrrcvvres

/carw

account

142

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. V.

work

cannot, according

to

this,have

been

written

before the middle


harmonises
definition

of the first century before Christ ;


The

(c.4,394,0,32).
of the
creXas

beyond
in

those

of the treatise it says

irepl

(ap. Kocrpov
those of

; whereas

the latter book

is most Diog. I. #.)" which of most like taken, probably the meteorologicalportions of his expositions of Stoicism, from

all that

concerning
the character

subjectsbears
a

not pursuing summary, but only comparing enquiries,

Posidonius,

we

again

find

results ; how

can

we

then

think

nius credible that Posidoin irepl (4, 395, I, 2). it more K6a-fjLOv taken his should have said there 2, is (c. Also what this from the compendium opinions 391, ", 16 ; 392, a, 5) on author the of the that than the and ether, reminds stars
us

of

the

description
Stobasus from

of

the

compendium
his

should from And how later referred the

have work is
it

rowed bor-

forpov, which 518) (jEfcZ.i.


That these the treatise
cases

quotes
of
our
ever

of had
plicable ex-

Posidonius. in dental accilittle mony hartheir


a

Posidonius?
that should
to

if this

agreement
with is not

occurred,
have of

Posidonins

writers them
a

merely
As their
of

all

can

we

is manifest. suppose that


is the

Posidonius,
and But all

without to

lable syltheir

allusion
well-known
name

result in

ancient

source,

common

dependence on
have been

third
case

attested
?
not

by the
even

of Aristotle
we

which exposition,

that

if

gard disrewill

nothing less than a complete meteorology ; for in the first placePosidonius in these matters enjoys great
could
cannot we reputation, and such ascribe dependence to him would and
; and be not

this, the
save

theory
the

suffice to
our

of

originality and higher authority treatise unless, with


assume

Hose,

we

that Stoic JEcl. i. from

the
mology cos-

exposition of
was

the taken

in

the

second,

it he

(ap. Stob.
likewise

444)
it.

that inexplicable

always
followed

this exposition, That however, his predecessorshould contradicts such a the thority, auas altogether be named will shown be diately. immehave must he theory whom very
him

closely if
word for that

he instead of

Who of the

can

believe

that

copied
Still
more

word. donius Posihe

Stoic upon

doctrines Aristotle

untenable
p.

is Eose's the treatise

being foisted
out

theory (I. c.
the resembles Posidonius

96)
from
in

Stoical writings by the


Stoic doctrines out I of Aristotle ever, howbeen taken

borrowed passages
it.

the Peripatetic, have

which
know

We

that

himself?

have,

wrote
on

works

dwelt too comprehensive long upon this is manifestly which meteorology, hypothesis,

geography,
result of his
the contents

and
own

astronomy,

the

only

device

to

escape it

from

of

difficulty. The investigations,a far went which quoted above place

passages

beyond

ABOUT

THE

FIRST

CENTURY

B.Q.

143
CHAP.
V.
com-

probablyit
to
a

is rather

later ; but

we

cannot

assign it

later date

than

the first century after the


of

doubt

that

the

author abundant and If with all his

from
also

our

treatise

in it there third

is

the treatise
use

has made him.

wanting

the second the

of these

of

Posidonius,
from
we

even

copied
certain,

this

is

shown
manner

and definitions, I. c.} is which

(as is
in be
esa

conceived

may probability derive and

great

can

only

by the design of the tions to bring the definimeteorological Peripatetic from dissertations hand to in the (c. 3, 4) ready Stoic the Stoic authority into harmony philosopher whose achievements with his own in these departments standpoint. Now the To him of celebrated. Stobaaus only are passage
the
sea

plained graphical geo-

detailed had
on

discussion

on

the

claims Stoic
see

to be

an

account

of the

especially
the

points; Posidoa

doctrine,
it is not Stoic clear
our
a a

and

we

nius work had

written sea,

separate
therein treatise

that

taken

clearly literally
it is ment agree-

and
our

from

work.

But its that


a

asserted, what

equally
it

(and doubt)
such

(c. 3, 392, ", 20)


inhabited earth

also

strongly
of the

with

treatise

places
it is

enforces, that the whole

beyond
this

is surrounded

abstracted That

from
was as

work.

sea (Strabo, ii. 2, 1,5, p. i 100 94, 1, 9, 3, 12, p. 6, 55). ; There is another portion of the

by

the

Chrysippus's irepl
Osann
more

K6ff]j.ovy
seems

to

me

supposes, than doubtful. ascribes of the But


also

treatise from

which

borrowed
Osann shown the that

I should pose, supits contents, to be Posidonius. from

Stobseus the this


owe

himself

two

first definitions

to K"j"r/*os

Chrysippus.
he may

(p. 211

$"#.)has already
the section
c.

statement to
a

from
c.

third
so,
was

writer, and
and
no

beginning of

2 to the

3,

that third three

it is writer

that other

this than for


same

392, 5, 34, point the same

is almost
as

point

for

quoted ap. $g. (which Stobseus Arius from borrowed

Stob.
no

sition expoi. 144 doubt

Posidonius,
reasons

is
:

probable
first,the

which definitions Chrysippus, set to Stobasus, according Didymus) up, in Biog. vii. 138, there be are quoted even though may the in the ffroiperecapohoyiK)] rangementfrom arslight differences nius Posidoof Posidonius and the conceptions ; XeiacrLs ; and
must

that be

our
a

treatise copy and

here
not

also
an no

must,
them doubt
as

peated therefore, have rehere; he would

originalis evident is quoted p. 134, 2.


excerpt
the two in
as

from For
as

what the

have

mentioned
author.
our

sippus ChryThus treatise

their of

Stobseus the
source

names

the for which

section of

Chrysippus

coincides Stobseus with the

with is
so

the

sage pas-

definifirst of its three tions this quotaof the jc4"r/xo?, tion taken been have cannot

closely

connected
in which

the following, employment of

144

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, ^-

mencement

of down
to

our

era

since
a

it had

alreadybeen

handed

Apuleius as

work

of Aristotle, and

found have false some Apuleius in his copy must l which is that it the probability still exist, readings was composed a longer or shorter time before the end
of the

first century, B.C.2

However

this

may

of the memorial be. It is,at any rate, a remarkable this time, had found eclecticism which, about trance eneven

into the
be

school. Peripatetic
transformation of the of

Posidonius
no

can

proved, that
nius Posido-

into the predicate Ao|-J? island, Oxe an or for by the that and Loxe, is accounted comes another from source. Lastly, still existing variant, Ao|^ instead of Ao"^ irpbs the islands, KaXovfjievri, the dissertation on that the assertion the and r)]i'oiKOV}jLev'nv('ir.K.3,S9$) 1", 15). break
is

between perceptible

what

is borrowed

from which

compre
name
an
2

supposed mainland
island

is

also

To

fix the

date

of

its

position com-

more KJo-^ov, exactly would (Stob. 446 ; irepl be 20 to seems possible. That the hardly c. 3, 392, 5, $##.) wrote author before Strabo have suit Posidonius we (as

already observed) exactly. It therefore, probable that seems,


it is the Ms
same

would his

seem

because probable,
of the
sea

work

of

nius, Posidoof

description 3, 393, a, 26)


Strabo's
122

(c.

is less

precise

than o"roi%e"/jLtrGcapoXoyLKTi

(ii.5,

rwcris, from

the
an

first section

"?.).

Meantime
more

19 s$. p. this ence inferif the

which

Stobseus

mus)
which

gives
the

Arms (i.e. Didyexcerpt, and of the in


case

is the

unsafe

author

in the

geographicalpart
The

author used

of -n-epl

his work

has

has K6"r{j.ov of the

its whole not which be

Posidonius. the

simply followed $p6vr\(ri$is


the the
"T

extent, in which

much
he

apportionedto
to

knowledge parades (c.2-4) can


to his own
1

the 6v/j.o"t^"$

placed
(p.

and the

to avbpeia,

account. shows Procem. JLpul. 302

and ffuxppQcrvv'n soul the

As

G-oldbacher

to the whole

Sucaiocrvvr],

681

$#")from

c. 7, p. first of these

288,

Oud.).

p. In the

and ju-eyaXotyvxta GXsvdepLdrifis, likewise the opposite failings. duties and faults

unnatural

these passages Apuleius' Of somewhat is translation plained exthat supposition


0,
are

definitions superficial
is shown

by
in
IT.

the

given; lastly, it

K.

1, 391,
with
ovf

22

he of

may
our

have MSS.

read
uepovs

some

conduct by what manifested; and sub-kinds


are

they

are

oliertffftev ; in

of

many virtues and

other faults

the

second,

the

otherwise

in-

brought forward.

TREATISE

OST

VIRTUES.

145

Another possess
to

remnant

of

that
on

eclecticism

we

probably
vices,
The
also
~

CHAP V".

in

the
in

short
our

treatise

virtues collection.

and

be

found
of of virtue

Aristotelian here based faculties these the Aristotle


nature
on

doean

trine
nation

is

the the

Platonic

discrimiand

virtues

the
;

three
to of

of

soul,
tries

the reduce

four the

and

rl"es*

chief
virtues

virtues

author
;

to

treated
vices
to to

by
evil
;

and

the

ing correspondof the soul

the them

of
at

the
same

parts
time

relating
in review

while
and

the

he of the

passes
ferent dif-

the
virtues

tokens
and

manifestation in
seems

vices
as

the
to

descriptive
have school
are

manner

of

the

later

ethics,
in

been after

ally especiTheoeven

customary

the

Peripatetic
there But
to

phrastus.
external
is not

With

Stoicism of

scarcely
short
us

points
of sufficient

harmony.1
importance
the

this
detain

treatise

longer.2
have
so
a

IFor

Instance,
that
the

perhaps,
whole
to

would himself
to

hardly
Plato
if it

allied

remark
from

treatise end
is

beginning
to

the
and its

opposition
^e/CTa.

tetic
voted dethe
as were

tingly, unhesitamatter that of

of

course, writer

in

the in

way

the
",

ejrcuyeTck
2

does

c.

1,

1249,

30

Even

origin
from

is

not

quite
sion admislection, colment treat-

Tpijj.epovs

certain;
into

but,
the and

its

fj.4w)s
is also

K.O.TO. an

HXarcava^ indication
the

"c. of
a

There
later mons dae-

Aristotelian
Its

whole
it

period
parents
c.

in between in

mention
the

of

of
that

the it

subject,
emanated

is

bable profrom

gods
1250,
tinder

and

c.

4,
a,

",

20;
the
;

the from date


we

Peripatetic
the cannot may

school,
;

and and if

not its

7,

1251,
of

31,
and
the

Academy
be

head

piety
after

godlessness precedent
Golden Poem
of

precisely
it,
the

fixed,

perhaps
the

assign
to An

generally period
of

Pythagorean

speaMng,
Eclecticism.

(v. ft).

earlier

Peripa-

146

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTEE

VI.

CICERO.

VARRO.

CHAP. VI.

Eclecti-

cism of tJie
first
century
B.C.

how, precedingchapters it will be seen in the first century before Christ, the three scientifically most important schools of philosophyhad less strongly developed in coincided a more or This mode of thoughtmust eclecticism. have commended to those itself the more readily who, from
FROM

the

the outset,had
Its practical
cha-

concerned

themselves

rather with

the than

fruits of philosophic studies applicable practically


science.

with strict racter, exempli-

Such falls in

was a

the

case

with

Cicero.1
not

fied
in

Cicero.

only Eoman the influence on philosophy culture, and partialblending of but also the approximation schools had alreadybegun to develop the philosophic themselves quainted acstrongly.2He himself had become various systems, partly from with the most of their founders and representatives the writings and
of Greek Concerning philosopher,cf
.,

Cicero's

youth

period in which

Cicero besides

as

Ritter M. T.

(iv. 106-176), Herbart, Werke,


xii. 167 Ciceronis *"#.;
in

Kuhner,
1825

Allg. Mncycl. sect. i. 226 17, s$q. ; Bernhardy, Rom. Litt. 769 sqg. ; and the treatises named in the passages quoted

Gruler's

infra, pp. 148,5; 149, 1. PMlo"opMcwn 2 Cicero, as is well known, (this is be to ious laborborn the 3rd January, was on regarded as a only collection of materials); 648 A.U.C. and (i.e. 106 B.c,), concerning his philosophical therefore some years after the
Merita, Hamb.

works,

cf. Hand

in

Ersch.

uncl

death

of

Panaetius.

148

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

into

YI-

the art as on philosophy in clothed Greek philosophy


it accessible
to

with
a

which

he

had-

Koman

dress,and

countrymen.1 He only arrived, however, at this literaryactivityin his he had been compelled to advanced more age, when
made his
renounce

and thus his manifold public service,2 works are philosophical tolerablyextensive of a few years.3 But into the space

and
pressed comour

astonishment

at

the

rapidityof
we

his work
more

will

be

lessened when considerably of procedure in his mode

look

at closely

the
one

compilation of his

works. philosophical
does
not

In

directly express his schools to each of the most important philosophic of their adherents,4 explain theirs through one
and
to

portion of these he own views, but allows

for this purpose have


made

he
use

seems

almost
several
to

throughout
expositions
confined

free
to to

of

the
and

which himself

lay ready mainly


and

hand,
the

:have

tion, comparison, representacontents.5


And
even

elucidation
merit himself often Ms which in this

of their
he
re-

Of

the for

ber
a

3rd, 43 B.C., his activity as


abont

claims

writer occupies philosophical three the De


years,
4

spect
works Fin. Tmc.
2

Cicero

speaks while

only

defending

philosophical
De

As

in

Academica,

De

against censure, e.g. 1 3, 10 ; i. 2, 4 s$t[. ; Acad. i. 1 sgq. ; N. D. i. 4 ; Off.i.


1. G. ; Tuse. i. 1,
c.

Finibus,
5

Natiwa

Deo"rwniy

Divinatione.

l s%. 1^ '

Cicero himself

'A^-ypaQa sunt, confesses in a ranch-quoted


O# Att. fiunt :
xii. 52), minors rerl)d
tantuni ; and i. 2, 4

Acad. D.I. The

1; 4,

7 ; N.
3

passage labor e

that (irreof in spite Fin. (Non spective of his two political this, intcrpretwn fwigimw mwiere, Consolatio, the works), the "c.),is no exaggerated modesty, ffbrtensius,and the firstversion is sufficiently fall in the of the Academic", proved by the into the As recent 45 i.e. B.C. investigations 709 A.U.C., year of his expositions. In Decemsources murdered Cicero was on earliest of these abwndo f[niJ"m affero,

HIS

OWN

STANDPOINT.

149

where

lie

speaks
so

in

his

own

name,

he

frequently
his

CHAP. TL

allies himself
own

to closely

older

writingsthat

works these.1
our

are

scarcely more
this is
no

than

reproductions
he his his

of

Yet

great disadvantagein
his
since standpoint, views

regard to
can own

knowledge of
the with agrees

only bring forward


when he

of
; and

others
even

as

them
a

in

he, as expository dialogues


which "approves,
His of

cates indirule, sufficiently under


discussion

the

theories

he

standpointmay
he had that of borrowed

be

described generally
served Mm
as
a

as

an

His

scepti-

cism.

ths Academica from the the Antioclms first mouth

model

(vide PJdl.
the The

which,

in in and

d. Gr.

II. ii.

63); for 3).


the

ConsonevQavs

version, he
in the month

placed

Lucullus,

latio, H. (ibid.
of have the

Grantor's

?repl

afterwards

of Varro

L 899, of source been the and

cipal printo

first book
seems

(vide supra,

p. 86, 3) ; the tical scephe had dissertations bably profrom PMLo well taken as Clitomachus fifth book be found

TusGidante Grantor

writings

of

Posidonius

; of the

as

from

(ride Phil,
sonrce

d. Gr. III. 1

501, 3). The


in De in

of the is the to

Finibits that
same

Antiochus in the

second, Panastius (ride supra, p. 41, 3 ; Heine, Font. Tusc. Msthe of fourth, put. 11 sf[.}-, Posidonius (as Heine, I. c. p.
13

(ride supra,
rest

p. 86,
no on

3), and
doubt.

sq.,

supposes),or
De the in Fato The work of

Antiochus

originated

(videPkil.d. Gr.
the treatise
to

HI. i. 517, 1). In he appears of inferences books substance the p.


same

of way, admits the first book

For

the d.

Epicurean
which

treatises

gods two (concerning


Gr. III. i.
;

repeat

Clitomachus.

De
to

cf. Phil
2 ;

Ojfieiu keep
Pansetius'
name

573,
for tius the half

374, 1) are employed the second, probably one


and
one

(vide supra,
substance been of the

41, 3) ;

of Posidonius
.

of Panse-

the

has Topica,

(cf supra, third, and


of the Gr.

p. 41, 3) ; for second for the

probably
Antiochus
It may that it other
was

furnished be

by

(ride supra,
the
not
same

p. 86, 3).

first,Clitomachus
IK. i. 505, is worked

reasonably
whose

supposed
with the totypes pro-

d. (PJiil. Dwinatione

3).

De

out

from

works have

Greek

Posidonius, Pansetius,
337,
1

and

tomachus Cli-

hitherto been

1 ;

For

(vide ibid. III. i. p. ascertained,though Cicero may have been and supra, 41, 3). not in all of them his predecessors totle's dependent on Ms Ifortensiiis, Aris-

probably nporpeTpriKbs

to the

same

extent.

150

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
"

eclecticism

founded

upon

scepticism* The
of

very

habit

statingargualready mentioned, ments for and against,without clusion, drawing any confor this indicates a tendency to scepticism, the indirect be compared with procedure cannot developmentof thought in the Platonic dialogues, with which from the Socratic or conversations, Cicero himself derives it ; l its true analogy is 2 of Carneades and it can with the colloquies only ; originatein the fact that the philosopheris not but objects to somethingsatisfied with any theory, in every given system. however, expressly Cicero, himself as avows Academy/ belongingto the new the arguand name brings forward in his own ments of it had with which denied the possibility of the great reasons, one knowledge.4 For himself, for his doubt, seems if not the greatest, to lie in the disagreement of the philosophersconcerningthe most important questions ; at any rate, he not only this subject with but pressly expredilection,5 pursues
we

have

remarks
value
to

that
to

he

attaches
has

much said

greater

it than

all that

been
senses

by the
the ideas.6
I think it

Academy on the deception fixed impossibilityof any


Tuse. i. 4, 8 ; i- 5, 11.
2 1

of the

and

definition
4

of

v.

4, 11
11:

; N. D.

Acad.

il 20 sq$.
to

unnecessary

specify these
in this be been

Of.

TUSG.
cum

v.

4,

Quern
acittis-

arguments
as

further

place,

morem

sime

they are not to and have temtisset, original, oopiasissMiiegite


et

Carneades

considered.

quoted,
sqq.

fecvmis
in

alias

scope et mtper
earn con-

PJiil. d. 6fr. III. i. 500


5

Tusonlano,
3

iut ad

suetiidinem
Acad.

dtsjputwr"wus.

J\r.D.
8

ii. 20 ; 22, 69 ; i. 4, 13 ; 12, 43, 46 ; N. D. i. 5, 12 ; iii. 4, 20. Qffic.

Git. 33, 107 ; c. 36 sq. ; i. 1, 1; 6, 13 ; iii. 15, 39. ii. 48, 147 : PostJiao Acad.
ciim

LOG.

tamen, yatAm

luce

de

dissenswnibm

Qitaremusr tantis

ACTION

BASED

OS

PROBABILITY.

Scepticism -with Mm,


fruit of
an

is therefore,

not

so

much

the

CHAP. VL

independent enquiry as the consequence of the uncertainty in which the strife of philosophic theories has placed him ; it is only the reverse side of his eclecticism, only a sign of the same dence indepenof his Greek expresses
:

which predecessors
far
as

that

cism eclectito be

so

the

philosophers are
from,

reconciled, the
are

common

elements
;
so

their
at

tems sys-

co-ordinated

far

as

they

are

strife,
is spaired deone

knowledge respecting the


of, because
another. Thus
any
means

debated

points

the

authorities neutralise

it is that

doubt

in Cicero
or

cannot

have

by
it

the
in in for

importance
new

that significance
;

had
see

had

the

Academy

and

we

therefore
two
to
spects re-

him,
:

his scepticismin fact,limiting


he attributes

greater

worth

the

from knowledge derived the probabilitythan Academy, and he makes hardly any use of certain

derived from his sceptical parts of the philosophy principle. If he is within the principlesof the Academy in replying,like Carneades,to the objection
that
"

scepticism makes
fall

all

action
not

impossible
necessary,

that

for action

certainty is
*

but him

cannot consider we only greater probability ; in the so explanation he gives concerning


mrorum

summorum

disserawius,
natures

d"
error

obscwritate
e

disciplines, giiam/i de oeulorum deqiie sensuumque "reliqiwru?n mendaciis


mew,
*

tot

jjliilosopkorum, qui de
tantcum

et

de

sorite avt

p$"iido-~
cmtra*
ae

rebus fionis contrariisqiie

guas Acad.

plagas ipn
II. 31
; c.

ojpere
uno

discrepant,ut
rerum esse twn

plus
pos"it,

Stoici teseuemnt.

33, 105.

jacere necesse

sit tot ta-ni nobiles

108 ; IV. D. i. 5, 12.

152

ECLECTICISM,

CHAP, VI"

disputation. This method to enable was him, by testing the various theories., had the most in its the theory which to find out Doubt favour.1 only the preparation is, therefore,
the aim of his method
of for
a

conviction positive
not

; and

even

if this conviction but


we

does

reach

the

full

approximate only an the life, alreadyknow, for practical


the Ciceronian
:

certainty of knowledge as certainty,it suffices,


end
is
no

and

aim

of

philosophy. There
elements of

mistaking
sophy, philoassertion

the fact

the two denial of

of the Academic the here

the
of
a

knowledge, and
that doubt

knowledge
relation
; for

stand probability,

in

ferent dif-

from

Carneades

him,

they occupy with the suspension of itself,

which

judgment, had been the proper aim of philosophic was only in the enquiry; the theory of probability the consideration second rank, and resulted from from remained of that which over doubt; but to
Cicero the

discovery of

the

probable appears

as

the

has value and doubt problem of philosophy, original of the condition solution of and a only as a means therefore clares this problem. Cicero himself plainlydethat his scepticism was properlyonly in regard
to

the

Stoic

demand

for

an

absolute

knowledge ;

with the
claim
1

so

the other hand, who do not on Peripatetics, in respect to knowledge,he is fundamuch


1, 4, 7
sedens
.

TUSG. de
id aut

Ponere audire aut

jiibevellet:
autem

disserendi.

Nam simillimum

ita

faeillime
esset inve-

bam ad

quo

quis
. .

quid

veri

ambulans vellet
est

niri posse Socrates

arliitrabatur.

disgutabam
ita, ut
dixisset $go
cum

fieb"t

is qui audire
sibi

quid

vAderebwr, tuwi
Hce.c
et Socratica

Similarly (v. 4, 11) this procedure claims the advantage, ut nostram sententia/ni ipsi tegeremus,
error e

contra ut

dicereon. alterius

alias
veri

levaremust

et

"nim,

sdis,vdtus

in

omni

quid disputatione
queerer emus.

esset

ratio contra

opinionem

simillimum

OBJECTION

TO

DIALECTIC.

153

scepticism CHAP. receives still further limitations. Though our philo- ___!_ the subject, on sopher expresses himself hesitatingly
even

mentallyagreed*1

But

this modified

yet, all things considered, it


theoretical
new

is

that enquiries

he

is

only as to purely in harmony with the

and

the contrary on principles Academy : practical and religious the philosophic convictions directly
with
same

connected
in

them,
He real

he

does

not

wish

to

question
that
it

the

way.
not

objects to

dialectic

only formal knowledge but of propositions rules on the construction and inferences 2 his judgment on physics, exclusive of ; to say theology,is that it is far easier for physics what thingsare not, than what they are ; 3 it would be presumptuous to arrogate to itself a knowledge,even 4 human of its most universal principles no ; eye is keen enough to penetrate the darkness with which 5 and even if we of thingsis concealed the nature ; logy, of theoto the have to limit these expressions case balancing counterfind no we opposite declarations in them regard to natural enquiries the contrary,though he finds In ethics, on proper. the philosopherson discord considerable among 6 he himself, and the most ; important questions
guarantees
1
2

Fin. Aca-d. N.
in

v.

26, 76.
cf. Phil, Omnibus
i*i

ista
ut

omula^
et

JJuculle, crassis
circumfmatenelwis,
Jtuniant intrare
no-n

d.
3

ii. 28, 91; Grr. III. i. 503, 5. D. i. 21, 60: rebus


et
noti

occultata nulla
tanta

a"ies

ing"mi
in

sit, qiic? pen"trare


terram

fere
quam
4

mascime

ecelum,

jpossit.
"c.
ea

yJiysfasiSy Quid
sit qitiil Acad.

sit
116:

dtius,
JSstne

Corpora*nostra

not'imm,

dixerim,

"

124

Satisne

tandem

noia"

ii. 36,

mntnoffistftv^nervorwmnatura
?
"c.
c.

sit, gute rencvrum errore, ? sit ? animus flit S'iM se ilia stire jpersiiaserit q\ti"

quisqua/nitanto
3

inftatm
122
:

Ten"nmme

Acad.

ii. 39,

Latent

Acad.

ii. 42 ;

48, 147.

154

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

cannot avoid fluctuadiscover, presently tion in replyingto them; soon yet we perceive that here he is far from admitting the same tion justificato doubt in the purely theoretical as sphere. "What he occasionally ing says in his discussions concernthe Laws, that he does not intend to examine
as

we

shall

further the doubt

Academy,1 he seems rule in his moral philosophy; to have made a general of his writings this subject for in none does he pay on which he himself any regard to the considerations the doubt raised ; but as soon had previously in as of the Academy has had space to express the enquiries treated of the highestgood and duties 2 are itself, discussions in a wholly dogmatic tone, in the moral without time fixed plan* though at the same any therewith also find our In connection we sopher philobringingforward opinionsabout (rod and the human thing somesoul, which are manifestly for him than uncertain more conjectures, though even ledge. here he despairs of absolute certainty of knowlowing He constantly says that he is merely folprobability and expressing his own sonal peropinion.3 But that he was reallya consistent
of the
new
"

Legg. i. 13, 39
autem

Perturbaomniwn

maxime
mimes

reri

simile
natura at

est

et

qiio

tricem
rentm

harivni

duce
esse

venimits,
the conclu:

Aeademiam
et

Jiano Nam
. .

ab si

Deos sion Ita

and

Areesila
exoremus

Carneade tit sileat.


JICBG
.

recentem,

of the

iii. 40, 95 treatise,

invaserit

in

nimias ego
non

Cottcs discessimw, ut Vellejo Balbi miJii ad dispirt"tio verior,


similitudinem prop ensior.

ed"t ruinas.

Quam guidem
submovere

writatis
tur 7:
esse

mdereTuso.
iv.

ylacare
audeo.
2

cwpwt

4,

Sed

Proof

of this will

presently
:

sentit
nos
. .

be
8

given.
So .ZV. D. i. 1, 2

Quod

maxime

qmd qiiisqiie ; sunt enwijudicia liftera : quid sit in quaq^ie re reproftabilesemper


.

defendat

156

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

human know no doubt, mistrusts philosopher, to be the and holds greateror less probability ledge, to himself highestthingattainable ; but he reserves the power of making an exceptionto this rule in all the
cases

where
a more

pressing moral
confident with

or

mental

necessity

demands
Practical

more

fixed conviction. treatment

This
tions

of
so

practical questhe
more

has,however,

Cicero

much

because, according to his view, the significance, is exclusively contained whole problem of philosophy
in them.

knowledge is a that it secures and further, good in and for itself, the purest and highest enjoyment ; * and though he includes physics in this admission,2yet expressly but its effects on life appear not knowledge itself, of philosophicenquiry. aim to him the ultimate Though
he
admits

that

Knowledge completes itself only in action ; action than knowledge ; 3 the a higher value has,therefore, enquiry concerning the highest good is the most the whole of and determines important of all enquiries, 4 is that of Socrates, the best philosophy : philosophy lie which does not trouble itself with thingswhich beyond our sphere of vision,and, being convinced of the uncertainty of human knowledge, applies itself entirely to moral problems.5 The proper aim
1

Fin. i. 7, 25 ; Tusc.

v.

24 $g. ;

c.

21, 71.
4

JV. D, ii, 1, 3 ; of. the


note.
2

following

Fin.

v.

6, 15

JECoc (sumtno
in

enim 'bono}

constitute
sunt

pliiloomnia,
ii.

41, 127 ; Tusc. v. iv. 5, 32; 3, 9; 24, 69; Fm. from Hortensius, ap. Fragm. Augustin. 3 Off.i. 43,
De

Acad.

ii.

sopMa
"c.
5

constituta

Acad. Tusc.

Trin.

xiv. 9.
c.

1,1;
;

i. 4, 15 ; of. Fin,, v. 4, 10.

153 ; cf.

9, 28

PHILOSOPHICAL

INCONSISTENCIES.

157

therefore, philosophy, may be attained In spite of the restriction of our knowledge: we know nothing
with
most to

of

CHAP.
TL

absolute

certainty ; but

we

know

that which

is

as we important with as much certainty require is here know lying it; scepticism merely the under-

base
upon

of

mode

of

which thought,

is founded

because useful; and this practically the practical best harmonised tendency towards of the Eoman with the disposition and the statesman, Cicero was to the doctrine of more susceptible the Cameades than he would

otherwise

have

been

cause be-

purely theoretical enquiriesalready appeared and worthless to him he abandons transcendental, also the scientific proof of their impossibility ; but interests come his practical in contact as as soon
with
content

doubt

he

makes with
a

retreat, and
bad

would

rather
admit

himself

than expedient,
of

the

Inevitable

consequences

his

own

sceptical
to

statements.

If
our

we

ask, then, from

whence

we

are

derive

His eclec-

positiveconvictions,we have alreadybeen told ticim" that the probable is best discovered parison by the comof different views : the positive and testing in Cicero's scepticism is that eclecticism, element shall presentlyhave an which we opportunity of in order But to decide beexamining further.1
1

It will

liere suffice to recall observations


autem,

33

Tit

giMem
me"um

tabellis
et

tlie characteristic in Off. iii- 4, 20 : JVWs


nostra

natis

agis

obsigtestificarls

Academia

mat/nam id

licen-

tiam liceat

dat,

lit

maxime quodcunque,

Quid dixerim aliquanda aut s"ripserim. Cum aliis isto modo, qui legibus impositisdispictant ;
nositidiem que
nostros

occurred probabile

nostrojvre
v.

virimus

guodevn-

defendere.

Tusc.

11,

158

ECLECTICISM.
we opinions, opposite
our

CHAP,
T[-

tween

must
as

have

the

standard

of decision in
consists

hands,

and

philosophic enquiry

proving of different views, such a standard must be already given before every scientific then to be directly Two thingsseem investigation.
in this very

present:
of
many "not

the evidence

of the
the

senses

and

the evidence

consciousness.

Even

in first,

spite of
senses,

his is

complaintsof the deception of the

despisedby Cicero
to

; he must

says that
make

it would all life

be
and

contrary
action

nature,

and

admitted if we no impossible, and that among not assentiri) (probare,

conviction

those
us

victions con-

which

force

themselves
assurance

upon

with

the

the greatestprobability,

of
l

the

senses reason

occupiesone
he

of the foremost

places ;

for this

employs sensible evidence as an example of the ings highestcertainty; 2 and he himself in all his writto experience and historical generally appeals
matters

of

fact.

In

accordance
is forced

with
to

his

whole

tendency, however,
stress
us

he

lay the
external

chief
to

on

the

other

side, on

the witness
to the

internal

for his interest moral

belongs not
even

but

to the

world, and

in his ethical

doctrine

vercumt,
]
1

id

dicimus;
:

ttaqiie
risum

ut

sit

viswn iilla re

illud

pro'babile
-

liberi. Tale
ut ut

neque

impeditum
III. i. 515 enim robore est
e saoso

Acad.

ii. 31, 99
me, awtem

cnraa-Tov,

cf. Part Non


aut
e

s#.)

nullwm,

pevceptioconcontra niUl
. . .

moreMtur.
Habet
movetur

semieretiir, Utenim multa.

probatlo, sculptus
natiuram

dolatus.
:

corpus,

liabet animum
movetur
senw-

esset,si probaMte

esset, et
eversio.

mente,

sequitur oninis
Itaque
eimi

vita

Ms:
"c.

-ut

fft

senzibus

probanda
res

mutta, sunt, "c.

Quacunque

aliter
-

eimultamravidecmtwr, Neque iws contra sensus didmus, ae Stoici, "c.


cit.
c.

sie [sa/pientewi]

attinget,

LOG.

37, 119.

INNATE

KNOWLEDGE.

159

lie who

throughoutallies himself
have
made
over

with
of

those the

philosophers CHAP.
external and
VI*

independence

their watchword. All our sensuality conviction, therefore, accordingto Cicero, depends
dominion in the last resort upon direct internal

certainty, upon

the natural
and this
in

feelingfor truth,or
gained
so

innate

knowledge ;
an

Doctrine

theory which
the
was

important
Christian

in-

ff

fluence

the later, especially


the first to enunciate and Zeno Aristotle, similar

sophy, philo-

he

l for definitely;

though Plato preceded him


enquiries have
innate

and

Epicurus had previous


these the

with

doctrines, yet our


none

shown

that

of

taught
cence reminis-

: knowledge in the strict sense of ideas, to Plato, must according

be awakened fixed ;
we

by methodical
attain
to

study, and

their

content

the

according to
;
svvoiai

beyond proof, principles that are duction Aristotle, by the scientific road of in-

of Epicurus and the xowal TTpokrj^r^s from of the Stoics are perience. exonly abstracted the Here
on

the

contrary there
to

is

an

tion asser-

of
and

knowledge

antecedent

all

experience

concerning the most important inborn in us, of morality are The truths. germs if they could undisturbed, develop themselves be unnecessary; would science only through the
science, and
of perversion
our

natural

arises the need disposition virtue.2

of
1

technical
Is

training to
that have how
now

The

consciousseniina
si

It

indeed, possible,
herein
; but cannot

ingeniis nostris
mrtutum;
natura

innata,
vitam-

he

may Antiochns the


2

followed
far this is be Sunt
ascer-

qucB
ad

adokscere

nos Iiceret,ip8"

beatam
;

case

$"rduceret

only

the and

tained.
Tusc. iii.

1,

2:

enim

obscuring of natural ness through evil

conscioushabits

160

ECLECTICISM.

GHAP. YI-

ness

of

right
it.1
a

is

subsequently a
obscures

implanted tendency to
has

in

man

by

nature

evil is formed
our

which

Nature moral notions


an

endowed

spiritnot
the any

only

with

fundamental

also with but disposition, of morality preceding


;

instruction, as

originaldowry
innate reason,
men
2

it is

only

the

development
on

of
us

these
:

notions

which

is incumbent
are

with

those
to

impulses
moral

directlygiven
with

which

prompt
and

munity com-

others

the

of investigation

truth.3

The

essence

of moral

activity may,
from the

therefore, be
of

deduced

not men,

merely
but

intuition

guished distin-

also from

the universal
from any

ness, conscious-

with

greater certainty than


nearer

definition
to in
to

of ideas ; the

the

individual will

still stands

nature, the
him
:

more

keenly
from
in
a

this be what
rests

reflected

we

learn Belief

children

is

according
the
same

nature.4
false and
1

the
doctrine

Deity
nostrum

upon

opinions makes
science necessary. i. 13, 33 : hoc

Legg.
omni

Atque

Tioc

in

disputatwne sic intelligivolo, jus quod dicam


naturam esse, tantam autem
esse

nihil amplius. Itaque cJioavit, est (quod nostrum, dico3 artis esf), ad ea principia quat accepimus consequentia exquiquod sit id quoad volumus rere, effectum.
ratio

corruptelammalteconsuetudinis, ut ab ea igniculi esctanquam dati natura stinguantiiT a exorianturgue et cmfirment-ur


vitia contraria,
2

ii. 14,46: fecit Tiominem apjyetentem, "c.


.

Fin.

Eademque
Jwniimim
. .

eadeni

natura

homini
:

cupiditatem ingemiit veri inveniendi, "c.


evidence for these be prefound.

Fin.

v.

21, 59
talem

(Natura

Jiocpice

Further
4

mini)
omnem

dedit

mentem"

positions is easily to
LOG. cit. 14, 45
sit
non :

virtutem

acclpereposset,
doctrina
re rum

[Honestum~]

ingenuitqiie sine notitiasparvas


maxim docere
inerant
arum

quale
qua
.

tarn

sum
.

usiis

definitions intelligi pot est


omnium,

et

quasi
in

instituit
.

quawi

communi

et

indusrit virtutem

ea

giue
vir-

judieio atque
studiis
same

'tanquawi elementa
Sed

ttctis.

ipsam

in-

optimi cujusque On the faotis. atque subject, vide v. 22, 61 :

CRITERION

OF

TRUTH.

161

basis

by

virtue

of the

human

with spirit's affinity

CHAP. ^

God, the
with

consciousness

of Grod is
:

immediatelygiven
only to
remember

self-consciousness
own

man

has

origin in order to be led to his Creator.1 Nature, therefore, herself instructs us concerning of God,2 and the strongest argument the existence
his
for this
in
must

truth
all

is its universal agree

which

without
an

recognition ; for that previous persuasion,


utterance of nature.3

always be regarded as immortality of the


innate

The these

soul must

likewise
we are

belong to
convinced
same

truths, of which
consent
4

through universal
Cicero
Indicant
1

and

in

the

way will

seems

to presuppose
in

the
id
enhn

freedom
vltioso here
mos

of the
more

pueri

quibus
Animum Deo
;

lit in

Jierisolet
distinction

natura speculis

cernitur.
:
. . .

(observe
between
omnes ram rero esc

the and
esse

esse
rere

Legg. i. 8, 24 ingeneratum
rel

natura,):
et natu-

quo
cum

tamen

Tim

agnatio
rel genus

nolis rel

divinam

ceelestibus

stirps
tot

arUtrantur. Nee id collocutio Jut-mimim aut


: effeeit

appellari potest. generibus nullum


prceter kominem

Itaque ex
est

consensus

non

imtitutis
eomenslo
nature

animal kabeat

opinwestconjirmata.nonlegi'bus.
Omni
(minium autem

quod
Dei. gens

hi

re

notitiainaliquam
inliominibusnulla

Ijtsisgue
est neque

gentium
est

lex

putanda
consensus

tavnim'niansuetanequetam.fera, quas n"ns etiamsi- ignoret qualevi


liabere Dewai
stiat.

(cf." 35; omnium natures "rox est}. "Vide


1. If Cicero his

also

s?^.note
makes

else-

deceat,
Ex

tarn^n

where

Academic this

Jiabendum,
cltur unde
ac

illud, ut is
ortus ?wscat.

gui
2

effi- philosopher (3".D. i. 23, agnoscat Deum, the consensus sit quasi recsorquo

claim

proof
1) from
is

62 ; iii.4, 1

gentium
month

which the

detur

put
cnrean

in

the
as

of the
as

BpiStoic

TUSG.

natura-

i. 16, 36: Deos esse opinainur. Cf. N. D. i. i. 13, 30


:

well

{N.
he

D.

i. 16, 43 is

1, 2.
3

implies here
doubt

(i,23,

sq. ; ii. 2, 5) 62 ; iii.

TUSG.
hoc
esse

Flmum-

40, 95) what


a

placed beyond

mum

Deos
gens tern
non

aff"wi ridetur, cur credawms, quod nulla


fera,
nemo

other
express

by works,
Ms

from his passages that Gotta did not


on

tarn

omnium mentein

opinion

the

sub-

sit immanis,

eujus
Deorum

ject.
4

inibuerit

opinio.
sentiwnt;

Fuse.

i. 12 sq. ; 15, 35

sq.

Hiilti dc DUs

pra/ca

162

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
VI.

simply as
direct

an

internal well
as
:

matter

of fact.1

In

wordy
on

as philosophy,

is here morality,

founded

conscionsness

this is the

fixed

point from

which

the

sets out, and of philosophic opinions testing

to which

it returns.

The

material

results of Cicero's

philosophyhave

be therefore can only nothing distinctive, and shortlydiscussed in this place. As to the chief sciences,dialectic is regarded merely in philosophic In the the sceptical manner already mentioned. and of physics,theological domain psychological alone have any value for Cicero ; questions enquiries for instance, of other kinds concerning the number
"

of the

elements, whether
the material and upon

there

are

four

or

five ;

cerning con-

and the like efficientprinciple in cursory

"

are

only touched
a

historical notices^

sceptical comparison of different doctrines. In the chief thing is the estimation of this philosopher, I commence. With ethics. ethics, therefore, his ethical principles, Cicero develops as, indeed^ his whole of doctrine,in the criticism of philosophic ethics in the Epicurean,Stoic, the four contemporary theories, Ms philosophy. Academic, and Peripatetic. Of these four systems, the first alone. himself to he opposes definitely to him The Epicurean doctrine of pleasureappears the natural to contradict so destiny and strikingly
or

in

ence

natural

necessities and

of man,2 the facts of moral that experience,


we

sciousness con-

of moral
more

have

no

need

to enter

into particularly it in the second


Fin.

the remarks book


of De

with which
De

he
c.

opposes

Fato,

i. 7, 23, s$, ; ii. 14, "c.

164

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, YI

bability of

that But
even

time

without

regard
he
seems

to

conse-

qnences.1
in this

for himself

unable

discussion

to find any

fixed

standpoint. So
agree
"

far, indeed,as
in

the statements

of both sides life

the

universal
in

of principles the

nature, and

unconditional

according to of appreciation
as soon as

virtue,he
the roads follow. the Stoic
to

is

quite sure

of himself; 2 but
no

divergehe
The ethics nobler

knows

longerwhich
; it

he shall

and grandeur,consistency, excite


to

severityof
appears

his

admiration

regard virtue as sufficient for the good between happinessand not to distinguish than to assent to the oppositeview the useful, and sion he finds the Stoics' admisof the Peripatetics;3 of the affections weak, and their moral ciples prinis faulty in its hazardous, since that which should not merely be nature, like the affections, regardedas a help to virtue, restricted, or, still less, He but wholly eradicated.4 reproachesthem with the inconsistencyof assuming goods with which the
him

happy
endure

man

may

and dispense,

evils which

he

may

; and

thus
as

of the
from
more

virtuous

from the happiness distinguishing such,a supreme happiness,and

the than

the nobler

life that is a perfectand complete life, to follow therefore, complete.5 He prefers, of thought, to call the wise man mode
all

happy
1

under

circumstances,even
p. ; sru/pra,

in

the

bull

of

Tuso.

v.

11, 33

Bitter,iv.
*

157, 1. 2 Acad.
3

Tusc.
,

i. 6,22 ; Fin. iv. 10, "c.


v.

Tuso.

1,

1 ;

25,

71 ;

Off.

88 ; cf 5 Fint

134 sgg., 157 sq$. iv. 18 8#$. ; Off.i. 25, Acad. i. 10, 35, 38.
v.

27

*q. ; Two.

v.

8-

cf. with iii.4, 20 ,*

the

following,

12,

15

SQ.

ETHICS

OF

THE

STOICS.

165

Phalaris

he

desires

to

adopt, at
Paradoxes.2
this
so

any

rate

tenta-

CHAP.
'

tively,the
we

famous
more

Stoic

If, however, Stoicism,


certain it is
it

enquire
our

closely into
not

clear that
as we man

is philosopher

about

might
of himself
for
men

have the

supposed from these utterances. conceal world, like Cicero, cannot


are

from

that the Stoic demands


as

much

too
man

exalted is not
not

they are,

that the Stoic wise


Stoic
to

found

in of

that the reality,3

morality does
wise alike

admit

being

transferred that

daily life;4 he
are

cannot

possibly
alTthe
is
no

allow

all the

happy, and
that there hardened
But

unwise

absolutely wretched, and


between trivial the
most

difference in value
and
can

wickedness

the

most

offence.5

he believes he

show

that the

of the severity

Stoics is not

scientifically justifiable, and, moreover,


their
own

that it contradicted
if

presuppositions ; for according to nature,

the

first

principleis

life

among

the

also to be
from

nature are things according to human dom counted sensible well-being, health, free-

pain,
is
to not

and
to

an

untroubled

mind

"

even

pleasure

be

wholly despised.
to

To

live

according
These

nature

is not
to

separate oneself from


and
sustain

nature, but

rather

encourage
our

it.G

arguments
the

draw side

eclectic

so philosopher

strongly to

declares himself
1 2 3 4 5

to be

that he Peripatetics, The truth, of their number.7


of the
8

Tusc. Lai.

v.

26.

Fin.

Iv.

11-15

Cato, 14,
of De

Paradoxa.

5, 18 ; cf. Off. iii.4, 16. Fin. Iv. 9, 21. Fin. Iv. 9, 21 ; 19, 55 ; 28,

46 ; Tusc. II. 13, 30, 7 book In the fourth

Finibus,
who

It Is

Cicero

himself the Peri-

77 *#. Cf.

Off.I. 8.

27.

brings forward pateticview.

166

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
^'

expressed in his confession however, is only finally


that sometimes
and of
to the

the

consideration

of his

own

nesses, weak-

human
laxer

weaknesses

clines generally,in-

him the

and, at other times, doctrine,


virtue inclines

thought of

the

majesty of

him
for

to

the stricter ; l he comforts

himself

therefore
can

his
no

vacillation, by the conviction


essential influence
on on

that it

exercise

the

conduct, since practical a far higher value theory, Peripatetic


virtue

even

must

be

to assigned

than

to

all else.2
in

It would any

be
new

difficult to discover

these propositions

the Ciceronian and in principle, other characteristic than that ethics generally any the of an eclectic and popular philosopher ; for even viz. that with Eitter which trait on lays stress,3 the honourable Cicero, Qionestum)takes the placeof the beautiful he Greeks and (/eaXoz/) that in connection
value
to
mere

with therethan the of

ascribes

greater
this is

glory

did, even

partlya

difference

having no influence on the content of the language, to the moral principle ; and partlyit is a concession Eoman which, being devoid of any scientific spirit, foundation,can only be regardedas a further proof
of the

uncertainty of Cicero's
All the less
reason

manner

of
to

ing. philosophisfurther

is there

enter

into

the details of Cicero's ethical and than


has

already been
on

many

of his remarks
too

these
with

show
1 2

little connection

political ciples prindone.4 Strikingas be, they subjects may definite philosophic
162 sqg. d. 0r. III. i. p. 276

Tuso.

1, 3. Off.iii. 3, 11.
v.

3 4

TV. PHI.

*".

THEOLOGY.

167

principlesto
importance
theories
nature in

allow the

us

to

attribute
of

to

them

any His
_____

CHAP.

history
the

philosophy.

concerning
of the

Deity and the essential soul must, however, be shortly tioned. men-

The
pears

belief in
to
our

Deity,as already observed,apphilosopher to be required, not


a

ffi*
ieo

w*

merely by
moral and

immediate

consciousness, but
Without
all and justice,

also

by

interest. political and


at
an

he religion, human other


not

"thinks, truth
life would
for

social

be the

end.1
of he

But

the
are

ments argu-

existence

God

entirely
the the
its
to

repudiated by
criticism of

him,

and

brings
meets

forward

argument teleological
the Stoic the
in

in especially,

spite
it In

of in

Academy

which

form,2 with
nature

fall conviction.3

regard
mouth

of

God, Cicero
which he

is,no

doubt,
that

in earnest of
can

the

remark

places in the

his be
so

Academic asserted
far
as

viz. philosopher,

nothing
it ; 4

with the

about perfectcertainty,

but,

probable
venture to

may

be

determined, he
not

thinks

he may
of God5

presuppose

only the

unity

but

also His

6 this,howspirituality ;

i. 2, 4; cf. ii.61,153. 7, 22 ; Samn. Seip.(Rep. vi. 17) (N. D. iii. 2, 5; Legg. 3, B et pass. 6 I. 27, 66: Tuse. Nee on vero ii. 7, 15) the observations a the political necessity of relig- Deifs ipse qui intelligitur nobis olio modo ion. iaitelllgi patest,
1

N.

D.

Hence

N.

D.

Dirin. D.

iii. 10, 24 ; 11,37. ii. 72, 1487 Tusc. i. 21, 60 s#. ; cf

nisi i. iii.

mens

solirta

queedam
omni

et

28 sg. 4 ^

libera, segregate, ab eretione mortaM, (mmia


et men-ens

con-

sentiens

40, 95.
5

TitSG. i. 23 ; 27 ;

Legg.

i.

ipsague pradita, vtwtu sempiterno. Jfap. vi, 17, 8 ; Legg. ii. 4, 10, "c.

168

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

apprehend in a very strict sense,. 1 that the for he admits the possibility Divine Spirit be conceived, according to the Stoic view, as may air or fire ; or with Aristotle, far as Cicero understood so in the dream of him,2 as sethereal essence: the supreme heaven, in agreement with this Scipio, misconception of Aristotle is declared to be itself the highestgod.3 But this closer definition of the for value conception of Deity had scarcelymuch
ever,

he does not

Cicero himself.
is of far

For

him

the

belief

in Providence

philosopher.4 from the practical Since he chiefly regardsreligion of it is in his point of view, the whole significance opinioncomprehended in a belief in a divine government and morals of the world : 5 the law of justice
this to
.

greater importance,though be doubted by his Academic

he allows

even

is for him

wisdom.8' world-ruling this standpointonly a negative or external From to the popularreligion, relation was possible unless,, of the Stoic orthodoxy indeed, the violent methods Cicero desiresto be followed ; when, therefore, were that the

the type of the divine

existingreligionand
c.

even

the

existing

1 3

Tusc.

I. 26, 65 ; cf.

29. 1 13,

for
face in

we

are

not

T-usG. i. 10, 22 ; N. D. i. 7, 22. 33 ; Acad. 3 Hep. vi. 17, 4.


4

of

so

many

in the justified, contradictory

N.

(iv. 147, 150)


these passages in believed

D. iii.10 ; 25-39. deduces that

Hitter from disand the side

explanations(vide JV. D. iii.40),. identifying Cicero's own opinion with that here brought
forward.
5

Cicero

Many

Providence,
Natural
on

Cicero I

treats

in which passages of Providence are L


c.

opposed
God the but

the

to
one

quoted by Eoihner,

p. 199.

Divine, setting

the

without Nature, and, on other,Nature without God; Legg. i. 7 : iii. 1, 3. * I cannot with this, Legg. ii.4, 8. agree

merely refer in this place to T-usc.i. 49, 118; N. 2). i. 2, 3;

VIEWS

OF

HUMAN

NATUME.

189

shall be maintained superstitions

in the

State,he

is

CHAP. ^"

considerations ; ] speaking entirely from political he not only makes no personally, attempt to justify of the polytheism and its myths after the manner

Stoics, but
above the

he

shows

by many

utterances,and,
to which

all, by the sharp criticism

he

subjects

popular
De

belief

in and

Natura book
from

Deorum;

gods in his third book De in his second soothsaying


far he himself for the stands

Divinaiione, how
with

the national
is consistent

Eeverenee religion.
a

Deity,
the

which

true

view to be

of nature, and

coincides

with

true

is morality, be

required;
for the

existingreligionis to of the commonwealth; hand,


word,
is to

maintained

good
other
in
a

on superstition,
2
"

the

be

torn

is Cicero's

by the roots confession theological


up in

such,

of faith. Cicero's of

With

the
we

belief have

God, accordingto
seen,

view,
the nected. with

as

already

the
is

conviction

dignity of
This upon him

human
conviction inner
on

nature also

intimatelyconfar
moral
more

depends

experience and
any
nature

self-

consciousness

than

cerning philosophic theory con-

the consider
of
reason

essential
number

of

the

soul.

If

we

the
our

of

our

endowments,
shall become

the

ness lofti-

vocation, the high prerogativewhich


us,
we

confers upon

conscious

of

our

higher

nature

and

descent.3

Accordingly
6h-. III. i. p.

JV: D. iiL 2, 5 ; Legg. ii.7 s$. ; ii.12, 28 ; 33, 70 ; 13, 32 ; DM*, 72, 148. 2 ii.72, 148 Sf[. Dimn, ; N. D.
1

it 28, 71

(Phil. d.
7

311, 1).
3

1*00. I.
17, 8.

*$., 22 sq. ;

Rep.

vt

170

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

Cicero,in agreement doctrine, regards the Deity,an


essence

with
soul

the
as an

Stoic

and

Platonic
of

emanation

the

of
to

himself troubling
or

l without supernatural origin ; developthis notion more ticularly, par-

to

define

the the
as

relation

between

this

supernaturalorigin of
of origin the
nature

soul, and
he

the

material about

the

body.
of

But,
so

is uncertain

God,
that

he
the

expresses

himself

tatingly hesihis
an

about
inclination

of

soul,
to

unmistakablytends
substance,or,
the
at any

though explain it as
a

and

immaterial

rate, as

substance
not

from differing exclude


or

terrestrial matter,2 he
that possibility

will

gether altoof air

it consists

fire; it
that

is

only

the

coarser

materialityof
in

the

body
at

he The

denies unconditionally

respect to
defends

the soul.3

immortality
the

of the soul he

on length,partly

and

universal

ness ground of direct consciousagreement,4and partly by the


;
5

Platonic

arguments
is

if he

also

tries

to

silence

the fear of death, even


in

supposing

that

souls

perish
of the would

death,6 this
and

Academician

merely the prudence of the practical who man


2

Fuse. i. 27
terris

AnimowmmtUa inveniri

Two* Tuso.

i. 27;

29, 70.
60
:

in
"c.

origo
cit.

%"otest,
ma-

LOG.
:

25, 60; Legg. i,

i. 25, certeneceordisnec
s

Non

est

sangidnis nee
Anima,

8, 24 mani,

JZxstitisse serendi

yuandavi
generis
in
aiictum

cerelri
sit animus

nee

atomorwn.

turitatem

Iwt-

qiiod sparswn.
divino
mnnere.

terras sit

atqiiesatum
animorum

ignisveneseio; nee rne fateri me nescire pvdet^ tft istos, 29,70. l.c.2Q,65; guodnesciam;
4

Cunigue
homines
e

Tuse.

i. 12

sgg.

; L"%1.

c.

4 ;

co)K"rent alia giiibiis mortali

Cato, c.
5

smipserint, giice genere f rag ilia essent et cadiica,, a)ii~ tamen a mum, esse 'ingen"ratum,
Deo. Of.

21 sqq. Tusc. i. 22

sqq. ;
;

JS^A vi.
^

Goto, 21,

77.

17, 8 ; Cato, 21, 78. 6 Tuse. i. 34 5^. Famil. v. 16.

J$p. act

172

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

Yet
a

the

direction philosophical
l

taken author This

by

so

famoussarily neces-

scholar

and

so

well

known

an

must

have Cicero
assures

been

influential.
of in

direction

was,

us,2 that
had
attended
on

Antiochus, whose
Athens
3

tures lec-

Varro in

and

Varro

his

treatise

gather
in

from
sense

can philosophy,so far as we Augustine,4 expressed himself quite

the

of

Antiochus.5

The

sole

aim

of

and

he here tells us, is the happiness of philosophy, of doctrine distinctions man ; consequently those alone to be the schools of philosophy are among
considered of
1

important which relate to the definition is the the highest good.6 Great, therefore, as
Romanorum, Ad he Ad
tore et
3

Doctissimifs

Cic. Acad. Famil.


ix.
:

is called in Sen. and


manorum

again

very

Jffelv. 8, 1 ; Hojustly,mr

i. 3, 12 ; 1, 1, 3 ,8 j August. Civ.

JD. xix.

3, 2

Varro

asserit, auc*

(Quintal, x. 1, 95. Cicero (Acad. Fr. 36). says of him (ap.Augustine, Civ. omnium D. vi. 2), Homine facile
eruditissimus
acutissivno et sine

Antiocho, magistro Oiceronis


Civ. D. Gf
.

suo.
4 5

xix. 1-3.
what

with of In

follows, the
to

ulla duMta-

account

Antiochus

and Augustine tione dofftissimoi is he doetrina (Z.#.)says atque sententiis


ita

p. 94. be to i. 2, 4 made

regard
to

siifpra^ this it is Varro's Acad. the there than

observed
is sc[C[.-)

that Cic.
later

refertus that
of
as

in

book, according

respect
has

to

matters
as

fact

he

achieved
as
a

much

Cicero illam
\

expositions
use

of

Cicero
one

did
2

stylist. Mrgo
mnt

of, only
cit.

of which of Varro.

Ad Att. xiii. 12 : ad cLKaSyfiLKfyv


. . .

is

put
6

into

the mouth

Varrmern

LOG

1, 3

transferamus.
I the the what
e.

JEtenim 25. of In

existimat
tarn
esse
a

ullam

Negate enim secpJiilosopMce


: eo* 'sos
"

QUGB 19; 1.
i

is
c.

Varro's

distet

dicendarn, git"cenon ceteris, quod diver


bonorum
et

mouth

is

placed, as
edition from

doctrine
second

we know, Antiochus, in

habeat
rum.

fines
causa

maloest

Quandoquidem
ut

nulla

of

the

AcaVide
nisi

demica

(Acad. is quoted

i. 4; s^.).

"beatus sit
est

autem gi.iod

Antiochus,

leatum nulla o~brem

facit,ipse est
nisi

which Acad. i. sup. p. 94, with Nostra, tu : 2, 6, agrees physica,


nosti:
ex

pfiandi,

qiiat

cum ex

eontineantur
materia, ea, "c. effeetio,

et effectimie

: quamfioni fiviem, qiice nulluin secta seetatur,nulla $"Jiilosoj)7iia".


"

igitur causa finis boni

finisT)oni: %"Jviloso-

et format gritamfingit

THE

HIGHEST

GOOD.

number

indeed sects Yarro, sometimes possible grounds of distinction, adopting very superficial all fewer than 288 ! enumerates no they may chief classes,if putting aside to a few be reduced relate to the conception of the not does all that
of
" "

CHAP.
'

good highest
But first

we

confine ourselves
concerns

to the

main

tion.2 questo the

this

the relation of virtue

pends thing accordingto nature/ on which again deand therefore its relation to all included herein, freedom
nature

to pleasureand especially to the first thing according

from to be

pain.
of

Is

desired for sake the


own

the

sake

of virtue,

or

virtue
or

for the both

sis etjiwi*

thing according to nature, sakes? This, according to


1

for their
is

Yarro,

the

iunda-

In

their

derivation, Yarro
:

like all other the like probable,

phers; dogmatic philosoother the


new
as

(Z.c. 1, 2) proceeds thus

There

are, he says, four natural objects sence of desire : sensual pleasure,abtion of pain, the combina-

merely Academy.
of them

Since,
can

moreover,

each of life there

adopt
manner

the

ordinary, or the

of
a

these

two,

which

yrvma include all beside these of natural advantages other the of Each and soul body.
four added
can

fourth, the

and, as nature,

Cynic,
et

(k-aMtus
result of
in

consuetudo}

ninety-sis divisions instead forty-eight. Lastly, because


each may of these
to

sections, regard
the theoretical

be desired
to

for the

sake

be had

of virtue

(the excellence
nature

super-

mentality by the instruof teaching) or virtue

the practical (negotlo(otlosus), life of to or a compounded m$\ this treble must ber, numwe both, and thus this
we

may

be
or

desired both
may

for
be

its

own

arrive

at

sake,

desired obtain These far


as

288.)
2

independently. Thus we four possibledivisions. become twenty-four, so


a iT"a.Ti

That

is the of the Yarro

case

with

the named

majority
by Mm,
1.
c.

divisions himself

desires for his

each
own

of

them
or

shows,
3

3,

c.

2, beginning.

merely
for that four
are

welfare divided the


as

of others. The

twentyinto
one

The

jynma
-nature
=

TiMturce, ]m,mira

again of which forty-eight,


half

ffenia 309,1;

irfwra

Kara,

Q"ffiv (of.Phil,
257,2;

d. Gr. HI.

i. p.

pursue

their

end

true,

253, 1).

174

ECLECTICISM,

CHAP, VL

mental

questionof
back
to

all

It, he goes
is

For a replyto philosophy.1 the conception of man, it as

only on this basis we can decide what is the is neither But man body highestgood for man. but consists of both soul exclusively, together. nor His highestgood must, therefore, consist of goods
of the

body

as

well

as

goods

of

the

soul ; and

he

desire for himself the first things must consequently But the highest and virtue.2 to nature according of these goods is virtue, the ait of life acquired by

instruction.3

As

it includes

in itself that also


was now

which

is

accordingto nature, which


the existence
its
own

present before
desires all for

of virtue
in

"

virtue

sake, and

pal consideringitself as the princi-

good, it enjoysalso all other goods,and ascribes to each the value belonging to it according to its does not hesitate, relation to the others ; but equally
on

if this account, to sacrifice the lesser,


to

so

it must

be,

the how
do

greater. "When
many
not

virtue

matter

other

kinds

be, they
not

profittheir

wanting, no of goods there may they are possessor,

is

goods,because he makes a bad use of them. of the bodily and of virtue and In the possession mental advantages conditioning it,lies happiness; virtue other goods with which this increases when added ; it is perfected are in itself could dispense,
his
1 2

Loc. C.

tit.

c.

2. That the Varro

is

an

inaccuracy
ascribe

which

we

3, 1.
in

gri^a,
has natural

must

to Yarro

himself,

natura

which

and
3

previously

included

merely to Augustine, doctrina Virtutem, guam


not

of advantages and dispositions with here identified mind, is the totalityof corporealgoods,

inserit

velut

arteim
ars

vivendi

"

virtus, i. e. I. c.

agendce

HAPPINESS.

175

when
and

all

goods of
to

soul and

complete.1
for

But

and sociability,

together to this happiness also belongs virtue the which disposition


are

body

found

CHAP. yi'

wishes

others for their this

sakes the

same

goods as
not

itself ; and

must disposition

extend

only to

the

family and

state

to

which
to

each

man

belongs,
realisation

but also to mankind and

and

the whole
Its

world,heaven

earth,gods and men.2

external

is to be

sought neither in the theoretical nor in the life as such, but in the combination of the practical But it must be absolutely of its principle two. sure : the principles concerninggoods and evils must not be considered merely probableby us as by the philosophers
of the

Academy, they
the
doctrine like

must

be the

able. unquestion-

Academy his master which Yarro, Antiochus, professes.3 find no remarkable In this discussion we philosophic what and no new : it contains peculiarity thoughts, belongsto Yarro himself in the views of Antiochus
transmitted
acuteness

This

is

of

old

by
of
at

him

is

characterised
nor

neither

by
at

judgment
least
see

by vivacity of style.
Yarro had
arrived and reflection,

But

we

can

that

these
1

views

by his

awn

that
further

the
on).

Hcee

virtute
ris

ergo vita hominis, qiice et corj)0et aliis animi


esse

sima
2

(c. 3, 1,
Varro with but the

c.

is therefore

banis, sine quibus virtus

one

quite at Stoic cosmopolitan-

nmyotest

he deduces from it the ism; belong, as feel is afterwards can explained, life, proposition that man at home everywhere: memory), fruitur, beata, himself reason,

(to

these

esse

sine

allis, exile, he says, (ap. Helv. 8, 1) is not in evil, %uod qiiooumgue rel ullis vel pluribus, leatior : eadewi -ut natitra, omnibus, rerum si autem gworsus
didtur
:

si

vero

et

Sen. itself wnimm

Ad
an

qmtnis

esse

virtus

yotest,

utendum

nullnm rel animi

owmino

fto-iium

desit

est.
3

vel

beatiscoryoris,

Aug. L

tf.

2.

176

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

whole
"

tendency
of it
to

of

Antiochus
which
to

corresponded
must

to
mended recom-

his

i
-

way

thinking:that
him the
to

have

and

his

countrymen,

was

no chiefly

doubt

aim of this philosophy, practical

and

that

regard
in

the necessities

of life which

is

prominent

its theories

constituents of the
value of them. But Chus
t0

concerningthe highestgood, and the


influence allowed

various

relative

the

greater the

by

Antio-

the less can wonder we doctrine"1 other quesif Varro approached it in regard to some tion than his If in he ethics.2 still more closely is breathed in the soul to be air which explained in in the breast, and warmed through the mouth the Stoic order
to

spread itself thence

through the

body,3

he allied himself with by reducingit to the Pneuma to which also is Antiochus the Stoic materialism, no stranger.4 He further discriminated with the three gradationsand forms Stoics the well-known
of

soul-life.5 of

But

his

connection

with
In or,

the

Stoic

is theology

importance. especial
universe
as

agreement
more

with

it,he

explained the

cisely, pre-

the soul of the universe the parts of this

the

the souls world-soul,

Deity: only in the ruling


in Ci

\ Cf.
-

sup. p

92.
to

m(,ne,

temperate
in
v-

corde,difVarro
is L
"*

He

himself, according
the

fusus
Lat"

corpus.
:
'

59

2, 8) had
.

Jj. tins, , 11, 4), for his instructor.


*
m

i of Pansedisciple Stilo (si(jp. JElius p.

animalism
anima
*

semen mens mv.

ignis

auk

ac

Vide

Lactant.

O^f.D.17:

Varro
see

Augustinef Civ.
followingnote

p. 95 saa

D.

vii

2
*

est aer con: anima dejinit inpuldefervefactiis ore, ceptm 'ita

THEOLOGY.

177

different parts of the world,


in the

gods

of

they who polytheism,down


are

are

shipped wor-

CHAP. VI.

to

the

genii and
he
drew
a

heroes.1
marked

But,

like Panaatius

and

Scsevola,
and if

distinction and

between

natural

mythical philosophical,
1

civil

and theology,2
and
water

Varro
antur

Augustin. Civ. says : Quod hi


animadvertisse
git I credlderunt motu
ac

D.

iv. 31
esset
esse
mit/i-

into earth quam

heaven into into

soli el mde-

heavens

sether and

earth, the air,the


earth:

quid
eum
tone

and

Deus,
animam dum
vii. 6 ergo

\_quas~\omnts
esse acre

quatuor

rat

Cartes aninturum
"ftJiere et
at

ph'tms^ i n,
u?n,

LOG. cit. gubernantem. Dicit 9 : repeatedly) (c. idem


et

imma-rfali

in

Varro
e$$e

Deinn
. .

se

aqua, the outermost


as

terra

niortaliiini ; from circle of heaven, the the

arbitrari
.

animam

mundi
mundum

far

as

to

Jiwic
:

ipsum
sit ab
ex

moon,
et

extend
between

sphere of the heavenly


and

esse

Deum

sect sic tit liomimm

eum sap lent em, tamen animo,

corpora
Deum
ex

gods; region
atiimas

this
et rocari

the
ess"

of
.
.

clouds
.

aereas

animo

did

sapientem ; ita, mundum Kit did ab animo, cum


et

lares
c. :

animo 23

genios. 9, he (for only Yarro


et

Also

Jteroas et in Z. c.
can

"be

corpore.
in the Dii

Loc. book

eit.

vii.

intended)
Tiabens
in

calls

Jupiter,

Deus

(Yarro
the animce

concerning

potextatem
11, and
to
c.

tres esse affirmat sttlecti] unieeri* o-mni gradus

qitibusallqitidJft
c.

causa/rum, in mwndo

13, he

priates approfrom

in saque not lira, those discussed Phil d. 6-V. III. i. 192 : Nature, the irrational soul, and reason.

himself have

(for Augustine
this

must

taken

Hand

gartem

(their rational
diclt fj.oj/LKbv) autem genium tem
. .
.

untndi anivifB their -rjyepart,

of Soranus him) the verses in which n. end), 74, (sup. p. progenitor Jupiter is called

Deujn,
vocari.
itt

in

noUs
aitam

genltrixque
28 the he derives from active Juno female
or

Defim

and

in

c.

JSsse
err

the male

ties divini-

in mundo tit
ossa,

lapides act
iingites

heaven

Dei.

or Jupiter as principle, and the

Solem

vero,

lunam,

stellas, qitfs
sent it,

divinities
as

from

the earth the ideas all these

sentimiis
sensus
essa

qiiibusyueipse

the

passiveprinciple,
denotes That either the

ejus.
esse

JEtliera parro
:

while
as

Minerva

animwm

ejus
in

ex

eujusvi
ipsam
makes in

prototypes.
or

qitce into

pervenit

astro,

are propositions

directly
Stoicism,

qiioq'ue facere

Deos

Gods) ; et per terrain permeat,


lurem,
meat in

eat

(it qiwd
inde

Stoic,

allied with from

is evident

duced proofs ad-

Deam

Telperlarly Simi-

quod
mare esse

antem

atque

oceamtm^

d. Gr. IH. i. p. 138 315 6 146, sqq. 325. ; sqq. ; 2 Aug. Z. c. vi. 5 : Tria genera
in Phil.

Deiim, in

Neptunim..
6,the world

dicit the
N

esse

(in

the

last books
"x

of
. . .

c.

is divided

cf. Antiquities,

3)

178

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
YI.

lie censured the


most

the absurd

mythology of
and

poets for relating unworthy things about the


that
he

the

he gods,1 blame
in

did not

conceal

had

also much

to

clared de: for example, he public religion that the worship of images was defilement a of the true worship of (rod ; that,for his part, the doctrine of the Deity would and philosophic suffice,3 that he regarded the religion of the State merely civil institution, as a which, in the interest of the commonwealth, must make the most important concessions
2

the

to the weakness

of the masses.4

In

all this trine doc-

there

is
as

nothing which goes beyond the Stoic taught by Pansetius,but nothing on


unum

the

eorumque tiwn the

mythicon
The third
is

ap-

tribuuntur, qua:
Jwmin"m tissimum
2

non

modo
in

in

pellari,alterum,
civile.

pliysicon, terfirst includes the

sed

etiam

contempsunt. poscient an-

hominem
cit. iv. 31. the

cadere

poets, the
the In that the

second

philosophers, states (pothere is

LOG.

'The

puli}.
much and

first
to

Komans,'
without hue Dii
tetur

opposed
the

(vide
nature

shipped says Varro, worgods for 170 years,

following note)
"

dignityof the Deity ; to the second belong 2Hi qui sint, ubi, quod genus, quale, a qiioan a tern/pore sempiterno ex an fuerint ; igne sint ut credit Heraclitus, an ess

images: Quod, si admansisset, castius inqitit, o"bservarentur "(vi. 7). Fasicut

forma
ita
eos

humana
delectari

Deos
hu*

nam

fecerunt,
manis
3

credidisse. voluptatibus confesses Varro himself that if he had to


anew,
ex

LOG. cit. iv. 31. State

nitmeris atomis

ut ut

Pythagoras, an ait Epicurus.

ex

Sic
pa-

found

natures

alias, QUGB facilius intra extra rietes in scJiola, quam

in

foro ferre possunt


1

aures.

potius formula Deos nominaque eorwn sefuisse dedieaturutn. 4 That he regarded the religion
I. c. vi. 4, where Varro says, if he had to treat de omni natura Deorum, he would first have to of the
as

Loc.

cit.
ut

(vide the previous


addition
alius
:

note)
enim,

with

the

In
ex

hoc
ca-

State as is institution, evident

of the

political

from

estt

Deus

pite alius exfemore sit alius ex guttis sanguinis natus ; in hoc, ut Mifurati sint, ut adulteraspeak
verint,
ut

servierint hoc omnia

homini
Diis

men

; but

denique in

at-

with

the

gods, and then has only to gods of the State


he

of do he

180

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTEE

VII.

THE

SCHOOL

OF

THE

SEXTII.

CHAP.

THE

school of the Sestii the Eoman


not
so

among
F.

occupiesa peculiarposition But even this school philosophers.

School

"f

^f.
school.

independent of the contemporary Greek its achievements nor were so important, philosophy,
was

History of
tUe

long Its founder,Quintus Sextius, duration. was a Eoman, later contemporary of Q" g00(^fam-Qy? a somewhat in career Augustus,1who had rejecteda political order to devote himself whollyto philosophy.2After
as or

to obtain

for it any

extensive

influence

Sen. JSjy. 98, 13 : Honores it a pater Sextius rejpj)ulit qm deberet natuSy tit remp/ul)Uca"ni
1
,

quoted by Ott,
indicate 7 ; refer been
or

p. 2, 10, rather contrary. Jfy). 59, 64, 2 sift. ; De Ira, ii. 36, 1, the treatise. either written taken In
an

capessere, Julio dante tMs latest must years


imd must

latwti
non

ctawni occurred

divo As
at

recepit.

only to his Ira, iii.36, 1, may


taken from
a

De

have
work

have 43

in have old

Sextius B.C., and at least 25-27 been

from

oral tradition. have been tradition.

JSp.73,
from. of after

12, may
such the
2

(cf. Ott, Character


SprucJie
birth
even

Ej). 108,
account

Urspr. der Sextius^. 1),his

des

17, Seneca

gives
of he the

must
what some-

be

doctrines
as

Sextius,
says. Virt. kv

placed in
Chron. dates the
at
zu

earlier. the

70 B.C. or When

Sotion,
and 77:

himself
in

Eusebius,

Vide Plut.

preceding note,
5, p.
rbv

01. 195, 1 (1 A.D.), prime 'of Sextus

Prof,

Ka6dir"p ^Qnov "j"a.crl


ras

Pythagorean
that
our

philosopher
is too late That

'

rfjTrJ-

period, he
Sextius
was

if

be meant. the older

Seneca

personally
; the

quainted ac,

with

Sextius

o\.lyov
e/c

js

not

probable

passages

rivos

MEMBERS

OF

TMJS

SCHOOL.

181

his death

Ms
of the

son

appears

to

have

undertaken
its

the
we

CHAP. VII.

guidance

school.1
of

Among
been

adherents

find mention

of Sotion

Alexandria,whose
in his
3

astic enthusi;
2

Seneca disciple

had

earlyyouth
It
For this the

Cornelius Celsus,a prolific writer


of

Lucius

Crassitius

Tarentum,4
This

and

Fabianus
from
in Piin.

Papirius*5
Tac. and
name,

became,
the tinction disSotion
same

transition

Ann. the

ii. 85. between

practicalactivityto philosophy
seems

to

be

referred

to

of Peripatetic ride of Phil. d. Gr.

Hist. here had

J\Tat. xviii. 28, 274. Pliny relates how Democritns enriched himself with his of Gr. his

and

ch. 'infra, of

II. ii. 3, xi. note 2. In

traffic I.

(this is also related Thales) in oil (ride Phil. d.


but had who
:

766) gains to
Sextius
rations
"

returned had Hoc

those JRomams which

shared

the theory that the Seneca, and not the the author of PeripatetiCjwas the treatise vcpl OPJTJS, Diels, Doxogr. 255 s$., rightly appeals

support

teacher

in it j and

he adds

sectatori'bus
;

postea adsapientiee Atkenis fecit eadem


does
on

a similarity between Sotion's vepi fragment from

to

the

not

that

he

carried those who

the that

but traffic, for for


1

merely
himself

OPJTJS (ap. Stob. Flor'tl. 20, 53) mean Seneca, De Ira, ii. 10, 5. Also the repeated quotation of same he silenced of Seslius, De utterances Iraf
and him ii. 36, 1, points to this
3

blamed
to

source.
:

devoting
in his There of
a

sophy, philoand all tion tradischool


as nan

QuintiL

s.

1, 124
multa, For

Scrips/it
Cornelius
non

similar

manner,

part

renounced

par-urn CeUus, Sextws


dc

secutus,

sine

profits.
is no express this j but as the is universally described school of the Sextii

cultU' details

jiitore.

further

and

concerning this vide polyhistor,


who

sician phyBern-

the the

hardy,
4

jBoi/a. Litt. 848.

(see

grammarian,

had

for himself already won following note), and the elder siderable conSextius tinguished fame as a philosopher is disa as teacher,, from his son in Smyrna, when he by the especially addition of Pater dimissa, scJwla tranm.it (Sen. "Jp. repente 98, 13 ; 64, 2), it is extremely ad Quinti Septimii [1. Sextii'] Sueton. De probable. jsMlvsopM sectam. 2 Sen. Mp. 108, 17 sqg_.; 49, 2. Jllustr. Gr"mm. 18. The heard at which he This philosopher (of whom age Seneca, Hrevit. Vit. 10, 1 ; Ep* Sotion, Seneca designated by the word juvente, in Mp. 108 ; 11, 4 ; 40, 12 ; 100, 12, speaks in JEp. 49, by jpuer. It may, as of a deceased contemporary
5

therefore,have
20 A.D. This

occurred
date

in 18cf.

whom these

he

had

himself
a

known
to

is also

and dicated in-

heard)

was,

according
man

by

JSp. 108, 22;

passages,

of

excel-.

182

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VII.

however, extinct with these

applausewhich
years it

at

as was lively first greetedit,in Seneca's men


:

the later The

had

already long

since

died

out.1

of this school, too, have writings scattered the exception of some

all been utterances

with lost,
of

the

elder Sextius,of Sotion, and


lent

Fabianus.2
and of Sotion

character,non

ex

Ms

catlie-

Florilegiim. philosopMs, sed ex veris Moreover, a collection of maxims et antigids (JSremt.Vit. 10). His exists in the Latin translation also are lectures and expositions first was greatlypraised by Seneca (JEp. of Kufinus, which in quoted by Orig.e. Cels. xiii. 30, 40* 12; 58, 6; 100); and the with as designation 2e|Tou Ep. 100, 9, he is described is often used in regard yv"fji.ai, author to whom, an by Por" to style, phyry, Ad Mareellam, without only Cicero, Pollio, and of the writer, and be of Livius to preferred, mention are which there in is deficiencies a certain Syrian edition, though also Seneca him are admitted. ap. Lagarde,.4w#fe0fe"Syr. Lpz.
drariis
in the same says wrote he nearly

by Seneca, by Stobseus

also,

in the

place
as

that
on

1858.

(On
of

the this

two

Latin the

censions re-

much and

and

later in from Sessti Lati-

philosophy as
mentions IA~bri Artiiim
to

Cicero;
(I.
e.

he his The

editions, cf.
the which I
now

Gilclemeister
edition cite ;
recensiones

besides the
to

1)

preface to his

Civilmm. in

are

ectnres alluded
to

seem

have

people 52, 11, nami JBj?. of a philotim been sophical


The ii. older

which

Sententiarum

Grr"Gam
Bonn. esoJi.

Syriaeas c"Yijunc1873).
This lection, colcalled the

character.

sometimes
or

jv^ai
ridion, enchitime
was

Seneca,

Cantrovers.

Prcef."

sententicv,sometimes
and, since
also
use

of a disciple says that he was he Sextius (theelder)by whom


was

of

Kufinus,
much named in

annuliis,
among
the

self persuaded to devote himof to philosophy instead To Ms


manner

tians. Chris-

Its author

is sometimes

rhetoric. Some
to

of

writing, Seneca
utterances

is less of Sen.

partial. or
his
are

Sextus,sometimes Sixtus, while most Xystus; and


as a Pythagorean others philosopher, see the Eoman bishop Sixtus

writers
in him

describe him

be

found

ap.

Con.s. ad Vit. 10, 1 ;


:

Marc.

23, 5

; JSrwit.

13, 9
1

Qu. iii.27, 3. ; Nat. Sen. Nat. Qu. vii. 32, 2


nova

more

Sextwrum,
roloris
cum

et

Homcml
sua,

secta

inter

initia

vtiagno stinota est. 2 Of these

escwipetu ccepisset,

120 A.D). Of writers,many (#.#. Lasteyrie, Sentences de Sextvus* Par. 1842 ; and Mullach, Fraym. ii. 31 sg.) regarded the PUlos. recent maxims
as

(or Xystus,

about

the

work of the

of
more

three

philosophers

heathen

and philosopher,
one

something has

been

preserved especiallyof

two

DOCTRINES.

Whatever

can

be

deduced

from of the
his

these

ances utter-

CHAP YII.

respecting the
Sextii. discovers first Bitter
to

doctrine

serves school, *
own

(How
this On

Ott, 1.
do
not

c.

opinion
the other

i. 10, in my stand.) underthem

edition, I

hand,

(IF. 178) believes


the of
a

terated,
nevertheless untenable. In the
accer ana"

hypothesis is

5,

first that the

place

the

presupposition
Sextii
was tences, sen-

one

of

the

two

author

of the collected be most itself claimed

be

Christian
work

tion rehabilitaa

would if this work

uncertain such

belonging to

Sextos, arid possibly to our much so Sextius, but in which


that that Ewald is Christian it has
as an

authorship,
appearance But we have that wished
two

for it only made its in the third century.


no

is interwoven

reason

to think sentences

less entirelyusehistorical authority.

become

the writer
to appear

of the
as

one

of the ancient him

(G6U.

sqq. ; Gesok. sqq.')on his

Aug. 1859, 1, 261 d. V. Isr. vii. 321


side declares of the the tion collec-

Sextii.

The

most

authorities Sextus
; to

always
later

call

writers,

quent subse-

have Ruiinus, as we of sayings to be the true seen, also Sixtus,or Xystus, but ginal, never oritranslation of a Christian Sextius (of.Gildemeister, he Latin I.e. lii."g".) the value of which ; so likewise iISS, cannot (1. c. 33v. "?".) and the sufficientlyexalt, and he the Syrian revisers (I. c. xxx. ^.), authorship of which Eoman Sixtus. who both say Xystas. We to the ascribes can, that Meinrad therefore, only suppose Ott, lastly, in three called himself tus, Sexthe author discourses {Gharakter imd ""-

Syrian

recension

sprung Die

der

SprucJw
*

des

Pldlo1861
;

and

not

Sextius.

Ott's

sopJtenSextius, Eottweil,

theory
a

would

oblige
between

Stjrische
'

Auserte"enen
; Die

radical

to pose supdifference to
us

SprmlieJ Syrische
ibid. the the been sentences

"c., ibid. 1862


Auscrlesenen

have
to
was

existed of the

the

trine doc-

SprucJie?
that the

elder Sextius
one

(who,

1863), maintains
were

quote only this


so

composed
Sextius, in whom
of

by
the have
"

opposed
of p. Ms

to

passage, strict the

younger school

monotheism

the

sentences,
he calls and
all the
ception, ex-

original tendency essentially

infra,
the that of

186, 4, that
son,

Sextian

is said to

highest god

Jupiter)

modified

whereas

partly by Pythagorean, partly ancient fluences inand especially by Jewish and placed on a purely of the
"

authorities, without

speak only of
Sextii
must
;

one

school lence vio-

and

equal
to the

monotheistic
as

basis. has the later

But

pletely com-

be done

sense

he

proved against
Syrian
sion recen-

and 32

the
in

expressionof
Seneca,
Nat.

the

Ewald is which

that
a

Qu.
Nora

passage vii. in

the its

rechauffe,in translated original,


down,
obli-

(vide

preceding note)
in the

order
twnim

to rind

Se%-

by
and

Eufinus, is watered

originalcharacter

younger

Sehola the school of the distinct Sextius as

184

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VII.

to confirm

the

judgment
ethical

of Seneca

that it and

possessed vigour
to

Indeed
from
that
as

great
of the his

importance
aliis;p.
i. 12. 60

the

father, especially
harmonises elsewhere Sextius
. . .

(cf.p. 58)
certain, but

John,
theless never-

stand-

point.roloris
with says
acrem,

predicate Romani
Seneca elder

Less

entirely
what the
:

probable,is the
between

tion connec-

of

("fp.
viriwi

59, 7)
moribus

Sextium

pp. 233 and Matt. andCMatt. 28 273, v. 29 v. ; pp. 13, and 30 8 1 xviii. John, s%. ; p. s%. ; i. 5. 133
to

Grtecis verbis,Momanis
and pJiilosoflkantem),
on

Also

the him

homo

Dei, p. 2,
first

(Rufinus'
the Christian

translation
at p.

would,

the contrary, he little

introduces

3) belongs

of Stoicto a mixture applicable Pythagorean philosophy with Jewish this

nomenclature

dogmas.
the

makes

further

Lastly, and argument


to to
so

unnecessary, Christian New that unmistakable


we

references and
are

conceptions
in the have For

Testament

passages sentences,
suppose been
or

cannot to

their either and many

origin
Roman. echoes

purely Roman,
of

Judaic

(vide 1 Tim. vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. iii. 17) ; likewise films Dei (pp. 58, 60, 135, 221, 439); verbum, Dei 277, 396, "1$);juMciim (pp.264, (pp.14, 347);sceculiim (pp.15, 19, 20) ; electi (p. 1) ; salvandi (p. 143). Note further,the angels (p.32) ; the prophet of truth (p.441) ; the strong emphasising of faith (p. 196 et pass.}. In
many have passages substituted

though

(cf Gildemeis.

expression and modes of thought (as Gildemeister shows, p. xlii.)are duced intromerely apparent, or Christian translators by
and

Christian

ter, I. c.)the
for other

Christian

revisers

jtes andfid'etts At pages expressions.


persecutions at p. 331 tianity Christo.
as

200, 349

sq.t 387, the of Christians,and from


to

the revisers,yet in the case of the admits, writer as others, same the reference
to

falling away
seems

be alluded

definite ment TestaAt


out

in expressions

the New is held

it sentences, have can therefore, stands, only book of been and latest

The

is undoubted. the

prospect
who shall be

p. 39 to

composed by
as

Christian of New there is the

it refers

to

some our

those

live

they
usque
can

wickedly that plagued after

writings of
canon,

tament Tesno

and

their death
q\w novisftinmm

by the evil spirit, proof of its own ab els etiam about the middle estigat
be

existence of in the any

until third
case

only
20 refers
to
x.

guadrantem. explained
of
to

This
as a

century, it cannot have been written


the and If end the of the
not possibly

long

before

reminiscence
p.

Matt. Matt.

v.

26;

second

century,
to

p. 110 p. 193

to Matt.

xv.

xxii. 21 ; 11 ; 16 sqq. ;

until the third.

doctrines

peculiar

Matt.

to Matt.

28, where

xix. 23 ; p. 242 sent are Christianity thoroughly ab8 ; p. 336 to Matt. xx. of from it,and the name the Sia.KovriBriva.i is not responds Christ coronce mentioned,

to

the

ministrari

ab

this

only proves

that the author;

PREDOMINANCE

OF

ETHICS.

185

of

ancient

Kome,

but

that

it contained

nothing
The

CHAP,
VII.

different from

the doctrines

of Stoicism.1

only

the thingthat distinguishes


is the exelusiveness with

Sextians

from

the Stoics

selves they confined themin this they agree with to ethics ; but even the later Stoicism and with the Cynics of Imperial times. to have absolutely Though they do not seem condemned physical enquiry,2 they soughtand found their strength elsewhere. A Sextius, a Sotion, a

which

Fabianus,
influence
did
not

were

men

who

exercised

wide

moral percase

by their personality;3and
his work

to

their
is the

intend but

only for

more

ingenuitythan
the

Christians, as well, and wishes by of it chiefly to means mend recom-

for non-Christians

with

attempt

of J. R. Tobler

(Annulm Rujini,i. ; Sent. Sext. Tub. 1878). 1 the universal 2fat. Qit. vol. 32; Ep. 59, principles of monotheism and of Christian 7 (vide p. 677, 4 ; 679) ; Ej). he himself 64, 2 : Liber Qu. Sextii jsatns, morality. Whether called Sextus, or whether was magni, si quid miki credis, tin, he falselyprefixed the name of et, licet neget, Stmci. 2 In regard to an Sextus Fabianus at imaginary philosopher from see Sen. Nat. (who in that case no doubt was rate, we any Qu. iii. 27, 3, that his opinion already described by himself as

Pythagorean), cannot
As before
not
as seem

be
to

about certained. asIII.

the diluvium ii. 156

(PMl.d.
of

Grf

observed,
nounce an-

#f.) was
that

somewhat Seneca.

the

work

does itself

different

from,

composi- He must, therefore, have held tion of one of the Sextii. Still, the general Stoic theory on the It is certainlyprobable that the subject. 3 Cf. concerning Sextius,beauthor borrowed the sides greater the Ms of sentences from 1 quotation supra, p. 82, part 1 (Sen. JBjp. 64, 3) : Quantum in philosophers;but as he never he derived any Dl tells us whence illo, tioni, est, quantum t-iffor ! Other animi of them, Ms collection, as Bitter philosophersinless stituiint, disputant, cai'illantuT^ rightly decides, is wholly usenon an as fadunt aniwum, quid non, authority for the "habent : eum, The legeris Seoctium, history of philosophy. dices ; vivit^iget, U6eregt,*upr" attempt to separate from it a garded homimm est,dimittit me plenum, genuine substratum, to be rethe work of the two as concerning ingentis Jiducits ;
the

bextii, would
even

be

purposeless,
with

Fabianus

if it

were

undertaken

ing sup. 181, 5 ; concernSotion, Sen. J8p. 108, 17.

183

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, VIL

sonal than the but

they attached to scientific enquiry : we emotions, says Fabianus,


influence with enthusiasm have
that
no

much
must not

greater value

fight against
with subtleties learned

and

concerning
purpose
in be

labours

which
is

moral would

view, his
better
a

judgment
pursue
no

it

perhaps

to

science,than is, as
strike
press of

sciences

of such

kind.2

The

life of man,

Sextius he
can

battle with
in readiness

folly;only
to

constant a argues,3 who perpetually stands encounter successfully

the enemies this reminds Stoicism

who
us

round

him
and

on

all sides.

If

Stoicism

especiallyof the

is period,the resemblance still more strikingin the propositionof Sextius than achieve nothing more that Jupiter could a man.4 this Stoical character,two virtuous With of the
Eoman

which other traits, from the

Sextius

seems

to

have

borrowed

are Pythagorean school, quite in harmony : the principle of rendering account to oneself viz., 5 of every and at the end day of the moral profit

results of it ; and

the renunciation
was

of based

animal

food. latter

Sotion, however, precept


upon it

the first who

the
:

the

transmigration of souls
on

Sextius

inculcated
1

only
:
.

the
4

ground
Sen.

that

by the

Sen. Brer.it. Vit. 10, 1 dieere Fabiamis


. .

Solenon-

bat
tra

Sewtius
won

Eg. 73, 12 : Solebat Jovem dicere, plus

subadfeotus impetu non tilitate pugnandmi, 'necminutis avervolneribus, sed incursu


tendam atiem
emm
non

'bomim virwn, posse, quwm which Seneca carries further in the


sense

discussed,PMl.

d. Gr.

yrobam
contundi

cavillationes

de-

III. i. p. 252, 1, 2. 5 Vide Sen. De with which cf the


.

fra, iii.36, 1,

lere,
2 ^
,

non

vellicari.

Pythagorean
sgg.

Ibid.

13, 9.

Golden
7.

Poem,

v.

40

Ap.

Sen.

Ep. 59,

388

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

definitions
'

from
find

the

Platonic-Aristotelian

doctrine. school
it is

We

therefore
and

nothing
noticeable

in

their

that "branch
to

is of

new

scientifically
which
of its for

Stoicism,

doubtless
founder

is

indebted
it

merely
had
an

the

personality
existence

that
but

dent indepensee

time

we

can

in

its

points
nism

of

contact

with
in

Pythagoreanism period
systems

and

Platostarted

how

easily

that

which

from

entirely
coalesce

different
the

speculative
basis consider of

presuppositions,
when theoretical
similar
once

could

on

morality,
distinctive than

men

had

begun
of
less and

to

doctrines aims

consequence that
of

tical pracin

there
Stoa

was

inherent
natural

the
to

ethical
the views

dualism which

the
most

tendency opposed
to
"

were

strongly
their

the
to

materialistic

monism

of

metaphysics,

and

their

anthropology.

PHILOSOPHY

IN

THE

IMPERIAL

ERA.

189

CHAPTER

Till.

THE

FIRST

CENTURIES
OF THE

AFTEK STOICS.

CHRIST. SEXECA.

THE

SCHOOL

TEE

mode

dominant the

thought which tad become preduring the first centnrj before Christ in
philosophy, maintained
itself
far
were

of

CHAP.

Grreco-Eoman
in

Section

II.

JEtelerti-

likewise

the

succeedingcenturies.
or

By

the

cu

of its representatives,indeed, greater part * * " ^ r

ad- "
nes

after
The
"

herents

of

one

other

of the

four

great schools
was

into which

the domain third

of Greek

science

divided

A.

after

the

centurv.
*

The

of these separation r afresh

G-entral

schools

had, indeed, been


:

confirmed
one

by

two

circumstances

on

the

hand

by the

learned

study of the writingsof their founders,to which


had especially Peripatetics such
zeal since

the with

im

devoted
of

themselves
;
on

the

time

Andronicus

the

Zeal

for

other, by the
cbief after
sects

institution

of
"*"

publicchairs
in the era.1
___

for the four

OftkeanOe

which

took

place
of
our

second
This
,

century
,
.

the

beginning
have of the

learned

must activity

tended
different

to make

the
more

racteristics chaspecial

systems
AJiad.

distinctly

1
.

Cf. 0. Muller,
ap.
.

Quam
Rom.

citmm

resp.
. .

Grtec.

et

liter-Is Sckr.

impenderit (Gott. Mint- demia CJir. comtituta, 1837), p. ~L"$qq.; semdo securido^. ladungsschrift, the quotaand (Marb. 1858), Zurnpt, Ueb.".Bestandd.pTiilos.
Atlien* A~bh* d. Berl. tions
at p. I.

"1. 1842 ; JERg6.-PML 4.4:sgg. ; Weber, De AeaAtheniendum IMeraria,

190

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

and perceived, eclecticism of

to
an

refute

the

idea upon
and Cicero

which had them

the fallen
were

VIII.
Endow-

Antiochus

ment of
"piiblio chairs

back,

viz

that the

between divergences

founded

rather upon
it

differences of words, than

ters mat-

of

of fact ; and

might
much

form

to the counterpoise
more

philo-

sophy.

eclectic tendencies
it
was

of the time
to

the

since easily,
as

directed

as

the

defence,

to

the

of explanation,

the heads

of the ancient

schools and

of their doctrines.
not

In Borne, where

in the first century

was

only Stoicism, but philosophyin general, mistrust, quarters with political regardedin many and had had to suffer repeated persecution,1
of
were philosophy

publicteachers
1

first established

The

banishment
from

of Attalus
Borne
under

Nero)\ and

Seneca

(^?. 5,

the

Stoic

Tiberius
that of
were

(Sen. Suaso?: 2), and


Seneca the under result of

it sqq. ; 14, 15 ; 103, 5) finds the disciple fco warn necessary of

Claudius,
a

philosophy against comingin any


or manner

not

dislike

forward

at

all

upon On the other laws


men

principleto

philosophy. conspicuous
Nero,
or cause

hand, under
had

offence
more as

were

multiplied against

the

calculated to and much so ; this had been


and

who

acquired
their in the school
Plautus

to many, prejudicial
was

strengthened
of mind

dence indepenof and the banish of

Stoics
were

Thrasea
.

Psetus, Seneca,
;

Lucanus, and

Rubellius

sophy philotrust. regarded with misfaction dissatisThe political displayed by the Stoic Cynic philosophers after
of all Helvidius

put

to

death
Helvidius and

Musonius,
Priscus

execution

Cornutus,
were

Priscus

occasioned
from Borne

Vespasian to
teachers
tion excepof them ported transthe be

banished

later

on);
first

(furtherdetails though these


have had in

philosophy,with
of Musonius
even

persecutionsmay
the
instance

; two

politicalor
a

he
and

caused

to

personalreasons,
had
itself

trust generaldisStoic

already manifested

against the

sophy philoStoi-

(Dio Cass. Ixiv. 13) ; this precedent was wards afterfollowed Domitian. by
irritated
of Junius

which especially,
comm,

Being

by

the

gyrics paneon

adrogantia sectaqite qnoe and turftidos et negotwrum adjveten- Tbrasea caused tes faciat (as Tigellinus, only ap.
Tac, Ann.
xiv.

Rusticus and

he Helvidius,
Busticus
to be

not the

57, whispers

to

son

of Helvidius

executed,

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF

PHILOSOPHY.

191

as

it

seems

"by Hadrian
Pius
:
2

and

in. the

provinces, "by
larly simiVIII.

Antoninus

rhetoric

had

alreadyteen
Alexandrian

provided
and

for

by

some

of their of the

predecessors/
seum,, Muthe support

the ancient
and

institution

its maintenances
men

designed for
various

of learned
continued
but
out

of the exist in

most

sorts,had also

to

the

Eoman

period.4 Public
T"

ordered of Rome Sueton.

all

philosophers good absolutely$ia


elVcu
3 TQUS

"nraviovs

3;

(Gell. N.A. xv. 11, D"ndt. 10; Plin.

$tXo(ro(j""vyTa$1
we

Thus

hear

of

Vespasian,

iii.11 ; DIo Cass. Ixvii. 13). JEp. and But these isolated rary tempomeasures

have
to

done

any

especially (Sueton. Vtsp. IS), he jwimus that e fisco laftnis do not seem to grcechqite rhetoribus (perhaps lasting injury in the first place only to one
rhetorician
16:
anmta

philosophicstudies. 1 Of. Spartfan. Hadr.


es,

for

each

speech)
torician rhe-

centena

(100,000 sestert.)
first Latin in 89

itiJiaMles

qiii profestdoni STUB vldebantur^ ditatos dimia-professione honoratosqiie would only have $it, which been possibleif they had before Still less is possessed them. text proved by the previous conesetJwno: Omnes professor etdivites fecit. That these yamt relate not statements merely to rhetoricians, grammarians,
Doctor

conxtitmt.
so

The

endowed,
was,

the
to

year

69,

according
Ckron.
second

Hieron,

Eus.
a

Quintiiian;
xiii. 22). 4 Of. Das

A.D., under

.V. A. Hadrian, Castricius (Gell,

Zumpt,

Alexandria.

I. c. ; Museum

Farther, (Berl.

"c., but
is shown
2

also

to

philosophers,
connection. P. 11: per JRhe(mines

91 gqq.; O. Mnller.Z./?. 29 the statement From p. gq. Cass. Ixxvii. (Bio 7) that Cara-

1838), p.

by

the

Ant. Capitolin.
et honores

calla took from of Alexandria

the

Peripatetics
of hatred to

(out

torilnis et

prorindas

Aristotle, on supposed poisoning of their detulit. Syssiria and other Moreover, teachers of fers and sciences Parthey (p. 52) Inprivileges, physicians were This with probability that there exempted from taxation. favour, however, in a rescript also (though perhaps only in

philosopMs

account

et

solaria

the der) Alexanof

of

Antoninus

to

the

Commune
Modest-in. xxvii in
a

the his been

time

of

Hadrian
to

or

one

of
had

Asics Exous.

(quoted
it ,*
was

from

successors)the philosophers
the
into
museum

Digest,
to to

1,

belonging
similar

6, 2)
to

restricted

regard
certain

divided the

the

physicians

institution in

A schools. to the museum,


was

number of the
the

according city; but in regard to to hold philosophersit was

the

size founded

Athenasum,
.

Rome by Hadrian (Aurel.Victor. Cces. U ; cf Dio

192

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VIII.

teachers

from

the

four

most

important Schools of
Aurelius
in

were philosophy1

settled

by Marcns
but arch need that of if the
a

Cass. Ixxiii. 17 ; tin. 11 ; @ord. Sever. for the


was

PerCapitolin. 3 ; Lamprid. maintenance


man

existing scholwas

school such
was

not

in
a

35),

That

of

assistance,
named
so

learned
attached

admitted

second

teacher

side that two


a

to it,is not by side with, him, have school the may expressly stated ; whether of Tertullian words {Apologet. simultaneously one the school, and one 46), statuis et salaribus remualso
"

had chosen

by

nominated

nerantur

(the
to
we

philosophers), by
or

relate

Rome
do

to

the

not

know,
to

they
western
1

probably
Marcus

refer

passage is not in however, Lucian, provinces, view. to this As favourable but the the the philosophers whom the
are

the

Emperor.

The

countries. alike for thef

That

Aurelius
our

with endowed Emperor drachmas of 10,000 salary appointed are first spoken of,and we schools with

then

"

the

told Stoic,Platonic,Peripatetic,
"

and

Epicurean salaryof 10,000

teachers drachmas
v.

"%os

KO.I Tii/a avrcav "pa"fi.v ewyrS"v Tlspnrar'fiTiK"v aTTodaveiV,


erepoz/, this

each,
ii. SopTi,

"rbv ol/jLai

manifestly

is plainfrom
2 ;

Philostr.

presupposes
who there which'
must
were were

that

ing 3 : accordLucian, SunuoJi. Ixxi. Cass. Dio to 3, it was in while he was Athens, after

paid by in two Peripatetics,


the in this other had
two

those among the Emperor

case

schools
sentatives repre-

of the the suppression


of Avidius Marcus Athens this
may

tion insurrec-

each have
of these
Marcus to

Cassius

(176
choice

AJD.)
mankind whom

that in he

'gave all instructors,


with
a

reign. The salaried philosophers,

endowed

yearly
soon over

cording Aurelius, acPhilostr., I.e., gave

stipend.7 At
after, Tatian
the

time,
have

or

to Herodes to

Atticus
Ewi.

;
c.

ing accord-

written their Kal


r"v may

Lucian,

"EXK-nvas in which x6jos irpbs philosophers (p.19) he mentions the Emperor receive from who annual an salary of 600 XPUO"""According to Lucian, I. c., each
of the schools

the candidates claims


eV

brought
before the

2 "/., forward

"PKTTOL
we

K"l Trpecrfivrarot

ffotpcararot either the

rfj 7r6\"i (by which


understand

mentioned

seems

to have

had
we

two
are

public
there of the
'

tors, instruc-

Areopagus, the separate elective


with the under the the schools

a /8ouA^, or council, perhaps

for after the

told
one

how,

of participation

death

of the

concerned,
an

and perial im-

two Peripatetics,'

candidates

presidency of
if
an

disputed before
for with its the

electing
drachmas.

sembly as-

official) ; but
could the be affair
was

vacant

place
the
perial im-

not The

be

ment agreearrived at, to


tification ra-

10,000

sent

to Rome

Zumpt

(1.c. p. 50) offers

decided.
was,

imperial
; and

suggestion that

only

four

sary doubtless, neces-

salaries had

been

given ;

in

all

cases

in par-

PAID

TEACHERS

OF

PHILOSOPHY.

103

Athens,1 which
seat

was

thus

declared

anew

the

chief

CHAP.

of

of these

studies ; and thus the division philosophic schools was not merely acknowledged as an
a

A^Ll.,

existing fact,but
future which

support
then
In the

was

given
of

to

it for the
no

in the

condition

things was
of the

slightadvantage.
of teacher, the

appointment
of

office for

express
to be

avowal

the

system

which
the

he

desired

candidate.2

employed was required from Externally, therefore,the schools


this

remained

sharplyseparatedin
this

period as

fore. hereto-

As

however, separation,
the way of their

had

little to hinder it little in the

rise of eclectic

previouslydone tendencies, so was


The
and

continued

continuance. all divisions

ferent dif-

in spite of schools,

feuds,

approximated internallyto
not

each

other.

actuallyabandon
many

their distinctive
of

They did but doctrines,


the most

they propagated

them,

and

these

as a merely historically striking, without concerning themselves them they postponed them ; or

learned
more

tradition,
with

deeply
the

to

essentially

ticnlar
was

instances

the

teacher named

of the
in the

second V. of of the

probably directly
the

Philostr.
time

Soph.

century, cf. also iL 1, 6, who


Herodes Atticus
Hoy-

by
be

of Emperor ; the words of Aphrodisias may Alexander taken


in

speaks
ruck

either

sense,

"when,

"paKia xtd fieipdKia /ca| "AA"J"


received Z.
c.

e0v"v

in the timius

dedication

of his treatise thanks Ms

"ap0dpcov"vveppv7iK6ratwhomt'he
Athenians
2

he Trepl etpappewis,
Sever M"
as

Sepson,

for money,
4
:
ret.

and
TTJS

Cf. Lucian,

per

Caracalla.

vperepas
avrys

flap-

rvptas
pvy/uevos.
1

5t"5a"77caAos

(the
KC/CT?-

o$v rSsv Xoycav Trpoyy"viffro aitroTs Kal TTJV efiireipiav Tttiv eKarepos
eTreSefteiKTO ^oyfidrasy

Aristotelian the

philosophy)
repute
in and the

Kcd Sn
r"v

rov

"Apta"TaT"\ovs KaL
Athens popnmiddle
$QKovyT"v

On

larity of

194

ECLECTICISM. and principles, in which, the different aims practical schools approached more nearly to each other; or tions, changes and modificathey readily admitted many and without renouncing on the whole their distinctive character, they yet allowed entrance to on which, having originally definitions, grown up not another soil, strictly speaking, altogether were, The Epicurean compatible with that character.

CHAP. VIII.

School
;

alone

held persistently

aloof from

this

ment move-

but it also refrained from


mention.1

all scientific

activity
this
some

worthy of on schools,
form
or

Among
did not

the
none

three

remaining

the contrary,there is
time

in which itself in

tendency of the
other.

manifest

it is their Peripatetics restriction to criticism and of the Aristotelian explanation of independent in which the want writings, is chiefly shown ; with the scientific creative activity it is the restriction to a moralityin which Stoics, of the original the asperities system are for the most the former severity gradually part set aside and in the : gives place to a gentlerand milder spirit Academy, it is the adoption of Stoic and Peripatetic an inr elements, with which is combined increasing clination

"With

the

towards

that

belief in

revelation became

which

in

the third

century through Plotinus

School of
tlu Stoics

of these traits predominant. That none belong to either of these schools will appear on a of them. more thorough investigation If we begin with the Stoics we find that from the till towards the middle of the beginningof the first,
1

wholly exclusively

from tlie
Cf. PMl.

d. Gr. III. i. p. 378, andswp. p. 24 $##.

196

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

most to
us

important of them, and the character most clearly

those

who

represent

of this later Stoicism


Thestis

Xoyos
123

He

6""v (Tzetz. in H. p. TT"pl of. 1. Hist. 146 v. 403). G. ; ; is also in harmony with the

Stoic

theology when
on

in

by Nero, on of an objection he made account that these about it came nomenato the poetical projectsof the pheforetell sometimes Emperor, in 68 A.D. according ever, Porphyry, in to Hieron. in Clwon. (Cf howhappy events. the passage Reimarus on De Abst. iv. 8,end, calls him ei/ in Dio j he conjectures 66 A.D.) (according to he 1. Origen, ":*.) explained how
comets

bouring
"eVTis)
in

(Steph. Byz.
who
was

Africa,

banished
to

(according

to

the

correct in-

tise trea-

statement

of

Suidas,

put

death)

.,

s.

He

was

succeeded his called

In

the

epitome
III. the

of

Diogenes

in

Alexandria who

by
is 'AA.

disciple (Part
by
closes the

Dionysius,
Suidas and
more
was

i. 33, 2) Cornutus series of the Stoics

Aiovvcr.

mentioned 7payujaari/cbs, than will


on.
a

by

this writer. and

Of him has III.

probably, therefore,
a

theoretical works

ical philosophto

of

learned

man

attributed

philosopher.
fully treated
members
were
nus

Seneca the Stoic


"

be

of later

Other school Clarahas

by Suidas, one on the gods been preserved (sup. Part


i. 301 his
mere own

of

"?".);this
treatise abstract in
as

is and

doubtless
not
a

been

the following: (Sen.Ep. 66, 1, 5; he conjectured,though

of

it. Vita
to

He

is

erroneously,to
with the Goer xiv. 59 ; the
most Stoic),
an

bably proidentibe cal

described

the
De

Perm which
Deor. his Further and

Sueton.
Osann details works

tragicus^

Greek
us,

sopher philoAnn. also


a re-

(on Corn.

Nat.

Tac.
was

xxv.) rightlyobjects.

latter

concerning him
will be found

likely

Seneca's

in Martini

lativeAnngeus

Serenus(Sen.
Const, i. 1 ; De
"

Ep. Trangu. An. 1 De Otio}, his friend Passienus Crispus iv. (Nat. Qu. ; Prcsf. 6 ; Bmef. cf i. 15, 5 ; Epigr.Sap. Exil. 6), Persius, Prolegg. viii. sqq. his adherent and Metronax of Cornutus Among the disciples in Naples (Ep. 76, 1-4). He dius were (vide Vita Perm) Claualso tries to include Lucilius of Agathinus Sparta the Stoics, in the letters from (Osann, I.c. xviii., differing among to him. dedicated rary ContempoJahn, p. xxvii.,writes the name is Serapio, from with Mm thus, following Galen, Definit. the Syrian Hierapolis 14, vol. xix. 353 K), a celebrated (Sen. Up. Url). Petronius 40, 2; Steph. Byz. De physician, and Anand Lucius Aristocrates of 'lepa-Tr.); Magnesia, of Cornutus nseus et sanetisswii Leptis 'duo doctissimi neigh- viri,'and the two Roman (Said. Kopv.) or the poets
.

63, 14 ; De

(DeL. Ann. Cornuto, Lugd. Bat. I am 1825, a work with which third at only acquainted hand), Yilloison, and Osann, I. G. ; Praf. xvii. sqq.-, 0. Jahn on

SENECA,
are

EPICTETUS.

HIT

Seneca, Musonius,
on Heracleltns,

Epictetus,
tlie other
without of Plantus

and

Marcus
Is rather
a

CHAP. VIII.

Aurelius.
A, in Persius

hand.

Flaccus 62

(bom

some

reason,

in 34, died Vita Pergii, and 3Iarcus the bom 39 both

A.D., vide Jahn, 1. c. iii. Annseus

Vespasian.
also
was

by order Enbellius
xiv.
to
as

(Tac. Ann.
Is described

sqq.'}and
Lucanns

nephew
A.D., died
death

of 65 for
spiracy con-

22, 57-59) who death by Nero,


a

also put under

Seneca,
A.D.,

Stoic. his

Lastly,
successor?, Eufus

Xero Ms
gether to-

having
canus

put to joined in Piso's (vide concerning


two

and

there lived
and

Musonius

Lu-

discipleEpictetus,
with Pollio and Musonius' and

who,

the has

lives

which 1856

disciples,

Weber

edited, Marb.

Artemidorus,

sq_.; the Vita Persii,Tacit. Ann. other xv. 49, 56 sq, 70, and
statements

compared
whom he Flaccus
says

by

ber), We-

the pupil of Arrianus, will come before us Epictetus, later on. the Euphrates,

of
as

himself

teacher of the younger especially, in who equally admired


account

Pliny,
him
on

regarded his master with the highest veneration. Stoic school To the belonged
Sat.
v.,

of his of

discourses
a

and lived

Ms

character, was

rary contempoand

Epictetus

further, besides the contemptible Celer P. E gnat ins xvt 32; Hist. iv. (Tac. Ann.
10, 40; Juvenal,
two

Dio
iii.

Cass.
114

ML

26;
the

in Syria and afterwards Rome (Plin.JSp. i. 10 ; Euseb. c. Hierocl. c. 33). He is the whom same Philostratus, person
in

first in

$#.), (Tac.

the

life and of
as

of the

Apollonius
author

of

magnanimous
Paetus sgg. ; cf
xv.
.

Republicans
Ann. siii. 49 ; xiv. Cass. bd. Dio Ixvi.

Tyana,
letters

of the
sents repre-

Thrasea xvi. 21 48

Apollonius,
chief

the

opponent

of

sq.f9

23;
Ixii.

this miracle- worker.

"Epictetus

expression of his 10 iv. Domit. Sueton. Nero, 37 : (Diss. 8, 17*^.) and praises ; his discourses Plin. JEp.viii. 22, 3 ; vt 29, 1 : (I. c. iii. 15, 8; Enchir. Pint. Pr"e. Ger. vii. 19, 3; 29, 4). Marcus lius Aurehim. (x. 31) also mentions Help. 14, 10, p. 810; Catolfm. to Apoi25, 37; Juvenal, v. 36; Epict. His passionatehostility lonius is alluded to by PMlostr. Jahn, Diss. L 1, 26 et pass.; same" his F xxxviii. 1. c. Soph. i. 7, 2. The *#.)" and
15, 20;
quotes
an

26;

12;

son-in-law
cus

Helvidius
Ann. xvi.

Pris-

writer

calls him
a

here

and

I. 0.

(Tac.
iv, 5

28-25;

i. 25, 5,

Tynan,

sq. 9, 53 ; Dial, de Sueton. Or at. 5 ; Tesp. 15 ; Ixv. Ixvi. 12 Dio Cass. 7), of ; executed first the was whom Hist,

to

whereas, according Steph. Byz. De Urb.

he was 3Ewi(j)d,v., and Epiphania,

Syrian according
a

of
to
an

Eunap.
in 118 his

F. old

PMlos.

p.

6,

order, and the second who had been already banished by Nero, was put to death, not by
Nero's

Egyptian.
A.D.

Having fallen sick


age, he took Cass.

poison

(Dio

Isis. 8).

198

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. Tin.

collector and the


One crates
same

arranger

of traditional of Cleomedes.

material,and

holds pupils was


Heraclea
Lucian

good
Ti
mo-

Concerning
in several but
not

of Ms

KVK\LK^JQstapia fj."T""p"av ; for


this treatise he mentions earlier

of
to

in

Pontus
cording ac-

(Philostr.F. Soph. i. 25, 5)


Alex.

astronomers,
he follows
at says

(Demon. 3,

Ptolemy;
as

in it

chiefly,
same

57, De

speaks with iim ; and was


of Demonax of

69), who great respect of


himself the the
a

Saltat.

he

the

conclusion,
the tors instruc:

Posidonius.

Within the Stoic

teacher
an

period
lonius Dio Ant.

fall

cynic, and
famous

of Marcus

Aurelius Aurel.

Apol-

opponent

con'

(M.
Ca?s. Philos.

of }uror, Alexander of chos. A disciple

Abonutei-

Ixxi.

17; 35; Capitolin.


PL 10 ;

i. 8,

Demonax,

2,

3 ; Ant.

Lesbonax,
Mm

is Salt. and

mentioned

by
Under

Eutrop.

(J)e

69).

Trajan we find the following names given by Plutarch i. Com-, 9, 1 ; vii. (Qu.
Domitian 7, 1):

viii. 12 ; Lucian. Demon. 31 ; Hieron. Chron. zn 01. 232 ; Whether he Syncell. p. 351. from Nicomedia whom

came or

Chalcis
we

or

Chalcedon not here

need

Themistocles,
and
we

Phithe C
r

enquire).
to

Junius Ms

Busticus,

lippus,
to whom

Diogenianus,
two

imperial pupil

add may philosophers called

always
Aur. imus

in

is

,(M. gave his confidence i. 7. 17; Dio, I.c ; Capitol.

(Epict. Diss. iit 2, 15; Diog. L. vii. 62, 68,76). Also Junius
Rusticus,
executed

by

mitian Do-

; Sueton. Domit, 10 ; Dio Cass. Ixvii. 13 ; Plin. Z. 0.; Plut. Ciwiosit. 15,

2 (Tacit. Agric.

Claudius MaxAnt.PJiil.fy; (M. Aur. i. 15, 17 ; viii. 25; Capitol. 1. c.); Cinna Catulus (M. Aur. i. 13 ; Capitol.
I.

c.); among
to

them

was

probably also Diognetus


the but the
same

cording (ac-

p. the

522),

whose

trial

gave

casion oc-

persecution doubtless was philosophers,


to

the

of

Capitol, c. 4, where is most man likely


in M.

meant,

his teacher
to

painting ;
Aur,
an

The two a( Stoic. other tne hand,


reckoned under

Plinys,
cannot

on

according
first who
to

be

gave

him

i. 6, clination in-

school, semblance1 i d though they have points of rewith the Stoics, and by
and the

this

e s

of

philosophy); B a s iScythopolis (described


Cliron.
as

Hieron.

on
a

Ol. 232,
teacher of

had Euphrates for the younger Hadrian his teacher. Under

Sync. p. 351,
Aurelius
who is
same

Marcus
Math.

and

probably
Sext. d. Gr. person

Philopator probably lived (Pkil d. GT. III.i.166, 1),whose


teacher G-alen's disciple was (G-alen, Cogn. an Mori, 8,vol. v, 41 K) ; in the same or that reign, of may Antoninus have

quoted by
not

via. 25S,vide PMl.


the

III. 1 87, 1 ; but mentioned others heard the


must

54), and some (Bacchius, Tandasis,


mp.
p.
;
as

Pius, Hierocles taught 8),and


have
in Athens medes Cleohis

Marcianus

M. he

Aurelius
says, i, 6, at

them,
instance

N. (Gell.

A. ix. 5, may

of
To

Diognetus)
these
Mar-

written

be added.

CORNUTL'S.

Cornutus

also, we
to
Antoninus allied Under Ms of is

know

that

his

activitywas
historical
is
a

CHAP.

chiefly devoted
cus

grammatical
that
no

and

l'_

Aurellns

"T7rou3aTos and

"pa"\o$

subsequently (vide infra).


Lucius,
the sonius the

himself

(Simpl. 102, a), I L c. 104, reign a) an aSiafpapoy dBia"6op^j


that
Mu-

and similarlyan ayaavriKetrai, Bbv Tynan, aryoBtfy e.g. the tppoviu.^ srepi whom have is opposed to the tppoviu.?] Philostratus, lived, V. Soph, ii. 1, 8 $c[." describes as d. "9r.'lII.'i. (el PMl. Mend of Herodes the Atticus, 213, note) ; as also in the terms

disciple

said

to

and the he

representsas meeting
Aurelius
was

with when
;

ture, belongingtoTthe Stoic nomencla-

Marcus

in Home

latter
was

already emperor
same

the

doubtless, from

whom

person, Stobaus

\6yOt QjlQTlKOl, O.VOjJLQ'TLKn^ ""KTtK"l (1. C. 108 BaVfACLCrrLKQl, But ibid. III. i. 103, 4. a) zrf/fe
the

Mnsonius teacher

who
musb

is

called either

7, 46, vol. (Floril. Jo. Damase. iv. 162, Mein.) quotes an account
of
a

Lucius' distinct
or we

be

from

Musonius
even

Bnfus,
irre of
to

conversation conversations
are

with

Musonius with sonius Mu-

must

(Ms

spectively
be inexact

suppose, of the for

Tvptos
Musonias first

also in

mentioned

by
he
is

Philostratus, his
;

narrative
as

Philostratus);
called
AVKIOS

for

though
our

test

of
sequence. con-

scarcely survived
it is not Ms
to
seems

the

tury, cen-

Stobseus, that

is of little
as

conceivable

that
come

Here,
Philostratus, he
Stoic doubt
or

well

as as

in
a no

discipleshould
Borne
to

have
A.D.

Cynic,
same

appears he and Lucius

after
me

161
most

It is

was

probable
no

the

who

is

that the teacher other than

of Lucius

mentioned note, with

Phil. d. Gr. HI, i.48,


Nicostratus.

Musonius

Kufas, and

Brandis d. Arist.

( Ueber

d.

Awsleger

that the anecdote, ap. Gell. .V./l. is. 2, 8,refers to him; while the

AWi. d. JSerl. Altad. 1833 ; Orff., Hist. PML El. p. 279) and Prantl (Gesch. d. Log. i. 618) both to have belonged consider
to

predicateTvpios arose
mistake
even

through
self him-

from that the

Tvppijvbs ing (supposPhilostratus

made that with the

mistake):
of Aurelius

and

the

in

Academy, which they

from
are

the named

way

meeting
take
before Musonius

Lucius either

by

Marcus
not

Simplicius (Gateg. 7, $, 1, a) Atticus and together with


Plotinus that that in this it seems to me ; but be proved on cannot there the is
more

did

place
he

at

all,

or

occurred hear think


man

became

peror em-

; of

partly because
we

when

we

naturally
celebrated the

evidence;
for

of

the known that month

most

foundation their

statement,

of the

name,

and
to
us

only

objections quoted by
"., from

Musonius because

in that

Prantl, Z.

Simplicius, period; partly


gories cate-

and

especially
Lucius
the

against the

Aristotelian

which
with

puts

of the Stoic type,namely in the assertions of Nicostratus

into the

of his Musonius

entirelyagrees

quota-

200

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. Tin.

works, and
himself with

lie therefore
more philosophy

seems
as

"to
a on

have

occupied
an

scholar than

dependen in-

thinker.1
itself with and

His -work

the

gods contents
of his school ;
tradicted con-

reproducingthe
a

doctrine

if,in
2

treatise

on

the

he categories,

has

not

but only Aristotle,


Kufus

also his Stoic rival

tion from

nothing as to the dates Arisfollowing men: Stob. 29, 78). toclesof third (Suidas, Lampsacus the half of century first hear, through Longinus (ap. sub woe, mentions an exposition we of his, of a logical treatise of Porph. V. Plot. 20, of a number namesakes Chrysippus),trietwo of philosophers, contemporary
Museums

(ap.
the

know of

Jnortt.

In

the

with

this writer, and

somewhat
are tions mena

Theodorus(Diog.
whom the
one

ii. 104), of

earlier,and

good
known

many
as

them among He Stoics.

probably composed
of the

abstract

writings

of

Stob. Florll. also Teles, from which Stoics who were 164 Hem. 7,47,T.iv, activity Jo.Dam.i. for their literary goras Protaa to s fragment Themistocles give ; (according

Syncell. Clironogr. p. 361 B, 228 about A.D.), Phoebion,


and
two

(Diog.
bins and

ix.

Eubius,

56) j Antiof Ascalon;

of Hierapolis (n"forlong Publius Aios) ap. Steph. Byz. De Url. died (l**XPLirptfiiv "K/jLQi(ra.vr"s~), two sakes, nameMedina and Annius phyry, 'Aer/caA..'lepewr (Por; the of in Mall os Prod us according to Proclns 1% Cilicia (ap. Snid. n/""te\." one Plat. Remy. p. 41 5,note, in his who had not

mentions SujUfuKTa npo"A^juara3


a

of these Proclus

latter is mentioned In
Tim. 166

by

conversation

with

Longinus,
doctrine the

B, with

in which

he
the

defended
Stoic of who

Longimis
the

against Philonides among of if the pupil of


soul).
intended Proclus further in any

the Zeno III. i.

apx^on
is here

eight parts
those
to

(Part
himself
hack
case

39,

3),

Among
themselves

confined

givinginstruction areHerminus,Lysimachus, (accordingto Porphyry, I. c. 3, probably in Kome),Ath e n sens,


and

placed may he cannot ; but older than be


mentions
an

be

as Panffitius,

Suidas

ratv Aioyevovs vir6fiiviifj.a

(rosier-

Mnsonins.

At

the

same

fjidrav, no
1

doubt the

written

by
to

him.

period as Plotirms, Trypho (described by Porphyry, v.


Plat. The Pr.

Of.

references

his

rhetorical
and Jahn's xiii.
2

writings,

his

sition expo-

17,

as

2rau":"fcre

K"L

IlXaa

of the

ram/cbs)was
Athenian

residingin by Porph. ap
3, 1, came
260
A.D.

Home. Euseb. We

Yirgilian poems, in grammatical work


in I.
c.

Callietes, Stoic,
somewhat

Prolegg.
; Osann.

Persittm,

mentioned
Uv,
x.

sffff.

Of. PHI.

xxiii. sqq. d, Gr. III. i. 520,

earlier, about

note.

CORXUTUS.

AtnenodoniSj1
that from
an

we

can

see

from

the
its

fragments preserved,
objectprincipally
It Is

THAP. mi.

this treatise

regarded
of the from

the

standpoint
that

grammarian.2
Stoic dies

important divergence

the

tradition, if

he with it

really taught
the Is

the

soul

simultaneously
certain,4 though
the

body ;3 this,however,
in with Panaetius. Perslns who
to

Is not

possiblethat
himself
are

his views

of

subject

he

allied

his ethical If, lastly,


5

discourses

praised by
on

on

account

of their
we can

good

Influence
venture

those
ascribe

heard him

them,
In this

hardly
any

to

sphere
on

Important
Slmpl.
C; 91,
a

or Individuality,

striking
of
one

effect

Cat eg.

5,

"

15, 8 j
a,

form
in
3

expression is
case

different other.

47

in Arist. (ScJiol.

b, note;

47, t",22;

57,

SO, 16;
;

the

from

the

Iambi, the

80, a, 22) ; Porph. in in Arist. 48. 4, I (ScJi"l.


I.
c.

Cater/. Does
", 12)
r

I. 922. ap. Stob. Ed. of death lie cause of the


mating anithe

in

the

withholding
air,

21

Griech. d. Serl. in,,


was

; cf. Ami.

Brandls,
d. Arist.

Uele

die

extinction

of

Qrg. A bh.
PJtil. the in treatise

the

vital e!

Akad. 275.

1883, Hist.
In
to

cessation aAA'
OUT"JS

the or (TC^FOS), power warmth? of -vital

p.

this be

yiyveTai

"

Ba.va.TQS,

probably
Schol.

found

statement

qnoted by Syrian
in AT.

Metajph.
from Boethus dnced
2

Cornntns,
the

that

893, a. 9, he, like

POUT-OS
4

oterai. For

though
of

it is to

probably
the

Peripatetic, rethe ideas to general conceptions.


4, b,
says
:
TO.

this

Cornntns

whom

statement

lamblichns relate
not

refers,
that to the to

it is nevertheless

possible

Porph.

of

him

what animal

he

said soul and from

and

Athenodoras

^Tou/zem
\"%"i$, ola
KaL
ovv

may and

the The with

T(av irepl ret.

XQeasv
Kal
...

Ka8b
TpcnriKa
Toiavra

rational theories derives


the

human which of the

soul.

Kvpia

TO TO:

ocra

lamblichns agree
Stoic

roiavra

irpo-

his assertion

"f""povre$KaliroiasUffTl
a.Tropovjn-fs

KaTyyopias

doctrine

school,

death sues enp^i Gvpitneovres according to which %TCLV vcLVT*X"as eTi/at fj T^V Siaipetnv. "\XLTT7] (paffiv yevrirai favecrts cf. al(r0TjrtKov -jn/etJ/taros rov 91, Similarly Simpl. 5, a, a, where Cornutns would (Plut. Plac. i. 23, 4). separate Kal the time

place
from

from
xore,

TTOV,

and

the the

Sat.

v,

34

*##., 62 sqq.

because

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VIII.
.

: philosophy

had

this been

the

case,

he would

have

left stronger traces


The
case

of it behind

him.

Seneca.

is different

with
which

Seneca.1

This

philo-

The

extensive sub

literature is to be found
in

Sotion,
Stoic

the

disciple of
181, 2), and
(vide supra,
him. He

concerningSeneca
in

Sextius the

(vide supra,
Attalus

Bahr,

woe,

Pauly's
Alterth.

d. Rfialencyld. vi. a, 1037 iv.

Klass. Of.

195, 1) introduced
the
an

sgg.
189

likewise, finallyembraced
advocate
the

calling of

respectingSeneca's philosophy,
Bitter,
itgg. ;

49, 2),attained (JEj).

Baur,

to

Paulus (1858, now Seneca, und in Drei AbTiandl. "c., p. 377 pline Discisqq.} ; Dorgens, Seneca
Moralis
cum

of qusestor (ad 19, 2), married (cf. De Ira, iii. 36, 3 ; Ep. 50, 2 ; and child, Marcus, concerning a Helv.

office

Antoniniana
:

Epigr,3
another

; ad

Helv. IB, 4 "%%.; and


had
j

ConteMio
1857

et

Comparatio

zig, Leip-

who in his (I.

died

shortly
was

PJii; Holzherr, Der und A. Seneca East L. : losoph. Tub.

before, I. 0.2, 5

18, 6),and
5,

happy

external
G.

stances circum-

1858, 1859 (Gymn. progr.}.


Seneca's
life

Concerning the writings, besides many older works, Biihr,I. c. ; Bernhardy, GFrundrins der Rom.Litvr. 4, a, p. Sllsgg.; Teuffel,GeseJi.
der Rom. Born famous
at

and

Threatened lix.

by

4; 14, 3). Caligula (Dio,

19), and
under

sica banished to CorClaudius in 41 A.D.

of the affair of in consequence Messalina (Dio, Ix. 8 ; IxL 10 ; Sen.

Liter. 2, a, p. 616 sgq* Corduba, of the equestrian

S. jEpigr.
2 ;
was

JExilio Helv. recalled

ad

13,
he fall He Nero Ann.

18, 9

; ad

15, 2

Polyb. $#.)"
her
A.D.

order,the second son of the M. Anngeus rhetorician, S. Eml. Seneca 8, (Sen. Jilpigr.
9 ; FT. 88 ; ad Melv. 18, 1 sqq. ; Tacit. Ann. xiv, 53 et pass.},

only

after

by Agrippina in 50 was immediately


the education
to him
was

made of

prgetor, and
xii.

confided

(Tac.
cession ac-

Lucius
a

Annasus with

Seneca his

came

as

8).
the

After

Nero's

child

Rome

(ad
to

Helv. have the 1 In

parents to 19, 2). His


cording ac-

birth must
Ifat. in the

occurred,
statements 3
:

in

Qu.
era.

1,

Hj}.108, 22,
the tian Chrisyears
stantly con-

first years

of

gether throne, he, towith for Burrhus, was a long time the guide of the Eoman empire and of the young sovereign (Tac. xiii. 2). Further details as to Seneca's public life to

his

early
he

and death his end

character of

will

be With

found the

and

even

afterwards
from

infra, p.

suffered

ill health

232, 3). Burrhus,


came

however,
to
an

(ad Hell). 19, 2; JBp. 54, 1 ; 65, he 1; 78, 1 sqq.; 104, 1), and
devoted himself
with
to the

influence
; Nero

discarded had
to

the

sellor coun-

sciences

dour great ar(Ep. 78, 3 ;

who

burdensome

him

long become (Tac. xiv.

cf. 58, 5), and

especiallyto
7),
to

philosophy (Ep. 108,

52 sqg.}, and seized first the opportunity of ridding himself

204

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

that
L_

human, based upon immediate universally and life the consciousness important for moral the endeavour universalistic development of ethics after a system more and generallycomprehensible
is
"

"

more

side

demanded efficient was practicably also. These traits, however, are

from still

this
more

thoroughlydevelopedin Seneca and his followers, to give up the doctrines of and little as they wished their" school, boldlyas they sometimes express the the whole, Stoicism with them Stoical doctrines, on
takes the and form
more

and

more

of universal

moral

of their conviction ; and in the matter religious of doctrines, side by side with the inner freedom of universal the principles love of the individual, towards human mission weakness, submankind, forbearance
to the

Divine

appointments
freer

have

ent promin-

place.
In doctrine
1

Seneca, the

of his school
Seneca is and

positionin regard to the which he claimed l for himself,

professes school, and unreservedly to apno to be a proof, propriate anything that he finds requires of its Of. the use beyond no8"nd.nostri,JEp.serviceable, even limits (Ep. 16, 7 ; De Ira, I 6, 113, 1 ; 117, 6 etpass. ; and the 5). He very frequentlyapplies panegyricshe bestows on StoicHelv, in this manner sayings of Epiism, De Coiist. 1 ; Cons, ad he judges in regard 5, 3; Ep. 83, 9. curus, whom 12, 14 ; Clemen1;,ii.
That Stoic
He

expresses

himself, however,

to

his

personal

merits

with

of fairness that is most surprising very decidedly on the right from a Stoic (videPHI. d. Gr. III. independent judgment, and on i. 446, 5); and if in this he may, the task of augmenting by our inheritance the perhaps, be influenced, by the own enquiries his friendLucilins have derived from our prede- predilectionof we for it V. 2 B. De Otio,3, 3, is,nevertheless, cessors Epicurus, ( ; that he wishes to unmistakable 1 j Ep. 33, 11; 45, 4 ; 80, 1 ; show his own 64, 7 ###.)" He does not hesiimpartialityby this shall to treatment find, of a tate, as we appreciative oppose tenets and
customs

of

his

much

-abused

opponent.

SENECA.

20

is shown

In his views

of

philosophy. If
there
over

the end and problem concerning in the original tendencies of


__

CHAP.
VIIL

Stoicism

already lay
the

preponderance of the
Seneca that he

#/*

foe-

interest practical

with theoretical,

lamin
tf*e

this

was

so

greatlyincreased by
constituents

regarded manv

jm^

things considered
to

the older teachers of the school of

$"?
*'^-

be

essential
and

necessary

unphilosophy, as superfluous.Though he repeats in a

general manner
the

conception and
aim

greater stress
and
;

respecting he layseven philosophy,1 than his predecessors its moral end on


parts of
ity,2 pedagogue of humanof life, the doctrine of
a
3 :

the Stoic determinations

is philosopher philosophy is the art

the

morals, the endeavour


we
ness are

after virtue with


a

in

concerned

not

game
cure

of

philosophy quick-wittedevils ; 4 it all that


to
a

and

but with the skill,


us

of grave
and act,*5

teaches
man

not

to

talk,but

to

learns

moral

only useful when he appliesit condition.6 According to its relation


end

is

his

to this

ultimate to be

the value that

of every

scientific

is activity
our

judged :
in

which

does not

effect

moral

Of.

regard

to

the latter

Ep. 117,

33:

Adice

mine,

Phil. d. Or. III. i. 51, 2, and to the former, 1. c. 61, 1 ; 64, 1 ; 67, 2 ; 207 ; and Up. 94 ; -47 sq. ;

quod adsnescit animus sanare sepotius quam sopJiiam oWectamentum


cum

delectare
et

philo* faeere,
docet

95, 10.
-

remedium
5

sit.
2
:

Ep.

89, 13.
that the is the and
not

Aristo

mainthe

Ep,

20,

Facere

tailed

panenetic part pldlosopMa,


affair of of the
15.
6

nan

dicere, "c., 24}

of Ethics

pedagogue, Tamquam sopher :


aUud Jiwmani
3

philo-

Ep. 89,
mores
:

IS:

Quicqitidlestatim

sit

quicquam sapiens quam generis l"pp.51,2


;

fferisad
Loc. onmia dam ad

rffarag.

tit. 23

fft"c aim
ft ad

lie
. . .

pesdagogus.
d. 6fr, III.

mores

sedan-

PMl.
;

54? 1

JSp. 117,

12 ; 94, 39.

rdbiem adfectuum refer ens. Similarly 117, 33.

206

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

condition

is

and useless,
to

adequatewords
those who the warmth
conversant

meddle of his

find cannot philosopher of the follyof express his sense in with such things ; though even zeal he cannot help showing how
the is with all the

he himself

them.

What

are

we

he profited,
Uselessmss

asks,by

enquirieswith
?

which
ever

the

antiquarians occupy
the better and
appears
we

themselves the

Who them
?

has
*

become
small when

for juster

How

the value

of the so-called
it is virtue
our

liberal

arts,
is

remember

that

alone

that

important,that

it claims

whole
2

soul,and

that

much But how philosophy only leads to virtue ! admitted into has even that is superfluous philosophy and unprofitmuch how word-catching able trifling itself, ! Even subtlety thingsof this kind in the Stoic have

School,3how
entrance

many

found

Seneca
even

for his part will have


in
cases

nothing to

do with he

them,

where

the subtleties of which

complains
ao

"revit.

Vit. 13, where of


numerous

after
ex-

snientia

ftonorwn

malorum ulla

the

citation
of

immutMli,

amples
torical thus
:

antiquarianand hisenquirieshe concludes"


ista
errores

oompetit :
alia de

qua niJiil autem


ac

soli philosopliiee
ars

lonis

malls
et

Cwjw

"niinu"-

(p. 28). Magna

qucerit spaiAosa res

illi loeo entycujuscupiditates prement? est sapientia. Vacua de divinis humanisqne est : opus Quern fortiorem,qiiemjustioreTn,

facient ? quern liberalwrem 2 at length This is discussed here shows in Ep. 88. Seneca
that grammar,

de discendwm est, de prtzteritis, futuris, de caducis, de "%ternis, Hcec tarn "c. multa, tarn magna
ut Tia'bere possintliberuwi
ex

music, geometry,
astronomy
are

arithmetic, and
at most
a

hospitium, mpervacua
tollenda, has
sunt.

animo
se

preparationfor the
in themof subordinate

Non
virtus

daUt
:

in

angustias desiderat. spatiimi res magna Totum, omnia. linea sit : JExpellantur pec(p.20) : Scis qufe recta tu$ illi vacet (p. 33-35). quid tibi prodest)si quid in vita 3 Of. Ep. 88, 42, rectum sit, ignoms ? "c.(p. 13). higher instruction,but
selves
are

laxum

value

Una

re

consummatur

aninws,

SENECA.

with the evidently connected presuppositions of the Stoic doctrine,1 in the same and he way of the dialectical objections of their easily disposes
are

CHAP. VIJI*

opponents
worth the

he

considers
of

trouble
so

not trifling juggleries not only the Investigating,


as
a

fallacieswhich
and Chrysippus

Ms

readily occupy the Ingenuityof but also those comprefollowers/ hensive


of the

discussions
ancient

which sceptics,
; and

gave

the

Stoa

so

much

employment
sensible among

the eclectic

arguments

against the simply reckoned by him trifling enquiries which


from the

phenomenon are the superfluous and


serve

Swrjiu-

merely
necessary

to
us

divert
to

us

"*"""

thingsthat

are

for

know.3

Up. 117,
both
cases

In

13 ; Ep. 113, I $gq. he embarks on and

of
nor
us

which

does

not

the

exposition
Stoic the and

refutation
of
in

of the

definitions

long
accuse

broad

order

rance
knowledge
me

of

them

harm, profit
.

Quid

defines

in eoy gruem

the

tu

ipse if/ev$6jjL"jfov adpella"


iota ndJd
nta

.?
.

to

Ecce
"c.

meittttur,
48 ; 49

their authors wasted useless such of

and

himself time

Similarly Ep,

of with in

having

their

5, *M.
3

stead questions inemploying themselves

Ep: 88, 43
faciat
says

Audi, qitautvm,
suteilita* et sit. tagoras Pro-

mali $uam

nimia
ventati
can

and something necessary Similarlyin Ep* 106 profitable.


"

iufesta

dispute for ride infra, p. 208, 1. and et passim against everything; Nau2 predeces- siphanes, that everything is J"p. 45, 4: His sors, the great men, have left as it is ; Parnot, justas much that Et im-enissent : menides, nothing is except problems many
we

the universe ; Zeno, of Elea, forsitan neeessaria, nisi et superittis Circa eadem fere Pyrnihll Jfultum esse. vacua quaesissent.

temporis
eripuitet
gu(g
cent. not
acumen

ver'borum inritum, should of and

camllatw

rJwnei

verxantur et

captiosw disputatwnes^
.

JEretrlei
ram

Megarici et Academic^, gui noet

exer-

mkil indusseruntseiejitiam,
Jieee omnia studi"rum in ilium super

We the
"

search

out

sdre
vacuum

meaning things the good


and
not

words,

but the

IVberalium

the evil ;

gregem

fence

with

sophisms

JV"w" fam,le cornice,"c. dixerim, uiris magi* ira$car"

acetabula the

nlhil scire wliieprcBstiglatorum fcf. illis qui non of Arcesilaus, riint,an illis, qui ne hoc quidem^ fy-nQoirouKrai 'jwMs reliquerunt, i. 495, 4) ignontfdl scire. Phil. d. Gr. m.

208

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

Wisdom,
1__

he says, is
it is

great learning:
which
so

extends

the

simplething and requires no of moderation want only our sphere of philosophy; for life,
for the most

the School

are questions

part worthless

for they render rather than benefit, theyinj ure, indeed, small and weakly, instead of elevatingit.2 the mind have and We already seen certainlycannot, as we shall see later on, take Seneca exactlyat his word in

regard
that moral

to

such

declarations
to

but

it is undeniable

he

wishes

limit

problems,and with those as they stand in manifest connection problems. must This principle separate our philosophe inevitably from that portion of philosophy to which the older Stoics had originally paid great attention, but which they had ultimatelyregarded as a mere outwork of their system viz.. Logic. If, therefore,
"

philosophy in principleto only admits other things so far

Seneca

includes

it under

the three

chief divisions of
occa-

and the subjectis only cursorily philosophy,3


After a Up. 106, 11. thorough discussion of the propositionthat the a;ood is a body (Part III. i. 120, 1, 3 ; 119, 1) :
1

Ep. 47,
36
2 :

Plus
In

sg.; 87, 38 $q. ; 88, sit scire velle giutm


est.

satis, intemperantice genus

Ep.

117, 18, after

dis-

that sa"cussing the statement vaoaneis siibtilitas teritur : non pientia,and not sapvre, is a good: circa sapiential-nan faeiioit ~bo)ios ista, sed doctos, Omniaista in ipsa at noHs in swit imnw : est ipsa apertior res sapere, .Latrunculis

ludimus,

in, super-

Pauds siniplieior.
tern

exb ad

mennot

comnwrandum de

est

h"G
. .
.

vero,

dieebam, quibus paulo et inimiwit lit cetera in depmmunt, nee, ut supervacaneum diffimdimus, ita, pliilosopTdam 3)utatis,eccacii,urit,sedexte7i'U" Similarly,Ep. 82, 22. ipmm. Quemadm,odum omnium
lonam
uti

literis : sed

ante

reruw,,

sic sed

literarum laboramus

quoque
: non

Vide

PkiLd.

intemperantia
vita

64, 1 ;

67, 2.

G-r. IILi. 61, 1; Elsewhere, however di-

soholcB

discimus.

01

(Ep, 95, 10),philosophy is

LOGIC

AXD

PHYSICS.

20:

touched sionally himself


at times

upon
in

In his

writings.
with

He

expresses
re-

r-HAP.

agreement
of

his school
the

_JLllL_

specting the origin


force
of

conceptions,and

strative demon-

general opinion;1 he speaks of the highest conception and of the most nniver-al conceptionssubordinated to it ; he shows general": that he is well acquainted with the logical tions defini-

of his school ; 3 but


to enter

he himself
more

has

no

ation inclinin

into

them

deeply, because
too

his

opinion this whole occupied problem of man.


greater
is the
in his

region lies
him
in

far from
resort
"

that
the

which moral Far

alone

the

last

value

which

he

ascribes

to

as Physics,

writingsalso he has devoted to it He praisesPhysics for imparting to greater space. the mind the elevation of the subjects with, -which 4 it occupies itself; in the preface,indeed, to Ms writingson Natural History,5 he goes so far as to
vided,
into
as

with

the

Peripatetics, 3): the


and

animate

is partly mortal

practical philosophy ; and in Ep. 94, 45, 124, 14). 3 Besides virtue is similarly divided (as
with Pansstins, This obvious ascribed
to

theoretical

and

partly immortal
the

(of. Ep.
sn-

quotations

xide

48).
more

division
to
no a

p, supra, all the -was

pra,pp, and Phil

207, 1 ; 208, 1, 2, cf. in regard to this, Ep. 118, 4 *".,


PJdl. d, Gr.TLl, i. 97" 2 ;
:

who value
1 2

philosopher independent
74,3; 75,2.
PlnLd. Gr.

102, 6 sq.
*

3'at.

EJJ. II. 2, 2, and Qtt.


:

logic.
8 sq^.j

PUld.G7-.lILi.

d. GT. III. i. 967 2 Ep. 117, 19: De


qii"ramii*+

118,

4.

'Deornm,
giderum

JSp. 58,
i. 92. is that

nafur"

de

IIL tion

The of

highest concep-

Being ; this is vecespartly corporeal, partly tncor- jam a formation? moritm et poreal ; the corporeal is partly sernnt : sed lerani an jmum lifeless the ad and tratiant partly living, ipsarum qua* rerum, ; with a magjiitudinem adtollunt. livingis partly animated Cf. vi, soul and partly inanimate (tf/ux^ s ^ot- Qu- i- ProL
and vide (pv"ri$,

aKrnento, de Jds tarn rariig gfellarum, "zc. disctiraibii*, Igta,

iUd,

IEL i. 192,
P

4,

Quod? inquu,

""

erit j)re-

210

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VIII.

maintain

that

Physics are
the

higher
which

than

Ethics, in

proportionas the Divine


is
us

with

His

Jrigh
from
us

higher than

earthly darkness

cerned they are conlead Human ; they alone into the light of heaven,

show

the internal part of

the things,

Author
be

and

arrangement of the world ; it would not if physical while to live, were investigations
us.

worth

forbidden

greatness of combating if the from of freeing ourselves evils, our passions, ledge not were prepared by Physics for the knowspirit
Where
would be the

of the with

tion and brought into communicaheavenly, if we God were only raised above the
"

and external,
we soon

not

also

above

ourselves,"c.
these

while, Mean-

perceive that
a

declamations

than the personal passing mood Seneca elsewhere reckons opinionof the philosopher. have we just heard enquiries,to which physical the things him assign so high a position, among and are which go beyond the essential and necessary, of philosophical than rather au affair of recreation work though he does not overlook their proper; morally elevatingeffect on the mind ; l he declares

express

rather

tium

opera

'

Quo

null-urn

natura

qu"?ramm,

de

siderum

The alimento, "c. Similarly in JUp. magis ext,nosse naturam. of this ultimate a discussion on 65, 15, enquiry gain greatest is defended follows : as magnificetitia causes is,quod Jiominem mereede, sed Ego quidem prior a ilia ago et sui detinet, nee eolitur (.Ep. 95, 10, tracto, quibus pacatnr miraculo animus, et in e prius scrutor^ deinde Jiii "c ) n c 1 mundum. 19 Ne 209, nu?ie 117, (cf. quidem Ep. sup. p. ut existimas, perdo. tempm, 4) : Dialectic is only concerned
. .

with

the si

outworks

of

wisdom.

1st

enim
nee

omnia,
in

si

?wn

conci-

quid evagari adtollunt distrahaiitiir, amplos Jiabet ilia [sapientia] imdilem Deorum levant et de In the cona-nimuni. : secessus spatiososgue
Etia/in hanc

libet, dantur

sitbtilitatem

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VIII.

history.
answer

Meanwhile

the

contents

of

the

work

very

* to imperfectly

the

lofty promises with

which number rather

it opens

; it

contains
natural of

discussions

of isolated in

concerning a phenomena, conducted


pastime
than of

the

manner

learned

independent and
Seneca's

thorough physical investigation. is little affected by philosophical standpoint


would suffer
no

them,
the

and

material
were

alteration

if

even

part of greater
what

their results For


us

different totally

from

they are.
since their

they are of subject-matterseems


Posidonius and

the less importance,

mostly

to

have

been

taken
It is the

from
same

other

cessors.2 predenatural
physical meta-

with other

on writings

His

which history physical


meta-

are

attributed

to Seneca.3

The

and

theo-

and

logical enunciates,

theological opinions which


are

he occasionally

doctrines.

philoregard to sophy. But even here, no importantdeviations from, the Stoic traditions are to be found. Like the Stoics, the corporeality of all the Eeal ; 4 Seneca presupposes
more
1

of

value in

In

read

proof of this let anyone tise, the beginning of the treaand he comic the will

According

to

Plin. H.

N.

i.

9, 36
water

scarcely

be
an

; ix. 53, 167, he consulted Seneca about Ms statements on


-

able when

to resist the

feeling of
after

animals

and

stones. Servius
a

almost

disappointment,
the declamations of
natural
quiry, entence concluding sen-

author,

Pliny,vi. 17, 60, and J"n. ix. 31, mention


De situ

on

treatise,
vi.

above-mentioned
on

Indies ; Serv. J38n.


situ
et sacris

the

dignity
after the Si niMl
omnia,

154, De
torum.

JEgyp-

sol am,
metisus

aliud, hoc angusta


:

certe esse,

Art. Cassiodorus, De Lib. c. 7, speaks of another De forma mwidi. treatise,


4

Dcuin, continues

2\runc

CtJEp. 117,2;

106,4;
some

106,

ad Audi QUOS
2

propositum veniam opus. nidus sent lam, Quid de iff


a"er

113, 1 sqq. ; indeed, opposes


of Stoic but

5 ;

where

Seneca,
sions concluself. it him-

transversos
on

materialism,

Cf.

this

subject,and

the

expressly teaches

content

of Nat.

Qu.,Phil.

d. Gr.

III. i. 191, 2, 3.

GOD

AND

MATTER.

21

like them

he
in

discriminates
the

matter

from
matter
as

the force
;
]

CHAP.
VllL

working
does

it,and

Deity from
same sense

and
:

he the

this in

exactly the

active force is the


and

the spiritus,

they do which breath,

forms
the

holds

Deityis
as

togethermaterial the Spirit, not as an


and in
an

substances.2

Even

incorporeal essence,
whole
manner.

hut

the TTvsv/Jia

permeating the
extended

poreally universe,3 cor-

So relation

also

he

follows the
God the and

Stoic

doctrine
:

of the

between

the world the

God
world

is not

world, but

as of the invisible visible,

of merely the reason of the the whole itself, Seneca, however, things.4

bringsforward much side of and spiritual


accordance
1

more

emphaticallythe
;

moral and in

the Stoic idea of God

with
Gr. of

this he
Ill, i.
1.

to place the efficient prefers

Cf. Pldl.tl.

131,
3 ;

rialistically ; that

even

visible

4 ; 134, 1 ; also of the existence

177,

Proofs

God, 131,

161, 2
2

135,

5.

as parts of things are described the Deity (Phil.d. Gr. III. i. U6, 6) ; that only a corporeal god

Ibid. III. i. 118, 4.


of:
us

Seneca's
will he

can

take

back

into

himself

the

conception
discussed nection
3

spirit infra, p. 219, in conwith his psychology.


is not from

of by means the world's conflagration (Z,e. 141, 1). If, therefore, Seneca,

corporeal

world

Seneca

here,

but,

everything body ("Jp. 117, 2), it follows he what that (Up. 102, says of the 7) must hold good even
world
"

very explicit (ad Helv. 8, 3) places the Plathat the fact* tonic conception of Deity as the and be- a efficient must incorporeal reason, which side

conception, according to the Deity is the universide by sally diffused spirits*,


without the with his

Stoic

viz., that

the

unity
upon it the
"

of the tohe

discriminating
only
correown

everything depends holds which sjriritus


gether ; that represents to
substance
a

them,

second

spends
4
.

opinion,

the be

soul which

of

same

with of

Deity

in fact,

Cf PMl d. Gr. III. i. 146, 6 ; 148, IjalsoJV. 16(ap.Lact.I"2s". i.5,27) : guamr4s ipsep"r totum

as Deity" is, as we part shall presently find,conceived by Seneca, in agreement with Stoic school, matethe whole

seaorj)us("Q.mundi)inte}iderat;
and also the and Stoic doctrine of Pneuma

r6vos.

214

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, VTTT

activityof Grod in the world


L_

under

the idea of Proviof

dence, and the order


under the

and

arrangement

the world

aspect. God is the highest teleological science, whose the perfect Spirit, wisdom, omnireason, His beneficent goodholiness, ness, and, above all, are continuallyextolled.1 He loves us as a and desires to be loved by us, and not feared ; 2 father,
and

therefore the world, whose


so so

Creator and
the
course

ruler

He

is,is
world

perfectand beautiful,and
blameless Since
in
;

of the in many

which

Seneca

proves

ways.4

his the

generaltheory of
moral the

the universe
so

has
ception con-

its centre

life of man,

in his

of God than for men,


the

element physical
:

is less

nent promi-

ethical

it is the

care

of the

Deity

goodness and wisdom, in. which His to Seneca; and revealed perfectionis principally therefore it is inevitable that the personal aspect of the Deity,in which, as reason forming and governing the world and working according to moral ends, should from the world itself, He is distinguished as preponderate, compared with the Pantheistic aspect, in which the Deity is not only the soul,but the substance of the world. It is going too far, ever, howHis
to

say5 that Seneca


gave
in
true
are

abandoned
a new

the Stoic idea, direction ; that


matter
are

and

thus

to

ethics

whereas
1

Stoicism given
in

Gocl
3

and

in

Authorities
d.

Pkll

348, 1.
found:
*

ffr. III. 1 139, 1 ; Others may easily be


Cf. Holzhonr, i. 90 SQ.

26
4

Fr. 26 j b. Lact. ; F. 2to. 8, 4.

Inst. i. 6, III. i. p.
5.

Of.
j

Phil, d, @r.

171, B
8

178, 2

135,
j

15 X"fl P-MV. 8$.; 2, 6; ii. 29, 4-6; iv. 19, 1; Eawf. De Ira, ii. 27, 1; cf. p. 313, 1.

Holzherr,i. 33

36;

ii. 5 8$$.

FORCE

AND

MATTER.

215

their essential nature

one,

in

Seneca
is to

they appear
him

as

CHAP.
VIIL

different ; that God essentially porealnature, who has formed

the incor-

will, by His freeand that his god is no longerthe god of the but of the Platonists. Our previousarguStoics, ments will rather have shown that the conceptionof is peculiar God, which according to this exposition to Seneca, is in no way foreign to the elder Stoics ; that they,too, laid great stress on the goodnessand of God, and on His benevolence to man; wisdom they, the Spirit that guides all as too, regarded Him the reason that has ordered and adapted all things, thingsfor the wisest ends ; by them also the belief
in

the world

Providence is most universe

and the

regarded as of the highestvalue, vigorouslydefended; and the law of


is and

of

coincides morality
also

with the will


that

of God.1
on

the

They will other hand,


of his

have

shown

Seneca,
those the

is far from

definitions

school

abandoning according to which


matter

distinction between
a

efficient force and

is

only

derived
in

and consequentlyis often annulled distinction, of the world's development; 2 the course God
in the irvsvfia, conceived
of the Stoic and
as

that
1

he, too, seeks

Of. Phil. d. Gr. III.l. 139, 1 ;


sg.; says

the doctrine
to

school,
ex-

159, 1; 161; 163, 1; 171


505
2

which Prov.

Seneca,
;

indeed,
when
mere

8q.

pressly appeals
Seneca
as

in qttes-

6, 16, where S/p.


same

De

5,9

(the

exactly the
from
III. i.

is

quoted
d.

Phil, Chrysippxis,

$w.L JrW/116,can forward Grr. prove nothing)he brings


tionsin Nat. for the tion Theodicee the
on

143, 2.

Similarly Holzfor the


essen-

the

proposiartist is

herr's chief

proof

that

Divine
not

tial difference matter

between

God

and
seen

dependent
follows but also Phil.

his material, he

65),as (23p.
Phil.

will be

herein

only Plato,
is shown

from

d. Qr. III. i. 131, 4 with entirelycorresponds *#".,

as Chrysippus,

d. "r" III. i. 177, 1.

216

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
.

and .corporeal,

not

in the

1__ the
_

-partsof the world


and

l Spirit incorporeal ; declares to be parts of the Deity,and

God

the

world

to

be

the

same

identifies

and God,3 and reduces nature, fate,


to

the will of God Providence


to the

the

law

of the

universe, and
of difference elder
any

unalterable

concatenation certain

natural
exists

causes.4 between

If,
his

therefore, a

theologyand
consist in

that

of the
up

this Stoics,

does not

his

giving

essential definition of
new

theirs,or

introducingany
the he

definition ; of the

it

is

merely that among conceptionof God


ethical aspects, and
nearer, sometimes
to

constituents

Stoic the

lays greater emphasis on


the

therefore
to

bringsthat conception ordinary presentation,


doctrine. This relation in which stand with him
:

sometimes
is

the

Socratic-Platonic of the

a primarily

consequence

the moral
as

and

elements speculative
to

the

latter is subordinate

the

former, so

the

metaphysical and
Stoic than
are theology

of the physical determinations in his exposition less prominent But it


was

the ethical.

all the

easier

on

this

account

for the dualism

of

the

Stoic ethics to react that the

upon

his

and theology,

it is undeniable

1 2

Vide Phil.

supra, 213, 3.
d. ("}?.III. i. 146, 6; m 92, 30: Totwn ; J8p.
et umrm

Dei
wa
4

9iom"i)ia"sunt

wa/rw

ntentis

14$, 1 ; 140
ct

gfft"stafa

hoc,quo contincmur,
Daus:

cst

et sooil summ

qfus 0t
140
: m.

membra. 3 Pkil

LOG. tit. and Phil. S. G"r, III. 157, 2; 168, 2; of. 108, 1, 2. Tihe same results from Be'ncf. vi. 23, though Seneca
at first exif the will

d, Gr.

III. 1 iv. 8, 2

148, 1
tura

Henef.
Ke" idem

sine Bco

est nee

natura, di"tat

as presses himself of the gods were the author est utritMgve, of the laws of the universe.

Nw

"na-

Dots

siM

("fficio
. .

naturam,

NATURE.

THE

WORLD.

217

oppositionof God
with
more

and

matter, in
sense

direct connection and


reason, is

CHAP. VIIL

the

ethical

oppositionof

asserted strongly
on

by

him

than

their

original
the
'

unity.1 If,however,
limits
of the

this side he has reached


not

Stoic

he did doctrine,

step overreally

them.
Nor and of do
we

find in

Seneca's that

theory of
contradicts

the world the

Tkeorintf
tJie m"rld nature.

nature

anything
His
new

prin2

of ciples

the Stoics.

utterances

concerningthe
of the world
out ;

the end, and origin,


its form
;
3

the

formation

its

itself unity establishing

of contradictions,4

maintaining itself in the ceaseless change of things; its beauty 5 assertingitself in the of its productions; the perfectadaptamultiplicity tion
of
means even
7

and

to

ends

in

its

arrangement/
not
cause us

as

to

which
doubt
accounts
;

the

evil in
serve

it should
to

any

"

all these
we

complete and
sources

verifythe'

have

from

other
To

respectingthe
super-

doctrines
1

of his school.

the littleness and

Vide
23.

ISp. 65, especially 2

and
8

27, 3 SQ. : V. Be. 8" 4 sq. ; Jgp. 107, 8 ; and Phil. d. Gr. III. i.

PML d. Gr. III. i. 149, 3 ; 144, 1; 152, 2; 154, 1; 155; 156,


3.
are

In

Seneca

these with and been


as

doctrines
the

connected mankind had their opposes,

theory
in

179, 3 ; 18S, 1. 5 J^c.ett.l71,3;j?d""/.iv.23. 6 J8p.118, 16; I"e PromdA. 1, 2-4 ; Nat. Qu. i. PTOCGDI. 14 s$.
Of. "with these

that in
nearer

the
un

world

general

corrupted

Benef.

iv. 5 ; ad

Sen, passages Mcvre. 18. The

proportion

first

conception of the world as an they were beginnings, itrls Dis comJiomini'biisgve


the
ex-

He

however,
notions of

wiunis9 in
is

the

latter

aggerated

Posido.

eminently Stoic.

passage Vide PML

nlus on this subject. Gf J2p. 90, especiallyfrom s. 36, and


PJtil. d. Gr.
8

d. Gr. III. 1. 285, 1 ; 286, 2 ; S61 sq* 7 Concerning the Stoic Theo-

FT.

13, and

III. i. 269, 6. PMl. d. 6fr" III.

dicee, and
tion i. 173 in it

Seneca's

participa-

i. 146, 6, end. 4 JV. Qu. iil

might
10, 1,
3 ; \ii.

be

much (about which quoted) vide ibid. III.

sg$.

218

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

into ficiality L_ fallen at that the rather


own

had already teleology he opposes the propositions an earlyperiod, created world was not merely for men : it
which, the Stoic
its purpose
an

carries
l

in

itself and when

follows
we

its

laws ;
under

it is

undue

limitation

place

it

the
its

miring aspect of the useful, instead of adglory as such.2 Pie does not, however,

deny
was

that

in
to

the
the

arrangement of the world regard


of man, and that the

paid

welfare the

gods

show unceasingly What he says and

to men.3 greatest benevolence likewise concerningthe system of the


"

universe

and

their

parts- the elements, their qualities transition into each the other;4 on
its

heavenly bodies,
nature,5 their

their

revolution, their
on

divine

influence

6 the earthly things ;

earth, and

the

spiritthat

animates

it ; 7

on

the

interconnection of the universe,8 regular interrupted by no empty spaces," all this onlydeviates from the do Stoic tradition in regard to certain details which whole;9 not affect his theory of the universe as a Im" 27, 2; Nat. Qu.viL vi. 20. Eetief. 2 JRenef.iv. 23 sq. 3 Benef. I. e. ; vi. 23, 3 ."?#. ; i. 1. 9 ; ii. 29, 4 sq. ; iv. 5 ; Nat, 18 "tpa8S. v. Qv".
1

Be

JBcnsf. t
iii. 29, the it in the

c.\

Nat. he

30, 3

2),but
manner

Qu. ii. 11; couples with


of

his
the

school pro-

theory of
as

natural

gnosticationthrough
which,
the

stars,

(Nat. Qit.ii. 32, 6 3$. j ad Marc. 3 and iUd. 185, 18, Qu. 3). (Nat. 10) ; 7 vi. 16); Nat. Qn.il C; J"".31,*5. Nat. Qu. vi. 16; ii. 6. On 5 Nat. Qu. vi. 16, 2 ; vii. 1, 6 ; the repose of the earth, wide D" Pnmd" i 1, 2 ; l$p.93, 9; Nat. 2.1,4 ; J3ew"f.iv. 23, 4; vi. 2123.
6

1. 179, 3 (Nat. Q%. iii.10, 1 ; 3) ; ibid. III. i. 183, 2; 184, I (Nat. Qu,. ii,
4

PMl.

d. 6fr. III.

confined

to

he believes,is as little the five planets as


above mentioned

influence

Qu. i. 4
In

; of. vii.

2, 3.

regard

to

this influence
natu-

Nat.

Qu,

ii. 2-7

(cf.Phil.
comets,

Seneca

alludes first to the


of the
stars

d. Or. III. 'i. 187,


9

4).

ral influence

(0.ff.

Bo in

regard

to the

220

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VIII.

be the however,certainly
even
warm

finest of all It

substances,finer
a

than

fire and

air.1

in consists,

word,

of

breath,or Trvev/Aa? This theory had not prevented the divine the elder Stoics from recognising nature to the fullest and dignityof the human spirit by it possessed extent, and Seneca is so completely
that
more reason

there

is

no

other

theorem

which

he reiterates

and frequently is to him


an

more

effluence
a

Divine has

Spirit implantedin
up his

emphatically. Human of Deity, a part of the human body, a god who


on one

taken

abode

there ; and the


an

this

our

to relationship
ii. 47) (Holzherr,
is

Grod he
that

bases, on
lie

hand, his
is modo

to say

soul ; for the Mb"tu


animus

affection

only
se

arguing

from

Stoic himself

premiss
share.

quodaMi

which On

he the contrary, he is speaking if he in his own name ; and gation investithe declares ultimately of the
is

did not

(Phil.
and work
must
as

d. Or. III. i.

120,
the
poreal, cor-

3) ;
can

if the upon be

corporeal alone
the

body,
had

soul shown
1

something
i.

question whether
to be

Cleanthes As be

already
flame
or

worthless the good a body does not 1 it (s-itjpra, p. 207, ),


follow that he the but forward is that he himself
not

(ibid. III.

194, 1).
the

]3p.57, #.
air cannot
or a

does

not
to

the

subjected to
sio animus, oonstatj de.

regardthe good as such, stillless


was

pressure

blow,

in earnest
is

as

qui

cis

toMiisxiwo

which proposition
to

assist tins the soul is

animo, noti potcst brought jjreh"njl'l a"liiic tenuwr est igtw, jpvr enquiry, qm
. .

quiteindependentof
a

it

"

omne
2

viz., that The same


further the of the the

body.
of the

JSp. 50,

est. ftt"gti corjnt"!t If a 6.

man

can

good (I. c.) that proposition


holds and
are

affections soul

bodies, and
for

the diseases of it" that of

wood, and make it straight, quanto faeilius (t'liim fiendMUs us ati(?jj)itfflW9iff"M"


bend

crooked

et

ovi-rbi hit more


enwt

/ oibseqwMtior aliud
$6

reason cause

given
the

Quid

est

aniw.tis

they

changes
and

pression, exqu(im"

ftuodamimodo
esse

Jtfibens
tanto

turning blushing cannot that and they pale,"c.,


be "to*

Vides sjtiri.ttts?

atttem

s/riritum
alia Of. Phil

accounted
'Mtas

for

Tom

muni-

faoiliore^i omni tenttior est. mat"ria""qua/tto

fextas
ff.

corpori imprimi
This his the also Seneca
own

corjww.
to be

declares

opinion.
are

d. "r. III. i. 196, 2, and 142, 2,where definitions entirely versal similar are proved to be uni-

If, however,

affections

among

the Stoics.

so something corporeal,

is the

VIRTUES

AND

VICES.

221

demand

for the
for

elevation
the

of

the

soul

above

the

CHAP.
VIIL

and earthly,

mankind

in

every

recognition of the dignity of the other, the and, on man;


man

internal freedom

of the

who

is conscious

of his

high origin and however, takes a


him deviate from side of Platonism.
and

essential nature.1 direction with the ancient The


in

This

thought,
makes
on

Seneca
Stoic
in
man

which

doctrine

the

Divine

is his reason,
to
reason

that

alone ; but

opposition

stand

the irrational

impulses,the affections ; and in combating the affections Seneca, as we shall find,in with the whole Stoic school,finds the accordance problem. The elder Stoics had weightiestmoral
not

allowed
oneness

this to confuse of man's

them

in their belief

as

to

the

essential nature.

But

already
of

Posidonius
be

had discovered that the affections couldnot


powers

unless,with Plato,irrational explained,


were

the soul

admitted
must

as

well

as

the reason.2
more

Similar
on

reflections

have

had

the

influence

Seneca's view the force,


more

of human

nature.

With

all the greater weakness


and

he felt its moral vividly


more

the imperfection, that


were no

human

beingwas
all
men

he was convinced absolutely without fault;that all vices


;

implanted in
nor cease

that the
a

superiorpower
would
never

of evil in human

as society

whole

be of

broken,
manners

the
;
3

complaints of the
and

corruption

that

even

after the renovation


41, 5 JSp. 44, 1 65, 20

Some

of

his

utterances Phil

on

12 ;

so.*

this

subject are
2

quoted,

d.

Gr. III. i. 200, 2 ; 201, 1 ; and

120, 14, "c. 2 Of. supra,


a

216, j mpra" 6, 7 ; 11, 6 $". ; Nat.

vide

V"B" ad Helm.

Cf. PML

p. 64. d. Grf. HI.

i. 253

Qu. i.Prcef.

*%. ; JSenef,vii. 27 ;

Hj).94,

54 ;

222

ECLECTICISM,

CHAP Yirr.

"

time

"^ innocence

would

oniy Of short duration.1 Such a universal phebe regardedas accidental : cannot possibly nomenon none or if a few only sustain the conflict with sin,
^e
next to
none are

free from the


;

it ; and therefore
must

in man,
an

side

by

side with
not

Divine, there
and side
sin

also be

element from
element

Divine
error

by
and

side with be

reason,

which

and
is

cannot

derived, an

which
This finds
to

irrational

strives

against
nature

reason.2 Seneca

irrational element

of human

which

of in the body, the opposition primarily more the Spirit he emphasises much

stronglythan the ancient Stoics appear to have The body, or, as he also contemptuouslycalls done. is something so worthless that we cannot the flesh, it, 3 it is husk of mere a think meanly enough of it :
the
a

soul :

tenement
can

into which
never

it has

entered home

for
:

short time, and

feel itself at

burden
for the
and

a prison, : a fetter, by which it is oppressed and opening of which it must necesloosing

elsewhere.
in

like Expressions

natural and
are

destiny
not

and

vocation,
in us;

those

JBp.11, 1-7; 57, 4, are ot less importance. 1 Nat. QM. iii.30, 8 ; cf. PJdL
d. Gr
'

inherent themselves

they develop

gradu-

III. i. p. 156, 3.

ally. But that does not exclude the theory that they develop
natural
:

Seneca

to admit

this.

from himself seems freely themselves 8 lie says, lNrms' /#". 05, 22 si cxistwws
euro
. . .

causes. we

NuMgwwi

in

Ep.

04:, 55,

istft

(id omnjM'llflt in, fwnorcn

ineftwn,

noluenwi

vitito nasti:
sunt inyesta,
. .

wwermt,
nos

sttjwnulli
.

WMnqunM

Jwjus
W.WM

Cum cor/Htwulimtittttor.

ritio

nfituracmoiliat

Ufa
But

wit, di"traJiam
tatvm
.
. .

nm

Ulo

sooift-

inteqrostac

this* utterance
accordinfx
the Stoic

lilwros gen nit. be judged must the

contemptm
eat.

oorporis
Concorn.Ma/ro.
j arid

"ni corta

libertds

to

standard

of

fatalism,

Vices stand,
our

iadeed, in

opposition to

the expression cf. (id ing1 5 24, ; Kp. 74, 16 ; 02, 10 Phil, d. 6V. III. i. 445J, 8.

IMMORTALITY.

223

sarilylong;1 with

its

flesh

it

must

do
and

battle,
suffer-

CHAP. YIIL

through its body it is exposed to ings, but in itself it is pure exalted the body, even above
above

attacks
and
as

invulnerable,2
Grod
is exalted soul

matter.3

The the

true

life of

the

therefore,with

departure from the to exchanging the Platonic though Seneca is averse belief in immortality4 for the Stoic theory of a
limited continuance of existence after

begins, body, and

death, he

approximates to the latter 5 (ashas already closely been shown) in his idea of the close relationship the present and future life, and existingbetween
also in

respect
strictest
to

to

the

duration

of future him
term

existence
a

expressionsinvoluntarily escape
in

which
would

Stoic have

the

sense

of the
6 even

not

ventured

employ
as

the

of the pre-existence

soul,which

personal existence
finds body
cum

certainlyhad

no

place in
1

his

system,
33
:

countenance
2

in passages
24,
5
:

%p. 92, 13,


garment,
soul,
26:
an

The

Ad kac
ne

Marc.
came

Omne

illi sidat.

is

a onus

vela/nie'iitwn of necessarium. of death


onus
:

the

est,
is
:

grave abstrahatur

certamen et

102,

The natalis.

day
?

Ad

ceterni

Depone
120, 14

11, 7: Corpmculmi hoc, custodia et vlnculum animi,


hue*

Helv.

Quid
domum

cunGtaris
esse

Nee

atque
est

Ulna
et

pitium
tium.

et

corpus, quidem breve


: 'pwna

Jwe

sed Jios-

animus
after tius

quidem
vnamis.

hospi-

jactatur et ipse sacer cui non jpossit


.
. .

65, 16
ae

JWG anwii COTJJUS


est
:

inici
8

pondus
illo acoessit cit. 21
:

prcvnente
Loo.
in

Ep. 65,

24

Quern

in

lioo

urgetur, in

vinoulis est,nisi
be
a

mundo

"c. pMlosopliia,,

locum Deus obtinet, hunc Jiomine animus. JVa". Qu".


14.

I will not

slave to
non

Prof.
4

body, quod equideni my vinclum aliter adspicio quam oircunidaaliquodlibertati tnece


turn in
. . .

Phil. d. Gr.
1. 203 Ibid.

III. i.

154,

1 ;

202,
5
G

sq.
aeternus

hoc

o"bnoxio domiliber habitat.

Iwimortalis,
; and ;

(J$]j".

cilio

animus
;

57, 9

Phil.

d. 6fr. III. i.

Ep. 102, 22

ad Marc. III

Polyl.9, 3

5 Part

24, 5 ; ad i. 203, 3.

154, 1

203, 3).

224

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, yni'

where

the

recollection

of its

high

descent

is

en-

joinedupon the soul,and its elevation to heaven is to its original as a return home, when it represented the soul found it.1 leaves the body behind, where different parts But as with Plato the psychologically with the anthropocombined of the soul had been logical of soul and body, so Seneca cannot opposition
entirelyescape
and

this

inference.

With

Posidonius of
a

he follows the Platonic irrational element

discrimination
in

rational irrational
and

the

soul, the

element desire ; 3 all under

being again divided into courage and though he expresslyincludes


the qryspovucov, of his school and
so

them
to

far adheres

the

doctrine there

still remains

againstPlato and Aristotle, his theory and that of between


difference that Seneca of

Chrysippus the
assumes

important
centre

a plurality personality while Chrysippus makes of original faculties, one fundamental and the same faculty, generate reason, affections and desires through the changesthat take

in the very

placein it.4 Though we


1

cannot

the period of help recognising


dcri ved powers of the soul \PMl. III. i. (h. d, 198, 1] or analogous ext

24, 5; Up. 70, d. 12; 102, 22; 120, 14; Phil 65, 16 : "r. III. i. 203, 2 ; 3 ; $]".
Ad
Marc, The soul will rflrerti ad ilia

them) in, koo princijmli atignid irrationale, ext et


to

rationale : Hind Mtio s"ntiti. (02,30 ##.). git-orionfit/it 2 "oc. oit. 8 : Zrratwnalis Supra, p. 64 $q$. pars 8 anwii habet duns 94, 1 : Pnto inter mfl partes, alteJUj). amHtwrnm^ mconrcniet, externa corpori raw, aMwiosam, tecfuv in honor in a,m" ew, poteritem, adftfatwni" posit adtjitirij corpus
a-niwi coli,in animo wityistras, per QUOM
ess"

Cartes

mwtmtur

bu$,altrraMhumilew,)lm{jwidam voluptatlbm deditam ("Jp. 71,


27).
4

aUMMrgiw, pro/tieripyunifwin*

oipale no'bis datas

(tlieseven

Vide Phil

d,6

OCCASIONAL

SCEPTICISM.

225

eclecticism

in these

deviations

from

the older Stoic

CHAP. YIIL

doctrine, yet the


is also exhibited of his

scepticalside of this eclecticism by Seneca in the occasional uncertainty


of subjects of full argue

which

he

language respectingthe same elsewhere speaks in the tone


We his
cannot

matic dogfrom

conviction. the the


on

perhaps,
his mother

fact that comfort

in

epistleto

concerning
of all

afforded
secures

by
Grod

the

dependence against
But
it

God,

he

himself

every has

things attack by
an

not

deciding what
sceptical

is.1

niably undein disAssertion

sound

when
of the

he

elsewhere,
causes,

cussing the question


that
views
a

highest

declares

fj^^"
all speGulatwn-

man

must

be the

content

among
to

of conflicting

to

choose

most
our
"

probable:
In and up

determine
same

the he
one

truest, exceeds
says
can

powers.2
What
sets
can

the

way

of

the

soul

where

it

is, no
and
is not other

fathom. that ; but


about
'

One how

this

definition

another
clear

the
to

soul, which
about
in justified

attain itself,

certainty
be

things?
1
2

We

should

not

calling
Plato,
has
con-

Of. Z.

c.

145, 1.

echoes Tim.

the

jBp. 65, 10 (cf. 65, 2, and 65, 23) : jFer ergo judex sententiawi
et

29,
in

passage o9 which the

from Seneca

quoted
text.

preceding

pronuntia,
verisimillimttm

quis
Meat.
est

tiM

videatitr
awn

qitisverissimttm
tarn

dicer e, Id

s JVat. Qu. vii. 25, 1 : Midta sMwt,g[fit""%esseconGedi'ni'us,qua"lia"

enim

ipm

veritas

swjvra ; and

nos

after

qiia/m he has

sunt,
animum

ignovamus.
. .

Habere

nos
:

omnes

fatebuntur
ille rector

set forth

Stoics theories

objections of the the Platonic against


the

qididto/men

si-tanimus

he

proceeds

thus

Aut

for sententiam aut, quod faciU'us eoncentum in ejustnodi rebus est, nega tifri turn, esse, aMus qu-enet Dei dwinam dam, alius vim ligueve et nos r"verti jufie. In this we pa,rtem,a,limtenvmsimuma"'refni, estimating passage it clearly aMus that must rememher incorporalem potentiam,.

nostri^ non magis dominusque tiU qui$q%a"m easpediet, gwam alius illim, dicet $j)iriidbisit:

"26

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. vm.

Seneca
to

which

otherwise he is not

because of such isolated utterances, sceptic method is the dogmatism of his whole opposed,but they,at any rate, prove that and attacks of scepticism, free from severe Cicero
and it is,above other eclectics,

that, as
all

with

theories which things,the strife of philosophic the dogmatism of the Stoic to waver. causes The Stoicism of Seneca is purer in the sphere to which he himself attaches the greatest importance
"

EtTiics.

namely, ethics.
doctrine
in its

The

idealism

of the
also in

Stoic

moral

grandeur, and
a

its

asperities,

finds

in

him

zealous with

and

eloquent representative.
Stoics that there is
alone the
no

He

declares

the

good
Essential agreement
mtk the

but

virtue, because
nature
:

virtue
can

is,for

man,

to according

he

paint

satisfaction

which

it secures,

principles
of the

fortune,the

independence of all external of the wise with invulnerability man,


even

the

Staics,

glowing
that

and

colours glaring
man

he is convinced inferior to the

the virtuous
"

is in

no

way

indeed, is even superior; Deity, in a certain respect, not in he requires from us merely moderation eradication ; emotions,1but their unconditional our
he reiterates

the the

well-known

remarkable

ments state-

about the
Non

unity and

equalityof all virtues,


the
wise
man

perfectcompleteness of
sanguinem dicat, deerit,qiii
calorem:
adeo animo
non

the

upon
on

qui

wishes and authority than a fiettum proofs is named


; but

potent Uquere de ceteris rebus, De adhiio ipse se gw"rat. ut


Clement, 1 taken little,

somnium

this is

tant. unimpor-

3, 5, would prove alone, and Ep. 121,


In

Vide

PMl.

1 *#., and

Ep.

d. Gr. III. i. 252, 53. 11 : Est ali-

12,

still

less. is

Up.

102

quid,
Deum
timet
:

(beginning) a belief
which

in immortality, rather

sapiens anteeedat quo ille leneficio natwce non sapiens.

based

mo

228

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

wicked these
nature

and

weak
he

as

Seneca
so

maintains,

and in

have
our

as evils,

also says,

deeply rooted

by

is conditioned happiness of the wise man by his wisdom, the autarchyof the virtuous virtue which correspondsto the Stoic demands.

The

if this virtue and wisdom us are profit or hardly ever, to be found in the actual never, world ? 2 By these arguments the older teachers of have seen, been duced inthe school had already,as we demands to modify their original by important still more likely to concessions, and Seneca was him not see procedure. Thus we adopt the same which his predecessors only approving the concessions human made to had in weakness, but of his utterances deviatingstill further from many the original severity of the system. Like the

What

does

it

he older Stoics,

attributes

certain

value
these

to

other

things besides goods among


On
1

virtue;3
in

and

reckons
sense.4

things longer
that two procircumterntwo

the

wider other

This
is
shows similar and not connection
no

is unimportant.5

the

hand, he
dence kinds

Phil. of

and
ances

d. Gr. III. i. 252 $$$., utterThe supra,, p. 221. Seneca those there almost of the

only
of from

expositionwere

quoted
word for

duced

offcen coincide word Paul


most

stances, experiences,and

with
on

Apostle

peraments,
writers immediate
to agree,
even

that

of man, contact have their written

the universal sinfulness of the this is one and the

need

stand

in any in order

of strikingbetween

points of
which of and
con-

them
to the

given rise
personal
which p.

legend

as to their words, in many propositions, 2 As Seneca admits, Trcwqu.

intercourse of.

An.
3

7, 4

J$p.4,

2 ;

90,

44.

correspondence;
377

E.g.,yyro"ucta, (vporj-y^va,

cerning
AbMndL

Baur, J)rei
A. St.

*##., and
et

Paul, Fleury, Seneque Paris, 1853 ; i. 269 sq$. Hisally regarded, this coinci-

concerning which cf. Ep. 74, 17: ; Vita Beat. 87, 29; 22, 4). Seneca calls them also yotwra
and
4

oommoda,.
In

Benef*

v.

13, 1, he agrees

EXTERNAL

GOODS

AND

ILLS.

229

quite consistent when


life and
at

he

sometimes
for the

extravagantly OHAP.
necessaries of

praises the Cynic contempt


other
times

'__

counsels

compliance with
of all that patetic of the Perimore

customs, existing
can

and

careful But
we

avoidance

attract

notice.1

hear Stoic about

language
nature

than

the

when the

Seneca,

in

spiteof all his declamation


of

self-satisfying
to

virtue, and
more

indifference

things
can

ternal,2 ex-

is once
no

of

opinionthat Fortune
than gifts

find
man

better

steward alone
a

for her
can

the wise

;
folding un-

since riches

giveopportunityfor
of
to

the

of
may add

number

virtues,and
the
is the

external

goods
which with

something
virtue.3 of says

cheerfulness
same

springs from
what

It

thing

he

external when the

evil.

It

sounds

nimous magna-

enough
Fortune of
to
an

challenges philosopher
he
the
to

encounter, when
which spectacle affords

extols the
wise
man

mity sublipling grap4

the

gods ; but this lofty tone changes only too completely into a feeble and querulous sound, when Seneca (topass
20, 9 ; 62, 3. And, on the other hand, dc. Fin. iii 20, 68 ; JEJp. animi, corjporis" fortunes. Else14, 14. 2 Vzt. 74, where, however 17; Mg.9 Mp. 92, 5; De (Ep. he 5 SreSeat. 2. 8 62, 124, 22, 76, 13) expressly ; Ep. ;
with the

with

misfortune

the

Academy

and

the Peri-

lona pateticsin distinguishing

that says virtue is

named
view is

ad dimtias (to everything except wssima improperly (precario} riches) per cmtemptum Further The former via est. tiarwn good. be

the

true dim-

proofs

to

found

in

Ohrys-

Phil.

d.

Gr.

III. t

215, and

others, Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. 262, 3,

ippus
1

and

8, 4 *q". ; Trangu. An. Senef. v. 4, 3 ; 6, 1 ; JBp.29, 1 ; 90, 14; Senef. vii. 8 *".; tip. 178,2; 215,2.

swpra, p. 227, 1. 3 Vit. Seat. 21 1$. ; J0p.5. 4 Promd,. 2, 6 *q$. ; JBp.64, d. Gr, III. i, 4 : 85, 39 ; PMl.

230

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

over

other

though elsewhere unimportant examples),1


that
is
a

constantly assuring us
and

banishment for the

is

no

evil, man,2
his

that

every

land

home

wise
over

breaks
own

forth

into

unmanly

lamentations

when or exile,3
we

he enforces the
a

courtlyprinciple
wrong

that which when


are

must

put
in

those

good face upon the high places permit


much
earnestness

doings
;
4

themselves that

he argues
no
more

with

there

who

citizens or more jects subobedient peaceable and when than the philosophers;5 even Cato, for sacrificing is blamed is elsewhere so idolised,

himself time,6
on

uselesslyin the political struggles of his

Though

we

must

allow

that his observations


it is another

this

subject are
and

partially true, yet

question whether
utterances
excuses

with they harmonise with the principles of the


in such wise
as

his

general
He

Stoics.

himself
a

cases,
nor

it is
ever

true, by avowing
will be ; he

that he is not

man,
on

only
is

regards himself
1

the

road

to

wisdom,
master

and

As

in

Ep. 53,
troubles

where

the short

man

and
4

his

(Dio, Ixi. Ep. 14, 7


;

incredible

(incrediHlia
a

10).
De also
.

sunt, guce tiderym} of


sea
"

Ira,
the

ii. 33 ;

voyage Not

are

described.
in

cf
later 2 ;

admonitions

to

only
in

his vi.

as Benef. 27, writings, EJJ. 24, 3 ; 85, 4 ; but also and exile during his own especially

prudence, Ep. 103, 5 j 14, 14. Elsewhere, indeed (as in De Ira, iii. 14, 4), Seneca's judgment
5

was

quite different,
where

consolatory letter mother, cf 4, 2 ; 5, 4 ; 6, 1


in his
.

to

his
;

Ep. 73,
he

among
that
was

other the

8,

3 sqq. ; 10, 2 ; 12, 5 $([%. 3 Ad Polyl. 2, 1^ 13, 3; 18, and in the Epigrams from 9
-,

assures things us rulers (the then ruler are

Nero)

honoured

philosopherswho
to them
6

exile. bius

The Seneca

dedication is said tried of

to to
to

Polyhave

fathers by the indebted are for their leisure,


as

Ep. 14,
of the

12 sggt.; cf. for

the

subsequently
press on account ies it contained

of the this

supnatter-

sake

freed-

69 sg@. ; De JProvid, 2, 9 "qc[.

contrast, Ejp. 95, Const. 2, 2 ; De

FREE

WILL.

23

content

if
l

things
his

with

him

are

going
hnman

somewhat weakness
_

CHAP.

better ;

but

concessions

to

his avowal relate to the wise, and leads us expressly back to the question as to the real existence of the which Stoic wise man, Seneca, as before remarked, has But the scarcely
if he thus for

courage

to

answer

in the
man

affirmative.
is progressing

substitutes

the

who

the
on
man

wise
as

man,2 the
he is in whereas

requirements of the
sarily therebynecesas

system

are reality

lowered

; and

it at first seemed

if

and virtue he would and through perfect wisdom that we could be like God, it ultimatelyappears be must satisfied to imitate the gods, so far as human weakness allows of it.3 In other places, easier again,Seneca speaks as though nothing were than to lead a life according to nature and reason, and as if such a life were and entirely a matter solely of will and not of power ; 4 but this homage which the philosopherpays to his school and to himself
cannot

conceal
earlier

from

us

his deviation The

from

the
on

spirit
the

of the power

Stoicism. will and

proud reliance

of moral

is Stoics' ethics started, Were it otherwise

from which the intelligence, with Seneca deeply shaken.


not

he

could

express and

himself

so

respecting the strongly


men,

weakness

wickedness defects.

of
We

and

the unavoidableness

of these

Vlt. Beat.
3 j

16
6

57,
2

89,

ad "elv.

s^.j cf. 5, 2.

Ep.

Vit. imbecilUta"patitwr,

Beat.
quo-

18,
modo
*

Cumpotuero,
9 ;

mvam

Cf.

72, JEtp.

s$$. ; 75, 8

vportet.

s$g. ; 42, 1, and p. 268-271. * Benef. i, 1, 9 : Hos seqttamur

Mp. 41,
13,

116,

8 ; Be

Ira,

ii.

1 8%q.

duces, gua/n"uan*

232

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. YIII.

perceivea similar deviation when


his sublime
wise
man

Seneca,

in

spiteof
of

utterances

about

the blessedness

the

and

Divine
of human

Providence,is forced by the


to complain l sufferings its storms

consideration
all life is is the
a

that

torment, and that amidst


of

death

onlyplace
to conclude

refuge.

It

would

assuredlybe
in earnest
so

wrong with

from

this that he is not he


as
so

the

which principles

frequentlyand
influence
of

emphatically expresses \ but free from keep sufficiently


and position
men

in his life he

did not his

the
a

from

the faults of nevertheless

period (to the best


preserve
2
"

of which

he

to belongs)

his character from


1

vacillations and
:
.

contradictions
life
He
as

Ad

vita tarn

Pjlyl. 9, 6 supplicium est procelloso


. . .

sq.
. .

Omnia
in Twc navi2

Seneca's
blameless.
no

altogether
made of

himself he studia

mari

such anni

claim;
inter
vana

speaks

gantibus
mortis The
est.

mdlus LOG.

jporti($ nisi
cit.

the

con-

4,
of

rhetorical

nature

sg". this this

sumpti (Nat. Qti.iii. Preef. 1) ;


he
he

acknowledges plainly
was

that perfection and

consolatory testimony the


But
we

treatise less the in the


:

makes

still far of the

from
wise

the
man,

valuable.
same

find Thus

where. else-

was

clogged with
were

epistlead
:

that his words

faults ; many stricter than household


more

Marc.

11,

Tota

fleUlis vita
37 j 102, 22 detineor car^

his life ; that his

possessionswere
and rious luxupatible com-

est,"c.
Gram
cere.
2

Ep. 108,
terrenoqm

greater, and
manner

his

of life much
than
were

properly

Seneca's

character,
has been in both times

as

is
quentlyBeat. frethe

with
17 ;

his

principles ( Vit.

well

known,

defamed

strongest
and
on

manner,

in
;

cient an-

vide p. 231,2), and invented be or may in that which

JEp. 6, 1 et pass. ; though much exaggerated

his deadly enemy xiii. 42, Suilius,ap. Tac. Ann. often and Dio Cass. (if he is speaking extravagantly glorified. This is not the place for a comin his own plete lowing name) Ixi. 10, folthe other

modern

and,

hand, it has been

examination

of this vexed the the It


tion enumera-

the

same

or

an

equally

question,

or

for

of its literature

shortly mention points.


be
a

; but I will decisive most be


tainly cer-

hostile authority, says of his colossal income (supposed to


300 millions of

sesterces),

would to

his avarice,and

his

luxury, we
that

mistake

regard

must, nevertheless, suppose

INCONSISTENCIES he was philosopher, of his people and

OF

SENECA.

233

so,

as

not

so

alive

to

the
we

tencan
(

CHAP.

deneies
the
*

of his age, that


unwortMer
them

over-rich and over-powerful minister of Nero, ascribed to external possessions a far and perhaps greater value, unavoidable beyond what was
'

part is ascribed to by Dio, Ixi. 2. Meanwhile is censured Seneca by Tacitus, xiv. 52, for precisely the opposite

conduct.) "Whether
were

they
for Bio
not can-

in have

his

position
use

made

more

accessory

to

the

plan
(as

luxurious been the Stoic.


*

might a expected from


of
Ms

it,than

Agrippina's
maintains,
say.
was

murder

Ixi. When

12)

Tacitus

Concerning
houses and

riches of Ms been

their

counsel
to have

and

splendour

asked, little seems


left to them

except silent gardens, for the 2 saving of cf Nat. Qu. iii. Prcef* ; Ep. acquiescence; had been if it Tacit, xiv. Agrippina, even 77, 3 ; but especially would to have seem effected, 52 sq". According to Dio, Mi.
country
.

severity with which demanded repayment of a


2, the
of ten
one

he loan
was

been
own

with synonymous destruction. certain Ms

their fore Be-

millions the
causes

of sesterces
of the Nero in favour courtier
may

death

Seneca
the

speaks
had crime
;

of

rection insurof

under

(Tac. xv. 62) as if no complicity with


wherewith
but that
to to

he had

Britannicus.
be

it Similarly,
as a

that

he,

may and have in

reproach himself
did
not
mean

he it dark his

pressly ex-

official of the been he


to

empire,
lent
a

oppose

it,and
xiv.

even

silent, or
to many
once

his

aid When

defended
a

(Tac.

11)

mains re-

regard
had tMs

wrong.

committed

himself

So of

also

spot on unworthy
and Ms

his life.

flattery
freedman

position it was possible to avoid it ;


his had such seemed towards MeanwMle form
a

hardly
don to abanSeneca

Claudius

post,
course,

even

if

Polybius (in the Consolatio ad he sought PolyMum?) by wMch


to effect Ms

had
a

the moral
like the
it
a

strength for might have


of

return the tMs

from

ment, banishhe

and

despondency

failure is

duty
to

displays
are

under

misfortune,
blame-

commonwealth.
difficult

justly considered
with Ms

able, especially when

they

are

judgment.
Seneca and
Nero's

If,for

contrasted stance, in-

equally

Burrhus
for

unworthy
de

favoured

inclination

acting (Tac. xiii. 12 8$. j cf. c. that avers 2; xiv. 2), Tacitus
tMs could
was

of the deceased l*udus despot (in the morte Claudii) and Ms

mockery

valiant

to protestations

Helvia On Mm

the

best

thing they
to the

do

according

tion posi-

sqq. et jpas*.; ,mp. the other hand, the

(4

230,2).

reproach of

they things. "When admission Nero's in acquiesced


of
into

immoral

conduct
and

cast upon Dio

the tells power

14)
the

(L #.)are proof,but to (xiv. not only without circus, Tacitus tions. invenall appearance that gratuitous they had not us
by
Suilius
to

Mnder

it.

(An

Tacitas

describes

the

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. VIII.

expect from
his views.

him

perfect logicalconsistencyin
addition
to

If in

this

we

consider effect led

how him

the endeavour easily into may which


on exaggerations

after rhetorical the that


one

side
in

or

the

we other,,

well

understand
a

even

questionsas

to

he had

clear

opinion he

is not

sistent alwayscon-

in his utterances. In the

further

development
and Burmoral
are

of his

as ethics,

we

influence
rhus very
on

of Nero

Seneca

and endeavours principles matters but of


earnest

(Tac.

xiii.

2) as

tion, convicthrow
in

salutary. Seneca

himself

likewise

displaysparticular
a

61) to Ms appeals (I. c, xv. independent bearing towards gives Nero, of which. Tacitus an example (Tac. xv. 23), and
likewise

traits
favourable We school of know

which
that he

ter. light on his characthe


Sextius

adopted

Plutarch, Goh. Ira,, 13, the habit of daily minute selfexamination lates I)io, Ixi. 18, also re(De Ira,, iii. 36 p. 461. in which he instance an *#.); that in his youth, from enthusiasm for philosophy, he restrained Hero's cruelty by a
bold word.
of him The
same

author

abstained

from

meat

during
to

says all his 19


:

(notwithstanding many years, according lix. tion's precept; and hatred in elsewhere),
Se Kal "\.\ovs

So-

many

/xafowTroXAota

'Paj- respects carried out the simple of life enjoined on cro^la mode him the and of the Stoic at by Attains, judgment even a virepapcis; this. ripeage (Ep. 108, 13-23). TaciTacitus far outweighs even tus Tacitus

irdvras fjt,ev /ca0' eavrbv

to (xv. 23) calls him a vir (xv. 63) bears witness egregius; in xiiL 2, praises his his moderation (corpussenile et Jionesta ; in xv. oomitas victu 62, he parw the tentatwTTi) ; his he 1. to xv. where c. bequeathed he 45, says passage friends
uimm

before

his
et

jam
in
c.

guod pidoherrimum
sues

death

follows transfer

tions, prudential considerain the as contemplated

Tictbebat, imagines, vitce


and many had tudine in 65 he relates in the

that Piso

of his property to Nero (xiv.53 $g. ; Sueton. Nero, 35) be

conspiracyof
him
""

cannot most

destined
virtutum, his that of

for

the

in sontibm throne, gitasi

clariself, him-

swnimwn

of the features of his pleasing life is finally his beautiful relation


with
.

adduced evidence.

as

dictory contra-

One

fastigium deteoto.
much
not is

Seneca

his

admirable

wife 4 s%, ;

writings, despite Paulina, cf


declamatory,
the Tac.
xv.

Mp. 104, 2,

63 s%.

only gives us
a man

sion impreshis

to

whom

"36

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
VIII

social conditions

of the human have

time

must

have
need

evoked
of

lively feelingof
Stoic

weakness

and

help ;

degree given placein some the failures of humanity, and to sympathy with to the claims of philanthropic Stoic self-sufficiency sympathy and assistance; the cosmopolitanism of have been developed on the the school must chiefly of universal form side of feeling, in the love, of mankind. Finally, the less that circumstances in the way of afforded opportunity to individuals
must severity

effectual interference the


more

with

the

course

of the

world,

fate pressed upon all, heavilythe common it fulfilled itself and the more the relentlessly the inclination for public life have been must more for the repose of private and the predilection lost, life have gained ground, but the more stronglyalso the necessityfor submission and for to fate, must
"

the

of moral interdependence which the Stoics conviction,


itself felt. All

conduct

with

had

never

religious denied, have

made

tMngseseternal.

perceived in Seneca's moral writings. The independence of external things, and virtue, *s assured to us wni"n is by by wisdom commended than by him. one no more energetically No to seek one our pressingly requires us more and to happinesspurelyand entirelyin ourselves,1
may
1

this

be

Numerous

authorities
in

for

this will be found

30, 4
Beat. 21 ;

8g$. ; 77, 11
Marc.

J$p.82, 2 ; *#. ; 8 sqq. ;


71, 18,
7 ;

Benef. iv. 2, 2, 4 ; Vita Seat. 11, 2 ; 13, 5 ; 14, 1 ; De Ira, 1,


9, 2 *#.; of. JBjp. 85, 10; Phil, d. Or, III. i. 234, 252, supra 226, 1.
To the
on more

Cons, ad

19, 3 sq". ; Vita

4, 3 85, 18
3 ;

," J@p.66, 14 ;

decided
9 sqq, ; De

declara:

; 39 ; 87 ; 11 sq. ; 44 ;

tions

this

subjectbelong

De

120,

92,

14

sg$. ; 72,

Provid.

2,

Const. 3,

ETHICS

OF

SENECA.

237

encounter

bravelywliat

fate may

send

us.

But

since
man

CHAP,
'_

it is his moral

constitution insists

alone which
most

gives to

this

freedom, he
attached, and

on emphatically

the

conscientious it is

fulfilment he
more

of the

conditions
the
more

to which earnest
on

becomes he
won

the

subject the

is

convinced
man's

that

the

victoryis only to evil by the most


sick believes,
and

be

over

inclination to
All
are,
as com-

severe

conflict,1
need of

he
Strictness

in

healing; the

bating of our faults is the chief problem of philoof this, the first condition of sophy ; the recognition in his old age he says of improvement ; 2 and even another he now himself that he is visibly as man, what his defects are.3 He, therefore,cannot sees
4= ; 8, 2 sq. ; 19, 4 ; tive of Christian conceptions, 4, 2 sq. ; Hrevit. v. Ep. 6, 1 : InteUego^ Ludli, non 2 ; ad Helv. 5 ; JBenef. Hi. 20, em"ndan me tantuni, sed trans1; Mp. R3, 11; 59, 8 ; 64, 4; figwari. Much, Indeed, is alin need of improvement : 74, 19 ; 75, 18 ; 85, 39. ways 5 ;

4,

2 ;

5,

Vita

Beat.

Cf.

Baur,

Drei

AbJiandl.

p.

Et

Jwc

ipsum argumentum
transla-ti

est in

40
2

ipsi cegros se esse Concerning the esmalum intra nostrum: seGus pression transfigurari (fjuzracf JSp. in visceribus 94, 48, where sedet, n"s est, popfyova-Qai) ipis words these are ad swnitatem et idea difficulter quoted from et fadenda, didioit Aristo : Qid quicu nos eegrotare pervenim/iis, mtanda nescimus. Initinm 9 percepit, nondwn, ac J2p. 28, : nisi in ea, qua didiovk salutis mtitia, est est, peccati (ac- sapiens ideo animus to Epicurus) ejus transfiguratus est. cording The expressiontherefore signiquantum potes te ipse coargue, of the inner transformation fies Vita Beat. 1, inquire in te, "c.
senserunt.
.

quotations in PHI. cL. Gr. III. i. p. 253 ^., and supra, cf. Mp. 50, 4 : Quid nos deeipimus? J"on est extrinthe

sqff. Besides

meli'us

animi,

guod

vitia, sua-, qua adTvue igvwrabat, videt. gratis Quibvadam cegris latio
eiim fit,

One

infects

another

Sana"

the
as

whole

will and theoretical


one

disposition,
from the

accetu. T)imur,simodo separemur Similarly, ,%. 49, 9 j 7, 1 ; 94, 52 s#". ; 95, 29 s%.
3

distinguished
the

merely
on

conviction
and

hand,
and
on

merely
im-

In the is

remarkable
so

passage

temporary

which

strikingly sugges-

provement

occasional the other.

38

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

too

stronglyimpress
self-examination
l

upon
and
a

us

the

necessity of
what

1_

severe

ceaseless labour within


to
us

ourselves ; made
a

he

recommends

he himself

duty,to take preciseaccount every evening to our of the day past ; 2 he refers us conscience, hidden ; 3 from which nothing that we do can remain of the he reminds us gods, the ever present and deeds,4 of the day of words of our witnesses it will be death, that great judgment day when in man is genuine or false ; 5 in how much shown should regard the happithat we a word, he desires ness
of the wise moral side
all
as

the reward
he

and activity,

by side with the those enquiries into individual


those he counsels has himself devoted

unceasing finds necessary,6 consequently of virtue, universal principles


circumstances of

of the most

and life,
to which

designed for specialcases,


so

great

part

of

his

writings.7
But

the
also

more

completely the
5 *#".,

individual
4 s$g. ; PUL

corre-

Of.

Ep. 50,

51,
GOT

Ep. 26,
He

d. @r.

6, 13 (nobis qiioqm
e$t
tmm
2 3
. . .

militandum

III. i. 204, 3.
6

proioe qii"eungue
.

lawiant*). De Ira, iii.36 ; cf p. 186, 5. Ep. 28, 9 ; 41, 2 ; sup. p. 237,

into this
the

goes very in his 94th

minutely
and 95th

2 ;

Ep.
a

43,
manner

Men that his

live

in

proving of special indispensability and precepts for practicallife,


of

letters, in the

former

such

scarcely in the latter that


whole
ethical

universal

(deereta). In principles anyone both he made maintains conduct to be that, conpublic, the recorder autem e sidering greatness of human Qwld prodest the overwhelm and ocidos hominum et se corruption, auresqtte influence of Bona conscientia twwtcvre ? ing society, no bam advooat,mala etiam in soli- counteracting means should be left ext sollicita, tudine anxia unemployed ; 94, 52 $g. ; atgiw
could bear
.
. .

te

mi^er-um^
!

si contemnis

kwic
4

testem

68 sgg. ; 95, 14 "%%. ; 29 sqg. 7 Especially in the treatise De

Vita Beat.

20, 5

JBp.83, 1.

Benefciis and in the letters.

LOVE

OF

MANKIND.

239

sponds

to

Ms

moral

destination,the
connected with

more

closely
more

CHAP.

will he find himself

the others,

L_

and the purelywill he apprehend this relationship, will he extend it to all men. The more entirely Stoic principles respectingthe natural kinship of mankind, and the disinterested help which we owe to all without exception,have found in Seneca one of their most eloquentassertors ; * in his conception element of this relation, however, the political throughout recedes before the universallyhuman of the moral judge before element, and the severity which bears witness not only to a lovinggentleness the benevolent dispositionof the philosopherbut also to his accurate knowledge and impartial judgment In political of human life Seneca nature. which is not surprising feel no confidence, considering can
^

Universal

the age in which


: experiences

he lived,and
mass

his

personal
so

he

finds

the

of mankind

evil

that

we

cannot

without

moral

injury make
to

ourselves of the
our

dependent on
Commonwealth

their favours,and
too

the condition
us

hopeless for

waste

strength upon
too

it ; the individual

state

seems

to him

small

beside

the great the

polityof mankind
statesman,

and

of

the world, and that of


a

of the activity
race

beside
fining con-

teacher of the human


to them.

to allow of his

himself him
a

Those
2

connections
are

have upon

for free

far

greater charm

which

based

As

is shown

in Phil. d. Qr.

Clement,
cannot

III. L286,
2

Cf.

1; 287, 2; 299, 3. ibid. III. i. 295 sgg. ;

i. 3, 4 sgg., where we that what suppose says of the importance of the commonroler
some
ex-

Seneca
of the

(cf.mpra, 230, 7), J3p.14, De wealth, apart from also, and, concerningpolitics
4 sgq.

240

ECLECTICISM,

CHAP, YIII"

choice and

are

to regulatedaccording

the needs
To
we

and

character peculiar he has devoted


reason
an

of the
entire

individuaL and treatise,1 what


we are

marriage
have every
on

to

suppose, Seneca full

from held

told

the

that subject himself had

married

of which life,

he

A- taste
a

in the highestestimation. experience, for friendship also appears in him in

degree, and we have already seen his need in reconciling of that he has difficulty of this relation and his noble conception friendship for himself.2 with the wise man's But sufficiency
very

marked

the

real

crown

of his

moral
the

doctrine

lies in

the

universal which

love

of man, itself
on

bestows

the meanest
slave does not

and

most

interest purely human all without even distinction, which in the even despised,
man

gentlenessof is so which disposition especially antagonistic to and which anger and hatred, tyranny and cruelty,4
;

the forget

in that

travagances of expression, is merely the language of a courtier ; it was not only quite true

roust

have For the

lost

its cliarm of

for
this

the
l

best of them,

fragments

according to the existingstate of things, but his doubtless


own

treatise which, however, consist for the most part of quotations from cf. other authors and and
exam-

personal conviction

that

in

the Roman

empire as
the

it was

then

pies of good

wicked

women,

constituted,

he says in c. 4) was bond of the state ; and pax

(as emperor the uniting


that th
e

Haase, iii.428 $qc[. On the of marriage there view enuncf PML d. 6fr. III. i. 203, ciated,
.

Romana,
was
:

the enim

dominatio his preita se

urMs,
induit duci

linked Olim

with

4 ; concerning Seneca's wife (of the first we know


2

second

do
vide

not

servation

even
n.

her

name)

sup.

aMerum

Ctesar, ut sereipublicce sine non jyossit,


nam

p. 234,
*

Vide Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 289

utriusque pernicie ;
wribiis

ut

illi

syq.
8

capite.
was

Ample authority for this is republic quoted,Ibid, III. i.29 9 ^.286, 1. 4 A mode of thought which abandoned, public service
opus But et if the

est, ita

kivio

FORGIVENESS

OF

INJURIES.

241

ing accordand more nothing worthier of man and benevolence to nature, than forgivingmercy, that is unselfish and disseminates happiness in secret,

considers

CHAP. VIII.

imitating the divine goodness towards the evil and of human the good; which, mindful weakness, would
rather

punish, does not exclude and will not return its goodwill, from enemies injury with injury.1 Seneca's dissertations on
spare
than

even even

these

subjects are
to

among of

the
moral

most

beautiful

testimonies
at

the

purity

conceptions

arrived

by

antiquity. In their content, as has already with the Stoic harmonise been shown, they entirely they have manifestly arisen from a principles ; but
classical

somewhat
also

different
itself in of

idea
the the

of life and punish

milder
it

temper

expresses

cided deand
lust

repudiation gladiatorial shows


in
censure
war.

human other in-

of For
on

the the

Roman
same

for and of

reason,

ought, the punishing has regard to all really available grounds of extenuation ; it desires only out to carry complete justice,
in De

where

also

account those

of

his
want

Clem.

passionate
sentences

and disposition
were

10,
not

1 "0. 28 be

self-control,
the such

severe

weakness

i. 6 ; De Ira, ii. 9, 4 ; iii. 3 (on the 27, ; of man should we


"

passed
Great which

upon

angry

with

error,

but

Alexander for

nished fur-

pardon it) ; JBenef.


(how

iv. 25
to

welcome

material

Seneca's rhetoric, Benef. i. i. 25 ; De Ira, 3 Clement, 13, ; iii. 17, 1, 23, 1 ; Nat. Qu. vi.

far, according of the Gods, example


favours malos be bestowed

sqq. fche the

should
on

ungrateful ?) ;
gods,

23, 2, et -passim. 1 Of. Ep 95, 52; Vlt. Beccb, i. 1, 3 ; Delra, Clem. De 3 24, ; Otio* i. 4 ; 'Zte Ira, ii. i. 5 j De

vii. 31 sq. (vincit yertinax bmitas). As the in spite of all unthankrain

32, 1;
Clem.

JBenef. iii. 18-28;

De

unweariedly the worthy upon and the unworthy, and patiently


to send

fulness, continue

i. 18, 2 ; ii. 4 ; JEp. 31, Beat. Wt. 24, 3. In De 11; Clem, ii. 4, he speaks of the of uniting mildness possibility with

bear who should

with

the

error

of
so

those
also

misconceive
we

them, benefits,

act, and

conquer
as

gratitude inthe ii,

by
husbandman 9

justice
between the

and

the and

tion distinc-

conquers

ful unfruitc.

this
one

culpable
does not

neglect;

ground by tillage ; L benefits). (hidden s%.

242

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

than
of

were

found

among

the elder Stoics.

The

need

vin;

than with community is stronger with Seneca them, and though the social nature and vocation of
man

is in both

cases

with equal decision, recognised


more an as

in the older Stoics it appears

the fulfilment

of

duty, in Seneca
chief

more

as

affair of

inclination,
; and

of human

and affection,
stress
on

of benevolence the virtues

hence

he

laysthe

the
sense

philanthropic of disposition.How closelythis softening is connected Stoic severity with Seneca's deeper has already of human been dicated. inimperfection
the
same source we

of the

From
His reiitern"

must
y

also derive
7

the

cast religious

of his the
common

ethics.

Here, too, he
of his

follows school.1

perament.

throughout
The and

tendency
him the
most

will of G-od is to
to imitate

highestlaw
claim
reason us
4

; to

obey
mand,2 com-

that will, is the


3

universal

synonymous
to nature
;

with

the

of life according
and

he

perceivesin
on as

conscience bases the


can
as

the

divine

spirit dwelling in
all
men

he

of equality
take up

the
well
;
on

that God proposition


in the the soul of union
a

his abode
of
a

slave

in that

nobleman

and

of the

dividual in-

with

humanity belong to

the

thought of
and

the

gods
it ; 5

who, with
1 2

us,

the universe

govern

Phil. d. G"r, III. i. p. 130. The Deity here coincides

emplum
V. Be.

sequi. L,
;

e.

vii.

31,2;
5 ; of,

with
laws
3

Nature, and,
will of of nature.

15, 4-7 vi. 23, 1 therefore, JEtenaf.


the
4

Mp. 16,

also the

Gfod with
1:

PUl.
1.

; Provid,. 5, 8. A, G-r. Ill.i. p. 319, 2

320,

JBenef. iv. 25,


est

Proposirerum
ex-

tf"

noUs
mere

seeundum
et

De i. p.

Ep. 31, 11 ; Tr. JBe. 20, 5 ; Otio, 4, 1 ; PMl d, 6V. III.


302, 2
j

naturam

Deorum

296,

3.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

therefore, Seneca's
the elder Stoicism
on no

distinguishedfrom this must character, by its religious


doctrine understood
to
mean

is

account

be

that

he

was

thereby carried into radical deviations from the Stoic by system, but only that the importance assumed in relation to the philosophical element the religious
characteristic of him ; his distinction peculiarly from the earlier Stoics is merely quantitative. That the religious point of view, however, acquired with must attribute such great preponderance, we him and popularcast of his philosophy partlyto the practical of human to his lively ness weakand partly sense
is

which must have imperfection, naturally frequentlyand more disposed him to point more the moral to the support which life of emphatically
and

guiding spirit. How power in the world, and in the human is Seneca's conception of religion ; pure, moreover, he keeps clear, not only of the belief of the how
man

finds in

the

belief

in

(rod

and

his

but of the fallacies of Stoic orthodoxy; how people, in the of gods is cancelled the plurality unity of the divine nature, and external worship in the cultus of the knowledge of Grod, and the spiritual have alreadybeen imitation of his moral perfection,

shown.1

Here

also

Seneca

appears

as

worthy
a

presentative re-

of Roman

in which Stoicism,

purer

human a body in the of man. nature spiritual 1 PMl.d. "9r.III.lp. 312$"#. ; with

the

power

of

atonements

are

only defended very Seneca ally; and


treats such

conditionelsewhere

315, 5
340 last

324,
Even

1 ;

326, 1
in the

337, 3

2.

quoted,

passages soothsaying and

absurdities

things simply as (Nat. Qu. iv. 4, 6).

SENECA

AND

PANJETIUS.

21

and

freer view

of

had religion

been

implanted by
and which it

CHAP.
'

Pansetius in its very


had of
a

commencement,
is
seen

maintained,as constantly a a Varro, and Scsevola,


bears

by

the

Cicero.1
in

To

example Pansetius,
mode trines doc-

Seneca
of

great resemblance
Both

his whole

thought.
of their the

postpone
the
fruitful

the

theoretical

school to
as

and practical,
as

seek to
a

make

latter

possibleby
an

ment treat-

and generallycomprehensible
to

application

individual
no

details

and

in

this

endeavour

they

have

about recurringto other than Stoic scruple from the Stoic tradition or predecessors, departing
on

certain

points.
other

But

these Pansetius with

departures are
than Seneca the

far
;

more

considerable
on

with

with Seneca

and base moral and

the of the

hand,

ethical
in

earlier of man,

Stoicism, confidence
is much human than
;
more

the

power the

deeply shaken,
and

feelingof
more

weakness
seems

defecbeen

tiveness the
case

vivid

to

have the

with

Pansetius diseased

and

while
race

healing
fusion

of the

morally

human

is

regarded as

the chief task of of

there philosophy,

arises the

philosophy with
on

ethical dualism

religionand the reaction of metaphysics, by which the later


and
more

Stoicism
1

approximatedmore
d. "r. HI. i.p. 340,

to Platonism.

Cf
.

PMl.

partlyby Ms
Stoic book of the from

expositionof the
the
some

j 170 syr. ; 176 If in above I the sentences """. Scsevola and Cicero beside name

1, and

sup. p. 49, 2

theology in
treatise

second

De Natwa strik-

Deonm,

which
are

Varro,

this

is

justified partly ing passages


school, and

quoted, Phil.

by
with

his

connection particular

d, 6fr* III. i. 811, 1; 314, 2.

the

Stoic

246

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTEE

IX.

THE

STOICS

CONTINUED

MUSONIUS,

EPICTETUS,

MARCUS

AURELIUS.

CHAP. IX.

STOICISM

maintained
entire

on

the
course

whole

the

same

ter charac-

history, The Stoic except that the traits by which Seneca had already school condirection tinued. of his school, diverged from the original asserted themselves more strongly. The ultimately fore, known to us may thererest of the Stoic philosophy be discussed more concisely. Mtisoniits. Musonius A younger contemporary of Seneca's, in the reigns of Nero Rufus,1who resided in Eome teacher of philoand Vespasian,2 a distinguished was sophy,3 held in the highestestimation and was on
Hufi Edid. c.Annot. etApophthegwiata Venhuizen J. Peerlkamp lem, (Har1

during the

of its further

C. Musonii

sonius

of whom

Pliny (JEp.iii.
honourable
was

11,

5,

7)

makes He

mention. Ann.

of

good
Etruria iii.

1822)
are

; the

first 137 Petri do

taken

from

pages Nieuw-

from family,originally

(Tac.
;

xiv. 59; Hist.

landii

Dimrtatio in

Musonio

Rufo (which appeared in 1783)


also, Moser,
Da/iib und
2

81 ; Philostr. Apollon. vii, 16), and more especially Volsinii

Studien

von

(Suid.cf. the epigram


Lat. i. 79 ; vol year but
as

AnthoL

Creuzer, vi.

74 sg[q.

Tac.

and
3

xiv. 59 ; xv. 71, Ann. The elsewhere. Vide the lowing folnote.

i. 57, of his birth he his had the fame aroused

Burm).
is
known, un-

Musonius'

Rufus,

son

of

in 65 A.D. of Nero teacher Ann.


xv.

already jealousy
as
a

by
of

Capito (Suidas),is apparently identical with the Cajus Mu-

71)

philosophy (Tac. and according to

EUFUS.

247

account

of his

personalcharacter.
even more

TMs

philosopher
Seneca
is said
'

CHAP.
IX.

confined

himself
then

decidedlythan
letters which
to

Julian, ap. Suid.

filled

Musonius
*

public office, it can supposed later than


An

adherent of
we

the friend with whom

exchanged with Apol20-30 lonius. How the A.r". sonius Tyrian Muof the Stoic school, is related 1 o 'our philosopher Eubellius cannot be clearly Plautus, tained, ascerfind him year and he in Asia 53
A.D. as we

hardly be

have

have

seen seem

(sup.
to be

in. the Minor Psetus Thrasea whose death the his of miserable

p.

199)

; but

they
was

Soranus, identical.
afterwards
the recalled
.

He

probably
by
Galba

from

exile

revenged by

judicial cution proseaccuser,

(cf Epict. Diss.

Bgnatius

Celer

(Tac.

81); philosophers were


leave alone Ixvi. Borne

Hist.

iii.

iii.15, 14 ; Tac. and when the ordered


to

59 ; Hizt. iii. 81 ; iv. 10, 40 ; Epict. Diss. L 1, 26) banished was by Nero, 65 (Tac. Ann. Huson.
xv.

Ann.

xiv.

Vespasian he was excepted (Dio Cass. 16) ; according to Themist.


by
xiii. 173 relations he lived is

71 ; Dio ap Stob.

Cass. Mi: Floril.

27 ;

( Or. long
but have

c.)
with
we

he

had

40, 9,

Titus.
not

sonal perHow
;

Or. vi. 72, d. ; p. 75 ; Themist. vii. 94, a\ Suid., Movcr"j/ and

do

know person
must

if he

Kopvovros, instead
him but this is
a

of this,

presents re-

mentioned

really by Pliny
the

the he

as

put

to

death,

survived

reign
him
;

of
as

palpable error, Justin. arising perhaps from ii. 8)j according to (Apol.
Philostratus, I. o.t his place of banishment was Gyara, which
was

Trajan. Nothing
to

is related

any

writings by
Stobseus
seems

that

which
from

communicates like
an

him and of

account

given

of his

lectures

by
the

ciple, distence exisas

visited

from The and

all sides
same

on

indicates

his account.

author

Memorabilia,

such

(ApoL
Lucian that
one

v.

19)
his

the

pseudomention
ployed em-

those

in

Nero,

Xenophon, or concerning Epictetus.


ascribes (TLcaXicayy Such Wtovcrccviov

of

Arrian Suidas
airopvrj-

Musonius

was

in penal labour in the proposed cuttingof the isthmus. Philostratus


also

fioyevfiaTa

to

Asi-

46)

mentions
a

Musonius,
whom

contemporary of Eidiculous as this is, 35, Pompey. it is probable that Pollio a Babylonian one wonderful sopher, had composed them ; but he is philo(I.
c.

nius

Pollio, a

iv.

Nero whether here

threw
our

into and

not

to

be

identified

(as
and

has
dern mo-

prison.

But is

sonius been Mu-

done

by

ancient

Claudius writers) with of Philostratus who the 'Bafti"\cbj'io$ Pollio, according to Pliny vii. 31, 5) had should be altered to Boi/Tur^oy, (^Ep. written a de Vita discarded ing Anni (vide JNieuwland, Liber or (olderreadthe more material imseems Mus"mi) JBassi,but rather p. 30 sgq.") meant, since
are as

these
as

statements

with

valueless

the absurd

the grammarian Valerius MUSONIUS who Pollio, (Suid. I. e.) lived

248

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

to moral

problems.
not

He

too

starts from
even

the

general
por-

bases of the Stoic


tions
were

system, and

its theoretic

Epictetus relates neglected by him. of logical that he Practised MS scholars in the use "oflispUwith demanded ,losoj)7iy. forms, and scrupulous accuracy regard to them ; ! a remark as to the originof moral conceptionspoints to the Stoic theory of knowledge
Practical

and
manner

its

empiricism.2
certain

He

mentions

in

similar

physical doctrines; speaks of the unchangeable necessity of the universe, of the ceaseless change of all things to which everything, and earth,is subject both in heaven ; of the regular
transition

of the

four

elements
same

one

into

another,3
and

itself through the fulfilling downward


under
a

stagesupward
of the

of

the

divine

nature

heavenly
Qeocitie'tsajv6-

Hadrian,

and

was

called

avrobs

Oeiovs Kal
is
a

the

philosopher. According to descriptionof the younger Pliny (J3p. iii. 11) his son-inthe Artemidorus
whom

pa"oj/. There
cf.
3

similar

claration de4 ,*

of Beneca,

Ej),120,

Ep. 120,
Stob.

11.

law,

Flaril. 108, 60.

This

others praises, fragment bears with some Pliny so enthusiastically is to be considered his disciple. (FLoril. 19, 13: 20, 60, 61; 1 Diss. i. 7, 32. When JBcl. ii. 356) the Bufus inscription: him blamed for not knowing how to find what That was wanting "pt\ia.$. nothing more, in a syllogism, he excused self himhowever, is meant by this than thus : fdjy"p rb KaTnrdJAiov taken from account an tetus Epicto which the lost portion other (i.e. from a 6^eVp?7"ra, eV0a5e rb of Arrian's replied,av"pcbro"oj', cerning condissertations)
"

an

utterance

of

Muon

(*here
2

is what the chief

you Ftoril.
can

have

looked, over-

sonius

thing '),
117, 8, 89
attain
to

(cf. Schweighauser Epictet. iii. 195) is the


to

less

Ap. Stob. (Mein.) : Man


virtue
: ov

open
is and

doubt,
Euf

since

Musonius

ycip

eTf-pcodw

us Epictetus ; always a comparison of Diss. iii.

in

rafacis

23, 29, with


av-

(Ml. he is

JV". 4. the

v.

1,

Opwiretas svrv^VTGS (^TLXTCCDS,


s

that intended.

shows

person

roioZcrSe ncriy, o'/ovs $VTOLS

JETIS

PRACTICAL

CHARACTER.

249

l bodies";

and

as

these

are

nourished Stoics and

by

vapours,

so

CHAP.

(in agreement soul,he says,


blood ; the the drier and

with

the

the Heracleitus)

Ixy

is nourished

by
be

the

evaporation of the
food

lighterand
purer will

purer,

our therefore,

is,

the

soul.2

Some with

other ethics

definitions, standingin close


"

connection

respectingthe goodness and moral of Grod,the natural with perfection kinshipof man (rod,3the divine omniscience,4the divine law, the
such
as

those

effluence imitation

of which of Grod
to
6
"

is moral
we

duty,5 or
had

virtue

as

an

should

have necessarily
even no

supposed pre-

belong
on

to

him,

decided down

utterances
to
us.

these

subjects been

handed

the

he also accorded popular religion by the Stoic principles, recognition allowed

To

the

These
from L

are

the earth

gods for
the evapoand from the

such

as

we

conceive

Him

(Phil.
also

whose ration the


2

nourishment the

d. Gr. III. i. p.
man,
*

140), so
conduct

for is

virtuous Stob.

alone

waters

is sufficient.
e.

according to
ii. 13, 125 Musonius omniscience
;

nature.

Stob. Phil.

Concerning
Stoic

Floril. Exc.
J3d. iv. 218 infers the of
no

Jo. Dam.

corresponding
vide

doctrines

(Mein).
from the that in of

d. Br. III. i.189. 4 and

here

196, 2. The observation 79, 51, p. 94) that God

(Floril.
has
as-

gods

signed the
the
best

facultyof

thought

to

they require proof; and


the p.
manner

demonstrative

he

applies
discussed the

this

protected place

in the

infra"

body, is of

little importance; this either the header the

252;

but

thought

mean may breast (cf ibid. III. i. p. 197, 2). 3 Fl"ril. 117, 8, p. 88. Man
.

of God admits the omniscience of very forcible application in the way of ethical admonition,
5 6

alone there than

the 0eou upon /4u7?/Aa earth (similarly 17, 43,p. 286); as is


a

Loo.

Cf.

note

cit. 79, 51, p. 94. Pint. 1 and

De

is

virtue

nothing higher (Musonias expressly


the four funda-

in God

Aere
a

Alieno, capitalist says


wishes 6
to

7, 1, p. 830, where
to

Musonius,
money
:

enumerates

who

borrow

mental

virtues)as virtue alone him makes the perfect being, beneficent, friendlyto man, and
exalted above

all weaknesses,

a-cor^ bv "r" /UJMJical and' the fy\oist ov Saj/effercu, other laughingly replied,ouSe Sam'fei.
"5 Zevs

250

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
IX.

without

with apparently troubling himself any of it.1 But or interpretation speculative justification with scientific enquiry as such, with a knowledge that carries its end and purpose in itself, Musonius this alreadyfrom the fact has no concern. We see that among the many sayings and discussions of his that have been preserved to us,2the theoretical doctrines in a casual of his school are only mentioned But he has himself spoken and superficial manner. this subject. Men be to most are on definitely regarded as sick,from a moral point of view ; in cured order medical to be they require continual treatment.3 supply this need. Philosophy must
1

In

this is these law

respect, however,
to

the

same

way

Musonius argues it hinders

(JFloril.
against
the filment ful-

there from

little

be

quoted
The the Zeus the and of

85, 20,

end)
of

fragments.
Zeus,
law the

luxury that

deity
divine

is called

duties ; among our the duties connected others,


with
2

(Wloril. 79,
stars
are

51, p.
as

94);

service There
are

to the

gods.
than these

treated

gods (sup.

in and

all,more

p. 249, 1) ; and as Chrysippus had blamed the unmarried state as

fiftyof them
many inVenhuizen
3

among of considerable
135

length;

against Zeus Gramelios (PML d. Gr. III. i. 293, 2) so


an

offence

Peeiikamp'swork
pages.
:

they occupy
Pint.
KCU

other urges, among things,against the exposure of Musonius

Coll.
ye
ev

uh\v "v

Ira, 2, p. 453 Moucrw[AejLLvfj/j.eda

children, that it is a crime against the TrarpQai Qeol and Zebs 6^6yvios (Floril. 75, 15)
and says in favour have of
it

viov KU\$)V
SeTv ael ;

forty, " 2v\\a, rb

fiiovv robs depairevo/Jievovs

marriage
Eros,
under the

he

A.

that

Hera,

and their

ffc"fecrdai. jji"\\ovrcts. Gell. N. v. 1, 2, and infra p. 252, 3. This pointof view, under which

Aphrodite protection ; while

tion observa-

Cynics first represented philosophy (vide Pliil. d. Gr. II.

the

i. 285, 3) becomes : Qeol yap "irirpOTr"Ti"ovo"w austrikingly tcadb vo/jiifyvrat T"J', Trap'a,v"p"a~prominent everywhere after the
irois,

(teydhoi, even
and voftlfcrai less

if

we

stitute sub-

thus render between

the assertion
the

still startling, the

beginning of the first century A.B. already j examples have before us (sup. come p. 77, 3 ; 237,
2) and
we

points the popular and


notion

distinction

shall meet

with

others

of the

Stoics, Platonists, and philoso- among phical gods. In Neo-Pythagoreans.

252

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IX'

to virtue, habits.1 The disposition the germ opposite of virtue, is implanted in all men by nature ; 2 if we have before us an unspoiledpupil of a good disposition, it needs no lengthy argument to convey to and the rightestimation moral him right principles of goods and evils ; a few convincing proofs, indeed,
are

better

than

many

the

main

point

is that the

conduct

of the

teacher

should

correspond with

his

the disciple and that similarly should live principles, To this practical to his conviction.3 end, according should to Musonius, all instruction then, according of philosophy should teacher work. The not duce pro-

applause but
require ;
not

improvement
the moral this

he

should that

minister ad-

to his hearers

if he does time
to

have

admire

they in the rightway, they will his discourse, they will be

medicine

science, occupiedwith themselves and their concompletely with feelings of shame, repentance, and

exaltation.4
to work

In this

manner

Musonius

himself
so

tried

upon hearts

his that

spoke disciples ; he
each individual the entrance
from

to forcibly
as

their

felt

if personally

struck ; 5 he made
1

to his school
all

LOG.

the

statement

oit. 29, 78, with which, of Lucius (sup.


e.

all, and 2).

lay

claim

to

the honour III. i. 224,


3

of it (of. Phil.
Floril. Exc.

d. 6h\ Jo.

p. 199) in the Exo. i. 7, 46 (vol.iv. 169

Jo. Dam.

*#.

Mein.)

Stob. ii.

entirelyagrees.
2

Dam.

13,

125

(iv. 217
V.

sq$.

Tldvres cScrre
"s ry
. . .

ireQvKa/JLevo#"j"infet

M.)
1 ;

T(os

Qv

4 Grell. N. A. Diss. iii. 23, 29. elvcu. inrofioQvcriKfyv

Kal avafjLapT-fjTcas

Epict.

5 Epict. I. c. : rotyapovy oifrcas avdp"irov^u%^ vrpb* Kal oKwyaQiav /ca* (nrepfjia aper^s "\ey"y} o5cr0'e'/catriw TJJLLCOJ/ tin.ris irore this aurbv Q^psvov fftecrda.1. Tjp.(av evewai, where ii. 426 is proved (ap. Stob. Ed. o^rccy ^TTTCTO r"v 8ia/3ej8AT?/cey yivo^vtav, ofrreu sq.)by the argument that the

rov

laws

demand

moral

conduct

fridei rk. eKderov

PROBLEM

OF

PHILOSOPHY. to

33

more

in difficult,

order

separate the
more

stronger
;
l

CHAP IX"

natures

from

the weaker

and

effeminate

he

soughtto
may

brace

their force of will

by the thought of
them
2

the difficulties life would well believe


must

bring

to

and

we

that the very

influence

of such
and

tion instruc-

have

been

important

on lasting

the character

enjoyedit. But we cannot who dinated so decidedly suborexpect that a philosopher scientific problems to practicalinfluence,
should

of those who

himself distinguish by by the firmer thoughts or even

originating new
establishment and

logical development of a doctrine alreadyexisting. in most of the fragments of Musonius If, therefore, must and corwe rectness acknowledge the purity of mind of moral we judgment which they exhibit,
cannot

estimate
we

their

scientific value
is

very
an

highly.

What of the
becomes

mostly find
minute

in them

merely

application
sometimes

Stoical principles which recognised


so

that

the

after philosopher,
not
even

the
to

example of Chrysippus,does

disdain

give precepts on the growth of the hair and beard.3 the Stoic principles On certain points are exaggerated;
Musonius exceeds the bounds of Stoicism the and
proximates apto the partly
to partly

of simplicity

Cynics and
pure

the asceticism of the he deduces,


even

Neo-Pythagoreans ; at
from

other times
1 2

thence, such
this

LOG.

Loc.

tit. iii. 6, 10. tit. i. 9, 29 :

/caXcS
ovr(0

(to treat

better)
MusoMm

Kal

crov
s

avra

Xafieiv Swduevos.

\"yeur *Pov$os ireipdfav fj."et""0et

JFloril. like

6, 62, where

ffvfL^creral
"roi

rovro

Kal #rt

rovro

nms,

Chrysippus before

urrb cwrbv
wtva-

rov

$""nr6rov.

airoKptvafjievov,

ri

irpbs (Athen. av6p"- himself strongly against the iicearov napa""TJ, cutting of the hair and beard. oSi/,
Ka.fj.ov

siii. 565, #), expresses

254

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IXt

and the

yet humane
Stoic school of

precepts as
itself.
man.

were

not

universal

in

His

leadingthought
to two

is the
ditions, con-

inner freedom

But

this is linked

(1)the right treatment


onr

of that which
to

is in
is not

power,
our our

and

(2) submission
In
and
our

that which
use
we

in

power.

power this

is the

make and

of

ideas,

on

depends

all

virtue

happiness. All the rest is out of our power ; that we of the universe, leave to the course must, therefore, it be satisfied and happy with whatever and must Musonius this standpoint judges brings us.1 From the value of things; in harmony with his school he declares virtue to be the only good, and wickedness the only evil ;. everything else,riches and poverty, 2 pleasureand pain, life and death,are indifferent ;
he that requires of
we

should

defend

ourselves
means

the troubles

not life,

by external
should

against but by
as no

elevation above

the

and indifference towards external,

it; 3 that,for example, we

regardexile

but should feel ourselves evil,


Eel. ii. 356
r"v 6

at home

in the whole

Stob.
ra

$vBebs

einrptyai r$
rcav

Kal KScr/JLcp,
efrre rrjs

e"re
va-

row Ta

psv

e$3 ytuv

"0ero

TraiScev Secure)

etre rov cn^uaros1 cfrre rptfios e'4"' TI/JUV jj,evrb KaX\iffKal (TTTQuScucW-aTOj', $" 5^ Kal drovovv, aar[jL"vovs 7rapax""peTj/. TOV Of. Floril. 7, 23 (^ Svo-x^pa^e aMs ecrrl, evtiaifjLW TTJV Xpyffiv rats Trepiffrdo-ecTLj/) TOVTO opdajs ; I, c. 108, 60, T(av tpavratriSiv. yap the where from of the $"rrlv thought etfpoia eXevQepia yiyrfpevov Kal of the the of 8e course T OVTO necessity evo-rddeLa, evevfjila world and of the of all Kal Kal Iffrl change v6pos ffutypoSiKr; is moral 5' deduced the Kal ra things, |^7rao-a apeT^. "rvvn trdvra OVK "\\a eVoi^- applicationthat the condition fjfjuv "!"/"' 8' oit;.
ffaTo. OVKOVV

Kal

Tjfjias

of crvfj^^)2

harmonious

life is

the

8ie\6vTas

TO.

r"v irpdyuaTa

Floril.

29, 78, 253,


2.

p.

15;

cf.

ty (jt."v

TfdvTa Tip.1v
Ta

5e

Tpfaov avTiyj"v *"!"' ^

G-ell. 2V. A. xvi. 1.


3

^j?.

p.

GENERAL

PRECEPTS.

255

that world,1

we

should

neither this

seek

death

nor

shun

CHAP. IXt

it.2 In order to attain


ever,
man

strengthof mind, howmost

needs

not

only the

continual

moral

to practiceand the most unremitting attention himself,3but also bodily hardening.4 Musonius,

admonishes therefore,

us

to

learn

to endure

bodily
desires

and exertions,deprivations,
to lead
us

5 hardships ;

he

back

as

much

as

in regard to possible,

and food, clothing,


state

domestic goes

arrangements,
with

to

of nature

he

and further,

Sextius

counsels us to avoid the Neo-Pythagoreans, eating of flesh,because this is not according to and because,as he thinks, it enfor man, nature genders thick and cloudy evaporations which darken
and

the

the the
1

soul

and

weaken he

the
cannot

power

of

thought.7 On
many quite
in
"

other

hand

agree
runt
ance
'

with

of the
accord-

Of. the lengthy discussion Stob. Floril. 40, 9, which ap.

is also
with

finallycomes
that
as

to

the

conclusion robs
a man

prevented
from

his spirit that he Rubellius Plautus


means

banishment of the him bad

of neither

four

escaping,by principal insurrection, the


no

of

an

death

with

virtues, it robs

of

real is inand

which
3

Nero

threatened
Floril.

him.

good;
man,

it cannot and the his

injure the good


man

Cf. Stob.

29, 78, and

the

jured by
not
2

wickedness

zviii.
4

expression (ap. Gell. N. A. 2, 1), remitters animunl


est.

by banishment.
Cf. Phil. d. Gr.HI. It is in entire Musonius he i. 306,4, with

quasi amittere
For

the

body, he
be of soul tool

5.

agreement

Stob. and be
5

I. #.),must
with it the

says made the

(ap.
the

this that Diss. i. 26

(ap.Epict.

serviceable

mind,

"7.) blames
we

because
than

Thrasea desired death rather


should nei-

also will

exile ; for

ther, he
easier but
0cu

instead^
T$

says, choose the harder the of the easier, nor of


as a

strengthened. Stob. I. c. ; Pliny, Ep. iii. 11, 6, praises in Artemidoms

(st^.p.246,3,end),besidesother
moexcellences,Ms hardiness, deration, and abstemiousness. Stob. Floril. 1, 84 ; 18, 38
6

instead it

the

harder,
apKetcr-

regard

duty

The SeSofiLevcp.
Tacitus with
a

story

"

which relates

(Ann. xiv.
qualifying
*

59)
f e-

8, 20
7

94, 23.

Zoc. tit. 17, 43, sup. 249, 2.

256

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

Stoics who
man

carry

the

__J_1__

to the

point of
a warm a

of the wise self-dependence from marriage ; even dissuading advocate of


a

he

is himself

connection
so

so

and, natural,
and

in

moral

point of view,

beneficial ;

precepts on the givesvery good and wholesome himself sets still more decidedly subject.1 He the elder Stoics which courses againstthe immoral had not unconditionally excluded,for he condemned
all

unchastity in
of the

or

out

of

as marriage,2

also

the

of children,3 and exposure repudiation and justified in antiquity, even so common by Plato which The and Aristotle. gentle disposition guides in the proposition in all this is also shown that him to revenge it is unworthy of man partly injuries, custom

because

such

faults

as

rule

arise

from

ignorance,

because the wise man partly but and not the suffering

cannot the

be injured, really

doing of wrong is to ever, be regardedas an evil and a disgrace.4When, howthis principle the he condemns on judicial of offences, indictment we recognisethe onesidedelevation above external of a standpoint where ness indifference to them, and has things has become degeneratedinto a with thingswithin.
With Musonius denial
of their

interconnection

is connected

his famous

disciple

1 Loc. Git. 67, 20 ; 69, 23 ; 70, d. Or. III. i. 293, 2, 14 ; cf PMl He himself and sup. p. 246, 3. Artemidorus for married, was
.

himself
cretus
2 3

Mmoni

sololes, lare

Vokiniensi. Zoo. Git. 6, 61.


tit.

Zoo. Zoo. 61.

75, 15

84, 21

was

his son-in-law Lat.

3, end), and
Anthol.

(sup.p. 246, in the Program. i. 79 (vol. i. 57,


Avienus

cf. sup. p. 250, 1.


4

Git. 19, 16 ;

40, 9

; Sohl.

20,

Burm.)

Testus

calls

DATE

OF

EPICTETUS.

257

Epictetus, a
Nero and Domitian
to

Phrygian

who

lived
went
seems

in in
to
2

Some the
have of this

Tinder

CHAP. TX.

his

successors,

reign
died

of in

Nicopolis,and
In

that of
1

Trajan.1

the

discourses
Even

philoment state-

Epictetus'native city was Hierapolis in Phrygia (Said.


'ETrOcr.). He
slave freedman Diss.
i. 11 ;

himself

was

of

of IN ero

Epaphrodltus, familiaritate Hadrian's as (Said., Epict.


the of.
1

sible.
(Hadr. 16),that
him

Spartian's

Hadrian

associated

with

in summa

is somewhat

picious, sus-

accession

i. 19, 19:

26, 10; Macrob.

G-ellius,N.
Sat.

A.

1, 20; ii. 18,

to the

throne
50 years when

(117 A.D.) is more


removed from
seems

than the
to

Simpl.
and

i. 11, 45; in JHjriet. EncJwrid. c. 9, in Z.


c.

time have

Epictetus
Musonius last

heard the the

in of have drian, Hahave him, of

p. 102, Heins.), weak lame

body
cf.

(Simpl. ; 9; Celsus, ap. Epict. Emliir. Orig. c. Cels. vii. 7 ; Suid. and others : according to Simplicius lame from his yonth ; he was to Suidas he became according sickness so through ; according
to

; but his life may

Rome

years

nevertheless

extended
or

to

reign

of

this emperor

may

become before He he

acquainted
came

with

to

the

throne.

himself

makes
iv.

mention

Celsus,
indeed

through
of his have from

the

ill-

treatment

master,
used the

who him
tation quo-

may

Trajan (Dm. 5, in consideration 13, 9). The held which was by Epictetus later his contemporaries and
authorities
is

17 ; cf. iii.

attested, among calls others, by Gellius, who him in great poverty (Simpl. I. c. and (ii. 18, 10) philosopJius nofiili$,"nd(inxviii. 194) maxic. 33, 7, p. 272; Macrob. on I.e.'). cus While he was inusphilosoplioTU'ni ; also by Maryet a slave he

harshly, judging

sup. p. 253, 2), and

lived

heard
i. 7,

Musonius

(Epict.

Diss.

Aurelius thanks
even

laur. (irp.

i. 7),who

32;
In

29).
have

9, 29: iii. 6, 10; 23, the sequel he must


free. have Under

Ms

teacher,

Rusticus,

in mature

age, for

having
;

beeome he must

him mitian made Dothe Memorabilia left Rome with


the

acquainted with of Epictetus


that
an

(sup.

p. 190, 1,

end)

cf
.

likewise

Lucian, Adv.
relates

Iiid. mirer ad-

If. A. Qther philosophers (G-ell. xv. 11, 5 ; Lucian, Peregr. 18) : he betook in where himself heard
to
c.

13

(who
of

Epictetus bought
candlestick

his
for

Mcopolis (Epict.
.

earthenware JUncMr. others.


2

Epirus (G-ell.I.
Arrian

Suidas), 3,000

drachmas)
Prof.
are

him

; Simpl. in 6 p. sq. and many

Diss. ii. 6, 20 ; 1, Prcef.; cf iii. 22, 52). According to Suidas and he

These the

the

Aiarpipaland
wrote says in the
as

Themistocles (Or. v. 63, the lived until reign of ever, Aurelius Marcus : this, howis chronologically imposS

the

sE7%"/""5wy. Arrian
former,
he

down
the

preface,after

Epictetus as

faithfullyas

possible, in

260

ECLECTICISM:
them the had

CHAP,

on

deep

moral

himself

received
manner

scholars in like
Inferior
theoretical

which Epictetus impression from his Musonius, and received from Epictetus.1

From
course
a

of point of view Epictetus could ascribe to theoretical knowledge,as such,only subordinate of that
in value
; and

this

very

this

must

especially
festly mani-

hold

good

which part of philosophy


most

stood

the

distant

connection

with

The chief thingin philosophy is ethics, namely logic. the the of application proof of them
its doctrines
; ; next

to

this stands
rank
comes

only

in

the

third

were lanicus ; but if somebody GXevOepovs,eupoowray, TOVS, els rbv Qebv of these disciples $aifj.ovovvTa5, to remind one

eu-

a"po~

philosophers during a shipwreck or a trial before the


of the emperor, that
are

puvras

" iravrl

Kal fJLeydty. /u.LKp$

Your ri

death

and

ishment 5i" banin ri

is to learn this. purpose ofiv OVK biderai; tfirare

not
as

evils,he would
an

rV fjLot
you,
ovv]

cdriav.
or

It
me,

can
or

only lie
in both.

regard
such
show who prove
a

it

outrageous
use,

in

mockery. Of what
to

then, is
must

OeXere

a.p^ff"fjL"8d wore

philosophy1 Deeds
what most

"belongs. But
call

school a man of those themselves Stoics


to at

v,

Tntrrccrare

/U.QL

themselves
or,

be the

rather

Epicureans,
"SrcatKbv 5e Kal

most,
sort.
TLVOL

of Peripatetics

the

laxest
ef

Sei^are poi,
evrv^ovvra,

A further example 1fy"ff6e. of the manner in which tetus Epicadmonished his pupils is given in Diss. L 9, 10-21. 1 Concerning Musonius, vide sup. p. 252; concerning Epictetus,

ffovvra.

Arrian, Dm.
avrbs

Prcef. 8 sg.

vebovra

rtav a.KOv6vT(av

irpbsrh
Qzbv
. .

fieXTLcrra. If
as

his

courses, dis-

fiovvra

l" avQp"irov 5"|are. yevecrQai


. . .

did

not

reported by Arrian, accomplish this,


ot

aAA.'

OVK

e^cre. j "c.

ri Kal

ofiv atrdis
vvv

Ttocrav

ira/"

My pure/jLo Trateea'de. pose is,cttroreAeVcu vfMcis

aurov, avrbv

ftirep

TOUS,

LOGIC.

261

the is
are

doctrine

of

the proof,
on

scientific of the of

methods

for that

CHAP.
'

only necessary

account
on

only necessary
useful
in order

account

and proofs proof, their application.1

However

and to and

therefore, logic indispensable,

may

be

protect

us

from

and fallacies,

though accuracy
necessary in its in itself ; the
to

thoroughness are
not

undoubtedly
be
an

yet logic cannot pursuit,2


that
we

end able

questionis
should
we

should

be

explain Chrysippusand
that
we

solve dialectic and

difficulties,
the will what of
we

but

know

follow

nature, that
do and
;

should
3

attain

the

rightin

avoid ;

the
a

virtue

dialectic is

end is only unconditioned the art of tool in its service,4

help, which has speech is merely a subordinate ance nothing to do with philosophyas such.5 In accordto have with these principles, Epictetus seems occupiedhimself
at any rate
a

very

little with dialectic

questions ;
tain con-

the written

records

of his doctrine

not

singlelogicalor
refutation of

dialectical discussion.
little

Even
concern

the
;

scepticism gives him

he declares

it to be the

ness stubborngreatest
not

to

deny self-evident things ; he says he has


Epictetus else15

Man.

c.

52.

trouble

ourselves
we

about
are

this last

"where sq. 29

(Zfe.

iii. 2 ; ii. 17;

point
the
2

unless

clear about

three s".) distinguishes the of philosophy: problems first and it


our

two

first,

most set

should

is that necessary from free us

7; c. 17; ii. 25; vide sup. p. 248, 1. 3 2"i$s. I 4, 5 "qq. : ii. 17, 27
Zto. 1 sqg. ; iii. 2 ;
1 sgg.i c.^21,

passions

; the
us

second, that

ii. 19
c.

it should

make

note) ; acquainted $%%* (videprevious

18,

46. 17 sg[.; Man. with our 4 1 ; Jf"m._52. i 2Hss. 7, ourconvicit should strengthen 5 4 i. Diss. 8, ; ii. 23. "g_g/. tions with irrefragableproofs ,* should not and he insists that we

duties ; the third that

262

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

time

to

contend
never

with taken up
a

such hold

objections;for
of
a

his

part he has
wished the
and to

broom

when

he

take

loaf of bread ; he
act

finds that
same

sceptics themselves

in and

the
not

way,
eye ;
1

put food into the mouth he encounters them finally


that

into

the

with

the

old

reproach

of knowledge deny the possibility without Of maintaining its impossibility.2 the proper of scepticismand of the signification of its scientific refutation he has no idea. necessity He is just as little concerned about the investigations

they

cannot

philosophy; indeed, he expressly with the saying of Socrates,that enquiry agrees into the ultimate constituents and causes of things and could have no value passes our understanding, in any case.3 If, therefore, he generallypresupposes the Stoic theory of the universe, he not only
institutes
no

of

natural

in independent inquiries

that

sphere,
are

but
very Stoic

even

in the
"

doctrines

of his

school

there

few

points only the universal bases of the the conception of the world, and especially
"

definitions which attract his attention. theological He is full of the thought of God, who knows our
1

Diss. 28.
^

5 ;

27,

15

sq$. ; ii.

Gpcairivr) yvc"w
Xiffra

el 5e

Kal

ra

pd-

20,
2 8

flefy TIS

etviu Kara\yirra,

Diss. ii.20, 1 sqq.


Fv.
fj.oL

rl

aAA' ovv ri 8(j""\o$ KaraX-qfyBwThis "c. (Stob.Flov. 80, 14) : rw, discussion pro/te\H, 077"rl, e'" fesses to be a commentary ir6rcpQv on e" "5/iot(yiepwi", $ "c the Socratic theory, as we see word ffvve"rrr]Ke r" fora; by the which is "j"T)a-l, ^yys^ ovcriav /*a0e?j" rty afterwards but it is apjce'i repeated; 75
KO.KOV,

rov

ayaeov Kal
s
^

"c.

ra

5'

nevertheless

unmistakable the

that
same

xalpew e$v ; arwa aKardKirn-rdforty av-

Epictetus adopts standpoint himself,

GOD

A$D

TKE

WORLD.

263

words
in

and

intentions, from
service

whom

comes

all

good,

CHAP.
'

whose

the

philosopher stands,
not

without

whose he the

commission have

he may

go to his

work, whom
proves

should

always before his eyes.1 He by


the of
the

guidance

of Providence

unity, order, and


he moral He has

interconnection

universe;2
the

praises the

paternal care
which
in the for the and

of

Grod
a

for men,

perfection
recognises
ordered
all

makes world best

Him the
:

pattern for us.3


of

work

Grod,who

has made

the whole

formed

all its parts to

less and faultperfect correspondwith the


all men
to

necessityof the whole, has destined


and

ness happiof it ;
4

furnished

them

with

the

conditions

he
of

of his school, the adaptation extols,in the spirit


means us

to
so an

ends

in

the
every

universe, which step that


our

he

says

meets

at clearly

whole

life

5 unceasing song of praise to the Deity ; to point out and, like his school, he condescends

should

be

this

adaptation

even

in the
not

smallest

and

most to be

ternal ex-

things; 6
in

he does
even

allow himself

turbed dis-

his

faith

by the apparent evils and


from

injusticesin the
Stoa Grod
to and

world, having learned


these
also with

the

reconcile his

the
in

of perfection

works.7
in

This the

belief
true

Providence,
of the

however, Epictetus, Stoics, always


1

fashion the

refers
to

primarily to
later
4 5 6

universe,

shall

recur

this JHss.

Mss.

iv. 7, 6 ; iii. 24, 2 sq. ZHss. i. 16,9 HI. *$g. and i. 172, end.

on

Meanwhile,

cl

2*

23, 53; 21, 18; 18, 19 ; 19, 29 ; i. 16. 2 Diss. i. 14, 16 ; Man. 3 i. 6, 40 ; 9, 7 Zto.

22, ii. 14, 11, 31, 1.


; ii. 14,

JDiss. i. 16. Of. d. Gr. lUd.

PMl.
7

III. i. 175, 4;

178, 2;

and

infra,p. 271, 1.

264

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

and

to

the individual

only
to

so

far the

as

is determined
;

_____

by

the

interdependenceof
submission his
sense

whole

when

he
cides, coinman

counsels
in

the

will of the

(rod,this
that

with
order cannot

demand

should

conform

to the

of nature.1

Things,he
than ourselves

says, with
as

Musonius,
the law of

happen otherwise
withdraw

they do happen
under

; we

cannot

from

change to which the heavenly 2 are bodies and the elements subject against the ; all things serve and obey we universal order which mentions ought not to rebel.3 So also he expressly which doctrine most the that strongly asserts

nothingindividual
in

is

more
"

than the And

transient

moment
flagration con-

the flux of the whole of the

doctrine
as

of the

world.4

the
on

religious
this
side

conviction
to

of

Epictetus
the the

allies itself side

physics,so on like Stoicism, to

other

it allies

itself,
Stoic

popular religion.
also includes
are

pantheism
the derived from
1

with divine

him

natures

to
5

be and

the

primal

divine

nature

polytheism; distinguished if all things


8\cw
Kal T)p.as
vvv-

Diss. i. 12, 15 S$. 28 $".; 1L 5, 24 sgrg. ; 6, 9 s$q. 2 In the fragment mentioned sup. p. 248, 3,which begins thus: #ri rota^TT? Kal %crri Kal
re

Kala^tvov
rat,

virep

pera

r"v

$LOLK$"V.
as

With his with

Epictetus also,
school, Grod
universe.
the

with
4

whole

rov

coincides K6"T/j.ov "pTLJ"rt$


Kal
ou%

ecrrai.-

oUv

Diss.

iii.13, 4 sgg., where,

"KXca$
vvv 8

^ "s
66
:

Fr.

in Sen. Ep. 9, 16, the conas ra yiyri/Meva, yiyvecr6ai dition of Zeus after the %x"l136 (Stob. Moril. 108, universal conflagrationis deviraKovei

ifdvra.

Kal
Our be Kal

earth, sea, stars, vTrrjpere?"


our
own

rqi K6(r^cp scribed. 5 Hence


.

he

says
5' "%""

in

Diss. iv.
ju." 5et

plants,animals,

bodies.

12,11:

"y"

rivt

T(VI viroreraxQai, rivt cannot apeV/cetp, judgment alone in opposition to it. 7re"0e"r0ar r$ 6e$ Kal rots psr* set up ecrriKal Kpetcrffow, ^KCIVOJ/(ii. 17, 25) : rep Ait yap Iffyvptis
, . ,

SOOTHSAYING.

265

are

full of divine
daemons.1

powers,

so

are

they
from

full

of
we

gods
con-

CHAP.

and

The

beneficence
we

of these

gods

__H_

enjoy tinually
from
other the,
cause men

in all that
j to

receive

nature

and

deny
is

them

is the that

more we

fiable, unjustithereby

greater

the

injury
the

to

so

many,2

Yet

relation

to

the

popular religion is, on


;

the

Epictetus dependent whole, very in-

of

the mentions accordingly he seldom further without popular gods,and then only casually, interpretations committing himself to the allegorical

of
manner

his

school, but
of the

prefers
or

to

speak

in
even

general
of Zeus
;

he

retains

gods indeed,
of

the

deity,or

with

Socrates, the
our

principle of
power,

honouring
the well
manner

the

gods according to antiquity,3but he


service
4

after
very

also

knows

that and

the

true
;

of

God about he in

consists the

ledge in know-

virtue

the

fables

underworld,
;
5

the he

worship
does not that

of hostile attack
men

beings
belief
be

blames

and

if

the should should

he soothsaying,
to
use

demands

able

dispense with
of it without
in

prophecy, that they


fear with and

make

desire, being
should

previously
not

harmony

the result,and

first

enquire of the
; but
reserves

rots

"\Aois

besides "?.), the the


1

0eo?s, and iii. 13, 4 Zeus, Here, Athene,


who

Pluto self
tion

are

named

the
to

Stoic
him-

unmistakablythe of these

Apollo, and, generally speaking, gods,


JHss. LOG.
as

traditional

interpretain the """v-

do of

not

survive world,
Qf-cav

gods
5.

conflagration

the
:

(ruths
s 4

\6yos.
31, 31,
d. 1 ; cf. Dfas.

iii. 13, 15 tit.

irdyra

Man. Man.

petfra
2

/col Scufj,6vc0v. ii. 20, 32 *"#., examples of gods the is censured


19

ii. 18,

where,
denial

; PML 5 Diss.

Ill, I. 311, 1. iii. 13, 15 ; i. 19, 6 ;

Gr.

of

whom

by
and

22, 16.

Euripides, Demeter,

Kore,

266

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP
'

Man

an

the where soothsayer, question.1 To Epictetus the


-i

fulfilment of

duty

is

in

belief in of the
rt

the

kinship
*

of

the

emanation

from God.

highest value ; man should be aware of his higher nature ; he should of God, as a regard himself as a son part and of the deity,in order to gain from this emanation
ataman
is

to God spirit

..

of thought the feeling

dignity,of his moral his independence of all things external, responsibility, and the brotherlylove to his fellow men, in the universe;2 of his citizenship consciousness after the manner and in the same sense Epictetus, elso employs the conception of daemons, of his school, merely the divine in man.3 understandingby them for more On the other hand we vainlyseek in him the question minute enquiries anthropological ; even of immortalityis only mentioned and if casually, the subjectwe from his utterances on gather that
from (departing
in
a

his

the

Stoic

dogma)
which
is the

he

disbelieved
of
to

personal existence
are

after

death,

utterances

his the
1 2

also

to

be

found Nor

lead logically

oppositetheory.4
Diss. ii. 7; Man. Diss.
i. 3 j c.

question of the
commencement,
to

32. 9 ;
c.

from

the

alien leave it

12,

26

to

the
to

body, longs
return to

syg. ; c. 13, 3 ; c. 14, 8, 11 s%q. ; iv. 7, 7 s%. j cf. Phil, d. Gr. III. i. p. 200, 2. Diss. i. 14, 12 sqq. ; cf. Phil, d. Gr. III. i. p. 319, 2. 4 Epictetus'view of the des3

5 sqqr.; ii.

and
state.

Thus
iv. 41) "

in Jfy. 176
:

Aurel. 27

original (ap M. ^VX^PLOV"I, fa


cf. Diss. ii. 19,

its

(rrafoyvutptv;
:

T"
c.

"rw

parly ro^ry

T$

veicpQ,1.

tiny
not

of

the
to

soul

after death On the of


one

is

hand

easy he

state. the be
an

ciallyDiss. thought that they (he


to

i. 19, 9 ; but espei. 9, 10 sgg. He here says nal e6ri


'
"

treats

soul

(this

his

^inyv6vres rfy disciples)

aspect will later on) as

spoken
essence

which

6eobs a-vyyevetav, again irpbsrov? TIVOL ravra is, 5ecr/xc"

268

ECLECTICISM.
to be

CHAP,

good.1 by
our

How

this fatalism is to be combined


and

with

moral

precepts
in

exigencies is
must not

nowhere

indicated But

philosopher.
ethics
more we

even

expect from

Epictetus any
who
and useful,

investigation.He searching
to the practically philosophy theoretic enquiry only as an on in is necessarily, to this, even

confines himself
carries

in

accessory and means his moral doctrine,devoid

of any

proper
; it

scientific

foundation
for

and

mode

of treatment that

him, therefore,to found


immediate his teacher moral

only remains in the doctrine,


Thus
us assures

last resort, upon like Epictetus, the universal

consciousness.

Musonius,

that

are principles innate in all men, and that all are agreed about them ; the strife relates merely to their application in Philosophy has only to develop given cases.

conceptionsand

these the
under
or

conceptions and teach them: individual rightly under


natural

us

to include

for

instance,
ledged acknowsuffice for

the idea of
so

good
forth.
innate

we

are

not

to

placepleasure

and riches, that

Here ideas that

it is indeed do in
not

the

application deceptive opinion is intermingled;2but since, as Epictetus believes,there is no strife concerning end he hopes to put an the universal conceptions,
1

themselves

alone ; and

their

Dm.

ii. 26 ; forms above

18, 1-7 ; 28, 1-10 ; It iii. 3, 2 ; iii. 7, 15.


i
no

contradiction

to

the says xix.

when

Epictetus

free will ; for the Stoics, their fatalism, notwithstanding the same, maintained 3 Hiss. i. 22, 1 sg. 9 ; ii.11
of
our
"

again (.#".180 ; ap. Gell. 1) that acquiescence is an affair

c.

17, 1-13.

TRUE

WISDOM.

269

to the

in the simple presentations Socratie that is which starting from manner, of short dialectic by means universally acknowledged,

discord

of moral

CFAP. IK"

discussions ; l the the

scholastic

systematic treatment

argumentations, of ethics, to him, seem


far
at
as

not, indeed, worthless, so


confirm
our

they
same

serve

to not

conviction, but
enter

the

time

indispensable.
If
we

would

the

content

point out, as
to

into closely of Epictetus' ethical doctrine, we may its fundamental the endeavour feature,
more

somewhat

Inde~

make

man

free and
from

happy by
which
events

restriction

to his double

moral demand

nature;
to bear

proceeds the
all

all external
to
renounce

with unconditional
and wishes appetites This, accordingto and
sum

submission,and
directed towards

the

external.

Epictetus,is
wisdom what
power
"

the
we

commencement

of

all

that
in

should
power
a

know and

how what

to discriminate

is
;
2

our

is

not

in

our

he

is

born
to

philosopherwho
live may

desires
not to

absolutelynothing but
afraid of any
event

free and

be

happen.3 Only one will, or what namely,*~our thing is in our power the employment of our and notions is the same, it may be called, ideas ; everything else,whatever is for us a an external, thing that is not in our power.4 Only this should have, therefore,any
"

that

LOG.

(M.

especiallyii. 11,

quoted by
mouth of
1.

Mnsonius

from

the p.

and

Ii. 12, 5 sg. Of. sup. p. 261, 1. 3 i. 1 ; 48, 1 3 JMss. Man. 1 ; 21, 22, 0 *#. ; cf. what
2

Epictetus, mp.

254,
i. is
*

JHss. ii. 17, 29;

Cf.

sup.

note

3,

cf. 1, 4, 18. and Man.

270
CHAP,

ECLECTICISM,

value

for us,

only

in

it should

we

seek
and

goods
this
we
2

and
can
our

and evils, happiness external do, for things

unhappiness; l
do not
concern

ourselves

will, our world, not


will
as

proper
even

essential

nature,

nothing in
3

the

the

depends our
that make
; things

such of

only on the ; deity,can coerce happiness; it is not external things us happy, but only our conceptions
and the
are

question employ
fortune what
to
our our

is not

how

our

external

circumstances
to

shaped,but whether
notions.4
to

we

know

how
we
we

govern
or

and

So
selves our-

long as

desire

avoid
upon and

anything external
; if
we

depend
is
ours our

have
we

ceived per-

what ourselves with


we

is
own

not,

restrict

wishes

rational nature

direct

our

efforts and
not

counter
on

to nothing efforts,5
:

which

does

depend

ourselves

then

we

are

free and
us;

that
more

happy, and no fate can have any hold affect us happen what will, it can never which our on depends.6 And well-being completely we
in
our

upon and

the

have minds
; ii.

made of
6

ourselves

thus

independent
6 ; Piss. i.

the

external, the
19
"

*$.;
1

111.

25, 1 ; 12, 34 3, 1; 14 sgg.;


,.

5, iv. 1,
and
;

sqg.-, 21

10?" "c: V'tde


Mew.
2

preceding

note

19 ; Diss. iii.

22, 38 sgg.
c. c.

ii. 1, 4; i. 20, 7 "c.

Mss. i. 1, 7 18, 17; 19, 7: sgg.; ii. l, 4 22, 10 m. ; 25, 1 m. 5, 4; 23, 16 sqq.\ iii. 22, 38* iv. 4, 23 et pass, ; Gell N. A xvii. 19, 5, where there is a
c.
.

Mm.

1, 2,

29, 24
3

Dis$. i. 1, 21 sgq. ; ; ii. 5, 4 ; Man.

18, 17 9, and

quotation from
effect that

Epictetus to
worst

the

the

elsewhere. i. 1, 23; 17, 27; ii. 23, 19 ; in. 3, 10. 4 Man. 5, 16, 20 ; Diss. i. 1, 7 sgg. ; ii. 1, 4; c. 16, 24: iii. Diss.

impatience towards .of others,and intemperance in enjoyments and in all things the art of living happily and
without
two

vices are the faults


-

faults

is contained
and

in

3, 18; 26, 34 s$.


PUl.

and

elsewhere,

words, aWvou

d. Or. III. i. p.

224,

1.

COURSE

OF

THE

UNIVERSE.

271

clearer necessary far


to

it will in

become

that

all

that

happens

is
so

CHAP.
^

the

and interdependence of things,nature


a

according to
each that
event
even we

we

shall

acknowledgethat
be
as
a

moral

activitymay
may

linked,
means conditionally un-

and of

misfortune shall for


our

be used
reason

training;
to

this

submit what

to

destiny
than

and
we

hold

Grod feel

wills

be

better

what

will, and
we
are

ourselves

free
as

herein,that precisely

satisfied the
we

with

all

it is and

universe

will

of happens ; the course correspond with our wishes,because


it unaltered into
not
our

have the
man

received

wills.1

Even wise

hardest
in this

experiences will
temper;
not

disturb

the

only Ms property, his but even his friends, his person, his health,and life, his fatherland, he wiE consider as something belongings,
that and
nature

is

merely lent, and


of which
as

not

given,to him,
his
inner
to be

the
;
2

loss and

does

not

affect

little will faults of

he

permit himself
in

troubled mind him


1

by

the

others

his

peace

of

he will not

expect that those


faults ;
3

should
PHI.

be free from

he

belonging to will not require


24, 95
11 ;
c.

d.

Gr. III. i.p. 303, 1 ;

ii. 15, 4 sg$. ; 6, 22 ; iii. $%%.


2

304,
37 24

8, 10, 53 ; Diss. i. 6, 4 ; 12, sqq. ; 24, 1 ; ii. 5, sqt[.


6, 10

1 ; Man.

Man.

1 ; c.

3 ;

c.

; 10, 4 sq. ; 16, 42 sq$. ; iii.20 IV. i. 99, 131 j 7,20, ; ; *gtg[.

14 ; Digs, i. 15 ; 22, 10 ; iii. 3, 5, and elsewhere,


*

and with

elsewhere.
this

It is consistent

Mtm. natural be

12

1,

14.

Still less
as

principlethat
Ms
as

Epicre-

can

compassion

to the other

with tetns, who suicide garded

school the

external
men

misfortunes
is hnman and

of

refnge

permitted,though Epicinconthe
ex-

kept
only
stances

last resort, in the open when circumit allows

tetus

unequivocally

demand
;

enough to allow pression of sympathy


16).

sistent

{Man.

it

(vide Diss. i. 24, 20

9, 16

272

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. IX.

that he

no

wrong the
and

should

be committed
to

himself: against
be
he

holds

greatest criminal
deluded
man

merely
dares
most

an

unhappy
be

with

whom

not
men

for he finds that all about angry,1 is grounded in the excite themselves,
does
man

which
nature

Thus with while

win

freedom

his will and he

endeavour the

things. here by withdrawing into himself, absolutely

of

Inclina-

tion of
Jfyictetus to Cynicism.

contraryall external events unavoidable with perfect an as destiny. resignation the cannot We on deny that these principles acceptson
whole
are

Stoic,but

at

the

same

time

we

cannot

pervades the help feeling that the spiritwhich that as moralityof Epictetus is not quitethe same
of the earlier Stoicism. On
the
one

hand
we

our

inclines to Cynicism,when, as philosopher of theoretic seen, he speaks disparagingly when he carries his indifference
to

have
;

science

to the

external
so

and

submission

the

course

of the
is

world

far that
nature

the distinction of that which and

accordingto

contrary to it, that which


"

is desirable

and

jectiona ob-

which

was

the

doctrine the

the Stoic him


almost

morality from
its

tinguish chieflydisCynic for


"

loses entirely

meaning
i *6\ov
,

when

he

1
2

Diss. i. 18
That

; c.

28.

vvv

(j,ev ffoi vocrricrai


KCU

Diss.

be says in distinction, ii. 5, 24 $([., only holds far the


as

vvv vvv

$" Tr\"v"rai

KLV$V-

vevcrcu,

5*

airopTjQrlvcLi, 7rp5
ri
;
.
.

good

so

for himself

regarded of his irrespective


man

is

"pas

5' Zarrtv #re atroQavetv.


.

ofiv ayavaKreis

afivvarov

of interconnection yap ev roiovrcf rt el nature et ; j "vQp(airos. (j.ev rq" irepLe-^ovrtj "s "ir6\vTov a'Koire'is, Karh fyvffiv ""rrl (rjcrat pexptyfjpas, irXovreiv, rotavra.

place in

"r rovrcp crc"fjiaTL,


rovrois TOLS

cfv-

vyialveivel 5' "s "v6po)irov "r"oircTs Kal fiepos tt\ov nvbs, 5i'

66vra

ffbv ofiv epyov, eliretv " 5eT,^laQecrBai


What

lA.ravra

"s,brt0d\\"i.

falls to

CYXIC

TEXDEXCZES.

273

finds

it

dignifiedto
fate offers exaltation

disdain
us

even our

those

external
*

CHAP. IX.

goods which
when
in

without
above
2

co-operation;
emotions

his
to

mental

he
us

advances
feel

insensibility ;
and

when

he

forbids

to

tures, sympathy for onr fellow-crearate in regard to their outward at any dition con3 when he believes that the perfectedwise ; will keep himself from man marriage and the begetting of children in the ordinary condition of human him from society,because they withdraw his higher vocation, make him dependent on other

compassion

men a

and

their of

and necessities,

have

no

value

for

teacher
his

humanity,
said in
:

as

compared
deterred from

with
action

his

man

as

lot
'

(as was

not

by

c,

3 ; cf. c.

6, 1) is immaterial

their

KO.I T6^"iriJJ,zXca$ rovro Sr) efibv conviction observations which


and

fatalism, neither did they allow it to interfere with tbeir


of the of choice different tive relavalues
no

v.

In such

things ;
among

without

no action, consequently whom he would be possible (Cic. Fin. Mi. quotes these words is (Dm. ii. 6, 9) : fJ-*xPLS "v a^Xa 15, 50). If that conclusion ael r"v ra % in "%rjs, "v"pv"ffT"- more prominent Bpictetus, so P.OL that he irpbs T?" Tvy)(a.V"iv approximates to the ptav e^ofiat rcav Kara

is Epictetus to a certain extent anticipated by Chrysippus, from

them,

tyvcriv"airrbs yap
TOLofirav
6i

\L

complete
and the the whole

indifference character of

of

Aristo shows cal ethithe


ternal ex-

6ebs

T"V

Cynics, this

only
of Ms

5e

ye

$TI rjSeiv Kal

vo-

/xoi

KaOeifMaprai vvv,
ITT* avr6. yap

Kal
6

theory
Stoic world

in which life, from that the becomes

withdrawal

nobs,
so

"ay "j"pevas elxey, "p/J.a eirlrb TryXova-Oat. In a system


"i

difference total in-

to

world,
tends

and

strictlyfatalistic
Stoics, only
be of
'

as

that

of

submission inactive
1
2

to

destiny

becomes
to it.

the

relative
to

valne

or sufferance,

could and
the

allowed
*

the
to
'

sition oppo3

Man.

15.

contrary

nature
; from

according happens

to nature

ZH$s. iu. 12, 10. Accustom to bear thyself injuries: eW ofira} tva KOV irpoj8^"n7, wA^r? ere avrlts e^Tnjs ns irpbsavr6v 8rf $6}-ov avdpidyras irepieiXqQevai.
8

standpoint of
nature,
as

the

that
to

appears because

whole, all according


necessary.
were

But

the ancient

Stoics

Vide

my.

p.

271,

3.

274

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

l he dissuades when us spiritual ; posterity for him because life, takingpart in political

from

every

His

gentle human

community

in

comparison

with

the

great

state of the universe

is too

small ;2 when,

he finally,

the name ideal under and developshis philosophic of Cynicism.3 But, on the other hand, in the form there unquestionably reigns in Epictetus a milder

gentler temper than in the older Stoa : the does not oppose himself to the unphilophilosopher sophicalworld with that haughty self-confidence it to battle; resignation to the unwhich challenges avoidable forward is his first principle.He comes who the angry preacher of morals not as reproves
and the
of perversity
men

in

the

bitter

tone

of

the
as

well-known the

Stoic

about propositions desires

fools,but
indeed
to

loving physician who rather but their diseases,


1

heal

sympathises with
of life demand

than
and inde-

d. 6rr.IlLi.2QQ.
self
was

Diss. lit 22, 67 sg". ; cf PMl. Epictetushim.

according to

nature

the necessity of human

society

unmarried
55 ; cf
.

(Lucian,

feimilylife ; the

Simpl. in JEpiet. pendence and self-sufficingness forbid it. Iniii.7, of the wise man J"fo"5Mr.c.33,7,p.272). he reproachesthe With 19 ; i. 23, 4 sgr. Epictetus, however, the Epicureans that their repudia- latter point of view manifestly of potion of marriage and predominates, and thus there
Detnon. litical life undermines

human

results that

doctrine

similar
at

to

society,and in Lucian
admonishes Demonax

subsquently in the Catholic Church to found a : family, tr^i^iv jap marriage is tealTOVTO but "pL\off6"i"tp avSplerepov recommended, celibacy is ttwraXiireiv rrj Qtarei, avB" avrov considered better and higher, Demonax (to which replied: and is advised for all those who in the Very good! G-iveme then one profess to be teachers of your daughters 1 '). But this service of God.
'

(L 0.)he the Cynic

which

prevailed

this

time, and

is

only the
we

same

contradiction

2 s

which find in

might

everywhere

PMl. d. 6r. III. i. 296, 3. Vide Dm. iii. 22 : iv. 8, 30:

i. 24, 6. Stoic treatment of The these questions. principle

the

276

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

father

or

brother.1 the

How

this dispositionis

con-

nected
and

the

temperament of Epictetus religious how from this starting-point a divergencefrom in the theoretical is inevitable, older Stoicism even
with
will part of philosophy,

be

discussed

further

on.

Marcus
.s

The

greatest admirer

of

Epictetus was
his

Marcus

Antoninus

Aurelius

Antoninus,2 and
iii. 22, 54
:

in

apprehension of
p.

lonius;
the

cf. sup. he the

197, note).
whose
were,

5e? avrbv

(the Cynic,
"s
avrovs

truly

The

philosophers
above

struction in-

wise

man)

ftvov Kal
TOVS

}j."vov "pi\"iv

mentioned, Stoics us (/."?.) a5eA"""oz/ ; Sextus, the Pla; ras, "$"irarepa irdvrcav, cf Fr. 70 ; ap. Stob. Moril 20, tonist,of Chaeronea, nephew of nics Plutarch (M.Aurel.i.9; Capitol. 61 ; and concerning other Cy.

Saip6besides fiaipov-

attended

who the
same

express

themselves PMl.

in

3 ; Dio

and viii.

Philostr.

1. c. ; Eu-

manner, III. i. 299, 4.


2

d. Gr.

trop.

12;

Suid.

Mc"p/c.);
i. 12 ;
2
a

Alexander Philostr. but this

(for so he born was was called) originally the 25th of April,121 A.D., on inEome(Capitolin. Ant. PMlos.
M. Annius Verus

(M. Aurel. V. Soph. ii. 5,


last

s#.),
later

only

at

1),where

his

family, which

had

emigrated
out
a

with of

his great grandfather tained upon atSpain, had rank

Sevems, period; and Claudius the Peripatetic (Capitol. 3). Among the earlier philosophers made none a deeper impression
him have than

Epictetus,

as

high
his

(I. "?.).
was

we

His

careful

education
own

warded for-

anxiety to learn ; philosophy very early attracted him, and already in by


his twelth year he assumed the

(sup. p. already seen 738, 1 ; according to M. Aur. i. 7. Adopted by order of Hadrian for (concerning his predilection
vide MX. Cass.

him,

Capitol, 15) by

i. 4 ; Dio Antoninus

garb
which

of

philosopherand
himself of his of

to

of Marcus Pius, he took the name prescribed abstinences Aurelius after he had borne
at the

he His

only curtailed
mother he his teachers

that

of

his

maternal for
to
a

father grandOn the also throne


was

entreaties
c.

(I.c.
loaded he
; cf,
surname

Catilius his accession

while.

2).

the

with and became Ant.

proofs

gratitude

of Antoninus

when respect, even Emperor (I.o. c. 3 Pi.

added
Cass.

ii. 9 ; relate who


as

10; Philostr. V. Soph. and Dio Cass. Ixxi. 1,


the
same

(Capitol, i. 5, 7 ; Dio I. "?.).His later life belongs to Roman tory, imperial hiswhich exhibits of
"

to

us

on

of Sextus relates of ApolCapitolinus

the
more

throne

the

Caesars

powerful

princes,

many but

MARCUS

AUEELIVS.

277

Stoicism,as well
he

as

in

his whole

mode

of

approximates very closelyto him. the Stoic doctrine, resembles tetus he generallypresupposes
but

thought, Like Epicstand in

CHAP. IX.

only those
interest
a

determinations

of it which

Ep'tctetus
in

his

close relation to the moral any for him.


or

and

life possess religious feel called upon


l

He
a

does not

practical vien" of

to be

dialectician
the

physicist;
sciences in

and

admits

value

of these

though he general,2
Aurelius the

he
is

jp/iilosophy.

none

of

nobler
no
man

and of

purer

racter, 180 cha-

A.D.

Marcus

died

position, at gentlerdisto

Tienna

stricter and I

ness, conscientious-

during tion expediagainst the Marcomanni;


Cass. his of
c. son

faithfulness Dio

duty.

to refer,therefore,

Cassius

according to Dio poison, which


caused him. A
to

33. of had
to

(B. IxxL), Capitolinus (Ant.


Philos.
-,

be

administered

Ant.

Pius.

Ver.

Imp.},
the for that and in

monument

racter his cha-

Vulcatius well-known

and (Avid. Cass,)" authorities will


rare

and

in the

part
this

of Roman

history;
only
and Marcus and
to

mains philosophy reranda, memoaphoristic in his chiefly written

his

place
the

shortly

mention relation lius


as

peculiar
Aureco-

later years, which in the MSS. bear the title els eavrbv or KO."

in which Caesar

tavrbv, but
under p. other

actual his law

regent
excellent

stood
father

equally
and
to

6). More
:

quoted (Bach, designations recent monographs


are

also

father-in himself

concerning
N. Anton.

him

are

the following Mare.


;

adopted
whom he

(136-161),

Bach,

De

Avr.

(i.16
has

; vi.

30)
so

Leipzig,1826

Dorgens,

in his meditations beautiful


own a

raised

monument.
was

His

i-ide sup. p. 202, 1 ; Zeller, Vortr, uncL Abliandl. i. 89 $g". ; Cless M. ubers. 1866, Qrunfo.
1

reign
and

disturbed misfortunes in Eome,

by

Aurelius imd And

great public
6

mine (fa165,
the Mar-

plague
in 162

Selbstyesprciche Stuttgard, others in Ueberweg,


erlaut. Kal

A.D.), difficult

wars

(with

i. 228.
:

Parthians

comanni,

A.D., the 166 syq. and 178

vii. 67

^y

%TL cnr^tanKal "A.etJKOlV"VlKbs

S$Y.)"

Kas

SioAe/CTi/cbs Kal
TOVTO

eirecr(pwiicbs

(the dangerous insurrections Bucoli in Egypt in 170 ; Avidius


Cassius in

8ai,Sia

aTroyvys,

$"pOS Kal

al^fLtaV Kal

6eq". bittered Kal euTrei^s1 Syria, 175) ; and em2 So he says in viit 13, in the indolence of his by Stoic triple with the 172 A.D.), agreement colleagueVerus(died of division his wife of the philosophy : immorality Faustina,
and modus.
excesses

and

the of his

wickedness
son

V"KU)S

Kal

"7Ti

Corn-

On

the

17th of March

278

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

nevertheless proper

of

opinion that
without
not

man

may

attain

his

destination

much

knowledge.1 The
search
out

important thingis

that

he should the

all he
and

things above
should
serve commune

and

beneath with the

earth, but
within
are

that him the

daemon

him

in

the sincerity;2 oppose


more

greater
to the
a man

culties diffi-

which
of the

themselves should

investigation
hold
to

Keal, the
in the

that

which
can

alone

nothing can
the nature
us

of thingsand of opinions changefulness to the conviction that give us calm happen to us which is not accordingto
"

of the

universe, and

that

none

can

to

act

against our
in

conscience.3

It is

oblige only with


he
is

these

practical convictions, therefore,that


his
a

concerned
must

study of philosophy.Philosophy support


in

give us
Vide

fixed

the

flux of

pheno-

277,
the and

1 ; cf. i.

17, where
benehe did in

Svo-KardXyirra5o/ce?
TTOV

Kal

iraa-a

TJ

he
not

reckons make

among

the that

^/zerepa "ruy/caTc"0e"m fj-eraTrrarTj'


yap 6

tits of

gods

aperdTrraros;
with all external

If

we

greater

oratory
studies have and from

progress such poetry and otherwise

go further

they
even

are

things, transitory and


consider men,
en-

which when

might

worthless the
:

; if

we

exclusively occupied him,


that

best eV

are

scarcely
o$v
.

self to

applied himphilosophy he refrained


rovs

he

durable Kal ri

row^ry

fy$y
.

Kal frvTrq

aTTOKaBifrai eirl

crvy-

iror

rocra^rrj fiixrei e"rrl rb eKTLfjLyBijvai, fyrb

8Xcos ffTrovSacrdTJvat ypatyets, ^ ffvKKoyLff^ovs aya^vvd^vov eiu\6etv, ^ irepl It only remains ra /j,"T"a)po\oyiKa you. to await in KaraylvearBat. his natural dissolupeace ii. 13 ; cf. ii. 2, 3 : a^es ra until then tion, but rovrois
iravecrOar
3

evl /xey

"v irpdy/jiara ot"%i Kara rfyv r""v rptirov nva tyKaXfyei. i"rrtv erepcp 5e, $n "|""TT/JULOI arly, fto-re "j"i\ocr6"t"ot$ 6\lOVK pijtev vpd"r"r"Lv ijj"v irapa rbv TO?S- rvxova-tv, oLs, ov5e eSo^e 6(-bv Kal Salpova. ovSels yap 4
V.
:
TO;

10

fjiey

oLavry

iv

auroTs

elvai. aKaraXTjirra rots 2ro)iKo?$ ye

rovrov avayKdcrcay

PROBLEM

OF

PHILOSOPHY.

279

mena,

and

supply a
an

defence

against the vanity


a

of

CHAP. IX-

all finite
A dream in
a

things. 'What
and

is human

life?5 he asks.

a strife and exhalation,

wandering
us

strange land.

through it" our keeping the


exalted above
conduct
to
us our as

thing can guide This consists namely, philosophy.


one

Only

in

daemon

within

us

pure

and

clear,

pleasureand pain,independent of the of others ; in our receiving all that happens by (rod,and
with

sent

awaiting the

natural

end

of The

courage.1 in the problem of philosophy lies,therefore,


a

existence

cheerfulness and

forming of
his mind
;

man's

character

and

the

calming of
to

only accordingto
value of estimated. there
are

their relation

this

problem is the

scientific

enquiries and points in the


are

dogmas
For

to be

this purpose

three

HU

o^-

theoretical portion of the

Stoic
eyes of

system which
our

eon' reti"!

chiefly important in

the

the doctrine of the First, decay of all existence, of and

philosopher, of the all flux of all things, the rotation of becoming

^xtf
things.

passingaway,

in

which

nothing individual

has

ii. 17

"
f

V*v

: rov avBpuvtvov fttov "s % 5e ovffta aMs Xpfoos ffrrypfi'

cKeiBev

Tro6ev

"c. peoutra, ra ic"VTO)

5e rbv 0afafcir eVl iran crvvsXtwri. "5e elireiv, varov yvt"fjiri ?\eq" Treptpevovra, ry 2UAo "fo ou5"y fy Xvtrtv rtev fro"rdfjc.aro$ jitej/ rov d-

ra/iJi^
ra

5c

Kal

Tvtyas.

($oy tKaffrov TT}S "pv%risfoeipos aroixel"v,e| wv SimHar utterances 5e jSfasTr6X"fio$ a-vyKpiverai.

Kal

vanity and. %4vovbriSiipia' TJ vffrepoQyfjLfa concerning the of and life rb transitoriness 5e X'fiBif]. ovv irapair^at ri^ of the Kal worthlessness (piXoa-opivots, SwdfjiGvov every; ev to found in Se ev r" rt\p"iiv external rbv are thing rovro "fa. d\3 iv. /col ii. 12, 15 ; (d K6ffpos "j/5oy Salpom a,j"6ftpi"rrov ^ri 5e ra ovfifiai-Xoieacrir d 0los fa6\i$is) ; iv. affunj, "c. Kal airovefjttfjLeva lex^ei/ov, 48 ; v. 33 ; vl 36 ft vovra

280

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

permanence,1but
the ceaseless
are
even

all returns

in

course

of time
even

of

transmutation of the

to which

the

ments ele-

3 subject ;

change which

conducts With what


an

the universe he

to

its future

dissolution.4
:

these doctrines

couples these reflections

unimportant part of the whole, what a transitory of universal life, is each phenomenon in the stream
individual the
as an we

how

wrong
desire

it is to set it
as a

our

hearts upon
to fear it

to perishable,

good, or
to disturb

evil ; 6 how form


no

little we

ought
to

ourselves holds
the

if

exception
hold
are

the

law

which

good, and world,if we

must too

good, for all parts of

hastening to our dissolution.7 the more But of the livelyis his consciousness changeableness of all the finite,the greater is the importance he attaches to the conviction that this change is governed by a higher law and subserves the end of the highestreason this is ; and of those propositions the conclusion the deity on and providence, and the unity and perfection of on
the world, to which The belief in the
not Marcus

Aurelius
so

so

often

recurs.
man

gods

is

indispensableto
to

that it would without


1

be worth

while

live in
we

world

gods ; 8
;
v.

and

justas

little can
know of whom We
we

doubt

that
of the
see,

iv.

36, 43

13,

23 ; viii.

the

existence
we

6 ; ix. 19, 28 et pass. 2 ii. 14: ; viii. 6.


3 4 5 6 *

gods
Marcus

do in but

not

Aurelius
believe

answers

(xii.
beeffects
we

ii. 17,
v.

end;

iv. 46.

28):
cause

them that

13, 32.
23 ; ix. 32. v. 23 ; vi. 15 ; ix. 28.

experience the
see

v,

of do

their
not

iv. 42 j ii. 17,

power ; them the

is not

end; viii. 18;


we

x.

7,
we

true, for they


of

(i.e. a
in
our

quite portion
;

31 ; xii. 21. 8 ii. 11. If

them,
we

are stars)

visible souls

ask

how

and

believe

ORDER

OF

THE

WORLD.

281

the

Divine all
l

Providence

embraces the most

ordered
manner

thingsin
whether
as

thingsand has and beneficent perfect


extends
to

all

CHAP.
IX'

this

care

the

indi-

Belief i

vidual
means

immediately
of the

such, or

is related to him

by
t?ie uni~

The

same

of nature.2 general interdependence divine spirit permeates all things ; as the world
is one,
so

substance
one

of the and

is its soul ; 3 it is

rational

efficientforce which

goes

bears in itself the germs of things, bringsforth all thingsin fixed and The forms world, therefore, whole, the parts of which are living

throughall all things, and sion.4 regular succesa

well-ordered maintained
in

harmony
and

and

interconnection

by
;

an

internal

bond,5
is made

all in the

it is

regulatedfor

the

best,the fairest
worse

and

most

for the sake

appropriateends of the better, and

the

the

irrational for the

without

seeing
Mem.

them

(cf. "iraKo\ov8r}(ny
"#re

rb
. .

5e

Xenoph.

0ebs, eS e^ei vdvra tfre 1 ii. 3 : ra r""v BeSsv irpovoiaseiKTJ, p)jKCU "rv titty. Therefore, iii. 11, 8*5 ""i e"p3ettd(rrov AefJL""rrd KOL (xii. 5) ; irdvra KaXws
8, 14).
Qeoi
yetv
rovro

ot dtard^avres (pLXavQp"iras

rovro

pzv
Kara

irapa

8eov

7jK"i.

(ii. 4,11
2

; vi.

4:4:, "C.).
Aurelius allows these he
us

5e

/col r^jv "TV\XTI%IV

Marcus
choose third

T^\V
"c.

to the
not

between

two

(firyKXoxriv^ ffv{jLfjL7jpvo/j.evT]v The distinction besame


indirect
and

theories,whereas
"

that

the

repudiates gods do
about and subholds
care

tween vine and HI.


3

direct diG-od

causation, between
we destiny,

trouble
as

themselves wicked all

find PMl.d."r.

anything"
versive
even were
man

i. 143, 2 ; 339, 1.

of

religion; though
case

it the could and

he

xii. 30 ; ix. 8 ; iv. 40 ; Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. 200, 2 ; 140.


4

that

still take his true

Ibid. in.
vavr'bs

i. 159, 2, 3 ;

v.

32

of himself 44 (vi.

welfare

rbv

5ia TTJS obcrias


rov

S^/coj/ra \6yov
ai"vos
Karci

; vide

Phil.

d. Grr. III. i. 28:

ical 5f^

163,3.

"(j? "Ka"rrov
vota, then

Similarly ix. 6pfj.% TJ rov


be

%roi
it
KO.T

icepi6$ovsT"'raryfjL"yasoiKovofJLovvra
ri" Tray.
5

cfAou did:

satisfied with
Xonra

5e $ cwra" 8pjLty(r", ra

p. 140

iv. 40 ; Phil. d. j 169, 1, 2.

Gfr. III. i.

282

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, IX-

sake of the rational.1 burdensome the


seem

Even

that

which
its

seems

to

us

and

has purposeless whole the


; even

good

end

for

economy
to
are

of the with

the

evils which
and

conflict
in

divine

goodness

wisdom of the
nature And
course

part merely the inevitable reverse good, and in part things by which the
and
true

side inner

even

untouched.2 are happiness of man with not content recognisingin the usual of thingsthe traces of Divine Providence,Antoninus, in the spiritof his school, does not deny the extraordinary revelations of God in dreamst
believes himself relation connection of these
to have

and

had

of which he auguries,3 experience; 4 on the


to

tions revela5

the

course

and
as

of nature

he of

says,

however,
the
170,

little

concerningthe
6

relation

his
1

gods to
Loo.
Phil.
;
:

popular deities
1 ,* v.

and
so

in other

pas-

cit.

16, 30 2;
;

old
6

Stoics Marcus in
a

d. greatly (PJiil.

and
2

elsewhere. d. 6V. III. i. p. 174,


j ro'is p.ev

6V. III. i. 339

$#.)"

"

Aurelius

always
manner

175, 2
ii. 11

176, 3

177, 1

178, 1, 2

speaks
the he in

general
the the substitutes

of whom Zeus
'

/car*

aA4)0eicw
T"V

6 col or

6eb$,for
*

KaKo'ts Tva

d fydpvfj"i TrcpmiirTr}
irw

often

fy Kal he doubtless followed, as EpicTOI/TO en-f? tetus did,the universal theories r b " of his school, but held to the Trdvrfi /JL^J irspnrLirTSiv ctirtp' Se %efy"ftj iroi"i ircas existing public worship the fj.)) faQpuirov, "v rovro frlov av6pc^irov steadily,since for him as xelpca more
Kaicbv

rb TTOS, in* wry 8e Xonroov ef ri

edevro'

regard to

popular

deities

"v

"iva. wpo'foovro,

iTQLT}ff"iev ; xii.
3

5, and

elsewhere, Kal ot

head
a we

of the

Roman

state and how

it

was

ix. 27.
must

Even be

to the wicked

political necessity;
can

thus Chrisas re-

we

friendly :

understand

6eol $e iravrolco? avrots ftoyQovcri,tianity appeared to him bellion against the laws Si* bvelpwv, 5i" fjLavT"i5"v.
4

of

the

i. 17, where

the

^o-nQ^aTa

State, and

the

constancy

of

Christian the which mentioned a ca v are oyeip martyrs as defiance were (^tX?) napdimparted to himself, wanton other be must things, against ra^is, xi. 3), which among his and giddiness. crushed by severity. Under blood-spitting 5 Which had occupied the reign,as is well known, great

5i}

284

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
'

Antoninus
man,

has been as lies,

said,in the

moral

life of

and here his likeness to

Epictetuscomes

out most

MMcs.

and strongly ; but the difference of their nationality social position made it inevitable that the Eoman

emperor

should

in display

his

theory of
the

the world

strongercharacter
individual

and

maintain

duties of the

towards

societymore
For

than emphatically the rest, we find with


of

the him

Phrygianfreedman.
also that
are

the
the

fundamental

determinations
man

his ethics

dependence of
'

upon

himself,
and

to resignation
most

the will of

Grod,and the

warmest

boundless

love of man.1 others ? within upon


'

Why
says thou

dost thou
to
man

dis-

into

be careful of the thyself; daemon within thee; loose thy true self from all that clings to it in a merely external fashion ; consider that nothing external affect thy soul, can that it is merely thy presentationswhich trouble thee, that nothing can injure thee if thou dost not think it injures thee ; consider that all is that only within thee streams changeableand futile,
1

about thyself into thyself ; only wellbeing;reflect

turb

he

; retire

dost

find

rest

and

Marcus

Aurelius forward all of

himself
these

in effect asserted essential

in

v.

33 ; the
{re-

often

brings

thing
ev^petv,

is 0eota fj.ev

virtues, sometimes
sometimes the chief

only two

three, them, as
pas-

point.

So in the

sage quoted sup. p. 278, 3 j 279,1, he mentions purity and freedom of the inner the

and life,
course

submisthe uni-

8e avdptiirovs e3 voieiv, /cal aye'xe"r0cu avr"v "oi a-7re'xe"r0at (of. p. 270, 6). oVa 8" e'/crtagpajz/ rov KpeaSiov Kal rov ravra irvevfAartov, ^ueuvrjo-daip^re "r" Svra, ^re M

j8eu"Kal

sion to
verse,

of

"roL

But any
we

as

he

does

not

at-

these

iii.4 ; and togetherwith of the kina recollection

tempt
ration,

systematic enumecannot expect any


him
in

and the duty ship of all men of caring for all. The same is

consistency from
respect.

this

PHILOSOPHY

OF

LIFE.

285

an

inexhaustible

fountain
is the if he

of

happiness,that
in which be

the
man

CHAP.
'

reason passionless

only citadel
would

must

take

refuge
reason

invincible.1
a

His

rational endowed

is the only thing in which activity

being
stand

with

has

to

seek his

happinessand
of man,

his

goods ; 2 everythingelse,all
with the
nor

that does not

in connection is neither
a

moral
an

constitution

good

evil.3

He

who

confines freed himself wish


and

himself from every

to his

internal

nature, and

has

in him every things external, he is every appetiteis extinguished, the

all

moment

satisfied with with

present,he accommodates
submission that
to the
course

himself
of the
ie

unconditional
;

universe the will

he believes

of Grod ; that

nothing happens except ^ Of that which advantages the """""


must

whole
him

and

lies in
that

its nature

be

the best for


to
a a

also;
he

nothing
make himself he

can

happen
material
no

man

which

cannot

into

for

rational

activity.4 For
than
to

knows

higher task
the
fillhis

follow

the

law

of the

whole, to honour

god
the

in his bosom moment

by
as

strict
a
man

to morality,

place5
to the
serene

at every

(and
or

as

Roman, adds
forward

and philosopher), imperial

to look

end
1

of his life, be it

sooner

with the later,

ii. 13 ; iii. 4, 12 ; Iv. 3, 7,

8, 18 ; v. 19, 34 ; vii. 28, 59 ; Tiii. 48 ; xii. 3 et passim. 2 Phil. d. Or. III. i. p. 210,

i. p. 177, 2 ; 178, 1. Hence the cf. 40 that principle (x. v. 7) ; should not men ask external

2, 3
3

212,

4.

prosperityfrom God, the dispositionwhich


desires ternal.
5

but

only
is
ex-

neither

Ib.

HI.

i.

216,

1 ;

218,

1 ;

nor

fears what

viii. 10 ; iv. 39. 4 x. 1 ; iii. 12 ; ii. 3, 16 ; iv. 23, 49 ; vi. 45 ; x. 6 ; viii. 7, 35 d. ffr. III. et passim. Cf. PML

ii. 5, 6,

13, 16,

17 ; iii. 5,

16. "c.

286

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
IX"

cheerfulness

thought of
how
can man

with the simply content that which is according to nature.1 But feel himself part of the world, and
is

which

subordinate without member


at

himself the
same

to

the

law

of

the

universe
as

time

regarding himself finding in


2

of

humanity
not all bestow

and task ?

work

for humanity

his worthiest

and

how his

can

he do this immediate

if he

does

upon

more

fatherland
Lore
m

the ?
3

attention Not
even

which the

his

position
mem-

to
n'

demands
bers

of him

unworthy
it befits

of human
his love.
even

society are
He

excluded
us

by Antoninus
man

from love

reminds
and

that

to
even

the weak

to erring,

take interest bids


in
us

in the that

ungratefuland
men
are our

hostile ; he

consider
same

all

kindred,that
;

all the

divine
no

dwells spirit
in

that

we

cannot

expect
that
even

to find

wickedness
sin

the

world, but

the

and because they do only involuntarily what is reallybest for them not perceive ; that he who harms does wrong own only himself; our be harmed essential nature of can by no action another's wrongdoing ; he requires,therefore,that should be hindered we by nothing in doing good,

sinning

that and

we

should
of

either

teach

men

or

bear with

them,

instead

should faults, We know how

being angry or surprised at their them.4 only compassionateand forgive himself Antoninus acted consistently
.

For

further

details cf Phil.
sg.

d. @r. III. i. p. 286, p. 301 2 ./". p. 297, 2, 3.


3 4

Ib:III.
vii. 22

i. 297, 2, 3. ffiiov av6p""irov ri" :

"c. ; (pi\"7vKal robs irralovras, I o. c. 26 ; ii. 1, 16 ; lit 11, "c.; iv. 3; v. 25; viii. 8, 14, 59 j ix. 4, 42; xi. 18; xii. 12, et

passim,.

CHARACTER

OF

LATER

STOICISM.

287

Tip

to

these
there

precepts.1
comes

From

"his

life,
of

as

from

Ms

CHAP.

words,
of

to

us

nobility
a

soul,
to in

purity duty,2
a

'

mind,

conscientiousness,
a

loyalty
which

mildness,
and

piety,
the

and Koman

love

of

man

that

tury, cen-

on

imperial
the

throne,

we

must

doubly
of
the

admire.

That

Stoic
of

philosophy
morals could

in

times form will But


and

deepest
an

degradation Epictetus,
to
a

Musonius,

Marcus

Aurelius,

always
made
no

redound scientific the

its

imperishable through
the
Stoic the
love
to

glory.
these moral
men

it

progress of

though
modified and them the

severity
them,

doctrine of lence benevo-

was

by

though

feelings
man

self-sacrificing strength
and

attained do
not

with find
it is

reality
yet

which

we

in
in

ancient cannot

Stoicism,

this for

gain,
the

great
want

as

itself,
methodical

compensate
and

of

more

exhaustive

philosophic

enquiry.3

Zeller,
sgr. ;
As

Vovtr.

und
:

Abhandl.
s%.

mand tion. in
3

for

strict

self-examina-

i.

96
2

98
seen,

sq.

101

is

for

example,
of

In

regard
and

to

the

ids anthropoof Marcus further

repeated
satisfaction 37
j
v.

expressions
with

dis-

logy

theology something
said
later
on.

himself and
in his

(iv.
de-

Aurelius,
will
be

x.

8)

238

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTER
THE CYNICS OF
THE

X.

IMPERIAL

ERA.

FROM
" " "

this later Stoicism

the contemporary
the
it

Cynicism
and
same

is

only distinguishedby
with which had Stoicism
the

onesidedness followed
the

B.

The

thoroughness
direction. of

for Cynicism,

formed itself out originally Cynic doctrine of the ence independwill

of the
of
a more

virtuous

had
and

furnished

the

basis
of

comprehensive
in
truer
a

scientific view of this


was

the

world, and
in

consequence relation

itself of

placed
nature

with

the

claims

and

of human

life.

If this theoretic

basis

neglected,Stoicism reverted to the was standpoint of Cynicism, the individual to himself and his restricted for his moral activity after virtue : instead of creating personalendeavour
morality were
the rules of his conduct
nature
to

of

from
he

his
was

knowledge of

the

and and
mere

obligedto resort his immediate consciousness, his personal tact moral impulse ; philosophy, instead of a science,
a

of

thingsand

of men,

rule

of life founded of it
was

upon

science,became
not
an

determination

if character,

entirely
sided one-

external form, and

inevitable that in this should


not

it subjective acceptation

seldom

be

LATER
at strife with mate

CYNICS,
custom

289

general
We

and

even

with

legiti-

CHAP. x

moral

claims.
towards Musonius

may

observe
in

this

of Stoicism in especially latter

Cynicism
and

the

tendency later Stoics,


true

Epictetus; indeed,the
also

and describes the expressly designates On the same road we as a Cynic. philosopher
encounter
so

the
we

school did
.

of
not

the

Sextii,though these,

far

as

know,

call themselves the conditions

Cynics ;
tinguish dis-

and

it is undeniable the

that

which

last century of the the

Eoman

Republic
"

and

the

first of

Imperial Government
and

the

universal

immorality
upon all
"

luxury, and
a

the

pressure for in

weighing
meeting
the much
and
same

gave
and

sufficient

opening
the time

the
way

distress
as

corruption of
done under

analogousbut more by Diogenes mitigated circumstances after the beginning of the Soon Crates.1
had
era we

been

Revival

of

Christian
under of

again

hear
a

of

the

Cynics, and
J
3

"^ni^m
won

Gjjt"r
"?-

that

name

is united

numerous

host, partly the

t^Ckril philosophers, genuine, partly of merely nominal "rawho, with open contempt for all purely scientific tia"lfl their only task the as activity,set before them
liberation
of
man

from

unnecessary

wants,
emotions;

idle

endeavours, and
herein
far
more

mental disturbing than

who

the

Stoics

set

themselves

in opposition, even by their dress and definitely of men and their customs, to the mass of life, mode forward as and came professedpreachers of morals

and mask

moral
a
3

overseers

over

the rest.

That
were

under

this

number
Cf,

of

impure elements
Litcian
und
U

hidden,

Bernays,

die

Kymker,

27 *g.

290
.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP, x'

that

ancient ness,
coarse

great part,perhapsthe greaterpart, of these mendicant monks, through their obtrusive-

and

and charlatanism, through their shamelessness, and rude behaviour, through their extortions their beggarlylife, even and, despite impositions,

its adhe-

of through their covetousness, brought the name philosophyinto contempt, is undeniable,and may be l provedfrom Lucian alone; but we shall find that the had neverlike its predecessor, theless new Cynicalschool, But the even a nucleus worthy of esteem. of little importance in a scientific better Cynics are

point of
1

view.
De
inorte

E.g.

Piscat. 44 sq. 48 ;

Peregrini', Symp. il s%. ;


24. lar Simiraised
same

"c. ;

and

about

the

Fugit. by

16 ; also

Nigr.

complaints had
others. Seneca Lucilius

been
warns

his

period Dio Chrysost.(Or. 34, p. 33 E.) says, with refeto the philosophic dress, rence
he
are

5, 1) against the (JEp.


manner

knows
seen

well

that

strange

of life of those

in

it call

those who themselves

qui
per,

non

proficeresed
the mtonsum

conspici
cultus
as-

Cynics and
as

cupiunt, against
the

cajmt, the the "ba/rba^ indiotum negligentior argcnto odium, the ctibile Tiumi
aliitd
am-

Kal

regard themselves avQp"Trovs jMLiifOfjLevovs rivets plaints comraXanr"povs. The


of Lucian
are

echoed

by
the

his

positum, et quicyuid
"bitio perversa traits and of
via,
new

contemporary rhetorician (De


sqq. ; Bind, 'wnct, die From may be

the

sequitur, all Cynicism:


to

p. 397

Lucian
100 Dial.

Aristides, Quatuorv. cf Bernays, Kyn. p. 38,


.

there

is also reference
14

^.)-

it,no

doubt, in Up. 14,


contur"bal)it
nee

103, 5): non


mores piiblieos
se

(cf. sapiens
in

to which

these passages, added Lucian,

populwn

Dig ii.
we

Mort. 1, 1, 2 ; Galen, An. Peec. 3, vol. v. 7l,


also wherein of the the external

vitce novitate

convertet.

Kpicthe ner in-

see

tetus

also

22, 50) sharply (iii.


between

discriminates freedom
moral

the and outer the of true qualities and that for Kal
iray

Cynic life consisted the in : mantle, of ten very by these philosoragged, worn phers,
the
uncut

tokens

beard

and and

Cynic;
Kal

which
:

many

hair, the

staff and

wallet,

substitute
i-v\ov

the whole irv\pi$iov rough mendicant life, the ideals of which were yvdBoi /u.eyd\ai' b "av 8""s, ^ cwroa Crates and a Diogenes.
cLTravruffi

these

3}TO?S

Xot-

292

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. X.

ever,

as

this

is philosopher

admired
from
mention

by Seneca,1and
wants him, contrasts
as as
a

as advantageously

his freedom
who

his

life

of poverty and Ms manner from date Beat. 183) (Vit. time this QIOG pauperiorem, quod,cum qua/m ceteros Cynicos, siU dixit
certe

Cynic.
to

Nothing

is known

any

ing Accordwritings left by him. to Eunap. V. Soph. Procem. p. 6, Musonius well as were, and
as

interdixerit

liabere,interet posoere'), JEp.20, 9 (ego (Licit aliter audio, qua


noster,
cum

Carneades

Menippus,
Demetrius.
however

contemporary
Two of these and

with
names,

Demetrius

ilium

vidi

quam tem),

nudum, quanta minus, in xtramentis, inciibanHip. 62, 3 (he lives, nan contempserit omnia, tamquam
the word of

(Menippus
doubtless Philostratus how much

Musonius), he from merely takes

(vide sup. pp. 291, know not 1; 246, 3), and we


of what
to

Philostratus
tion foundawe as

Epic-

says has any


; as

historical

tetus

i. 25, 22), and the (JDiss. anecdote in Lucian, Saltatory 63. When
to

Carneades
nowhere
were

can

form that in

no

judgment,

he

is But metrius De-

Thrasea friend he in 34

Psetus

was

mentioned
there is Rome

else. other time of the

put

death Ms Ann. after

whose (67 A.D.),


was,

Cynics
going forethe from

intimate raised

he

at

the

voice xvi.
the

(Tac.

opposition s#.)"anc^
tage, disadvanof

plain

from

still more

to his own

quotations
Seneca.
name

and statements, (p. 290, 1) One

accession

of these

Cynics,
on count ac-

the defence by Vespasian undertook of Egnatius Celer (Tac. Hist. On


account

Isodorus, who
of Ms

biting words

had

exiled from been by Nero mentioned is Sueton. Italy, by injurious pasian (Nero, 39). expressions concerning Ves1 vii. 1, 3, he calls banished he JEtenef. was (71 Vir but his him to island, meo : tinued conan judicio magnus A.D.) iv. 40 ; cf of Ann. his xvi.
.

32),

insults Sueton.

were

not

further

etiamsi and

maximis

comparetur ;
:

punished (Dio

Cass. In

Ixvi.

13;

Vesp. 13).

Lucian,

in I. c. 8, 2, he says of him milii videtur rerum naQuern, nostris

Adv. 2nd. in 19, he appears Corinth ; in Philostratus, ApolL


with iv. 25 ; v. 19, we meet him in the reign of Nero at Athens and he quently Corinth ; subserecommended was in the to Tyana reign the

tura ut

tulisse

temporibus^
a

nee ostenderet, corrumpi nee nos mrum

ilium ab illo

noHs

corrigi
62. iv.

posse,

eocactce,licet neget

Cf. Ep. "c. ipse,sapientitB, Philostr. to According ApolL

by
Titus of

Apollonius.of
(vi.31), and
was

25, Favorinus praisedhim.


less has brilliant

had He

also appears
in

greatly
in what from tonius. Suea

Domitian

still in
necromancer

company
42 (vii.
;

of that viii.10
are

just

been

light quoted

s##.); but

these

Tacitus, Dio

Cassius, and

statements He

untrustworthy. is described by most of those

DEMETRIUS.

203

with, the
value

luxury of
be

the Roman
estimated
come

cannot

world, his philosophic CHAP. highly. At any _1_L__ very


to
us no

rate, there

have

down

remarkable

thoughtsof his,and the meagreness of renders it probable that none


were

of the tradition any

importance
not to to

known.

He

recommends with
in
a

his

scholars

trouble
exercise
use

themselves themselves

much

knowledge, but

few rules of life for

practical
their

he

appealswith impressive eloquenceto


;2 he
expresses with his

moral rudeness

consciousness

contemptuous
with
bitter

cynical opinion of others;3 he


to

opposes the
a

himself

scorn

the

threats of
as

despot;4 he
of

welcomes

outward

misfortunes

means

moral

and training,

resigns himself

and willingly

this have and the

there
said ;

In all to the will of Grod.5 joyfully also is nothing that a Stoic might not his light estimation of learning and even Demetrius time. lies

knowledge
Stoicism

shares,at
The
in

any

rate, with
his

of his

peculiarityof
the his life.

Cynicism
which
1

therefore

only

severity with

he

stamps

his

on principles

What

"

Benef. vii. 1, 3 *#. from follows, however, well as c. 9, as onwards, is,


Sen.
own

ances

concerning- Vespasian,
Sen. him

and from
voces

Mp. 91, 9, who


:

quotes
esse

Eod"m,

loco sioi
cpio
*

10, Seneca's 2 In I, e. deceat,


eQer~b"
non

dissertation.
: res

imperitorum,
crepvtwt.
gonent

centre

8, 2

He

was

eloin

redditos deormm

Quid enim,
isti If Seneca
matter

q\ienti(B ejus, quce

foriissimOrS inquit, mea


nee an

swsvm refert,

co7icinnat"z

solliettte, sed

vngenti applies
res tuttt,

the

word this

to elega/nter

animo, prcnct inpetm


su as
3

these
4

words,

is

proseqfitentis.
Cf
.

of taste.

Lucian,
takes of
a

Adv. the bad

Indoct. book
out

19,
of

Li

Epikt. Dus.
:

where
the
tears

he it in

hand

reader, and

rav,
5

says to Nero "rol 8s % Sen.

1 25, 22, he awei\ets poi 8"va-

""tScns.
3, 3
j 5 j 5 ;

pieces. Further, his utterpreviously mentioned

Promd.
14.

67, J$j).

294

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. X.

Of

the

Cynicsof
of
the

the

ing,1 periodimmediately followdown


to
us

some

details have

come

respecting
lived under

(Enomaus

(Enomaus
1

who Gradara,
Cynics
are tioned men-

is said to have
even were

of Gadarci.

Besides supra,
names

it

otherwise, the
lived
cluded con-

p. 291, 2, the

lowing time folcan

when

Demetrius

connected

only be
from

approximately
c.

with

ever, this school, of which, howbulus perfect. our knowledge is very imUnder

Vespasian lived
and

Agatho in Egypt mon. (Lucian, De3; Peregrin. 17) must


be of lived counted this Pius Dem his whom and of among and onax,
we

34.

Diogenes
whom,
abuse the the Ixvi.
on

Heras,
of

of their and

also

the

account

Cynics
Antoninus

period.

Under
cessor suc-

of the former
was

imperial family,

his

scourged

Pereshall

latter beheaded

(Dio Cass.
also
was

grinus,
genes,

pupil Thea-

15);

and

Hostilius banished Under


must

probably (7.c. 13),who


or

with Domitian

Demetrius.
we

speak later on; also Honoratus (Luc. Demon. 19, where


is related of him that he
was

it

place
surname was an

the he

Trajan clothed in a bearskin, and with that Didymus called him of Planetiades therefore, Demonax, (if

historical

person),in
Def.
drian, Haa sarcasm

whose Orae.

mouth
c.

Plutarch, De
oracle
; under (Enomaus

and 'Ap/cecr/Aaos) Herophilus torical to be his(Icaromen. 16) seem persons, To

7, 413, puts

Crato,
the who

on

the

against the
besides
of

contrary (vide imaginary.


Antoninus

(Luc. De

Saltat. i.$##.)

period of

infra\ perhaps
whom 27

that it is
to

trius Deme-

likewise and
in the

belongs
lived in

related
he of
a

Pancratius,
Athens lostr. F.

(Lucian, Tax,
came

###.) that

Corinth
i. 23,
accuser

(Phi1), and
of Justin

to Alexandria

devote

Soph.
Martyr

himself
a

under

the the he

guidance
(or of
tended

Crescens,
the

certain

Bhodius

(Justin.Apol.

Rhodian

?) to
that

Cynic philosophy,
his

ii. 3; Tatian, Adv. Gent. 19; Hist. Ecel. Eus. iv. 16, "c.) ;
to

unjustly-accusedfriend Antiphilus with the greatest selfdenial his in

the

period of Severus,
theesteemed
an

An-

tiochus,
he
set

Cilician, whom
because

prison,and
When

that emperor cused finallyacto share

himself
fate.
was

in order
to

his soldiers

their the

cence inno-

of endurance 19 ; cf. die

example (Dio Cass. Ixxvii.

brought

lighthe
siderable con-

gave he

over

to his friend

compensation
received, and
himself
to the Brahmans. historical truth of this to India

which went The


rence, occur-

und Bernays, Lucian After this time Xyn. 30). there is a gap in our knowledge of the Cynic philosophers extending
over
a

hundred

and

tain however, is as little ceras the authenticity of the treatise which affirms it; and

fifty years, but the continuance of the school is beyond question.


When

who,

lived, Asclepiades according to Tertullian,

(ENOMAUS.

295

the

Mm for Julian reproaches reign of Hadrian.1 destroyingin his writingstlie fear of the gods,for and tramplingunder foot 2 human despising reason, he says, and divine ; his tragedies, all laws,human
are

CHAP.

beyond
;
3

all

descriptionshameful
this verdict the
no

and

terous prepos-

and

if in for

the

horror the

of the

pious

emperor

despiser of
small
must

popular
must still

has religion
suppose

perhaps
GEnomaus

share,we
have

that

from manner striking of thought. In mode his treatise

the the
"

departed in a and customs prevailing lengthyfragments from


4

which Eusebius againstthe Jugglers,' find a polemic as violent as for us,5we has preserved in the it is outspoken against the heathen oracles,

Ad

travelled Nat. ii. 14:, lands with who


a

through
cow;
or

LOG.

tit. p.

210

D.

When

distant Athen.

calls Suidas, Aioyerrjs fy Olv6fi.

of tragedies, (Enomaus is quoted by a writer also Diogenes, was 5, with a ri'xy'nwhose name lived in Athens and who after the Cynics named epariicf) ; or of the the fall 5 Phot. Cod. 114, 23, Thirty Tyrants, 167, p. ap.

Sphodrias,

iv. 162

among baeus"

the

authorities

of

StoPo-

this

statement
on
a

seems

to

be

viz.,Hegesianax,
Xanthippus,
"

founded

confused

lection recol-

lyzelus,
Theomnestus
know.
1

of
not

this
are

passage, where

we

do

tragedies
to

cated mentioned, dedihis to or Diogenes

(Philiscus, placed in that period disciple Philistus The cf. vol. ii. a, 244, 2), and by Syncellus,p. 349 B. then tragediesof (Enomaus are of Suidas, Qiv6p.that statement phyry, spoken of. than Porhe was a little older 4 The title of this book runs is perhaps inferred from that Eusebius the circumstance thus, according to Eus. Prcep. v. definite account, MJ. 18, 3; 21, 4; vi. 6,52; more (with whose Theod. Cur. Gr"r"zc. Affect, (par. however, Syncellus was 1642) vi. p. 561 : yofyrwy (fxapct., acquainted) Pr"p. EG. v. 19
He is $$$., discusses him

immediately
and

named
5

less

accuratelyby
:

Julian

before
2

Porphyry, (C.18, 3) ris T"V vewv.

calls Mm
B.

vii. 209, B vi. 6.

rb KO,T"

x/wjtrrTjpW.
v.

Prcep* Ekang*

c.

19-36,

draft, vii.
A.

p. 209

Spanh.

cf. vi. 199

296

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
X.

l of cynical spirit on freethinking no ; but it is based properly philosophic arguments ; and in connection

with it QEnomaus of the rudder be


as as our

likewise turns

the fatalism against


as

and Stoics, and

exalts in its stead free-will of human

the to

foundation
an

it life, declaring

much

incontrovertible

fact of consciousness

cilability and expoundingthe irreconitself, of foreknowledgewith freedom, and of with moral In these utterances fatality responsibility.2 the self-dependence of the man we recognise of his Cynicism, would be a follower who, in spite of Diogenes;3 but he neither of Antisthenes nor existence
was

doubtless

neither

deeperstudyof
The esteemed famous
in

adaptedfor any philosophic questions. Demonax4 also, who was highly


inclined
nor

Athens,

and

extolled

in

treatise

similar entirely Expressions

c.

3) had

enjoyed

the

tions instruc-

are

put

into the

mouth

of the

of the

Cynics Agathobulus
of the

of Cynicism by representative

and

Plutarch, Def. 298, 3,and Moreover, cf.m/ra,p,


PMl

Orac. 7, p. 413.

(supra,p. 291 ; Stoics Epic294,1) and tetus and Timocrates (#gpra,pp.


197, 256); he afterwards
in lived

Demetrius

d. Gr. II. i. 280 s##. ; Ber1. c. 30 $%%. nays, 2 LOG. dit. vi. 7, 11 a#. (The-

Athens, and died there when almost a century old, having


himself of the to

doret, I, c.) with


avrcav

proposi- starved tion: ISoi/ 7"p, $ rp6irq" ^JMOOVaccount


a.vreiX'hfJLju.eOa, TOTL"T"P teal fiiaicw* but KOI avQatperuv Tjfjuv
in
as

the

death

on

r"v But

ev

it was of self-consciousness "\\o tKavbv said: OVK previously


ovrcas cos-

with

intercourse Herodes Atticus (c. 24, 33) this latter period, he may,

of old age he still had

ness advancing weak(Z,c. c. 63 *"".),

% cruj/a""r07j"m re
avrwv,

teal

have lived till160 perhaps, A.p., or even longer. The treatise said to be

Julian, Orat. vi. p. 187

by Lucian

shows

(as

Kwitfiibs otfre 3AvTi"rO"i/i"r]j.6s Bernays, Z. c., remarks), by the ktfTW 01JT" A.LOy"VtfffJl.6s. in which Herodes is alluded way
d

Cyprus of a good family,Demonax (accordingto


*

Born

in

to, that it

was

not 176

written
A.D.

till

after his death

DEMONAX.

297

bearingLucian's name,1 Is much more distinguished CHAP. x* QEno From by his character than, by his science.2 he differs chiefly in that he tried to mitigate maus the severities of the Cynic mode of thought,and to
reconcile
it with is

life and

its necessities ; in other


it. As

respectshe
QEnomkns

in harmony with considerably had neither held to a strictly

definite
tific scien-

system

nor

troubled

himself

at all about

any

knowledge, so Demonax, according to the of his biographer,3 carried his eclecticism assurance
to

such his

an

extent

that

it is difficult to

say

which

philosophical predecessors he preferred. He himself,to all outward proclaimed appearance, himself a Cynic,without,however, approving of the
of exaggerations he
and

of

the
a

party;but
model

in

his

own

ter charac-

chose

for

the

mild, benevolent,
was

moderate

temper
to

hearted with
were

enough
directed
to

Socrates

and

largeesteem Aristippusside by side efforts Diogenes.5 His principal


liberation
man

of

and Socrates,4

the

of

mankind
is

from

all

things external:
is

for the and

who

free,said

he, alone
1

happy;
denied

he

only is

free who

hopes

Bekker und die

has and

that

it

is

dan

Bernays (Luhas Kyn. 104 sg.*) def ended this opinion with very important arguments. But that
its

Lucian's,

for suspicion as to its credibility. 2 Concerning his gentle, huand amiable mane, character, his imperturbable cheerfulness, his efforts for the moral of those around

author,

himself

out

really a hero, and


him
TQV no

gives Lucian, was contemporary of his


to

who

nowhere

welfare
and the

be

him,
.

had

intercourse years

with

he extraordinary veneration thereby acquired, cf Lucian,


c.

Z. c. /djf""r~ (eirl 3 have "rvv"ryev6fji'r)v, c. 1), we for many


to
reason

5-11

Demon. LOG.

; 57 j 63 ; 67. 5.

doubt,
reason

nor

is there

dt.

5-9
s

; cf

19 ; 21

any

internal

in his work

48 ; 52.

LOG. dt.

62.

298

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

nothing and

nothing,being convinced of the of all men.1 In order transitoriness and paltriness to resignnothingof this independence he abstained
to have marriage; 2 but he seems specially of Cynicism, in the true spirit included in it, freedom from the prejudices of the popular self religion ; he himhe never offered sacrifices, indicted because was

fears

from

and

despisedthe
neither in the

Eleusinian
his

and mysteries,
nor

he

ceals con-

defence

elsewhere

his low

opinionof

worship.3 In his suicide and existing the disciple his indifference to burial,4 we recognise and Zeno ; and though the departure of Antisthenes must to the Stoic doctrine, from this life, according to a higher life, entrance Demonax, like an open disclaimed this view.5 As Pansetius and Epictetus, to any scientific enquiry, however, we hear as little other. The this point as on on philosopher any exercise of be solelythe his task to considers
1

Lucian, Demon.

20 ; cf
"

c.

4: :

make

them In
a c.

acquainted
27 he
to

with
to

rl *6Xov "X\ov
*

ejue/teA^/cet avr$
the anecdote To not the

them. jUTj"ej/bsenter

refused

eB/at. Trpoo-Sea

Cf.

quoted
com-

God,

he in

temple said, could


c.

pray ; hear him

for

supra, p. 274, 1. 3 LOG. oit. 11.

just as
and sacrifice he had
70^

well

37

in any other place ; he confounded a the believe dilemma


:

plaintthat
to

he he

did

soothsayer with
either
to

Athena

replied
T"V

he must the

himself

hitherto
$"?"r0c"

refrained,
avrfyv
in

ovSe

have

6v"uS"v

wap* e/uou vir"\dppavoj/ ; and when


respect
to the

the
was
* s

decrees worthless,

of power of fate, or

altering
his art

censured

mysteries, he said that he did not get himself initiated,because

LOG. oit. c.32:

Loo. cit. 65 sg. "\\ov

5e

irore

it would him
not to

for

tyon"ov, el bOdvaros avrQ 77 be impossible T^WX^ So/cei eT^ai;bOdvaros, e^"^, a\\* "s irdvra. Cf. c. 8, where speak to the
he says that
Kal

about them uninitiated ; in the if were mysteries order,

in
KUKUV

word, x^07? ns
Kal

hyaQ"v

bad, them,

to

warn

them

and

if

they

were

against /zawp^ irdvras good, to A^ercw.

fr

^\ev9epta o\lycp /cara-

300

ECLECTICISM.

.CHAP,

at

the

Olympic
serious
l

games

in

the

year

165

A.D.

But
ciently insuffi-

the
.

most

of these

charges are

too

attested of
to allow

by Lucian's

which of
our

he himself

tainty testimony,the uncercannot entirely conceal,

unconditionally endorsinghis judgment


If
we

of
account

Peregrinus.
a man

separate

from

his

all that is
as

improbable,this Cynic internally


was

appears
after

who

sincere

in his endeavours
was, at

virtue

and

austerity,but

the

same

and pushing forward his time, always exaggerating absurd to an extreme,2 finallyinvesting principles
even

suicide

"

in

regardto

which
"

he has with

so

many

allies

in the Stoic and in order to There claims Orellius

Cynic school
most

theatrical pomp,

produce the
evidence

effect possible.3 striking that

is other

to show
some

he asserted

the but

of his

school with

exaggeration; 4
and

the earnestness praises character,5and the value


years after his death, previous to the year 180 B.C., Athenagoras Luc. in agreement with (I.0.), of an oracuc. 27 $([".41, speaks
lar statue

steadiness usefulness

of his

and

of

his
tried

Attlcus, he is said
to raise
an

to have

insurrection

against
sg.).
suicide
in Krit.

the
s

Eomans The has

(Luc.
fact of been

18

this 8tud.

of

stood
1

in

the

his native

Peregrinus market-place city.


ii. 175

which of

(which
A.

disputed by
; and

Planck, Theol.
834

1811,
sg.;

$g., 843

Baur,

Cf.Zell"c,Vwtr.
52 sqq.
was

Bernays,
2

If

he

thrown

as

MrehengescJi. ii. 412), according to all the above quotations, is beyond a doubt.
4

Christian

into

prison

while

his
un-

Luc.

Demon. said of
to

When

Pereon :

fellow-Ohristians

remained

grinus
account

Demonax,
cheerfulness

have molested, he must occasion to this by his banished viour ; he was

given
behafrom abuse the

his

oi" KVVO.S, the latter ypwf9


5

ofac

replied, riepeMpcairlgeis.
him in his

Italy on
of the besides Eleans

account

of

his

He

calls
eb

(Z. "?.)mr
whom hut lectures

Emperor;
his and ii.

in

Greece,

quarrels with

grams often the

constant,
whose

he
before

visited

'mentioned

Soph.

his attacks (also by Philostratus, F. Herodes 1, 33) on

city,and

he

attended.

THEAGENES.

301

and quotes a doctrines,1 says that fear of


the wise
a man

discourse of

Ms, in winch

he

CHAP.
s_ .......

should not

avoid wickedness
to the

through
good ;
and
action

punishment, but from love


man

would

do from

this

even

though his
men

remained

hidden made
so

gods

and in

but he who may still

has not

much

progress

morals

be restrained
all

from

wickedness

by the

thought that

to lightin the end. \Ve are wrong-doing comes acquainted,however, with no scientific achievement

either

of

Peregrinus or
of these

his scholar later

Theagenes,2 or,

indeed, of any
But far
it
more

Cynics.
this

for the
a

was

able

Cynicism was mode of life than a scientific conviction, to outlast the vicissitudes of the philosophic
very
reason

that

systems, and
latest

to

maintain

itself down Even

to the

periods of Greek
half found
of

philosophy.
for

in

the

second Julian

the

fourth

century the
those
us a

Emperor
discourses
favourable, un-

occasion

two

the Cynics,which against but


at

give
same

pictureso

the
of

time

probably
at

not

untrue, essentially
1

this
Kvvas.

school

that

time.3
'

Zoc.
ewn

cit.

MultOf

Ji"rcle diau-

Or. vii.
"jr""s
.

irpbs
204,
C. sq.,

cere

utiliter "t lioneste


Of. the follows.
same

"KwiKby,
223 B

Kvvi.a"r4ov. For

divimus. for what


2

authority
Lucian

example, cf
sqq.

Or. vii.

Julian
besides

This

Cynic,
the

whom

mentions,

(p. C.) Heraclius, as


224

(c.

3 sqq. ; 7 ; 24 ; 30 sg. ;

36)
ma-

treats

with

lignity, is
Metfi. Med. Z.

described

greatest by Galen,

Cynics of his time, Asclepiades, Sereniarms; and Chytron. In


Or. vii. 198
a,

he

mentions

(as as a philosopher of shown) repute (8m rty M"v rwQp"xov) who gave lectures daily in Rome of Trajan. in the Gymnasium
3

xiii. 15, yoL x. 909 Bernays, p. 14 sqc[., has

Iphicles of spoken
the year mian. named in

Epirns,whose
expressed
Valentinian

freebefore in the Am-

notions

Emperor
375
are

related
xxx.

by
A

Marc.

5, 8.
age,

Demetrius

Cynic Chytras, who,


was

Or. vi.

els robs awatSeinovs

extreme

old

tor-

302

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.
X.

Further

traces

of the

which recognition
to be met

Cynicism
both in the

stillfound

in this

periodare

with

heathen and

Christian

authors.1

About

ning begin-

the

Augustinetells us that all century, schools of philosophy, except the Cynic,Peripatetic, and Platonic, had died out ; 2 and even in the
of the fifth of the

first decade
a

sixth century we With

find in Athens

Sallustius.3 Cynicascetic, this


as school,

the overthrow

of
to

heathenism

such, naturally came


aut
cos. eos

tured but

under

Con stan tins

on

and political
was

religionscharge,
tioned men-

is set free, finally

by Amniian.
another in of

xix. 12, 12 ; Julian's time is

tas if

Peripatetieosaut PlatoniM Cynicos guidem, quia vitce quGdcwn, delevtat liberatqm licentia. Later on,
19, he remarks
that
a

Civ, D.xix.

spoken

anonymously

by

David, Sehol in AT. 14 a, 18. 1 Bernays, I. c. p. 37, 99 s#., that


alludes the
tius in

philosopher goes over to it is not Christianity required


he should

change
does
not

his dress trouble

this

connection
Themis

to
-

the

Church of

panegyric which
pronounced
its
on on

itself about

the
an

Cynicism
his

example
a

Cynic garb. An Egyptian Cynic,


who came beA.D.,

and

founders

in

course Maximus disand

by

Virtue, especially pp. time,

Christian

(preserved in the Syrian language,and translated into German by Grildemeister


444:, 417
and Biicheler
in the

retained
is

370 his dress a

name, in

long

1. c,, from
ix. 2, 796
3

quoted by Bernays, Tillemont,MSmoires,


*##.
V.

Rliein.

also vol. xxvii.) the Mus. ; violent attack of Chrysostom

Damasc.

Zsidori, 89-92,
greater

(Somil. 17,c. 2 ; Chrys. Opp. ed. has voce\ who taken the first of his articles, Migne, ii. 173) upon the philosophers described as and probably also the second, (clearly

250 ; and at Suidas (sub

length

Cynics) who
the

left

Antioch

on

from

Damascius.
as

That

tius, Sallus-

approach danger, who enjoyed, it would appear, a certain degree of reputation


among the inhabitants of that

of

but

city.
2

observed, exaggerated the Cynic severityas well as the irai^Lv "rl rb y"\oi6r"is confirmed by Simplicius, pov, in Epiet.Man. p. 90 H j according
he laid burning coals upon his leg to see how long he could endure it.
to

is here

Cicero, Acad.

iii. 19, 42
a,ut

whom

Itagruenwio

now, ghilosoplios

fere videmus, nisi

DISAPPEARANCE

OF

CYNICISM.

303

an

end

the

only
mode

element
of

which the
in

was

peculiar
Church

to

it,
had

CHAP. X'

the

Cynic
since

life,

Christian

long

appropriated

Monaehisin.1

Julian,

I.

c.

224 Cvaics

A,

already
with
the

airoTaKriffrai f)ii.nria.rrrnnr\

qui

s"culo

re-

the

nf

t"i"mhi-io""-no

304

ECLECTICISM.

CHAPTEE

XI.

THE

PERIPATETICS

OF

THE

FIEST

CENTURIES

AFTER

CHRIST.

CHAP.
XI.
-

THE

direction

taken

by the
Christ

Peripatetic school
was

in it

the first century before

maintained existence.1
are

by

C.

The

during the whole


of
it
what

of its further with whom


we

Those

Peripa-

tetics members of
1

acquainted,2
sqq., believes
attribute
we

In

regard to

follows, teorol.
should

i. xvi.

Gr.iii. 458 sqq. ; in and Zumpt Harl. ; Brandis the treatises mentioned sujara, der GescJi. 1 Prantl, 112, ; p.
cf. Fabric. MU.

perhaps
the

to
on

Alexander
Khz"

commentary
the
name

which Meteorology, down under

has been
of and

handed
Alexander

Logik,
*

545

sqq. the in this is


to

of
to his

Aphrodisias;

Our

knowledge of
school

patetic he Peri-

seems

very the writers

period According imperfect.


named

Sosigenes whom
as

that the suppose Alexander tions menteacher of is the the time

*#"., we
of the

supra, pp. 113 find, about the middle Christian

famous of

astronomer

Cassar.

"We

shall, however,

first

Alexander
of

A*7.), from
a,

Categ. 3, a 40) quotes observations


a

the Aphrocentury, find that Alexander disian had a structor the inof ^aSgae, Sosigenes for his Towards the end of Nero (Suid. *AAe", teacher. the same encounter we whom century Simplicius, in Arist. 29, (ap. Plut. Qn. Gonvvu. ix. 6 ; (Sclwl. out

14,
head and

5)

of

commentary
and Alex. De
a

on

the

gories, Cateap. the

Menephylus,
of the
ibid. of
was

Peripatetic named perhaps the


school Am.
tne

Aphr.
on

in

Athens,

Simpl.
28, from
Books

Ccelo,Scliol. 494, 5,
commentary
6, here

Frat.
'

16, p. 487,

Apollonius
one

Peripatetic,

of the Heavens.
",

(Kars-

the his

later

philosophers,'
sisted as-

ten, 194,

substitutes

who

praised for having

brother Sotion to Aspasiusfor Alexander, whether attain than greater honour cording conjecture,or acby Ms own himself. This to perhaps, may, manuscripts, does be Apollonius the Alexandrian, not appear.) Ideler, Arist, Me-

PERIPATETICS

OF

THE

EMPIRE.

305

so

far

as

we

have

any

details in

concerning
connection
Galen
v.

their with

CHAP,
XI.

are writings,

mostly

mentioned

the from Selwl.


a

first

whom
in

Categ. taught, Simplicms,i?i


Arist.
on

as

(De

Cogn. an.
his

centuries
B"c"

63, Z", 3, quotes


the

Morb.
teeiith

8, vol.
or

42), in
B.C.

fourfore therehis

treatise

Sotion,
has Phil.

another
come

Categories. Peripatetic,
before of
man us

fifteenth

in 145-6, teacher
a

year, had for

already

in

pupil

of this

pher, philosowas

d. Grr. II. ii. 931, 3

(videsit}),
the be

who

apparently

still

181, 2), as
there
same

author

Repay
I have the

3AfjLa\6elas,This conjectured
from whom

alive ; and Herminus(ap. Simpl. De Sohol. 494, I, 31 $##.) Ccelo,

to

Alex.

Aphr.

quotes from him. Adrasttis Aphrodisias (David, Schol.


Ar.

of
in

Top. 213, apparently out of a the Topica, and on commentary Simpl. Categ. 41, 7, Schol. in AT. 61, a, 22, from a commentary the Categories, on or quotes one
two

30, a,

9 ; Anon.

I. e. 32, 5, 36 ; Z. "?. 45 ; Ach.

Simpl. Categ.4, 7,
Tat. who
vol

is named De
six.

Isag.c. 16, 19, p. 136, 139), togetherwith him


Libr.
42

unimportant
seems

and His
be

erroneous

observations.
to

tion compilareferred
to

by Pliny, Hist.
In of this the
case

Nat. Sotion

Prwf.
must

24.

have would

lived

in the
well
was

bably promiddle which the an(i


tioned menown

Propr. c. 11 ; Porph. V. Plot. moved 14) -was probably not far rein point of time this ; the above partly from appears juxtaposition, but more cially espesq. ; from him the
use

(Galen,

made

of

first harmonise
that

century,
the

by

Theo

Smynueus
Theo
was

(infra,
a

with

p. 309, p. the
the

4)

; for

temporary con-

theory
of the the

he of

author

of

Hadrian

(infra,
he
is
on

Ai6K\eioi

"\ejx"L)
His

335).
author Ethics

If, however,
of
a

brother

Apollonius

commentary
Aristotle

by
brother described ii. 2, 2 ; ; he friend

Plutarch.

of

and

is also Lamprias by Plutarch, Qu.Conv. cl i. 8, 3, as a tetic Peripa-

Theophrastus (Phil d G-r. II. ii. xv. 855) mentioned ap. Athen,
673,
c

(where

our

text

has been ninus Antos, the

likewise

describes

his

he "ASpacrroi') still alive Pius. rhetorician

the

grammarian

from

have may in the time of Ari of


st o cle

Egypt (Qu.Conv. i. 9, 1, 1 ; viii. 8, 2, 1), theo (vide, concerning Luna, 25, 1 3 s#.)De him, DeFao. Ei. 6 ; Pytli. Orac,. 3 sg., as a of Peripatetic tendencies. man
On who the
is

other

hand,
of 1.
"?.

Favonius,
viii. 10, 2,

is Pergamus, (sub voce} placed by Suidas under Hadrian: Trajan and Philostratus, V. according to a contempoSo2)h.ii- 3, he was rary of Herodes fore Atticus, therehad

spoken

somewhat earlier,but 'ApicrroTeXovs dai[j.ovi"TaTos is probably only the only occupied himself with tyaa-rtys well-known Platonist, whom Peripatetic philosophy in In later on. shall discuss youth. What Synes. Dio, we

1, as

the his

the

second

half

of

the
must

second have

R,
of

says

of

Aristocles*

p. 12 desertion
must

century

Aspasius

philosophy

for Rhetoric

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
'

first century

is very

unimportant.
of

In

the

second
tf

century we

hear
on

of several works

Aspasius :

mentaries Com-

the treatise Trspl on Categories,2 4 the Books about the the on Physics,' spfji^vsias? Metaphysics; 6 but though he Heavens,5 and the 7 to have expounded the writingsof carefully seems to have paid attention to the and especially Aristotle, down of various readings, nothing has been handed of his that indicates any independent investigation mation preciseinforquestions. We have more philosophic From his treatise on concerningAdrastus.8 the arrangement of the Aristotelian works,9 there their on are order, titles, quoted observations A commentary on the Categories and genuineness.10 the
' c
'

tonist, and
the
a

whether
a

refers to Boolts
on

quotation on commentary

this

; 340, 552, ", 29


7

23

10 ; Bon,
;

543,
on

",

31 ;

11 Bokk. 704, 7;, the

the JEFearens, or to the Timtmts, on commentary be discovered from the and

The

Scholia
and ninth and

four
the of the

first books seventh

parts
books

of

cannot

passage. 1 Alexander

of

JEgae

Sotion, vide sujpra, p, 304, 2. 2 Galen, De Lilr. Propr. 11 ; vol. xix, 42 8%.
8

JVicowMdhfian /#/wt#, which Haso has published in the Gorman Classical Journal, vols. xxviii.
and from

c.

xxix.,claim to a commentary

bo extracted of

Aspawius ;
of
no

Boet. the

DB

cf Interpret, of

In,

but
8

they

arc

otherwise

dftx to Boethns much

edition

Meister. expresses

groat value,

repeatedly
dissatisfaction

14 ; 87, 17
4

Meis.)with

(it p. 41, on his pretations, interp. 74

Concerning him ride Martin Theo. Smyru. Astronomy,


8ff.

Simpl. Phys. 28, 5; 96, 0, Pkys. 1, 5; Cate.ff. Jj 99, #; 127, A, J; 130, a\ 4, f. The designation is leas specific of Gatey* 4, 132, "; 133, a; 185, a; 188, "; 172, : TT. 168, 178, 5; 151, a; a; a; 7 10 192, I ; 199, a ; 214, a\ 219, a; According to Simpl. C"teg. I b, 223, 4, 7, he wished to place the 222, a ; 239, a, " Simpl.fit* Cwlo, 194, a, 6 ; (fattgorin (of which I. c, 4, " 23 ; 240, a, 44 ; Karst. MM, in cf. tioM. in Arixt. 33, b, 80 j Arist. 494, ", 31; 513, 5, 10. 39, ", 19 ; 142, /", 38, ho mentions 6 Alex. Metaph. 31, 23 ; 44, a second roocusiou) before all
',

ADMASTUS.

309

is also

mentioned,1 and

from

commentary

on

the

CHAP. XI.

2 gives us a detailed statement Simplicius Physics, of and concerning the conceptions of substance plains accidental essential and quality,which well exand the Aristotelian definitions expressions.

He and

also

perhaps

wrote

on

the

ethics

of Aristotle

Theophrastus.3 If we add to this all that we told concerning his mathematical knowledge, are his writings on harmony and astronomy, and his has been the Timseus, and what on Commentary that allow must we preserved of these writings,4
however, does not seem writings of Aristotle, plicius, had the to have commentary theTojtiea; and he never others, itself,which quotes, he, therefore,like some entitled the Categories : 7r/"b in his possession, but to have phyry, the passage from PorT^TTWJ/ (Anon. Schol 32, ", borrowed TWV
the and other
next to them

36, whose
as

account

is to be preferred had from


to the

who,
mentioned
Adrastus words
:

as

he

observes,
The
extract

to that

a, 8, transcriber, evidently confuses

of David, I. c. 30, David, or perhaps his of he Adrastus


In

it.
ou"5e

probably refers
\4yerai 'direp
306 *#. and
a

the and the

statements the
same

pseudo-Archytus).
treatise had of

Of. Phil
4

tioned men-

forty

books which

Analytics, of
are

only

genuine (Phil d. 6Fr. II. ii.70, 1), and expressed his opinion
the title of the
; cf

3
the four
6 5e

supra,

p.

d. 6V. II. ii. 855. as He is described

matician mathe-

by Claudian
Statu An. he i. 25, From the mentions

Mamert.
if

De

the

Adrastus
same

is the Ms
mentary com-

on

Physics and

person.
on

its

principal divisions
;

(SimpL
d. Or.

phyry TWTUBUS, Por;


a

Phys. 1, "
II. ii.
1

2, a

Phil
.

86). Galen, Lilr. Propr. 11


That from with
it

Opp.
; six.
on

iii.

(in Ptol. Harm. 270) quotes


Consonance.

Wallis,
tion definimony, Hariii.

His Bill the

42
2

*#.

in three

books, still exists


Or. first of

Phys. 26, 5.
is taken
on

cussionin this disa

MS.

(Fabr.
From

mentary com-

459,
these Procl.

653).

the

Physios is
:

clear

from
"

the

words

which

books, the quotation ap. in Tim. 192, C ; 127, 0 ;


;

Simplicius introduces
"bv'
3 ;

198, E
Ach.

and
c.

probably also
;
a

ap.
on

Tat.

19, p. 136 (80), are


treatise

186,

ft,

(ap. Arist. PJiyn.i. 33) vap*$n\9"V v*v


tav, "o.

doubtless the Tat.

taken

Sun
c.

is mentioned

Sim-

19, p. 139 (82).

by Lastly,

Ach.

310

ECLECTICISM,

CHAP, XI"

praise accorded by Simplicius to this Peril is entirely justified.But he nevertheless patetic


the
seems

to

have
and

deserved

it rather

for his

faithful

transmission
doctrines As in

than the
down

elucidation of Aristotle's intelligent and for any new original enquiries.


definitions

isolated
as

which

have

been

handed

his

he

almost

entirelyfollows
and The

so Aristotle,

in his
is

generalview
him. he

of the universe

of Gk"d, he construction

allied with

universe,the

accordingto the is formed by the highest pattern of Aristotle,2 for the best,and is moved essential nature thereby in the manner belonging to it,namely, in a circle.
A

of which

describes

consequence
elements

of the
and

contrast

between influences

the terrestrial
which the

the various the

spheresin planetary
exercise

world ; 3

but

of their movements multiplicity them, is the change in our upon in saying this, Adrastus expressly the

guardshimself againstthe opinionthat


bodies
meaner are

heavenly
which
is

created

for the

sake

of that

and

their end earth


Martin the

is
has

perishable ; they have, on the contrary, in themselves,and their influence on the only .an effect of natural necessity.4All
shown that {7. "?.) of
r"v 8i"nefo, avtyp

greatest part
of Adrastus
is

Theo's
from
a

astronomy
treatise this TimfGus Uliein. sgg. that The is the

is borrowed

; and
on

that
the 582

commentary
JV, F. has

TTJTIK"V yeyovds. 2 Vide the dissertations on the spherical form of the universe and of the earth, the place o-f
the earth the in in in the
centre

proved by Hiller,
xxvi.
same

of

the

Miis.

whole,
earth

smallness

of

the

writer

shows
a

Ohalcidms

adopted

whole,
c.
3

comparison with the Theo Smyrn, Astron.


22. Beneath

great deal from


into his
1

this commentary

1-4. L.
c, c, c.
4

own.

M"

4,

-7:

*A5p. "5 3A"fy"o-

L.

the

moon

HEEMINUS.

311

sought likewise to maintain in principle the Aristotelian theory of the which he connected of ingenious spheres, by means
modifications He and therefore other with
seems,

this

is Aristotelia,n.

Adrastus

CFAP. XL

the theories of later astronomers.1 of his mathematical irrespective have been

learning,to
and

merely

skilful

expounder
Not
even

defender
as

of the Aristotelian
can

theories.

as

much

this

be

said of Herminus.
the
a

reigns change, generation, and


destruction
r"v
:
rovr"v TO,

from

(Adrastus), atria
"av,
Kal

lower limit of 5e, "p7]"rlv irXav^^eva concentric with 5"


TIS AC'YOI

atrrpav. ""$ oi"x

ravra rcav

riftKarepow

tends
hollow
that of the turns stars.
east

upper

to

the fixed from of

sphere,

This

sphere

teal
re

to west

in the

direction

Geiwv r6vcav rb

Kal
Kal

aiSiuv

ayevy^rcav

the than
stars

but ecliptic, the

more

slowly
fixed says in

eVe/cct r"nv a"p6dpra"v

eAar-

Bvrir"v Kal
Kal
apicrrov

sphere of the (or perhaps also,


round

Adrastus, it is drawn
Kdhhicrrov this direction

by the

sphere of

r"v

Se

"j/ravQa

Kara

(TVfji

motion fixed stars, while its own is from west to east); at the
same

efce^ois- eiro/Jievcav. The


movement
a

circular

time the
the

of

the

universe

holds supposed preat with

sphere which planet,corresponding


of

the

central
an

point
of

Epicycles
itself
so
a

Hipparthe the the that

rest, and
the
was

therefore
motion the must of

element which
;

chus,
hollow

moves

within circle the

natural towards

sphere,
of

centre also be
was

but
one

planet describes
diameter
a point boundary of the

then the also the in their which

there
motion the
elements two.

which
on

extends
outer

which

wards from to-

circumference,

and

hollow the

tary planeopposite

lying

between
are

sphere
point
; the
on

to

These
nature

elements is

its

inner

boundary,

their

changeable
really
sioned occa-

centre

variation

is distant radius the of

from, that

of which, therefore, of the concentric

by that of the seasons, hand, is, on the other the conditioned by changing
of the
sun

spheres as far as the the sphere bearing

position

of the

planets, especially and moon (cf


.

Phil. d.Or.
1

II. ii. 440, 468


c.

*q.
which

fore, planet. Adrastus had, therein his theory taken count acof the hypothesis of The eccentrics. theory, apart
its

In
c.

cf.

Theo, 18, and

32, with

from would and

other

deficiencies,
the the parent apsun

Adrastus each

Martin, p, 117 sq. that here assumes


is fastened to the
exa

only
moon,
as

explain
of Martin

revolution

planet
of

observes,

surface

globe,

which

p. 119.

312

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP.

we

are

told of his commentaries Aristotle


l

on

XL
_

writingsof
an"i sometimes treatment

is sometimes

logical unimportant,

the

Her

minus.

the
1

displaysan external and formalistic with much of logical standing misunderquestions, of the Aristotelian propositions.2He derives of the heavens infinityof the motion
the
tary commen-

Among
on

these

the

Categories is

most

Z. 22 ; David, ScJioL He leaves it undecided there kinds


are as

28, ", 14).


whether

commonly

quoted

mde

the

only

so

many

highest

following note and Simpl. in Categ.Schol. inArist. 40, a, 17;


(14, a, 13; 46, a, 30; J, 15 S Basil.) 47, 19 1 ; 56, 5, 39, and p. 3, e Bas. ; Porph. 6^7. Also 33, a, Schol. 58, 5, 16. the commentary the treatise on
42,
Boet. De

(Simpl.
that the

Aristotelian Categories Schol. 47, ", 11 sgg.).

It is observed

Interpret. 1 psychic processes designated


words
are

De

by

the

same

in
not
case

all ; but Herminus admit this,because it would the


not
same senses.

would in that

What Interof the

be

possible to

pret.
edition De 1.

(cf. the
of

Index

take I.

Meiser); Ammon. 43, a, SchoL 106, Interpret.


Also and the ap. the

different
c.

expression in He, therefore,


of
Taurcfc

16,

a,

6, instead

#, 5.
c.

following note,
Alex. Anal.
tary commen-

iracn

Pri.

'raSra' ii. p.
"b

ira"fifMTOf tyv^s, reads (Boet. De Interpret.


25

28, #, concerning his


on

39,

sgq. ; Meis.
De

Analytics-, and
m,

101,

; Ammon.

Schol. Interpret.

Alex.
2

Top. 271, 274, Tojpioa. |The substance


from follows. the The

in

the

Prantl, Ge"ch. ci.Log. i. 545


of the treatise he tations quoHerminus's

$([%.
is
as

Logic
on
sidered con-

21, a-, SohoL 101, ?;, 6). In regard to the so-called infinite propositions, he distinguished three the cases: predicate or the subject,or both, might be
infinite notions
; but
pressed) (negativelyex-

the

which Categories^
as

foundation

of

compared

not

erroneously merely the first

he

Dialectic, and, therefore,with


Adrastus entitled ScJwl. in
rS"v r6itwv 7rp2"

class, bat also the second and the third, with corresponding-

(David,

Arist. he

81, J,
thus of the

negative judgments
275 Pri.

(Boet.
a

25, according
doctrine
c

to whom

M).

He

instituted

p. fruitless

explainedthe precedence
of

opposites, Categ.
neither of

enquiry concerning 26, ", 37, as to which


in

Anal.
ception con-

10), treats
of the

logicalmanner
kinds of the of the

ontbthe highest
in
an

second and

syllogisms of the the primary figurewas


which the
subordinate Pri.

parts of

Real, nor merely discourse, but

conception

(Alex. Anal.

designationsproper for 23, #, mj Schol. each class of the Beal (Porph. Prantl,555 $#.).
7.

153, ", 27;

4, "

; ScJiol. 31, I ; cf. 1. c.

SOSIGUNZS. not

313

from the operationof the first


from from the soul inherent and which the
an

but

in

moving principle tion them; 3 a deviato

CHAP. XI.

Aristotle doctrine From

approximation
Alexander had

the

Platonic

already
AcJiaicu*.

contradicted.2
on

commentary
little has

of Aehaicus been

the
to

Categories very
us, and

handed

down has

that

little is
of

much

been
but
we

preserved get
to
a

unimportant.3 Nor Sosigenes' logical


favourable
and idea
care
5

4 writings ;

very

of

his

mathematical he

knowledge
the and

the

with

which
from

appliedit

elucidation criticism

of Aristotle, of the Aristotelian


to

his commentary

theory of the spheres.6 In regard considerable however, the most


1

sophy, philothese
tion observa-

of

Simpl. De
(169,
a

Ccelo,ScJiol. 491,

could
on

not

decide. Anal. De

An Pr.

1, 45
to

I, 45

K), according
of
seems
a

Analyt.

Pr. L 9 is

given

statement

Alexander,
to

by Philop.
"

xxxii. ly

which, however,
referred but mimis sqq."
an

have

Sffhol.158, 1 28, after Alexander.

not

to

commentary,
of Herc.

Ap. Simpl.
a,

ScJiol. Ccelo,
40
a,

to
;

the
as

discourses
in
I. p.

498,
41

45

-7

494, J, 31
Ashis that

utterance

of Herminus

(219, a, ", 15 3L),


to

500, a, 39 ; 223,
where

504, ",

29 ; 228,

concerning a reading of pasius is also quoted from


discourses.
2

seems

follow

Simplicius Sosigenes, not


he
pressly ex-

merely

in that

wherein
to

appeals
however, find,
not
a

him,

but

"We the in The


are

shall

"this
to

opposition did theory


the of heaven

extend fixed
to

throughout. Of. ps.-Alex.Me677, 25 *"#. ; Bon. (807, a, tapli.


29

particular
of

Br.),who
at

also

names

genes Sosiof his

soul
stars.
8

the

conclusion

discussion. passages

relating

Such

enquiries concerning
and
natural in

this
4

given
a

infra, p. 327. commentary


on

mathematics
were

science
tise trea-

From

contained of the third

the of

the him sqq.


on

Categories, Porphyry, ##7.


after
from

Sosigenes, irepl fycots,


book which. takes the

2, " (SoJiol 31, "), and

Bexipp. in Categ. p. 7, 20 Speng. gives his reflections


the

Themistius

the question whether is a "t"cav)i or a irpayiJ.a tey6[JiGvov or a v6ri(jLa3 on which, however, he

something shining of
dark
;

(Phys. 79, a) concerning

and

bodies in the many Alexander (MeteoroL


some

116, a) quotes

observations

314

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. XL

Aristocles and Alexander are Peripatetics have left us discussions of Aphrodisias ; for they alone the details of logic from and which, starting the whole, physics, proceed to enquiries affecting younger

theoryof
Aristocles

the universe. the teacher Sicily,1 known is chiefly to Aphrodisias,2


in of
us

Aristocles of Messene, Alexander from the of

fragments

of

an

historical work

of

his

from

the

eighth book
round the

ing concernsun

p.

307

and

(2)
that
a

it

is

the halo
moon.
1 2

and

highly improbable
should

scriber tran-

have
unknown

changed
name
name

the of

Suid. That

'AjDioTo/cA..
he
was

universallyknown
for the

of Aristotle

so, is asserted

in the

older texts of retranslated

(that

Simplicius Aristocles,whereas the converse the from might very easily happen, and

has often happened. For exy Latin), De Ccelo,p. 34, I ; and has lowed folHist. Gr. Muller, 25, 5, ample, JFragm. Karsten, p. 69,
it.

But

in the

collection

ii. 179 ; iv. 330, shows and

that, ap.
we

of Academic
we

read,

on

SGJwUa,"n, cu, 30, the contrary: 6

ps.-Plut. Parallel, 29, p. 312;

Apostol. xiv. 70,

find

'Api"TTOT"'A.i7s j whereas
Ftoril. 64, 37, and
also ap.

Arsen.

Stobgeus, p. 385,

ii.61, 1) : give correctly 'Apta-rotthys c. Mian. Cyrill. (the ^5 "Apf"r- historian of larly, *ypafy*iTQfivvv Ehodes). Simi*AA.e"aj/8po" and similarly the Scholiasts on Pindar, "rore\Qvs /uadyrtys, in Alex. JDe An.

144,

a, sq. (wde

Olymp.
that
rect.

vii. 66,

fluctuate

tween be-

infra,p. 315, 4),according to the

the two

names,

of which

printed text
as

Aristotle of

is named

of Aristocles

only is

cor

the

teacher
to suppose

Alexander.

Nevertheless, there
reason

is every that the older


; and

text

of

is right,and Simplicius

not that

that of the
even

Academy
two

Hoche, According to Prcef.ii. two manuscripts have instead of 'Apurro'A/Herrore'A^y and in Boet. De Interpr. /eA.f/$, ii. Meiser the (p. 56, 2) was
first to correct

in the

other

sages pas-

the

statement

of the Basel edition (p. 309, m) is to be read, 3ApicrTOK\"ov$ For (1) that Plato was and not 'Apiffrorehovs. at first called there is no trace of any PeripaOn the other Aristotle. hand, tetic called been to the

the various where who, according in Aristotle, cases Eose, Arist. Pseudepigr.615 $#., dates,could have
of Alexander of
assumes

the teacher

the

same

mistake, the

Aphrodisias; that the supposed of him in Syrian comes mention


to

matter Heitz

is very

shows

questionable, as ( Verlor. SbJw. d.

nothing,has

been

observed

Arist.

295"

316

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,

that

in order

to

escape

from

the difficulties of the which


up

Aristotelian
comes

doctrine from

to

man

respectingthe reason without, Aristotle set

the
is in
stantly con-

theory. The divine reason, he says, following all things,even in terrestrial bodies, and is working in
its

the

manner

proper
not

to it.

From rational
of

operation in things arises


man,

only the
and

capacityin
the
universe

but

also

all union

division

and therefore substances,

the whole

conformation

of

whether
in

it affects this

immediately,
with the

for itself

alone, or

combination

fluences in-

nature heavenly bodies, or whether termines primarilyfrom those influences,and deoriginates with vovs. all things in combination If, of vovs, in itself universal,finds then, this activity in any particular body an organ adapted to it,vovs works in this body as its inherent intelligence, and

of the

second
a

book
a,,

; must

145,

and,
even

have

P- 1^4, in my opinion, derived from been if Torstrik

wepl^vx^"

seem our

strange
doubts
are

in

themselves,
increased

by

what

follows,and

especiallyby

Alexander

De Ann. (Arist. p. 186) is right in asserting that the second not writwas we pi book, fax/is,
ten
case

the p. 145 #, whether exposition which they introduce should and


not

be
to

ascribed
a

to Aristotle of Alexanfrom That other

teacher

by him;
it

for

even

in the

that
re-

could the

only
work.

be

took them der, who mouth, though not

his himself
this

clwMffee of
Alexander's

second
,

half of

agreeing with
teacher
can

them.
be
no

Torstrik,

however,
for
not

his
seem

given no reasons judgment, and it does After to me justified.


has and here treated of active

has

Alexander the

passive

intelli-

than that conseshould be quently *Api"rroK\"ovs substituted for 'ApurroreXovs has already been shown (p. 314, 2). Brandis ( Q-esck. der J"n-

Aristocles,

and

of Aristotle, twicbelung der in the sense Gtriechischm gence he thus continues, according to Philos. ii. 268) declares himself

printedtext : ^Kovcra 5e vepl in agreement with the observations on this subject in my first QvpaQev irapk*ApKrroT"s\ovs $ 5i""raxrcfyn?y. If these words edition.
our
vov

ARIST

OGLES.

317

there

arises

an

individual

intellectual

activity.This

CHAP.

for the reception of vovs is,as Aristotle capability conditioned believes, by the material constitution of the bodies, and depends especiallyon question less fire. The whether or they have in them more which affords an organ for active mixture corporeal is named and potentialintelligence, intelligence the operationof the active divine intelligence upon human the potential whereby the latter intelligence, is raised to actuality, and individual thought is consists only in this : that the all-pervadrealised, ing manifests itself in a of the divine vovs activity in particularbodies.1 Alexander specialmanner himself
observes

L
_

respectingthese they
have
3

theories with

of

his

master, which

he seeks to reconcile

the Aristotelian

text,2 that
with the Stoic that ourselves

considerable
can we

affinity
from

doctrine ;
vovs-

nor

conceal

world, and
is at the

working in the especially


the Stoic the
time

in

corporeal fiery element, closely


of the

the

whole

approximatesto
same

reason

world,which
as

fire and, primeval


of nature.
more

such, the
the Hera-

artistic and clitean

shaping force
of the Stoic

As

hylozoismwas
concerning
the

rendered

fruitful at the doctrine of

appearance
Aristotle
in

system by the
so now we

vovs,

see

that doctrine

in so even Peripateticschool itself, as Aristocles, a representative entering distinguished


1

LOG. cit. 144, I, Med.


LOG.
*v

Loc.
Kal

cit.

145,

avrtiriwrbv
eivai
proas

rty
roiS

rV

xQw Cit. : tyv^s irepl rpircf)


fcal r}\v

5e
TOW-

reiy VQVV

es8o/c"i fAOi r6re


ev

TOVTOIS,

rots

^avXoraroLs
rots

irpo"roiKOVV

(-etowj eAeye

Qeiov

ovra,

"s

airb TT/S

$eo".

$$olcvt"c.

318

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP. XI.

into

combination

with
prepares

the the

Stoic
way

theory of
for the

the

universe, which
union of these

later

systems
and

in JSTeo-Platonism.1 of Alexander

Alexander

The

Aristotelian

doctrine stricter.2

of Apliroealled the

disias is purer

This

celebrated
names

Commen-

under by posterity and

tator and

of the Commentator
Of. Sd. sup. p. 137 from Aristocles was How

the

AphrovigorousPeripatetic, the distinguished Second Aristotle,3


His date
can

of

down fixed

to

us.

be De

far
tlie

being
that

by
his

the

statement

in

period who
also

only philosopher of intermingled


with shown Stoic

mentioned Jfy'to, native disias Arnmon.

sup. p. 304, 2.

totelian From Aris-

city, Aphro-

theology is

his

of by an utterance Athenagoras. contemporary This apologist, well who so was with Greek

81,0; 168, l\ 28
surname

cf. (not Aphrodisium, De Interpret, 12, 5; 161, 5; Simpl. De Coelo.

K),

his

invariable

acquainted
says
22

sophy, philop. the

(Supplic, c. 5,

scribes 'AQpoSia-iebs. (he dehimself in MetapJi. 501,

is

P.) of Aristotle and Peripatetics: eVa "JOVTCS

8; Bon.
the Xevicbs

olovel

768, a\ 20, Br. 132, by predicates icrxvbs (f"i\6"ro"f"o

'AtypodLcriebs) ; but

which

pJevavrov
rovs
re ir

"

Aphrodisias is thereby meant ouQlpiov does not appear. Concerning his writings,vide Fabric. MbL
Gr.
v.

acrrepas

r\\v crtycupav ru"v


Kivov^va

650

sqq, and

the passages

farXavuv

KvK\o(j"opr)ri- there
"iri ry

5e rbv K""S,"fyvyfyv
TOV

crd^fj-aros \6yov r, avrbv


ctfrLOv Se
rys

quoted. Kiviiffei 3 Cf. Syrian and David in the ov [jikv quoted p. 307, w.; Simpl. passages
rovrov

KLVOV^VOV

DO

A)l.

13, "

"

TOV

*A/3JO"T0T"r-

If this does Aous Kivijffstas yiv6jj."vov. Quiwriis 5AAe'". ; Themist. not DeAn. precisely correspond with 94, a : 6 ^Tjy-rjT^s 'AXe|. ; the conception of Aristocles, Philop. Gen. et Corr. 15, /"; the Deity is here treated in a 48, a; 50, " ; Arnmon. De InStoic
manner,
as

the

worldof the

terpr. 32,

"b

'AtypoSio-Lebs ""77-

not by all parts of the world, but merely by the heavenly spheres. But

soul ; only that the world-soul is formed

body

j-nrts. He is also called 6 ^77yr)r)]$ simply ; e.g., as Olympiodor. Meteorol. On L the 185 other

59,
of

ii. 157, Id. the

hand, by
(iMd.
makes earlier of the the

^"17a

Alexander

himself

did the

not seat

yyrfys spoken
on
a a

12,
some

(with Aristotle) place

Id.),who
far from

of Deity outside the furthest remark sphere, but in it (vide infra, p. 329, 1). meant,
2

Alexander's
man

mentary, com-

is

teacher

author,
of

Concerning Alexander's history nothing has

sonal percome

as

we

see

mode

quotation, ^

(not ^o-ly).We

ALEXANDER

OF

APHRQDISIAS.

319

has
his

won unquestionably

for himself Aristotelian furnished

commentary
which

on

the

great merit by works, a great


detailed
exas

CHAP. XL

portion of

he has

with

he Se-

carefullyentering planations,1
cannot, therefore, infer
that the

into

the
rather
or

words
point
it is
a

from

this

would

to
our

tinct text. Meteorologyis disphilosopher of r%$ mentaries Aphrodisias. Alexander's comfrom the
were

this passage the on

tator commen-

later revision Meantime whether in 01.

to gaps

in

tion ques-

by
i. 187 and

the

""17777the

Alexander

read

by

Plo-

is

meant,

whether

together with those of Aspasius, Adrastus, "c., to his pupils(Porph. V. Plot. 14).
tinus
1

passage
third

which
him

Olympiodorus
(evidentlyat
in his
rate

quotes from

hand)

really stood
;

The

now

existing Alexander, which are collected in the Academy


taries commen-

still

Meteorology; at any
(Ve

Simpl.
492, b,
pends, dethe

of

Cceld, '95, a,
on

ScJwl
refers

1),

which

Ideler the

also
to

edition
on

of and

the

commentaries have form of

certainly
on

and Aristotle,
a

appeared commentary
the heavens
;

books

of

in

new

test, works

embrace
:

improved the following quoted by

cuo-^crews, (4) irepl


himself

Alexander

(1) Book I. of the First Analytics ; (2) on the Topica Brandis, (partly revised, mde
p, 207, of the treatise alluded to suj". p. 112, 1) ; (3) on the Ite-

(JDe JLw/133,0; Qu". Nat. i. of 2, end, p. 19, edition Thurot, 1875). On the Meta-

pJiyaics,the
Books
entire

commentary
been
in
a

on

i.~v. has
;

preserved
shortened
tracts ex-

teorology.
was

That

this been

tary commen-

the

rest

not written
has

by another

form

already second, are the Scholia, in stated (*?//?. of Brandis, 8,8). printed p.304,2,and31 a,nd both at length in the Also the citations of Olympiomonise separate edition of Bonitz. An dorus from the Aphrodisian harthe with of almost our exactly explanation cro^LcrrLKol likewise Alexandrian bears commentary lAeyxoi, which ; cf
Alexander
.

first ; the the from

part, and

Olymp.
a"

01.
a

i. 133, Id. ; Alex. 126, Ideler i. 202, where difference that is the

the

name

of Alexander,

is

tainly cer-

finds

quite
tion citaour

groundless, between
of

Olympiodorus and commentator (Alex. 82 a\


i. 298

01.

Brandis, 7-.^. spurious(cf. Lost commentaries 298). p. the are on following works : (1) The Categories, quolecl by Bimpl. (Gafafl. 1, a; 3, a. e. ;
23,
%

100, 5 ; 01. ii. *#. ; Alex. 157; Alex. 124, "; 01. ii. 200; Alex. 132, 0). If, therefore,

and K
;

often

De-

Ccelo, 76,
;

#, 26
40, 23

6, 16 Dexipp. Catcg.

something
to

is here the

and there
in
G.

latter which
our

Speng. ; David, Schol. 51, ", 8; 54, ", 15, 26; tributed atis 65, ?;; 47, 8.1, 7",33. (2) ttepl

55, 13

not

to

be

found

I (Ideler,

I.

DB Tnte-r^ret. veifas^Ammon. mentary comIP/XT? xvii.), 12, " ; 14, a ; 23, I ; 82, " ; 4(5,

320.

ECLECTICISM.

CHAP,
*

well

as

the

thoughts
are

of
no

the
more

author.1 than
12

His

own

however, writings,2
5; 54, 5; 81,
Boot. De
";

explanations
799,
b ; 1 Fr. ;
"

161, J; 194, 5;

1.

G.

645,

Bon.

quently] title to Alex. Interpret,[very freQu, Nat. ii. 22 j Index. Philop. 6fenu. et Corr. 14, a, ; cf the Meiser Mich. 15, a ; 18, Z",et passim). Ephes. Sehol. in Arist. (8) book De Ammo, 100, a). (3) The second (Simpl. De An,. 18, of the First Analytics ( Philop. a, ; 25, 1); 27, 5, *tf pamm ; Themist. D0 J.w. 94, a ; Philop SchoLinAr. 188, ft, 3; 191, a, Dtf J.W. A Paris [a commentary 10 ; 16, B, I. ; Ps.47 ; Anon. Alex. Alexander's but under Metaph. 473, 6 ; 405, 28 ; name, much 410, 20 ; 560, 25 Bon. [734, a later, concerning which cf. Brandis, I.e. p. 290] ; Sehol. 28; 735, a, 32 ; 783, 1"923 Fr.; the first passage 28^ is wanting 188, a" 19; 191, a, 10, ft, The Second lytics Anawith him] ; cf Bonitz, Alex. passim. (4) in Metapk. 442y Comm. in Metaph, xxii. (Ps.-Alex. mentaries Comthe smaller 9 Bon, 745, ", 7 Br. ; Philop.in on thropological anPostAna.lyt.Sclwl.ISS, a, 33 ; 200, writings are not
.
~b

with mentioned J, 30; 203, ft, the exception 18; 211, ft,34 ^ in Lilr. ii.; of the still existing passim; Bustrat. commentary Anal.
0;

Post,

1,#

;
c.

5, ",
666

11, #,

De

8ensu.
and

Concerning
commentaries
on

some

cf. Fabric. the


;

Z.

; Prantl

supposed
Rhetoric

the bric. Fasides bewe

d. (Sksc/A. On

Log, i. 621, 18). (5) Physics (Simpl. Phy*.


"x ;

Poetics,vide
That of
from

665, 687.

Alexander

3, #

4,

5, fr; 6,

a,

and

expounded
those
cannot

other

writings
Aristotle
the

many the three

other passages,
first 16 ; 4.; 9.
to

especially

Phys. B,
T, 1;
seems

books; Philop. M, 28 ; N, 13 ;
This have from of
tary commen-

infer of

absurd

statement Ar.

28," %

been

the Aristotle
;

that and

principal source of Simplicius is


the

which taken pre-

David in (Scliol. 24), that he commented, not only the works of the Stagirite, but

those
name

fragments

the

philosophy, especially, give such great value to of the work of Simplicius,would Philop.(DcAn. D 6) must have to have been altogether, been found in the commentary appear
which
.

Socratic

of the other men of that ; also the discussion concerning the harmonic numbers the Slmffitit mentioned by

from or chiefly,borrowed it). on the Treatise of the Soul, 1 Cf (6) The treatise on the heavens on this point and against Bittor'a (iv. 264) depreciatory 76, a-, Ps.(Alex. Meteorol. Alex. Mefaph. 677, 27 ; 678S 7 judgment of Alexander, BranBon. [807, 0; 36, ", 11 Fr.]; dls, I. G. p. 278 j Schwegler,

Simpl. De Coelo. Selwl. 468, a ; 11 sqq. [Damasc. I. c. 454, ft, 11] ;


470, ft,15-473,

Metaphy"k
s,

viii. ;

de# Arist. i. ; Torr. Bonitz, Alex. Comm. in

a ; 485, a ; 28 i. ; Prantl, Oesrh. Mefaph. JPrtstf. De et Generatier i. passim. 621. (7) $$$, Log. 2 tiane et Covruptione(Ps.-Alex. We possess four of those

ALEXANDER

OF

APHRODISIAS.
CHAP. XI.

321

and

apologies
in

for

Aristotle's

doctrines.

In

this

manner,

treated

of

existing commentaries, he has meteorology, and metaphysics; in logic,1


vrfpl
a or

his

still

Writings

besides Venet. latest

the
B.

commentaries

treatise whoever this

-Trepi ^ai^vtav (Michael


may be

^VXTIS, 2,

(ap.
p.

Themist.
123

Opji.
w.

the

author

1534,
ed.

SQQ.} ;

et pass. (ibid.163 8C[c[, elpapfjiev'ris

Orelli, Zur. 1824); Kal fyQiK"v aTropi"v teal "f"v(riK"v

commentary, printed with the on Simpl. De Amma^ treatise Trepl /ca0' tiirvov T^S p.avtise treariKTjs, p. 148, b) : another
the Epiagainst Zenobius curean d. Gr. i. 377) III. (Phil in which, according to Simpl. he had PJiy. 113, 2", sought to prove the distinction of
to

of

\v"recavs 4, B. (qutpstionesnatuof Spengel, rales, "c., edition

Munich,
I.
c.

1842, who
with s#.,

in

the

face, pre-

together
661

Fabricius,

tion gives all informathe title and respecting earlier /j"eo"s editions) ; -jrepl

the
a

Above,
natural

Below,
on

"o.,

be

distinction.

The

tise, trea-

(attached to
of the
in

-the Aldine and

edition

however,

the seat to

of the in the

Meteorology,
the

fect imper-

alluded rjyefjLovLK^v,

the work commencement). commentary on -repi the Probl"nis, On the other hand "jW Kw^crecus, 154, b, 155, a, is doubtless from distinct not larpLK"v Kol QvffiK"v TrpojSATj^cialso Fabric. Alexander's B 662 2 X"e dissertation, (cf. rcoi/, and the in to BaseAn. i. 140 and, respect ; sqg. p. s^fjf. maker volume
No.

*s edition of

in

the

fourth

lAovofiipXlov, quoted by
in Mh. is that
N.
as

Eustrat.

Didot's

Prantl, Munch.

Aristotle, Gel. A?iz. 1858,

179,
does

a,

in which

it

proved
virtue

against the
not

Stoics the

25) and a treatise on Fevers (Fabric. 664), certainly do not Among belong to Alexander. lost writings are mentioned : A
treatise
on

suffice for
as

the

difference and his

happiness, is the same portion of the work the same independent between 156 $%{[. Concerning
on

bearing
title, p.
an

Aristotle
with

ciples dis-

in regard to syllogisms dality premisses of unequal mo(Alex. Anal. Pr. 40, 1, 83, d. "r. II. ii.224) ; this ; cf PML
.

in
on

essay still exists the virtues, which treatise MS., a very doubtful the of stones quoted powers the pretations interallegorical ; i.

by Psellus
Probl.

is no to

doubt

the

work

referred

Pr. xxxii. by Philop. Anal. ft; Snlldl. 158, bt 28 (HvruHfio-

vo"l"\"i), on
83,
be "v
seem
a

the

other

hand Anal.

the Pr.
must

Xoyucb (Alex. "rx"iA.ta


; Sohol.

169,

",

14)

something
rols
to

distinct

from, it ;

the words

"rni irheoj/

f^ral

poi

"rxoA.ioi" TOIS
me

Xoyticois

of myths (Ps. Alex. are tainly cer87